Irene

[B Ozanne]

My photos after the storm from around Darien: Photos

Best video I have found in Darien from the storm so far (not my video, wish I was there). This is Long Island Sound and is usually a tranquil harbor called Noroton Bay. Long Island is about seven miles away across the Sound. Video

After a tour of town I will go with the assessment that this was the worst storm surge my town has ever had (at least in recent history) and winds were generally the same as Gloria. In Gloria we were on the weak side of a weak hurricane and in Irene we were on the strong side of a strong tropical storm.

We first lost power at 1:30 am with the strongest winds coming between 3 & 5am in feeder bands and heavy precip. Once the dry, south side of the storm reached us we lost almost all the wind until later in the afternoon. The winds coming between 3 & 7pm were almost as strong as those during the storm and probably accounted for 30% of the power outages in my town.

I am very happy with the official NWS and NHC forecasts for my area. I took some simple steps to protect my property and make my life a little easier in the event the storm was stronger. With a two year old and a 3 month old in the house you think and plan a little differently.

 

[Justin Wiley]

I am going to eventually write more about this subject in my blog, but there is no way TWC and other media outlets can now justify the "inland flooding" and "power outages" as excuses for the way they promoted Irene for several days as the "most catastrophic storm in east coast history," etc. There were no "25 foot storm surges in Wilmington," "tall buildings on the verge of collapse in NY," "seaside communities wiped clean" or "historic" destruction and loss of life along the east coast as projected. The worse "hurricane damage" I have seen is along the NC coast were homes are foolishly built on sandbars. Again, such damage and flooding was not unexpected. It's easy to lose sight of that in the midst of unfortunate flooding and power outages that could be expected with any minor hurricane, ice storm, nor-easter or tropical storm.

The scenes on TV pale with those from Katrina, Andrew, Hugo, etc., although the pre-storm comments and frenzy generated by the media were of a similar scale. I do not buy the excuse that it's better to "over-forecast" or "over-rate" a hurricane just to keep people in fear. I can guarantee you next time a hurricane threatens the area, fewer people will take heed.

W.

I agree with this 100%. Spot-on on everything.

This is the case where the hype was more intimidating than the storm itself and it very well could affect how people take precautions in the future, maybe even as soon as TD 12 with its potential affects on any American coastline.

 

[John Farley]

Thanks for those graphics and insights, Jeff. I think Jeff's comments are spot on about where the media went wrong, i.e. not sufficiently emphasizing that the highest winds were on the ocean side of the storm so for the most part, they did not impact land areas until the storm had weakened considerably by its final landfall near NYC, and even then only well east of the center. That said, I do think that all the discussions about how over-hyped the storm was are themselves a little overhyped. After all, 40 or more people are dead, seven and a half million lost power (and many will be without power for days on end), and the damage looks to be in the $10-12 billion range. In a few places, i.e. CT and some parts of NJ and NC, the storm surge flooding was quite serious. Another foot or two in other areas, it could have been a lot worse than it was in those areas, too. I don't think anyone ever said this was going to be an Andrew or a Katrina, but its impacts were far from minor. As to where the media messed up, in addition to the point Jeff made, I would say that they devoted too much attention to coastal areas (especially in regard to the wind hazard) and not enough to inland flooding risk. Of course there is more population in coastal areas, so that is not entirely surprising. And as I said, the surge risk had to be taken seriously, as another foot or two could have made things much worse in several areas. I did see cases where the media mentioned a likelihood of much larger surges than what the Hurricane Center was predicting without giving any reason for saying that, and that is problematic. So there were definitely places where the media could have done better, but the issues are in fact quite a bit more complex than "they overhyped it." This storm did, as predicted, have much larger impacts than would be typical with a category 1 storm.

 

[David Wolfson]

I can't remember a case where mid-level troughing in the lee of an energetic tropical system off the Mid-Atlantic coast has been over-estimated. I can recall many cases, including Irene, IMO, where the actual baroclinicity appears to exceed expectations. In Irene's case it looked to these non-expert eyeballs that the circulation got sheared apart starting off the VA/MD coast. Just perhaps, the observed relatively large difference between flight-level and surface windspeeds increased the shearing in that the near-surface circulation couldn't keep up with the convection to a greater degree than usual.

I have the sense (easily refuted by hard data and research) that although the models do a better job of accounting for energy advection off the Mid-Atlantic coast with extra-tropical cyclones, i.e. "bombing", than they used to, they still don't seem to fully handle it for vigorous tropical cyclones. To my eyes, and I think commented on by TWC experts, there was a prominent moisture conveyor on satellite from the tropics wrapping back around ahead of Irene as it neared the NC coast and thereafter.

As a one-time VT resident, I'd opine that Irene wasn't over-hyped as a public safety issue. If there's anything to criticize, it's that the flood potential was under-emphasized. FWIW.

 

[jshields]

Thanks for those graphics and insights, Jeff. I think Jeff's comments are spot on about where the media went wrong, i.e. not sufficiently emphasizing that the highest winds were on the ocean side of the storm so for the most part, they did not impact land areas until the storm had weakened considerably by its final landfall near NYC, and even then only well east of the center. That said, I do think that all the discussions about how over-hyped the storm was are themselves a little overhyped. After all, 40 or more people are dead, seven and a half million lost power (and many will be without power for days on end), and the damage looks to be in the $10-12 billion range. In a few places, i.e. CT and some parts of NJ and NC, the storm surge flooding was quite serious. Another foot or two in other areas, it could have been a lot worse than it was in those areas, too. I don't think anyone ever said this was going to be an Andrew or a Katrina, but its impacts were far from minor. As to where the media messed up, in addition to the point Jeff made, I would say that they devoted too much attention to coastal areas (especially in regard to the wind hazard) and not enough to inland flooding risk. Of course there is more population in coastal areas, so that is not entirely surprising. And as I said, the surge risk had to be taken seriously, as another foot or two could have made things much worse in several areas. I did see cases where the media mentioned a likelihood of much larger surges than what the Hurricane Center was predicting without giving any reason for saying that, and that is problematic. So there were definitely places where the media could have done better, but the issues are in fact quite a bit more complex than "they overhyped it." This storm did, as predicted, have much larger impacts than would be typical with a category 1 storm.

yeah it seems like people were already saying the forecast was going to be wrong before it was "wrong". i admit i didn't watch as much of the media coverage as some others seemingly have, but i just think it's another situation of damn if you do, damn if you don't for the weather community. you have a hurricane which was forecast to be way stronger at one point than what it ended up being, heading to basically the most densely populated area of the united states. unfortunately, the weather service and the media didn't have the luxury of waiting until the last minute to see if the storm was going to be as bad as it was forecast. they had to issue their dire warnings days in advance due to the amount of time needed to evacuate areas. i would always rather see something like this erred on the side of caution.
also, no matter how accurate the forecast is, you are always going to have people that don't listen to the weather forecasts, and I don't really feel sorry for them if they don't. I have serious doubts about how detrimental this storms "weakness" will have on future storms' warnings and the amount of people that actually do listen and evacuate if need be.
sure the media probably made things seem worse too than what they were going to be, but that's what the media does, over-sensationalize things

 

[Warren Faidley]

Well here we go.

Seems like the world media is also picking up on this "over-reaction" story:

From the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14707462

W.

 

[Mike Smith]

As a one-time VT resident, I'd opine that Irene wasn't over-hyped as a public safety issue. If there's anything to criticize, it's that the flood potential was under-emphasized. FWIW.

I disagree and offer the following as evidence: http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/08/was-vermont-warned.html

On my blog and at AccuWeather we were calling for "major flooding" in VT.

 

[cdcollura]

Good day all,

Finally edited some notable storm footage I shot on my hurricane Irene chase...



Link is to YouTube and shows both some high surf / injuries footage (from rogue wave) in Palm Beach, FL on 8-25 and the latter main intercept of Irene in North Carolina on the 27th.

 

[David Wolfson]

Mike, my comment wasn't directed at private or public weather services who were quite dilligent in issuing flash flood advisories, but rather at the media. The media were busy filming tree branches downed in Central Park while bridges were washing away and towns were being flooded.

 

[Warren Faidley]

The clips are pouring in!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kohxJwcUAFA&feature=related

I should note that this in no way distracts or lessons the reality of damage and loss of life from "Tropical Storm" flooding. However, it does point out that instead of focusing on the less glamorous aspects of inland river flooding, media organizations flocked to the coastlines to try and create a more visual "tropical" disaster that never happened. I don't see them providing "live" 24 hour coverage as homes and lives are destroyed from flooding. I hope this illustrates my point.

W.

 

[hazelmaryjackson]

My point was about the CNN coverage of Irene in NYC. As I explained I had to watch the CNN coverage as it was the only game in town, and my son lives in Manhattan so I wanted to see the impact.

I chase tornadoes and do not know a lot about hurricanes although I know a lot more than a week ago. My point is, if meteorologists knew that the western side of a much reduced Irene would hit Manhattan, without much turbulence, why didn't the CNN meteorologist tell CNN anchor Anderson Cooper this, when he asked where the storm weather was in Greenwich Village?

 

[Dave Gallaher]

My point was about the CNN coverage of Irene in NYC. As I explained I had to watch the CNN coverage as it was the only game in town, and my son lives in Manhattan so I wanted to see the impact.

I chase tornadoes and do not know a lot about hurricanes although I know a lot more than a week ago. My point is, if meteorologists knew that the western side of a much reduced Irene would hit Manhattan, without much turbulence, why didn't the CNN meteorologist tell CNN anchor Anderson Cooper this, when he asked where the storm weather was in Greenwich Village?

Ah, it's not that you don't understand hurricanes, Hazel. It's that you don't understand American commercial news, which is built entirely on keeping viewers attached no matter what it takes, including faulty information, misleading information, a lack of information, or lying. Controversy trumps all except tragedy, real or potential. CNN's news director most likely declined to lose viewers by having Anderson distribute the idea that NYC will be okay while everyone is watching to see if skyscrapers fall down, as predicted in other media.

 

[Stephen Levine]

Thank you, Warren for the awesome BBC link! That article says it all.
I also totally agree with you about lack of news coverage regarding the "less glamorous aspects" about inland flooding.
Gosh, they had a broadcast from the DC area pre-empt our local weather broadcast here on our Cable 8 wx channel on Saturday and Sunday, and the broadcasters there seemed to down play the insignificance of gusts ranging from 25 to maximum 50 MPH as the hurricane churned north up the coast - just to the East of NC/VA/Del Marva and not far Southeast of where the gusts were reported.
It was still dramatic news on Sunday, when the entire backside (south side) of the storm seemed to vanish from radar presentations.
It was still dramatic news on Sunday morning when my buddy who lives near Hartford, CT had the storm pass close by and reported gusts around 40 MPH during our phone conversation.
Nothing much more than a normal "nor'easter" would produce.
Previous heavy rains undoubtedly greatly contributed to much of the flooding and downed trees across Central New England.

 

[B Ozanne]

Nothing much more than a normal "nor'easter" would produce.

Lots of comments coming in from across the country, from people who were no where near the storm.

We have about 5-8 "normal" nor'easters every year. They bring snow, rain, wind and minor coastal flooding. Typical nor'easters don't knock out power to 50% of the state, produce record storm surges, produce record river flooding, and smash beachfront homes off their foundations on Long Island Sound.

Edit: On another note...

When did the Vermont flooding first hit the news and when did they get most of their rain? I am just interested in the timeline because we lost power about 1:30 Sunday morning and I was only looking at our local weather on my phone. I totally discounted river flooding because we just didn't get that much rain in my area.

When do everyone on this forum start to pickup on the flash floods happening in the mountains and when did the major news network pick it up?

Thanks.

 

[Dave Kaplow]

Lots of comments coming in from across the country, from people who were no where near the storm.

We have about 5-8 "normal" nor'easters every year. They bring snow, rain, wind and coastal flooding. Typical nor'easters don't knock out power to 50% of the state, produce record storm surges, produce record river flooding, and smash beachfront homes off their foundations on Long Island Sound.

I have to agree, the damage in CT from Irene is way beyond a typical Nor'easter. I have lived here over 40 years and can remember only a handful of storms that did this kind of damage - Gloria comes to mind, and maybe the '92 coastal storm, based on what I've seen personally. I really don't think you will find too many people in CT who think the storm was oversold by the media, certainly no one who lives along the coast. What I find really distressing is that I know that Irene was in fact rather weak, and could have been much, much worse than it was. I shudder to think about the havoc a genuine major hurricane would have wreaked.