|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Today is the 40th Anniversary of the ferocious nor'easter, The '62 Storm as we call it around here (otherwise known as "The Ash Wednesday Storm," "The March Storm," or "The Great Storm of '62"), that devastated the Middle Atlantic coastline of the United States from the Carolinas to Long Island, with New Jersey bearing the brunt of it. In New Jersey alone it was estimated that the storm destroyed or severely damaged 45,000 homes. Western Virginia recorded its worst snowfall in modern history, 33 inches in some places. The storm hit on a rare Spring Tide, an astronomically high tide on the equinox acommpanied by the pull of the new moon. It stalled over the mid-Atlantic, unexpectedly trapped under a Canadian high-pressure system, for over 3 days, each successive high tide packing more destruction. The flood was recorded at over 9 ft above mean high tide. In many places on the barrier islands, the ocean met the bay. 20 ft. swells crashed over and swept away houses. It is recorded as the 6th worst storm of the century. From brief discussion about this in past hurricane and nor'easter threads, I know there's some interest, so here's some links to the full story. The first is the most comprehensive (4 pages) with photos. The second is a first-hand New Jersey account from a special section in our local rag, The Press of Atlantic City, published about the storm last Sunday...life here would never be the same. We hope we never see the likes of it again. But there is a place in every shore-dweller's soul that knows that living here is like playing Russian Roulette with the sea. Unfortunately, the best pictures that show the magnitude of the devastation aren't all available online. But if I find some more, I'll edit them in: Storms of the Century: http://www.weather.com/newscenter/specialreports/sotc/storm9/page1.htmlFirst-hand account: http://www.pressofac.com/news/newjersey/030302STORMOF62_03.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Well, I thought it was interesting. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
Yes, dear [smile-and-nod] 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
It always amazes me that people will go back and live in areas that are prone to these type of devastating storms and disasters.
In an article I read last year (can't remember if it was National Geographic or other), a family living along the Carolina coastline was interviewed after the second or third time their house was blown to smithereens.
The parents said they were "devastated" at losing their belongings and having to start all over and rebuild but dang, they were going to rebuild on *exactly the same spot*. MOVE AWAY PEOPLE!!!
Oh, and did you know that it is the government that pays for all this rebuilding because those folks can't get insurance because tropical storms blowing away shoreline property is a certainty. Sheesh. I wonder why the U.S. government puts up with that? Seems like they'd say, "alright, no setting up shop yay feet from the shoreline"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156 |
WO'N, I thought it was interesting too but I was sick on Friday and didn't get a chance to read the information thoroughly. And belM, I think the problem is that everywhere you go, there is a risk of natural disaster. For example, you know you shouldn't live in Montreal - didn't you have a big ice storm a few years ago? You should move to Winnipeg. Oh no, wait, then you'll be flooded out every spring. Fine then, Regina it is. No, wait, hailstorms in the summer, and tornadoes. OK, Vancouver. Whoops, earthquakes. OK, St. John's. No, we have pretty crazy wind/rainstorms too, they can be pretty destructive. Plus there are always drinking water problems in Newfoundland. Dammit, you just can't live anywhere! (I know you are thinking, that's different from building your house right next to a known danger - well, yes. But it is unrealistic to be prepared for every possibility. BTW, in Winnipeg, after the flood of '97, the government required you to build your house two feet above the highest water level from that flood, if you lived outside the floodway. So I have just supported both sides of the argument, which is what I often do, confusing myself!)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
building near the coastI live in a house that's 4 blocks form the ocean and 3 blocks from the bay...it's been here since 1907. Most folks who live near the water are hard-working middle-class people, and a there's a lot of poorer people, too. Most mainlanders don't realize that. There's an understandable perception that everybody who lives close to the coast, and especially on the barrier islands, must be super-rich. We even have a generic animosity directed towards us, now, from certain folks who live just "offshore' on the mainland. But the real problem is the folks who build lavish multi-million dollar homes on stretches of beachfront, especially those known to be perennially detroyed in major storms, and then start screaming for the Army Corps of Engineers to replenish their beach for their protection, and expect the Federal Government to rebuild for them through the Federal Flood Insurance program in the event of a nor'easter or hurricane. There is one particular stretch of Sea Isle City, a barrier-island resort here in South Jersey, known as Whale Beach (just a narrow low isthmus of about 2-3 miles in length) that's notorious for having its beach washed away and properties demolished during every big nor'easter (and forget about a hurricane!). Yet, after a few years go by without any really major storm activity, they replenish some of the beach, and presto!, up spring 1 to 2 million dollar beachfront homes, and I mean right near the water. Utter insanity! The realtors don't care, they don't inform these people about the property's history of storm destruction...they just want to close the deal. (Although, now, I think they passed, or are trying to pass, a state law that requires realtors to inform prospective buyers of property hazards) And the people building thes homes are, of course, the Upper Crust 10% or so who have two, three or even four, million-dollar getaway/tax shelter homes, and if a storm destroys it they expect the taxpayers to support their lavish lifestyle and rebuild it for them.  This is the kind of stupidity, or indifference, that gives all island and coastal dwellers a bum rap. And I agree with Bean that, in most places you go, there is a certain danger factor in dealing with nature. Looking back over the tornadic activity in the Southeastern US the past decade, I think I'd rather take my chances having to evacuate for a hurricane every 5 to 10 years or so ('course, that's about the frequency for a major storm to hit the Jersey coast...folks in the Carolinas, for instance, are bailing out just about every year or two, it seems). But, now, that El Nino is back, there should be the usual downswing effect on Atlantic tropical cyclone activity. That doesn't eliminate the potential of one major hurricane nailing the east Coast, though. Nor'easters, however, are a whole differnt thing...like the '62 Storm, you often don't know how bad it's going to be until all the elements are in place and it's already on top of you. You just have to play those by ear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
I think the problem is that everywhere you go, there is a risk of natural disaster.
When our basking California relatives tease us about suffering through bad Chicago weather, we simple reply quietly, "Yes, Chicago has its faults -- but at least we don't name ours after saints."
Note for those unfamiliar with California:
California is prone to earthquakes along the line of the San Andreas fault.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156 |
Oceanographers merely laugh knowingly at all that beach-rebuilding. Every time you build something which will reduce beach erosion somewhere, it leads to unexpected sediment (i.e. sand) transport elsewhere, probably ruining someone else's plan. Sorry, guys, the ocean does what it wants, whether you are a millionaire or poor as a church mouse - to that much water, it doesn't make a difference!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
life here would never be the same
It is said that "It is an ill wind that blows no-one any good?" Looking back on this devastating storm 40 years later, can it be said that anything good came out of it? I wonder.
New buildings replaced those which were lost. New people entered the community. Life is certainly not the same as it would have been, but are all the changes for the worse? Perhaps the residents of this area are far enough removed from the event emotionally to think about that. I wonder.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,383
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
234
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
