Daylight reveals Sandy's devastation; death toll climbs
»Play Video
NEW YORK (AP) — Millions of people from Maine to the Carolinas awoke Tuesday without electricity, and an eerily quiet New York City was all but closed off by car, train and air as superstorm Sandy steamed inland, still delivering punishing wind and rain. The U.S. death toll climbed to 39, many of the victims killed by falling trees.
The full extent of the damage in New Jersey, where the storm roared ashore Monday night with hurricane-force winds of 80 mph, was unclear. Police and fire officials, some with their own departments flooded, fanned out to rescue hundreds.
"We are in the midst of urban search and rescue. Our teams are moving as fast as they can," Gov. Chris Christie said. "The devastation on the Jersey Shore is some of the worst we've ever seen. The cost of the storm is incalculable at this point."
More than 8.2 million people across the East were without power. Airlines canceled more than 15,000 flights around the world, and it could be days before the mess is untangled and passengers can get where they're going.
The storm also disrupted the presidential campaign with just a week to go before Election Day.
President Barack Obama canceled a third straight day of campaigning, scratching events scheduled for Wednesday in swing state Ohio. Republican Mitt Romney resumed his campaign, but with plans to turn a political rally in Ohio into a "storm relief event."
- Interview: Woman from Oregon waits out the big storm
- Check flight status at PDX
- Donate to the Red Cross
Sandy will end up causing about $20 billion in property damage and $10 billion to $30 billion more in lost business, making it one of the costliest natural disasters on record in the U.S., according to IHS Global Insight, a forecasting firm.
Lower Manhattan, which includes Wall Street, was among the hardest-hit areas after the storm sent a nearly 14-foot surge of seawater, a record, coursing over its seawalls and highways.
Water cascaded into the gaping, unfinished construction pit at the World Trade Center, and the New York Stock Exchange was closed for a second day, the first time that has happened because of weather since the Blizzard of 1888. The NYSE said it will reopen on Wednesday.
A huge fire destroyed as many as 100 houses in a flooded beachfront neighborhood in Queens on Tuesday, forcing firefighters to undertake daring rescues. Three people were injured.
New York University's Tisch Hospital evacuated 200 patients after its backup generator failed. About 20 babies from the neonatal intensive care unit were carried down staircases and were given battery-powered respirators.
A construction crane that collapsed in the high winds on Monday still dangled precariously 74 floors above the streets of midtown Manhattan, and hundreds of people were evacuated as a precaution. And on Staten Island, a tanker ship wound up beached on the shore.
Most major tunnels and bridges in New York were closed, as were schools, Broadway theaters and the metropolitan area's three main airports, LaGuardia, Kennedy and Newark.
With water standing in two major commuter tunnels and seven subway tunnels under the East River, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it was unclear when the nation's largest transit system would be rolling again. It shut down Sunday night ahead of the storm.
Joseph Lhota, chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said the damage was the worst in the 108-year history of the New York subway.
Similarly, Consolidated Edison said it could take at least a week to restore electricity to the last of the nearly 800,000 customers in and around New York City who lost power.
Millions of more fortunate New Yorkers surveyed the damage as dawn broke, their city brought to an extraordinary standstill.
"Oh, Jesus. Oh, no," Faye Schwartz said she looked over her neighborhood in Brooklyn, where cars were scattered like leaves.
Reggie Thomas, a maintenance supervisor at a prison near the overflowing Hudson River, emerged from an overnight shift, a toothbrush in his front pocket, to find his Honda with its windows down and a foot of water inside. The windows automatically go down when the car is submerged to free drivers.
"It's totaled," Thomas said with a shrug. "You would have needed a boat last night."
Around midday, Sandy was about 120 miles east of Pittsburgh, pushing westward with winds of 45 mph, and was expected to make a turn into New York State on Tuesday night. Although weakening as it goes, the storm will continue to bring heavy rain and flooding, said Daniel Brown of the National Hurricane Center in Miami.
In a measure of the storm's immense size and power, waves on southern Lake Michigan rose to a record-tying 20.3 feet. High winds spinning off Sandy's edges clobbered the Cleveland area early Tuesday, uprooting trees, cutting power to hundreds of thousands, closing schools and flooding major roads along Lake Erie.
In Portland, Maine, gusts topping 60 mph scared away several cruise ships and prompted officials to close the port.
Sandy also brought blizzard conditions to parts of West Virginia and neighboring Appalachian states, with more than 2 feet of snow expected in some places. A snowstorm in western Maryland caused a pileup of tractor-trailers that blocked part of Interstate 68 on slippery Big Savage Mountain.
"It's like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs up here," said Bill Wiltson, a Maryland State Police dispatcher.
The death toll climbed rapidly, and included 17 victims in New York State — 10 of them in New York City — along with five dead in Pennsylvania and five in New Jersey. Sandy also killed 69 people in the Caribbean before making its way up the Eastern Seaboard.
In New Jersey, Sandy cut off barrier islands, swept houses from their foundations and washed amusement pier rides into the ocean. It also wrecked several boardwalks up and down the coast, tearing away a section of Atlantic City's world-famous promenade. Atlantic City's 12 waterfront casinos came through largely unscathed.
Jersey City was closed to cars because traffic lights were out, and Hoboken, just over the Hudson River from Manhattan, was hit with major flooding.
A huge swell of water swept over the small New Jersey town of Moonachie, near the Hackensack River, and authorities struggled to rescue about 800 people, some living in a trailer park. And in neighboring Little Ferry, water suddenly started gushing out of storm drains overnight, submerging a road under 4 feet of water and swamping houses.
Police and fire officials used boats and trucks to reach the stranded.
"I looked out and the next thing you know, the water just came up through the grates. It came up so quickly you couldn't do anything about it. If you wanted to move your car to higher ground you didn't have enough time," said Little Ferry resident Leo Quigley, who with his wife was taken to higher ground by boat.
___
Hays reported from New York and Breed reported from Raleigh, N.C.; AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein contributed to this report from Washington. Associated Press writers David Dishneau in Delaware City, Del., Katie Zezima in Atlantic City, Emery P. Dalesio in Elizabeth City, N.C., and Erika Niedowski in Cranston, R.I., also contributed.
Political power center? Â
Think your insurance rates are high now? Â Stand by folks, you ain't seen nothing yet!Â
The auto industry I'm sure will be happy to hear of future orders to replace all the cars destroyed. Of course if anyone needs a "just washed, inside & out" used car, I bet they're going cheap.
A good example of how a city that is reliant on public transportaion only, can be completly shut down by a big rain storm! Perhaps Sammy and group should take note on future development of a no car city!
 @flyroy Huh? The tunnels are flooded - cars are just as useless as the subway. Ask anyone who lives in NYC, cars are the slowest way to get around.
AND take a look at the photo of the road above, Flyroy. No matter how you cut it, when a disaster hits everyone is affected. Planes, trains and automobiles! Sorry, couldn't resist. That would have to be one hell of a 4-wheeler to manage that road!
My thoughts go out to those who are being impacted by this devastation. I can't imagine what it must feel like to be over there at this time. I've seen the water from tropical storms, or before/after a hurricane, but I have never seen something in person of this magnitude. Helps put some of those petty things we make such big deals about seem a little less important now.
Hey, is that an image of a 'fleet' of cabs in the photo?
 @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE ~  More like a "flotilla", I'd say...  whatever you call it, though, that's a LOT of ruined taxi-cabs..!  Â
 @margay1  @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE Those taxi's probably haven't smelled that good since they were brand new!
 @swimbad  @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE ~ ROFLMAO..!   (And you're probably right, swimbad!)
I'd be REAL careful about buying a used car over there for the next 6 months.
 @swimbad  @margay1 Oh! Ouch!
Waiting for the climate change deniers to strike up a chorus of  "If global warming is real, why are we having a blizzard?"Â
 @Max Quinn Climate change is very different from Global warming:
Â
Climate change is a natural process that exists since climate exists. In and out of ice age, volcanoes unprecedented in modern days, oil reserves in areas that today do not have nearly enough 'life' to create oil reserves (like polar circle and desserts of the middle east) - all are 'climate change' evidence.
Â
Global warming is a disputed theory that human activity increased levels of CO2 in atmosphere that in turn cause increase of the average temperature on the surface of the earth on average by 0.13±0.03 °C per decade
 @Julie Willard Romney in 2010: "I believe that climate change is occurring. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor."
Â
Of course he's moved away from that position to the more popular 'Okay, it's happening but we have no idea why' stance. The old deny-it-is-happening argument hold no water, so we start talking about climate change being different than global warming so that we can deny that human activity has anything to do with it. The only problem is that roughly 97% of the world's scientists disagree.
 @Max Quinn  @Julie You can disregard the source if you wish, but here's a nice little summary of how miscommunications, failed methodology, raw politics and funding interest/bias creeps into what is supposed to be a purely academic/objective pursuit:
Â
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/06/climate-gate-michael-mann/
Â
Also, in current news, don't know if you caught notice of it, but there was a few news articles in the last month or so about the 'tweaking" of data by a prominent researcher that was 'studying' (if I recall correctly - this is all by memory..) the effects of preservatives (mercury typically) in use in vaccines. Â The only problem was, his research design/methods were strangely unconventional and even cursory inspection by peer reviews revealed hopelessly flawed findings based on equally flawed methods. Â That all happened in Europe.
Â
I think the one thing I'd say to sum up is: there is an inherent and strong bias drilled into people of a science background -- it's not a fault and it's for a very good reason. The very nature of the progression of science is that it is: incremental, slow and ugly, prone to lots of intense disagreements, etc. Peer review and highly detailed examination into methods and designs ultimately uncover who is doing things 'right' and those that are not.
@Max Quinn@Julie
 It's an interesting read, and I've read a lot of similar articles in the past.  One thing that really stuck out to me, was if you look at the graph in the article, the average (mean) global temp appears to be rising, but if back track to the beginning of the graph (1880 -- not very far back really) but, nevertheless, from some basic history+atmospheric science, the critics would call attention to the fact the Krakatoa blew in 1883; and it dumped a nearly incomprehensible amount of fine particulates into the atmosphere (seen by most as a 'filter' or 'moderator' of incoming radiation).
So, one could infer (again, not having the graph extended earlier) that the trend in that graph would also appear to be rising again.
Â
 @FreedomRocks I've grown bored arguing with idiots who don't have any of their facts straight. Have fun reassuring yourselves that all is well, and congratulating each other on your associate's degree. Don't forget to check with Glenn Beck before you trust any information, just to be sure that it comes from a conservative think-tank.
 @Max Quinn   Yup, the Chinese are bringing online 1 new coal-fired plant each week as I recall. Guess where all those emission are headed?
 @FreedomRocks  @badcat  @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE Wouldn't take much comfort in that:
"For more than 30Â years, the Arctic in September has been losing an average of 5.7 square miles of sea ice for every square mile gained in Antarctica."
Â
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_21745000/scientists-growing-antarctic-ice-is-strange-sign-global
 @Max Quinn  @Julie Absolutely! People should consider that the Chinese are bringing a NEW coal-fired power plant online I think about 1 every week now.  So, it the larger picture of things, well, "we" have had our contribution (if it exists), but the fact that our contribution will be dwarfed by what 1.5 billion Chinese are doing in the next 50-100 years is something to really stop and think about.  I'm sure they have no intent on stopping their economic development to please the climate change critics.  Similarly, people here (as in US Pac NW) should stop and look at a time lapse image of the jet stream from where it originates and where it travels over the Pacific: hint folks, all those emission are coming our way and it's going to get a LOT worse in the future.
 @FreedomRocks  @badcat You're suggesting that 'the system moves toward equilibrium' angle; yeah, I've heard that idea and it does tend to support what happens in nature overall generally.  Like I said elsewhere, I'm half-in, half-out on the subject, and also believe that high levels of cynicism are required in dealing with such large issues.
 @badcat  @Julie What an ass you are badbat...Like all good liberals if you can't win an argument you result to attacking the person your arguing with to deflect from the fact your argument failed...
 @badcat  @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE Actually studies show for the earths entire history when one pole loses ice the other pole gains ice which is consistent with what is happening right now.
@badcat@Julie Badcat its nice to know you have declared yourself the world renowned expert on how educated people speak. Maybe they will give you a Nobel Prize for that like Obama!
 @Julie  @Max Quinn I wonder how much of the warming is due to cities made of concrete and steel. Concrete would radiate the heat back up into the atmosphere. I'm not saying its the sole cause, but in human history we haven't had cities like these.
 @Max Quinn  @Julie Their is a grand canyon size difference between contributing to something and causing it. We all contribute to changing the planet the even before we are born. That contribution does not mean it has a detectable let alone significant effect.
 @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE  @Julie Ok, that's progress. We can agree that there is no conspiracy on the part of scientists to jack up the temperature data.
Â
To answer why, we have to look at what else might be happening and see if there is a correlation. The increase of carbon in the atmosphere is happening along with temperature increase. That does not mean causality, but it is an indication. We can look at what carbon has done on Venus and we can measure carbon densities at other times in the planet's history and see how they relate to temperature. The evidence suggests a link.
Â
Finally, we can ask where did all the carbon come from. To answer that, we can look at a coal-fired power plant.
 @Playanekes  NASA does not advocate global warming - climatologists do. Just like doctors 100 years ago believed that draining blood was the best medicine against migraines - people believed them, people died. Do not trust me - that silly, but also, do not trust institutions who call themselves scientific. Data is out there available - look at it, make up your mind.
@Julie @badcat "minor in computer engineering" oh, wow, so, that makes you an expert on climate modeling, and PERFECTLY qualified to contradict the vast majority of actual scientists. So, in that case, I have a degree science journalism and a minor in computer science, so, I guess that make me a scientist too.
@ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE @Julie @Max Quinn I own and have read How to Lie with Statistics but the fact is that in the last two years, polar ice samples dating back 800,000 years show an INCREASING rate of change in the amount of carbon specific to fossil fuel combustion, corresponding with the historical period in which fossil fuels came into use. Not volcanoes or farms or deforestation, the sun or people breathing. The science which people are trying to call in question is as old as the 80486 microprocessor.
 @Max Quinn  @Julie The real question is not whether they are rising, the real (and much harder to answer and SCIENTIFICALLY DEFEND) is WHY THEY ARE RISING?Â
 @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE  @JulieÂ
Â
Everything you written here seems to refute what Julie is saying. Is that your intention? Measurements of global surface temperature do indicate that the average global temperature is increasing.Â
Â
Here's a chart that changes your *may* to *most likely* :http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-thermometer-still-climbing.html
Â
Global temperatures have gone up as have CO2 levels. Can CO2 levels affect surface temperature? The planet Venus says yes, they can. An extreme example, but relevant.
@Julie @Max Quinn yeah but the question is, why would we trust YOU and not the overwhelming body of science? I mean, NASA HAS ROBOTS ON MARS AND BELIEVES IN GLOBAL WARMING. Get back to me when you have robots on the Mars because otherwise, your résumé isn't nearly as interesting.
@Julie @Max Quinn which measurements? All of them, or just the ones you chose to study? I mean, how in hell did you study the measurements from the polar core samples taken only a year ago?
 @Playanekes   That's true - good point. What I was trying to say is that there is no way 97% people can agree on anything that is based on such a 'all over the place' data, unless they have personal agendas aligned. I grew up in communist Ukraine where 100% of communists agreed that communism is great!
@Julie @Max Quinn denying global warming allows people like Rush Limbaugh and Lars Larson to keep their radio programming and score sponsorships from organizations that profit from oil, land development and other interests. For example OPEC REALLY doesn't want you to believe in climate change or they won't be able to afford gold-plated cars and jumbo jets. ...see how easy conspiracy theories are?
 @Julie That sounds about right. Thanks for clarifying that you are in no way qualified to call yourself an engineer. I'll let you know if I have any problems with my modem.
@Julie @Max Quinn based on information as of June 2012 it is more likely to be proven than not. Jeez, it's like people saying that cigarettes might give you cancer too, so why worry about sun screen?
@Julie @Max Quinn " Truth is that 97% of climatologists are funded to prove the Global Warming." What a total, unsourced crock of hogsh-t. Did you know that 63% of statistics are made up on the spot?
 @badcat Minor in computer engineering
 @badcat Mathematics. BTW, I am responding to you in spite of your insults just to demonstrate to other, hopefully open minded readers that just because some one is hiding behind what they call 'facts' or 'trustworthy institutions', it does not mean that they are saying the truth.
 @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE You're talking to someone who thinks there has been zero change in arctic ice. Apparently while the polar ice caps are melting, there have been glaciers forming in other parts of the world. She's not using anyone's facts but her own.
 @Julie  @Max Quinn Yup, understood exactly.  Everyone here should go out and read "How to Lie with Statistics" as a precursor, then work their way up to a course or two in basic multivariable methods (especially parametric stats -- since the 'random variability' assumption underlies the methodology at it's core). Â
Â
For those that don't know, back in the day (when I was a mere undergrad, and later grad student), the common practice was to run very large prediction equations (involving thousands of variables) in parallel on supercomputers. This was done spatially over the globe for nearly all (all? - can't remember for sure) for 'blocks' of 1 degree latitude by 1 degree of longitude. Â I'm sure the spatially unit has since grown more granular ('smaller'), and that some of the statistical aspects have become more refined, but... I think people must remember two essential things in all this: 1. the delta / difference of what we're talking about and measuring here is a unit of 1 degree F, and that difference could exceed the precision of the instrumentation that actually measures temps (plus, not all temp measurements are equally precise nor reliable), and 2. natural variation is complex, does not lend itself to 'easy' human interpretation(s) and often varies in unexplained ways (at least to the tiny little pea brains most humans have been adorned with).
Â
While the temp measurement *may* indicate an average of global temp. increases, and that might indicate an ASSOCIATION with human activity, it is statistically/scientifically a much higher threshold to pass to say that humans have CAUSED the temp increase. Â Human science still lacks important explanatory capability with respect to unexplained variability of naturally occurring weather/climate patterns.
Â
 @Julie No one with a "real" education would talk like you do. Any particular branch of engineering you've been studying, professor? Or was it just what you picked up in shop class?
 @Max Quinn I do not trust unions - I trust myself and I saw the data and it is inconclusive at best.
 @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE  @Max Quinn They used both systems, but regardless of teh system - if you control the data selection, you can prove anything you want. For example, let's say they did 100 models that produced 20 different scenarios, so they apply this models to past events to see if current events would be accurately predicted. They select the models that did accurate predictions and declare these models 'true', but they always fail to recognize the fact that successful prediction of 3-4 scenarios is not nearly enough to build a meaningful statistical pool. The devil is always in details.
 @Julie The Union of Concerned Scientists don't seemed as troubled by the measurements as you do: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-thermometer-still-climbing.html
Â
Â
 @Max Quinn Actually my 'science' comes from engineering degree and research of the measurements used to 'prove' global warming. The graphs are all over the place and absolutely inconclusive. Measurements are taken at very selective locations which in combination with random trends produce no foundation for any factual conclusions.
 @Max Quinn  @Julie In full disclosure, and having some technical training in the subject matter (well, loosely) I'll say I am fairly 'agnostic' with regard to the issue.. having said that, "I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor."
Â
Then, by sheer deductive reasoning, natural variability can be inferred as being another contributing factor, does it not? [according to Romney].
Â
I would be interested to know if anyone on this thread has the specific knowledge of how global scale climatic/meteorological modeling is done (statistically, computationally).. I have a basic understanding of it, but that info is now somewhat dated.
 @Julie Now we're at the root of your 'science.' It's all part of the global conspiracy to impose the One World Government. Tell that to the atmosphere...
 @Julie Nope. Again, those scientists who belong to the 97% argue that human activity is cause global warming by increasing CO2 levels.
 @Julie Nope. And that's a conspiracy theory, not a fact.
 @Max Quinn Imposing Global Warming fears will enable governments and international treaties to tax energy and production of goods, which grant governments complete control over economy. It is much easier to close known polluters who dump chemicals in to our rivers, and it will have much better impact on environment, but it won't help governments to gain control, so we are spending billions of chasing after global warming when cheaper and more effective solutions are at hand.
 @Max Quinn Another point - Romney is absolutely correct in this quote - human activity is a factor in climate change - trash, logging, chemicals, etc. but this is not Global warming. Global warming theory is stating that it is increase of CO2 caused by human activity warms up the earth - that is yet to be proven.
 @Max Quinn Not sure if you are implying that Obama never changed his position on anything?
Â
Truth is that 97% of climatologists are funded to prove the Global Warming.
 @Max Quinn No one is denying climate change it has been going on for about 1 billion years now. What we are denying is that suddenly any severe weather like has happened for billions of years on the planet is now due to humans and not the planet doing it think like it has in the past.
Â
Have you heard of the term 100 year storm? We have them and until the last 20 years they were not blamed on people...
 @FreedomRocks That's because they only happened every 100 years, not every 5.
 @Max Quinn Yes and a lot of those sensors are now surrounded by acres of concrete rather the soil and trees so it's not to wonder something like 35% of the sensors they are using for those claim are not scientifically meaningful given the changes around them.
 @FreedomRocks The frequency and intensity of the storms has increased. And the storms are only part of it. Global temperature measurements show an increasing temperature.
 @Max Quinn I did because the weather men described it that way. Again you are only pointing at the data that supports your views. I think they call that a strawman argument.
Â
What about the fact all those things have happened in the past?
Â
How do you explain why they happened back then and be consistent with your current beliefs that its us now?
 @FreedomRocks So if these storms happened every so frequently, why did you use the term '100 year storm'?
Â
And none of those occurred within 7 years of each other. And the drought in the US this summer and the one in Russia last summer.... It's all data. I'm just not denying it.
 @Playanekes  @FreedomRocks  @Max But you're neglecting the fact that the population of New Orleans has expanded greatly since that time, and also has spread out into more marginal areas since then as well. It's a comparison of 'apples' and 'oranges' essentially.  The only way to draw such a comparison and have it be completely valid, would be to have the two different storms at the same place and  under the exact same circumstances.
@FreedomRocks @Max Quinn I'm not a liberal, and these storms are called "record" for a reason. Sucks that people like you have to call everybody who disagrees with you a "liberal" because it shows the bias in your logic. There were no storms like Katrina which is why homes in Pass Christian dating back to Andrew Jackson were wiped from the map. Not the individual homes, but the entire coastline.
 @Max Quinn So here are equivalent storms going back to 1821, 1893, 1938, 1854, 1960, so maybe its you who needs to catch up on the facts and history.
Â
I realize all good liberals believe in emotion, and doing things that make them feeling good all over rather then rely on facts and data to determine which side to be on so I don't expect to change your mind just point out the fallacy in your beliefs...
Â
http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/hazards/storms_hurricanehistory.shtml