nor'ester review

[jrocket567]

NWS put together a pretty good 'review' of the nor'easter- including what made it such a strong storm:

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/akq/wx_events/other/November%2011-13th%20Noreaster.pdf

5 standard deviations out of normal :eek2: (which is 96% of all data)!

Jay

[jwas1]

Thanks for posting. Jeff Masters at Weatherunderground said the actual peak high water caused by the nor'easter was higher than Isabel but did not occur at high tide so high tide was lower than Isabel. Do you know if that is true?

[jrocket567]

Hadn't thought about that much, but looking back at the plots:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/cgi-bin-mp/data_plot.cgi?mins=&datum=6&unit=1&stn=8638610&bdate=20091110&edate=20091114&data_type=wl&relative=&type=Historic%20Tide%20Data&shift=g&plot_size=large&relative=&wl_sensor_hist=W1&plot_backup=

I'll go with that. Looks like just after the large high tide, there was a little push upwards, when the celestial tide was falling. This could have been the difference in 7.74' and 8.1' easily.

Sounds like a lot of people, especially on the S side of their respective bodies of water, had worse than Isabel conditions.

[wgeier]

seemed like everything was calling for it to be as bad a isabell, but I am not seeing nearly the same pier damage as then. though it did seem at times, because I was on my barge every hour scared for my livelyhood, that the storm was hitting as hard. I agree that the
tide probably saved hundreds of docks.
If you were not one of the lucky ones, please give me a call or an e-mail and I will get you fixed up. thanks
Bill
804-436-2292
wgeier@va.metrocast.net

[Mike G]

Jay - thanks for this post. Very informative. - mg