Hubbry Logo
Storm surgeStorm surgeMain
Open search
Storm surge
Community hub
Storm surge
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Storm surge
Storm surge
Storm surge
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Storm surge of the North Sea on February 9, 2014, as seen on the South Beach (Südstrand) in Wilhelmshaven, Germany.
Part of a series on
Tropical cyclones
Structure
Effects
Climatology and tracking
Naming
Tropical cyclones portal
Part of a series on
Weather
Temperate and polar seasons
Tropical seasons
Storms
Precipitation
Topics
Glossaries
icon Weather portal

A storm surge, storm flood, tidal surge, or storm tide is a coastal flood or tsunami-like phenomenon of rising water commonly associated with low-pressure weather systems, such as cyclones. It is measured as the rise in water level above the normal tidal level, and does not include waves.[1]

The main meteorological factor contributing to a storm surge is high-speed wind pushing water towards the coast over a long fetch.[2] Other factors affecting storm surge severity include the shallowness and orientation of the water body in the storm path, the timing of tides, and the atmospheric pressure drop due to the storm.

As extreme weather becomes more intense and the sea level rises due to climate change, storm surges are expected to cause more risk to coastal populations.[3] Communities and governments can adapt by building hard infrastructure, like surge barriers, soft infrastructure, like coastal dunes or mangroves, improving coastal construction practices and building social strategies such as early warning, education and evacuation plans.[3]

Mechanics

[edit]

At least five processes can be involved in altering tide levels during storms.[4]

Direct wind effect

[edit]

Wind stresses cause a phenomenon referred to as wind setup, which is the tendency for water levels to increase at the downwind shore and to decrease at the upwind shore. Intuitively, this is caused by the storm blowing the water toward one side of the basin in the direction of its winds. Strong surface winds cause surface currents at a 45° angle to the wind direction, by an effect known as the Ekman spiral. Because the Ekman spiral effects spread vertically through the water, the effect is proportional to depth. The surge will be driven into bays in the same way as the astronomical tide.[4]

Atmospheric pressure effect

[edit]

The pressure effects of a tropical cyclone will cause the water level in the open ocean to rise in regions of low atmospheric pressure and fall in regions of high atmospheric pressure. The rising water level will counteract the low atmospheric pressure such that the total pressure at some plane beneath the water surface remains constant. This effect is estimated at a 10 mm (0.39 in) increase in sea level for every millibar (hPa) drop in atmospheric pressure.[4] For example, a major storm with a 100 millibar pressure drop would be expected to have a 1.0 m (3.3 ft) water level rise from the pressure effect.

Effect of the Earth's rotation

[edit]

The Earth's rotation causes the Coriolis effect, which bends currents to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. When this bend brings the currents into more perpendicular contact with the shore, it can amplify the surge, and when it bends the current away from the shore it has the effect of lessening the surge.[4]

Effect of waves

[edit]

The effect of waves, while directly powered by the wind, is distinct from a storm's wind-powered currents. Powerful wind whips up large, strong waves in the direction of its movement.[4] Although these surface waves are responsible for very little water transport in open water, they may be responsible for significant transport near the shore. When waves are breaking on a line more or less parallel to the beach, they carry considerable water shoreward. As they break, the water moving toward the shore has considerable momentum and may run up a sloping beach to an elevation above the mean water line, which may exceed twice the wave height before breaking.[5]

Rainfall effect

[edit]

The rainfall effect is experienced predominantly in estuaries. Hurricanes may dump as much as 300 mm (12 in) of rainfall in 24 hours over large areas and higher rainfall densities in localized areas. As a result, surface runoff can quickly flood streams and rivers. This can increase the water level near the head of tidal estuaries as storm-driven waters surging in from the ocean meet rainfall flowing downstream into the estuary.[4]

Sea depth and topography

[edit]

In addition to the above processes, storm surge and wave heights on shore are also affected by the flow of water over the underlying topography, i.e. the shape and depth of the ocean floor and coastal area. A narrow shelf, with deep water relatively close to the shoreline, tends to produce a lower surge but higher and more powerful waves. A wide shelf, with shallower water, tends to produce a higher storm surge with relatively smaller waves.[6]

For example, in Palm Beach on the southeast coast of Florida, the water depth reaches 91 metres (299 ft) 3 km (1.9 mi) offshore, and 180 m (590 ft) 7 km (4.3 mi) out. This is relatively steep and deep; storm surge is not as great but the waves are larger compared to the west coast of Florida.[7] Conversely, on the Gulf side of Florida, the edge of the Floridian Plateau can lie more than 160 kilometres (99 mi) offshore. Florida Bay, lying between the Florida Keys and the mainland, is very shallow with depths between 0.3 m (0.98 ft) and 2 m (6.6 ft).[8] These shallow areas are subject to higher storm surges with smaller waves. Other shallow areas include much of the Gulf of Mexico coast, and the Bay of Bengal.

The difference is due to how much flow area the storm surge can dissipate to. In deeper water, there is more area and a surge can be dispersed down and away from the hurricane. On a shallow, gently sloping shelf, the surge has less room to disperse and is driven ashore by the wind forces of the hurricane.[6]

The topography of the land surface is another important element in storm surge extent. Areas, where the land lies less than a few meters above sea level, are at particular risk from storm surge inundation.[4]

Storm size

[edit]

The size of the storm also affects the surge height; this is due to the storm's area not being proportional to its perimeter. If a storm doubles in diameter, its perimeter also doubles, but its area quadruples. As there is proportionally less perimeter for the surge to dissipate to, the surge height ends up being higher.[9]

Hurricane Ike storm surge damage in Gilchrist, Texas in 2008.

Extratropical storms

[edit]

Similar to tropical cyclones, extratropical cyclones cause an offshore rise of water. However, unlike most tropical cyclone storm surges, extratropical cyclones can cause higher water levels across a large area for longer periods of time, depending on the system.[10]

In North America, extratropical storm surges may occur on the Pacific and Alaska coasts, and north of 31°N on the Atlantic Coast. Coasts with sea ice may experience an "ice tsunami" causing significant damage inland.[11] Extratropical storm surges may be possible further south for the Gulf coast mostly during the wintertime, when extratropical cyclones affect the coast, such as in the 1993 Storm of the Century.[12]

November 9–13, 2009, marked a significant extratropical storm surge event on the United States east coast when the remnants of Hurricane Ida developed into a nor'easter off the southeast U.S. coast. During the event, winds from the east were present along the northern periphery of the low-pressure center for a number of days, forcing water into locations such as Chesapeake Bay. Water levels rose significantly and remained as high as 2.4 metres (8 ft) above normal in numerous locations throughout the Chesapeake for a number of days as water was continually built-up inside the estuary from the onshore winds and freshwater rains flowing into the bay. In many locations, water levels were shy of records by only 3 centimetres (0.1 ft).[13]

Measuring surge

[edit]

Surge can be measured directly at coastal tidal stations as the difference between the forecast tide and the observed rise of water.[14] Another method of measuring surge is by the deployment of pressure transducers along the coastline just ahead of an approaching tropical cyclone. This was first tested for Hurricane Rita in 2005.[15] These types of sensors can be placed in locations that will be submerged and can accurately measure the height of water above them.[16]

After surge from a cyclone has receded, teams of surveyors map high-water marks (HWM) on land, in a rigorous and detailed process that includes photographs and written descriptions of the marks. HWMs denote the location and elevation of floodwaters from a storm event. When HWMs are analyzed, if the various components of the water height can be broken out so that the portion attributable to surge can be identified, then that mark can be classified as storm surge. Otherwise, it is classified as storm tide. HWMs on land are referenced to a vertical datum (a reference coordinate system). During the evaluation, HWMs are divided into four categories based on the confidence in the mark; in the U.S., only HWMs evaluated as "excellent" are used by the National Hurricane Center in the post-storm analysis of the surge.[17]

Two different measures are used for storm tide and storm surge measurements. Storm tide is measured using a geodetic vertical datum (NGVD 29 or NAVD 88). Since storm surge is defined as the rise of water beyond what would be expected by the normal movement caused by tides, storm surge is measured using tidal predictions, with the assumption that the tide prediction is well-known and only slowly varying in the region subject to the surge. Since tides are a localized phenomenon, storm surge can only be measured in relationship to a nearby tidal station. Tidal benchmark information at a station provides a translation from the geodetic vertical datum to mean sea level (MSL) at that location, then subtracting the tidal prediction yields a surge height above the normal water height.[14][17]

SLOSH

[edit]
See also: Tropical cyclone forecasting
Example of a SLOSH run

The U.S. National Hurricane Center forecasts storm surge using the SLOSH model, which is an abbreviation for Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes. The model is accurate to within 20 percent.[18] SLOSH inputs include the central pressure of a tropical cyclone, storm size, the cyclone's forward motion, its track, and maximum sustained winds. Local topography, bay and river orientation, depth of the sea bottom, astronomical tides, as well as other physical features, are taken into account in a predefined grid referred to as a SLOSH basin. Overlapping SLOSH basins are defined for the southern and eastern coastline of the continental U.S.[19] Some storm simulations use more than one SLOSH basin; for instance, Hurricane Katrina SLOSH model runs used both the Lake Pontchartrain / New Orleans basin, and the Mississippi Sound basin, for the northern Gulf of Mexico landfall. The final output from the model run will display the maximum envelope of water, or MEOW, that occurred at each location.

To allow for track or forecast uncertainties, usually several model runs with varying input parameters are generated to create a map of MOMs or Maximum of Maximums.[20] For hurricane evacuation studies, a family of storms with representative tracks for the region, and varying intensity, eye diameter, and speed are modeled to produce worst-case water heights for any tropical cyclone occurrence. The results of these studies are typically generated from several thousand SLOSH runs. These studies have been completed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, under contract to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for several states and are available on their Hurricane Evacuation Studies (HES) website.[21] They include coastal county maps, shaded to identify the minimum category of hurricane that will result in flooding, in each area of the county.[22]

Impacts

[edit]

Storm surge is responsible for significant property damage and loss of life as part of cyclones.[23] Storm surge both destroys built infrastructure, like roads, and undermines foundations and building structures.[1]

Unexpected flooding in estuaries and coastal areas can catch populations unprepared, causing loss of life. The deadliest storm surge on record was the 1970 Bhola cyclone.[24]

Additionally, storm surge can cause or transform human-utilized land through other processes, hurting soil fertility, increasing saltwater intrusion, hurting wildlife habitat, and spreading chemical or other contaminants from human storage.[1]

Mitigation

[edit]

Although meteorological surveys alert about hurricanes or severe storms, in the areas where the risk of coastal flooding is particularly high, there are specific storm surge warnings. These have been implemented, for instance, in the Netherlands,[25] Spain,[26][27] the United States,[28][29] and the United Kingdom.[30] Similarly educating coastal communities and developing local evacuation plans can reduce the relative impact on people.[31]

A prophylactic method introduced after the North Sea flood of 1953 is the construction of dams and storm-surge barriers (flood barriers).[citation needed] They are open and allow free passage, but close when the land is under threat of a storm surge. Major storm surge barriers are the Oosterscheldekering and Maeslantkering in the Netherlands, which are part of the Delta Works project; the Thames Barrier protecting London; and the Saint Petersburg Dam in Russia.

Another modern development (in use in the Netherlands) is the creation of housing communities at the edges of wetlands with floating structures, restrained in position by vertical pylons.[32] Such wetlands can then be used to accommodate runoff and surges without causing damage to the structures while also protecting conventional structures at somewhat higher low-lying elevations, provided that dikes prevent major surge intrusion.

Other soft adaptation methods can include changing structures so that they are elevated to avoid flooding directly,[33] or increasing natural protections like mangroves or dunes.[34]

For mainland areas, storm surge is more of a threat when the storm strikes land from seaward, rather than approaching from landward.[35]

Reverse storm surge

[edit]

Water can also be sucked away from shore prior to a storm surge. This was the case on the western Florida coast in 2017, just before Hurricane Irma made landfall, uncovering land usually underwater.[36] This phenomenon is known as a reverse storm surge,[37] or a negative storm surge.[38]

Historic storm surges

[edit]
Elements of a storm tide at high tide

The deadliest storm surge on record was the 1970 Bhola cyclone, which killed up to 500,000 people in the area of the Bay of Bengal. The low-lying coast of the Bay of Bengal is particularly vulnerable to surges caused by tropical cyclones.[39] The deadliest storm surge in the twenty-first century was caused by Cyclone Nargis, which killed more than 138,000 people in Myanmar in May 2008. The next deadliest in this century was caused by Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda), which killed more than 6,000 people in the central Philippines in 2013.[40][41][42] and resulted in economic losses estimated at $14 billion (USD).[43]

The 1900 Galveston hurricane, a Category 4 hurricane that struck Galveston, Texas, drove a devastating surge ashore; between 6,000 and 12,000 people died, making it the deadliest natural disaster ever to strike the United States.[44]

The highest storm tide noted in historical accounts was produced by the 1899 Cyclone Mahina, estimated at almost 13.41 metres (44 ft) at Bathurst Bay, Australia, but research published in 2000 concluded that the majority of this likely was wave run-up because of the steep coastal topography.[45] However, much of this storm surge was likely due to Mahina's extreme intensity, as computer modeling required an intensity of 880 millibars (26 inHg) (the same intensity as the lowest recorded pressure from the storm) to produce the recorded storm surge.[46] In the United States, one of the greatest recorded storm surges was generated by Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005, which produced a maximum storm surge of more than 8.53 metres (28 ft) in southern Mississippi, with a storm surge height of 8.47 metres (27.8 ft) in Pass Christian.[47][48] Another record storm surge occurred in this same area from Hurricane Camille in 1969, with a storm tide of 7.50 metres (24.6 ft), also at Pass Christian.[49] A storm surge of 4.27 metres (14 ft) occurred in New York City during Hurricane Sandy in October 2012.[50]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Storm surge

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Storm surge is the abnormal rise in seawater level during a storm, measured as the height of the water above the normal predicted astronomical tide. It arises primarily from strong onshore winds that drive water toward the coast and the low atmospheric pressure in the storm's core, which elevates the sea surface. These forces combine to produce a mound of water that propagates inland, often resulting in severe coastal flooding independent of tidal cycles. Storm surges associated with hurricanes or tropical cyclones can exceed 20 feet (6 meters) in height and affect hundreds of miles of shoreline, representing the deadliest hazard from such events due to drowning and structural destruction. Factors amplifying surge include shallow coastal bathymetry, storm trajectory relative to the shore, and forward speed, with slower-moving storms allowing greater water pile-up. While wind accounts for the majority of the surge, contributions from wave setup and the inverse barometer effect add to the total elevation. Historical observations confirm surges as a leading cause of coastal fatalities, underscoring the need for accurate forecasting models like SLOSH to mitigate impacts.

Physical Mechanisms

Wind-Driven Water Setup

The wind-driven water setup, also known as wind setup, constitutes the primary mechanism by which storm winds elevate coastal sea levels through the sustained onshore transport of water mass. This process arises from the shear stress exerted by winds on the sea surface, which imparts momentum to the underlying water column, inducing a net flow toward the shore and resulting in a gradual increase in water depth from offshore regions to the coastline. In steady-state conditions, the resulting surface slope generates a hydrostatic pressure gradient that balances the applied wind stress, establishing an equilibrium where the water level rise compensates for the driving force./05:_Coastal_hydrodynamics/5.06:_Wind-induced_set-up_and_currents) The magnitude of wind setup depends on the onshore component of wind stress, typically parameterized as τx=ρaCdU2cos⁡θ\tau_x = \rho_a C_d U^2 \cos \theta, where ρa\rho_a is air density, CdC_d is the (ranging from 0.001 to 0.003 depending on and stability), UU is , and θ\theta is between wind direction and shore-normal. This stress drives a cross-shore slope approximated by dηdx=τxρwgh\frac{d\eta}{dx} = \frac{\tau_x}{\rho_w g h}, where η\eta is the setup elevation, ρw\rho_w is density, gg is , and hh is local depth; integrating over the fetch length LL yields a total setup Δη≈τxLρwghavg\Delta \eta \approx \frac{\tau_x L}{\rho_w g h_{avg}} for shallow, uniform depths./05:_Coastal_hydrodynamics/5.06:_Wind-induced_set-up_and_currents) Factors such as fetch distance (often hundreds of kilometers in storm contexts), depth (shallower shelves amplify setup), wind duration, and directional persistence modulate the effect, with stronger, prolonged onshore winds over extended shallow areas producing setups of 1–3 meters or more. In storm surges, wind setup often dominates over other forcings like the inverse barometer effect in nearshore zones, particularly where continental shelves are narrow and shallow, as the cumulative piling of over large areas outweighs pressure-induced rises (typically ~1 cm per hPa deficit). For instance, numerical models of hurricane-induced surges reveal that -driven components can account for 50–80% of total elevation in shallow coastal waters, with and further influencing the . This mechanism is distinct from wave setup, which involves radiation stress from breaking waves, though both contribute to overall surge in interacting systems. Accurate forecasting requires resolving these dynamics via hydrodynamic models incorporating variable fields and bottom .

Inverse Barometer Effect from Low Pressure

The inverse barometer effect describes the isostatic adjustment of in response to variations in overlying , whereby a decrease in pressure reduces the weight on the surface, causing to rise beneath the low-pressure region. This hydrostatic response assumes equilibrium, with negligible horizontal movement, and follows the principle that the surface deforms inversely to pressure anomalies to maintain balance with surrounding higher-pressure areas. In the context of storm surges, the effect contributes a pressure-induced "mound" of under the storm's low-pressure core, amplifying total levels independently of forcing. Quantitatively, sea level rises by approximately 1 cm for every 1 hectopascal (hPa) reduction in atmospheric pressure relative to the ambient mean, derived from the ratio of seawater density (around 1025 kg/m³) to air density (about 1.2 kg/m³), yielding a response factor of roughly -0.01 m/hPa. For tropical cyclones with central pressures as low as 900 hPa—compared to a typical sea-level average of 1013 hPa—this can theoretically produce over 1 meter of elevation from pressure deficit alone, though the dome-shaped response spreads outward and diminishes with distance from the center. In extratropical cyclones, where pressure drops are often milder (e.g., 20-50 hPa below mean), the contribution is smaller, typically adding 20-50 cm to surge heights in open ocean settings. This effect is most pronounced in deep, open waters where the ocean can freely adjust without significant frictional interference, but near coasts, shallow and wave dynamics can modify the response, sometimes enhancing convergence of the pressure mound. Storm surge models incorporate the inverse barometer term explicitly, often as η_IB = (P_standard - ) / (ρ_water * g), where P_standard is reference , ρ_water is , and g is , to isolate its contribution from wind-driven setup. However, rapid storm translation speeds (e.g., >10 m/s) may prevent full equilibrium realization, leading to dynamic deviations from the idealized isostatic rise. Empirical validations from data during events like (2005) confirm the effect's role, adding about 0.1 m to surge in regions with 10-20 hPa deficits.

Coriolis Effect and Earth's Rotation

The Coriolis effect, a consequence of , manifests as an apparent deflection of moving fluids— to the right in the and to the left in the —acting perpendicular to their . In storm surge dynamics, this force influences the balance in shallow-water equations, contributing to transverse water setup where sea levels slope sideways relative to , altering the distribution of surge heights. Numerical models incorporate the Coriolis parameter f=2Ωsin⁡ϕf = 2 \Omega \sin \phi, where Ω=7.292×10−5\Omega = 7.292 \times 10^{-5} rad/s is Earth's and ϕ\phi is , to simulate these deflections in the horizontal terms. For steady, alongshore winds, the Coriolis force drives a geostrophic adjustment, producing a transverse sea surface slope with elevated water levels on the right of the wind direction in the Northern Hemisphere, which can amplify coastal surges or generate set-down effects depending on wind orientation. This mechanism is particularly relevant in extratropical cyclones, where persistent winds parallel to coastlines lead to sustained transverse setup balanced against the Coriolis-induced deflection of return flows. Simulations excluding the Coriolis term demonstrate reduced accuracy in predicting such slopes, especially over continental shelves with fetch lengths exceeding tens of kilometers. In translating cyclones, the Coriolis effect interacts with storm motion to enhance surge asymmetry, with peak elevations typically on the right side of the track in the due to deflection amplifying the effective cross-shore transport where rotational winds align with forward speed. This results in greater and Ekman-like surges on that flank, peaking hours before in some cases, while contributing to forerunners or negative surges elsewhere. The effect diminishes near the (where f≈0f \approx 0), yielding more symmetric profiles, and its omission in models can underestimate maximum surges by up to several meters in mid-latitude events.

Wave Setup and Infragravity Waves

Wave setup is the gradual increase in mean sea surface elevation from the breaker line to the shoreline, driven by the imbalance in stresses as waves and break in shallow water. This phenomenon occurs because incoming wave energy pushes water onshore, while the retreating backwash carries less volume due to friction and breaking dissipation, resulting in a net onshore that elevates the still-water level. In storm surges, wave setup typically contributes 10-30% of the offshore to total water levels, with magnitudes reaching 0.5-1 meter in severe events depending on , beach slope, and nearshore . For instance, during in 2008, wave setup accounted for up to 20% of the surge elevation along parts of the coast. The magnitude of wave setup is parameterized in models using empirical relations like ηsetup≈0.2Hs\eta_{setup} \approx 0.2 H_s, where HsH_s is the offshore , though this varies with beach morphology—steeper slopes yield less setup due to reduced surf zone width. Wave setup interacts with wind-driven surge by enhancing the effective water depth for wind stress and altering bottom , often amplifying total flooding in coupled wave-circulation simulations. Neglecting wave setup in surge forecasts underestimates coastal inundation, as demonstrated in hindcasts of extratropical storms where inclusion raised predicted peaks by 15-25 cm. Infragravity waves, with periods of 30 seconds to 5 minutes, form through nonlinear rectification of short-wave groups or release of bound waves upon breaking, generating low-frequency oscillations that propagate across the with minimal dissipation. In storm surges, these waves contribute to total water level variability by modulating excursions and runup, often adding oscillatory components that exceed steady wave setup in amplitude during high-energy events. Their shoreward energy flux can drive resonant amplification in bays or harbors, enhancing surge heights; for example, during in 2012, infragravity contributions reached 0.3-0.5 meters in , surpassing wind setup in some locations. Unlike short waves, infragravity waves experience less and shoaling loss, allowing them to transport momentum onshore and interact with tidal flows or storm-induced currents, potentially increasing overwash volumes by 20-50% in sandy barriers. Peer-reviewed analyses indicate that infragravity waves can dominate extreme runup in dissipative beaches during storms, with their energy correlating to the square of short-wave height variance. In coupled models, incorporating infragravity dynamics improves predictions of compound flooding, as their neglect leads to underestimation of flood extents by up to 30% in wave-dominated regimes.

Influence of Coastal Bathymetry and Topography

Coastal , encompassing the submerged of the continental shelf and nearshore areas, plays a critical role in modulating storm surge through its effects on water depth, flow resistance, and wave propagation. Shallow, gently sloping shelves promote surge amplification by constraining offshore water dispersal, causing wind-forced setup to accumulate progressively toward the coast as shallower depths reduce flow speeds and increase frictional drag. In regions with wide continental shelves, such as parts of the U.S. Gulf Coast, this mechanism can elevate peak surges by factors of up to three compared to narrower, steeper shelves under identical storm forcing, as the extended shallow zone sustains resonant interactions and nonlinear wave-tide coupling. Conversely, abrupt bathymetric drops, like those near steep coastal margins, facilitate rapid offshore equilibration, mitigating onshore water piling. Nearshore bathymetric variability, including sandbars, channels, and erosion-induced deepening, introduces additional surge modulation; for instance, fluctuations equivalent to 620% in local depth can alter coastal levels by up to 65%, with shoaling features enhancing setup while troughs promote dispersion. Empirical modeling of historical events, such as those along the northern Adriatic, demonstrates that bathymetric changes from 1980 to 2016—driven by and —amplified tides in some sectors by redirecting currents and altering frictional losses. These effects are compounded by shelf geometry's influence on seiche-like resonances, where shelf width aligns with periods to sustain oscillatory amplification of surge heights. Overland , including coastal profiles, inlets, and barrier systems, governs surge inundation extent and runup once overtops the shore. Convergent landforms such as bays and estuaries exert a funneling effect, narrowing channels that accelerate and elevate through continuity constraints, often increasing surge heights by 20-50% relative to open coasts in simulations of tropical cyclones. Low-lying coastal plains exacerbate inland propagation, whereas elevated headlands or dunes induce deflection and partial reflection, reducing penetration; for example, in convergent systems with barriers like dams, partial reflections interfere constructively with incoming surges during short-period events, heightening local peaks. Anthropogenic alterations, including levees and reclaimed land, further distort these dynamics by steepening effective slopes and channeling flow, as observed in altered estuarine morphologies where surge-tide interactions amplify extremes nonlinearly. Overall, integrated bathymetric-topographic profiles determine hotspots, with empirical data underscoring the need for high-resolution surveys to capture site-specific forcings beyond basin-scale winds and pressure.

Role of Storm Size, Speed, and Track

The size of a , quantified by metrics such as the radius of maximum winds (RMW) or the radius of gale-force winds, exerts a substantial influence on storm surge amplitude and spatial coverage. Larger storms sustain wind forcing over extended fetch distances, enhancing the wind-driven setup of water toward the shore and amplifying surge heights, particularly for intense hurricanes in areas with gradual bathymetric slopes. Empirical analyses reveal a positive between pre-landfall radius of 50-knot winds and surge height, with Spearman coefficients indicating robust dependence, as larger wind fields mobilize greater volumes of water. Although peak surge elevations exhibit limited variation with size in some scenarios, the longitudinal extent of coastal inundation expands markedly for expansive storms, affecting broader shorelines. Storm forward speed modulates surge dynamics by altering the duration and intensity of wind-coastal interaction. Rapidly translating storms generate elevated peak surges at the immediate shoreline, as accelerated water piling precedes significant dissipation or redistribution, though they curtail inland propagation. Slower storms, by contrast, permit extended forcing periods that accumulate deeper water masses, fostering greater inland flooding despite potentially moderated coastal maxima. Numerical modeling demonstrates that augmenting forward speed from typical values can heighten peak surges by approximately 40% while diminishing overall flooded areas, underscoring the trade-off between coastal intensity and areal impact. This relationship varies with local topography, with steeper shelves favoring higher peaks from faster motion. The storm's track, encompassing its trajectory, closest point of approach, and angle, critically shapes localized surge profiles through alignment of wind vectors with coastal orientation. Perpendicular approaches maximize surge in the right-forward quadrant of cyclones, where translational velocity augments tangential winds, optimizing onshore momentum transfer. Deviations in track position relative to observation sites yield pronounced surge disparities, with nearer passages intensifying forcing. Oblique tracks attenuate peaks by shortening effective exposure to peak winds, as demonstrated in simulations where approach angles exceeding 45 degrees reduce surge extents and magnitudes along vulnerable coasts. Integrated modeling frameworks, such as SLOSH, incorporate track sensitivity to forecast these variations, highlighting track forecast accuracy as pivotal for surge prediction.

Storm Types and Surge Characteristics

Tropical Cyclone Surges

Storm surges generated by , such as hurricanes and typhoons, result from the combined effects of strong, radially symmetric onshore winds and the cyclone's deep central low pressure, producing rapid and intense coastal inundation. These surges are typically more localized and peak higher than those from extratropical cyclones due to the compact size, high wind speeds exceeding 74 mph (119 km/h) in hurricane-strength systems, and pronounced inverse barometer response, often reaching heights of 6 meters (20 feet) or more near the right-front quadrant of landfall relative to storm motion. In regions like the , tropical cyclone surges have historically produced the most extreme elevations, amplified by shallow coastal shelves and funneling topography. The deadliest impacts of tropical cyclones often stem from these surges, which can overwhelm low-lying coastal areas, erode beaches, and cause structural failures through wave action atop elevated water levels. For instance, on August 29, 2005, generated surges up to approximately 8.5 meters (28 feet) along parts of the , contributing to over 1,500 fatalities and widespread levee breaches in New Orleans. Similarly, the produced surges of 4.5 to 6 meters (15 to 20 feet), resulting in 6,000 to 12,000 deaths, underscoring the vulnerability of barrier islands to such events. More recently, in September 2022 caused surges linked to 41 deaths in , with inundation extending miles inland. Tropical surges differ from extratropical counterparts in their faster onset and dissipation, driven by the warm-core structure of tropical systems that concentrates energy near , leading to shorter-duration but more violent flooding compared to the broader, front-associated surges of cooler extratropical . Surge heights correlate strongly with intensity, forward speed, and angle of approach, with slower-moving storms allowing greater water pileup; for example, Category 5 systems can exceed 12 meters (40 feet) in extreme cases near the eyewall. Forecasting relies on models accounting for these dynamics, as surges amplify total water levels when combined with astronomical , forming storm tide. Historical data indicate that while extratropical surges may affect larger areas over longer periods, tropical events pose greater of catastrophic peak flooding in populated coastal zones.

Extratropical Cyclone Surges

Extratropical cyclones, also known as mid-latitude cyclones, generate storm surges primarily through persistent onshore winds acting over extended fetch distances, leveraging their larger scale and baroclinic energy derived from horizontal temperature contrasts rather than the convective heat release dominant in tropical cyclones. These systems feature asymmetric wind fields aligned with fronts, enabling sustained water pile-up along shallow continental shelves, often amplified by resonance in semi-enclosed basins like the . Unlike tropical cyclones, where central low contributes substantially via the inverse barometer effect—elevating water levels by approximately 1 cm per hectopascal of deficit—the shallower and more diffuse gradients in extratropical cyclones render this mechanism secondary, with accounting for the majority of surge height. Surge durations are typically longer, persisting for hours to days due to slower storm translation speeds, resulting in broader spatial extents of inundation that can affect hundreds of kilometers of coastline simultaneously. In regions such as the U.S. Mid-Atlantic coast, extratropical cyclones have driven 85% of the top 50 historical surge events exceeding 1 meter, outpacing tropical cyclones in frequency despite generally lower peak intensities, with surges often compounding high astronomical during winter months when storms peak. Nor'easters, a subset of these systems prevalent along the Northeast U.S. seaboard, exemplify this through northeasterly winds that channel water southward along the coast, producing setup heights of 2-4 meters in events like the March 1962 Ash Wednesday Storm, which flooded barrier islands from to with surges up to 3 meters above mean high water. These surges erode dunes and breach defenses over wide areas, with wave setup adding 20-30% to total elevation in shallow nearshore zones. Historical precedents underscore the potential severity; the January 31, 1953, over the generated a surge peaking at 3.35 meters above mean , combined with spring tides and waves exceeding 4.9 meters, breaching dikes and inundating polders in the and , resulting in over 2,500 fatalities and displacing 340,000 people. In contrast to tropical surges' rapid onset and decay, extratropical events like this exhibited prolonged forcing from a deep low-pressure system (down to 960 hPa) and gale-force winds persisting over 24 hours, highlighting how shelf geometry funnels and amplifies the response. Globally, extratropical cyclones contribute to roughly twice the annual impacts from surges compared to tropical cyclones in vulnerable coastal zones, though the latter dominate extreme single-event damages due to higher wind speeds and compact structure. Forecasting relies on models like NOAA's Extratropical Surge (ET) system, which parameterize wind fields to predict these extended hydrographs, emphasizing the need to account for storm track orientation relative to coastlines for accurate setup estimation.

Other Meteorological Forcings

Meteotsunamis represent a distinct category of meteorological forcing capable of generating rapid, tsunami-like oscillations distinct from traditional wind- and -driven storm surges associated with . These events arise from atmospheric gravity waves or moving disturbances—such as those produced by , thunderstorms, cold fronts, or fast-propagating low- systems—that resonate with the natural frequencies of coastal water bodies, leading to amplified wave heights through mechanisms like or edge-wave amplification. Unlike sustained forcings, meteotsunamis feature short-period (minutes to hours) jumps traveling at speeds matching long ocean waves (10–100 km/h), transferring to the water column and causing sudden inundations without prominent wind setup. Heights typically range from 0.5 to 2 meters but can exceed 4 meters in resonant basins, as observed in the during a event triggered by a propagating . While not classified as storm surges in modern terminology due to their transient, wave-propagation nature rather than persistent onshore water piling, meteotsunamis have historically been misidentified as such and pose similar , including harbor oscillations and flooding. They occur globally but favor semi-enclosed seas or shelf regions with shallow , such as the , U.S. East Coast, or Mediterranean, where atmospheric disturbances align with harbor or basin eigenperiods (e.g., 30–60 minutes). Detection relies on high-frequency tide gauges, as satellite altimetry lacks sufficient ; forecasting challenges persist due to unpredictable mesoscale triggers, though coupled atmosphere-ocean models show promise for . Less commonly, localized surges may stem from non-cyclonic wind forcings, such as persistent onshore gales from frontal passages or blocking patterns without organized low-pressure centers, particularly in fetch-limited inland seas or estuaries. These yield smaller amplitudes (often <1 meter) compared to cyclone events, as they lack the rotational wind fields and deep pressure deficits amplifying surge in tropical or extratropical systems. For instance, strong linear wind events over the or Baltic have produced measurable surges through direct setup, independent of , though quantification remains model-dependent and secondary to synoptic-scale lows. Such forcings underscore the fundamental role of and pressure gradients in surge generation, but empirical data indicate they rarely exceed thresholds for major coastal impacts without cyclonic enhancement.

Observation and Measurement

Tide Gauge Networks and In-Situ Data

Tide gauge networks provide essential in-situ observations of water levels, enabling the separation of storm surge from astronomical by subtracting predicted tidal components from total recorded elevations. These instruments measure sea level relative to a fixed datum, typically using stilling wells with float systems, acoustic sensors, or pressure transducers to capture variations driven by meteorological forcing. In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON), comprising over 200 stations, serves as the primary system for continuous monitoring, including during storm events, with data disseminated in near-real time for surge assessment. Globally, the Global Sea Level Observing System (), coordinated by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, maintains a core network of approximately 300 optimized for high-quality sea level data, supporting surge analysis through standardized measurements across coastal regions. For storm surge specifically, tide gauges are augmented with robust, redundant sensors to ensure data continuity amid extreme conditions. NOAA stations often incorporate single-orifice bubbler strain gauge sensors as backups to primary acoustic or radar systems, capable of withstanding high winds and waves while recording peak water levels during events like hurricanes. The U.S. Geological Survey's Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics (SWaTH) network deploys specialized storm tide sensors—pressure-based devices measuring water depth and duration—to capture surge dynamics in vulnerable areas, with over 500 units rapidly installed pre-storm since 2010. These networks yield hourly or sub-hourly data, allowing computation of surge residuals with uncertainties typically under 5 cm under calm conditions, though storm-induced setup and infragravity waves can introduce higher variability. In-situ data beyond fixed tide gauges include moored buoys and bottom-mounted sensors that provide complementary hydrodynamic parameters. NOAA's National Data Buoy Center operates directional wave buoys equipped with sensors to measure wave spectra and water levels, offering surge-related insights in offshore and nearshore zones during storms. Submerged recorders and acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCPs) detect bottom fluctuations indicative of surge propagation, with sampling rates up to 1 Hz for resolving short-period waves contributing to total elevation. However, limitations persist: tide gauges offer point-specific measurements prone to local bathymetric influences and potential stilling well obstructions from or , which can attenuate high-frequency surge signals; spatial sparsity in networks may underestimate peak surges in unmonitored coastal segments; and instrument damage or power failure during intense events, as seen in historical hurricanes, necessitates post-storm validation against proxies. Despite these, integrated networks have improved surge verification, with GLOSS-compliant gauges achieving instantaneous accuracy better than 1 cm in controlled settings.

Remote Sensing and Satellite Observations

Satellite altimetry provides measurements of sea surface height (SSH) anomalies, enabling the detection of storm surge elevations offshore with accuracies around 10 cm. Nadir altimeters, such as those on missions like Jason-3, Sentinel-6, and HY-2A, capture residual SSH after removing tidal, mean dynamic, and high-frequency components, isolating surge signals during cyclones. For instance, during Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, HY-2A altimetry recorded a surge of 1.6 m approximately 17 km offshore, marking one of the largest signals captured by satellite to date at nearly 1.5 m. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) instruments complement altimetry by imaging coastal inundation extents, penetrating clouds to map flood boundaries independent of weather conditions. SAR satellites, including those from , monitored Hurricane Ian's landfall in September 2022, providing near-real-time data on surge-induced flooding across Florida's western coast starting September 23. Multi-mission SAR data, often processed via , delineate water-covered areas during surges, though signal interpretation near shore requires validation against in-situ gauges due to backscatter variability from and waves. Optical and microwave sensors, such as MODIS, offer global mapping of surface water anomalies for surge assessment, particularly in open coastal zones. These detect plume-like flood extents, as seen in retrospective analyses of events like , but are limited by cloud cover and inability to quantify height. Integration of altimetry with data enhances near-coastal accuracy; a 25-year study (1993–2017) using multi-source altimeters monitored surges along China's coast, revealing spatiotemporal patterns not resolvable by gauges alone. Limitations include altimeters' sparse spatial-temporal sampling—revisit cycles of 10–35 days for single missions—and degradation near landmasses from waveform contamination. Despite this, assimilated altimetry improves surge model forecasts, as demonstrated in simulations calibrated against Jason-1 data for Typhoon Seth (1994), where offshore observations constrained coastal predictions. Ongoing advancements, like SWOT's wide-swath altimetry launched in , promise higher-resolution SSH fields for dynamic surge capture.

Historical Reconstructions and Proxy Data

Historical reconstructions of storm surges rely on proxy data to extend records beyond the limited span of instrumental tide gauge measurements, which typically begin in the late 19th or early . Proxy indicators, primarily from geological archives, capture evidence of past surge events by preserving physical traces of extreme , such as and deposition driven by elevated water levels and wave action. These methods draw on first-principles understanding of hydrodynamic processes: storm surges deposit coarser-grained sediments (e.g., layers) inland into fine-grained environments like marshes or coastal lakes, where they contrast sharply with background , allowing identification of discrete events. Dating techniques, including radiocarbon analysis and cesium-137 fallout markers, provide chronological control, enabling frequency assessments over centuries to millennia. Sedimentary proxies dominate paleostorm reconstructions, with overwash deposits—fans or sheets of marine-derived emplaced by surge-inundated barrier islands—serving as key indicators in back-barrier marshes. In organic-rich coastal settings, these layers exhibit elevated ratios of elements like calcium (Ca) to titanium (Ti), strontium (Sr) enrichment, and marine microfossils (e.g., ), distinguishing them from fluvial or aeolian inputs. For instance, cores from northwest coastal lakes have yielded a ~4,000-year record of severe landfalls, identified via organic geochemical proxies such as n-alkane distributions and biomarkers indicating salinity spikes from surge overwash. Similar analyses in the reveal event beds dated to specific prehistoric hurricanes, with deposit thickness correlating to surge height via empirical models of inundation limits. In , Baltic Sea coastal sediments preserve overwash layers from medieval storms, reconstructed to exceed 2-3 meters above mean based on grain-size grading and proxy . Historical documentary records complement geological proxies, particularly for the pre-instrumental period (e.g., 1500-1900 CE), by providing qualitative accounts of surge impacts like inundation extents and damage, quantifiable through archival analysis. In marginal cyclone-influenced regions, such as southeast Australia, structured review of colonial logs and newspapers has reconstructed an extreme 1898 surge reaching ~3 meters, filling gaps in sparse gauge data. European chronicles, including Dutch and German annals, document surges like the 1362 event, inferred to produce water levels over 5 meters via dike breach records and flood extents, though biases toward populated areas may overestimate frequency. Integration of these with proxies mitigates uncertainties, such as distinguishing surges from tsunamis via deposit inland penetration and lack of tectonic signals. Proxy-based records indicate clustered storm surge activity over the , often tied to multidecadal ocean-atmosphere variability rather than monotonic trends, challenging narratives of unprecedented modern extremes. For example, overwash stratigraphies in the U.S. Southeast show heightened hurricane-surge frequency during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (~900-1300 CE), with endogenous climate oscillations driving activity peaks independent of anthropogenic forcing. Limitations persist: proxy fidelity varies with site-specific and vegetation, potentially undercounting non-depositing events, and errors (±50-100 years) blur short-term frequencies. Nonetheless, these reconstructions inform probabilistic risk models by revealing surge return periods of 100-300 years for rare events exceeding 4 meters in vulnerable low-lying coasts.

Modeling and Forecasting

Empirical and Parametric Models

Empirical models for storm surge prediction derive relationships from historical observations, typically using statistical techniques such as regression to correlate surge heights with storm characteristics like central deficit, maximum sustained speed, radius of maximum winds, translation speed, and coastal geometry. These approaches prioritize simplicity and speed, making them suitable for preliminary assessments or regions with abundant data, but they inherently extrapolate from past events and may underperform in novel storm configurations or unrepresented bathymetries. A classic example is a multiple regression model applied to , which analyzed surges from two hurricanes and two extratropical storms to predict peak water levels based on and parameters, achieving reasonable accuracy for similar events in the 1960s. More contemporary empirical formulations incorporate spatial variability, such as the semi-empirical storm surge prediction (SESSP) method for open coasts, which computes time-evolving surge profiles during tropical cyclones by fitting historical alongshore responses to wind forcing patterns, validated against events like in 2017 with root-mean-square errors under 0.5 meters in test cases. Additive empirical models like GreenSurge further enhance efficiency by summing sea-level responses to discrete wind sources, enabling low-computational forecasts with accuracies comparable to numerical models for European shelf seas, as demonstrated in hindcasts of surges from 2013–2020. Limitations include sensitivity to training data quality and bias toward frequent storm types, often necessitating hybrid extensions with physical constraints for broader applicability. Parametric models simplify storm representation through idealized mathematical profiles for wind and pressure fields, driven by a few observable parameters (e.g., minimum central , radius of maximum winds, and storm heading), to estimate surge via integrated shallow-water approximations or empirical scaling laws, offering rapid computation for operational forecasting without full hydrodynamic grids. The Holland parametric wind model, introduced in and refined iteratively, parameterizes radial and wind decay using a beta exponent fitted to observed profiles, widely adopted for surge applications due to its balance of fidelity and efficiency, though it assumes axisymmetry and may overestimate winds in asymmetric storms. Evaluations in regions like the Pearl River Estuary show Holland variants yielding storm surge predictions with mean absolute errors of 0.2–0.4 meters when calibrated against hindcasts of Typhoon Hato (2017), outperforming unmodified versions but requiring site-specific adjustments for estuarine funneling effects. In operational contexts, parametric approaches underpin probabilistic systems like NOAA's P-Surge, which ensembles SLOSH runs with perturbed parametric cyclone inputs (e.g., track, intensity, size) to generate surge probability maps, verified against (2012) with 90% confidence intervals capturing observed peaks within 0.5 meters at key gauges. These models excel in lead-time efficiency for evacuation planning but introduce uncertainties from parameter estimation errors, particularly in forward speed and asymmetry, often mitigated by blending with atmospheric forecasts; comparative studies indicate parametric surge estimates align within 20% of numerical models for basin-scale events but diverge in shallow coastal zones due to neglected wave-current interactions.

Numerical Hydrodynamic Models Including SLOSH

Numerical hydrodynamic models simulate storm surge by solving the equations of fluid motion, typically the derived from the Navier-Stokes equations, on discretized grids that represent coastal , , and boundaries. These models incorporate forcing from , atmospheric pressure deficits, Coriolis effects, tidal propagation, and sometimes wave radiation stress to predict water levels, currents, and inundation extents. Unlike empirical models, they resolve spatial and temporal variations in surge dynamics, enabling detailed forecasts for irregular coastlines and inland flooding. Operational implementations often use finite-difference, finite-element, or finite-volume methods to balance computational efficiency with accuracy. The Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model, developed by the (NWS) in the 1970s and refined through the 1980s, exemplifies a finite-difference numerical hydrodynamic model tailored for hurricane-induced surges along U.S. coastlines. SLOSH employs a polar grid centered on the storm track, allowing nested computations from basin-scale to high-resolution local domains with grid spacings as fine as 200 meters. It computes surge heights by integrating and fields from parametric hurricane models or forecasts, accounting for overland flow and wetting/drying of . The model generates products like Maximum Envelopes of Water (MEOWs), which represent worst-case surge scenarios for evacuation planning by simulating thousands of synthetic storms varying in track, intensity, and forward speed. SLOSH has been operationally deployed since for real-time surge guidance during hurricanes, integrated into the Probabilistic Surge (P-Surge) system that combines model outputs with track probabilities for ensemble inundation maps. Evaluations show SLOSH accurately hindcasts historical events, such as Hurricane Katrina's surge exceeding 8 meters in parts of , though it may underestimate surges in regions with complex estuaries due to idealized wind fields and simplified friction parameterizations. Limitations include its hurricane-specific design, excluding extratropical influences, and computational demands that restrict fully coupled wave-surge interactions in standard runs. Enhancements, like integration with higher-resolution topographic data from , have improved inland flooding predictions. Other advanced numerical models complement SLOSH for broader applications. The Advanced Circulation (ADCIRC) model uses unstructured finite-element meshes to simulate surges, tides, and riverine flows with in variable-resolution domains, often coupled with the wave model for comprehensive coastal forecasting. ADCIRC has demonstrated skill in reproducing observed surges from events like , with peak errors under 0.5 meters in benchmark tests. Similarly, the Finite Volume Community Ocean Model (FVCOM) applies unstructured finite-volume discretization for efficient three-dimensional simulations, capturing baroclinic effects and wetting/drying in estuarine environments, as validated against data during nor'easters. These models support ensemble forecasting and climate projections but require significant supercomputing resources for operational use.

Probabilistic and Machine Learning Approaches

Probabilistic approaches to storm surge forecasting utilize techniques to account for uncertainties in track, intensity, size, and wind structure, generating distributions of potential surge outcomes rather than deterministic predictions. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Probabilistic Storm Surge (P-Surge) model exemplifies this method, employing hundreds to thousands of realizations of the , and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) hydrodynamic model with perturbations drawn from historical statistics. These ensembles, typically 200–1200 members depending on storm complexity and basin overlaps, produce exceedance probabilities—such as the likelihood of surge heights exceeding specified thresholds—at locations and grid points along U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Operationally, P-Surge runs every six hours during active threats, integrating (NHC) advisories on track, intensity, and radius of maximum winds (RMW). Version 2.9, deployed in May 2021, refined RMW inputs using NHC forecast parameters, yielding improved probability of detection (POD) for high exceedance thresholds and enhanced reliability diagrams, particularly at 60–72-hour leads for extreme events. Beyond P-Surge, probabilistic frameworks incorporate reduced-complexity hydrodynamic solvers for broader inundation mapping, enabling efficient computation of flood probabilities while preserving spatial correlations in water levels across coastal domains. These methods facilitate by quantifying the probability of flooding at specific sites, drawing on sampling of parameters to propagate uncertainties through surge simulations. Verification against data demonstrates superior skill in capturing tail risks compared to single-member deterministic runs, though computational demands limit ensemble size in resource-constrained settings. Machine learning (ML) techniques complement probabilistic ensembles by providing data-driven surrogates for surge prediction, trained on historical observations, reanalysis datasets, and outputs from numerical models to infer nonlinear relationships between inputs like fields, pressure anomalies, and . Regression-based models, including support vector machines and artificial neural networks (ANNs), have been used for post-processing SLOSH outputs or direct , as in ANN applications to Typhoon Peggy (1986) data at station, where input combinations of surge pressure, , and location reduced root-mean-square error to 9.00 cm at short leads. Deep learning variants, such as (LSTM) networks, model temporal evolution of water levels across networks of up to 4800 nodes, while convolutional neural networks (CNNs) process two-dimensional fields to fuse with local data, achieving correlation coefficients up to 0.96 at 1-hour leads. Hybrid CNN-LSTM architectures extend this to spatiotemporal predictions, with reported errors below 0.2 m for inundation extents in test cases. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) embed directly into loss functions, enforcing conservation laws during training to enhance extrapolation to unseen storms and reduce reliance on extensive datasets. NOAA evaluations of ML surrogates demonstrate predictions using a fraction of SLOSH's computational load, with potential for real-time guidance in data-sparse regions. ML advantages include execution times in seconds versus hours for full hydrodynamic runs, enabling post-processing for probabilistic outputs. However, limitations persist: models often underpredict peak surges in extremes due to imbalanced training data, forecast horizons rarely exceed 12 hours, and opaque decision processes hinder physical interpretability, necessitating hybrid integration with deterministic models for operational reliability. Ongoing research addresses these via across basins and bias correction networks applied to means.

Verification and Sources of Error

Verification of storm surge models typically involves hindcasting historical events by simulating water levels and comparing outputs against observed data from tide gauges, high-water marks, and post-event surveys. Common metrics include root mean square error (RMSE) for overall accuracy, for peak surges, and bias assessments to quantify systematic over- or under-prediction. Skill scores, such as the between simulated and observed , evaluate temporal fidelity, while probabilistic verification uses reliability diagrams and Brier scores for forecasts. For operational models like SLOSH, verification against high-water marks from events like (2008) shows typical errors within 20% for surge heights, though coastal inundation boundaries exhibit higher variability due to resolution limits. The dominant source of error in storm surge forecasting stems from uncertainties in meteorological forcing, particularly tropical cyclone track, intensity, and field predictions, which account for the majority of discrepancies as surge models themselves demonstrate high skill when inputs are accurate. Track errors, often exceeding 50-100 km in operational forecasts, amplify surge mispredictions by altering onshore exposure, with studies indicating greater impact on maximum surge heights than intensity biases alone. Propagation speed inaccuracies further contribute by affecting the duration of setup. Hydrodynamic model-specific errors arise from approximations in physics, such as parameterization, wetting-drying schemes, and boundary conditions from astronomical or waves, which can introduce 10-20% variability in shallow coastal zones. Topographic and bathymetric data inaccuracies, including representation, yield uncertainties up to 7% of mean surge in bays, exacerbated by coarse grid resolutions in models like SLOSH that limit inundation precision. Numerical instabilities and insufficient resolution in complex geometries, such as estuaries, compound these issues, though ensemble methods and probabilistic frameworks mitigate overall forecast uncertainty by sampling input distributions.

Historical Events

Pre-Modern Surges and Early Records

The earliest documented storm surge appears in Chinese historical texts, with the recording an event in 46 B.C. where strong winds drove seawater inland along the coast, flooding settlements and causing widespread disruption—the first such account likely preserved worldwide. Broader Chinese chronicles, spanning from 2187 B.C. onward, include qualitative descriptions of typhoons and high leading to coastal inundations, often noted alongside agricultural impacts and omens in dynastic histories. These records, derived from court astronomers and officials, emphasize empirical observations of , tide heights relative to seawalls, and subsequent , though lacking precise elevations or velocities. In medieval , storm surge documentation relied on monastic annals, local chronicles, and legal records, which cataloged breaches in rudimentary dikes and seawalls along the and Baltic coasts. Frequent extratropical cyclones amplified tides, eroding peatlands and saline marshes, with events often tied to seasonal wind patterns from the northwest. The of December 14, 1287, exemplifies such devastation: a deep low-pressure system over the coincided with spring tides, generating surges that shattered defenses in and , drowning an estimated 50,000 to 80,000 people—roughly 5-10% of the regional population—and submerging 30 parishes while enlarging the inlet by over 1,000 square kilometers. This catastrophe prompted feudal lords to impose reclamation levies, altering land tenure, though chroniclers like Emo of Wittewierum described the surge's causality through gale-force winds piling water against shallow shelves. Later pre-modern surges followed similar dynamics, as seen in the All Saints' Flood of November 1–2, 1570, when a gale overwhelmed dunes and dikes across the , , and , salinizing farmland and destroying over 20 villages. Contemporary estimates claimed 20,000 deaths, but academic scrutiny reveals these figures as inflated—potentially exceeding local populations by factors of ten—and more reflective of narrative hyperbole than census data, with actual losses likely in the thousands amid displaced refugees and livestock drownings. Such events underscored causal links between atmospheric depressions, bathymetric funneling in estuaries, and human-modified landscapes, yet records remained anecdotal, focusing on socioeconomic fallout like abandoned polders over hydrodynamic details until tide gauges emerged in the . Proxy evidence from sediment layers corroborates surge frequencies, indicating 7–9 major events per half-century in the 13th–15th centuries, exceeding modern baselines in some reconstructions.

20th Century Catastrophic Events

The Galveston Hurricane of September 8, 1900, generated a storm surge of approximately 15.7 feet (4.8 meters), which overwhelmed the city's elevation of less than 9 feet (2.7 meters) above , leading to the destruction of thousands of structures and an estimated 6,000 to 8,000 fatalities, marking it as the deadliest in history. The surge propagated inland, exacerbating damage from sustained speeds exceeding 120 miles per hour (193 kilometers per hour). The Okeechobee Hurricane of September 16, 1928, produced a lake surge of 6 to 9 feet (1.8 to 2.7 meters) on in , breaching inadequate earthen dikes and flooding over 700 square miles (1,800 square kilometers) to depths up to 20 feet (6.1 meters) in some areas, resulting in at least 2,500 deaths, primarily from in the inundated region. This event highlighted vulnerabilities of inland freshwater bodies to coastal storm dynamics, with the surge driven by onshore winds pushing lake waters southward. On January 31, 1953, a storm generated a surge peaking at 3.35 meters (11 feet) above mean , compounded by waves exceeding 4.9 meters (16 feet), which breached defenses in the , , and , flooding 1,600 square kilometers (620 square miles) and causing approximately 2,400 deaths, including 1,836 in the alone from overtopped dikes at more than 150 locations. The event stemmed from a deep low-pressure system and high spring tides amplifying funneling effects in the shallow basin. Hurricane Camille struck the on August 17, 1969, with a record storm tide of 24.6 feet (7.5 meters) at Pass Christian, driven by Category 5 winds estimated at 175 miles per hour (282 kilometers per hour), obliterating coastal structures and contributing to 143 deaths along the U.S. Gulf Coast, plus additional inland flooding fatalities. The surge extended hundreds of miles inland along the , underscoring the role of compact, intense cyclones in producing extreme water level rises. The Bhola Cyclone made in (now ) on November 12, 1970, unleashing a storm surge of up to 10.5 meters (35 feet) that inundated low-lying delta islands and tidal flats, killing an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 people in one of the deadliest events recorded, with winds exceeding 140 miles per hour (225 kilometers per hour) exacerbating the . The surge's height was amplified by the cyclone's at high during a full moon, combined with the flat topography of the Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta.

Events from 2000 to 2025

Hurricane Katrina made landfall near Buras-Triumph, , on August 29, 2005, as a Category 3 storm, generating a storm surge of 24-28 feet along the , with inundation extending up to 6-12 miles inland in some areas. This surge breached levees and flooded New Orleans, contributing to over 1,800 deaths across the region, though primarily through combined flooding effects. Cyclone Nargis struck the Irrawaddy Delta in on May 2, 2008, producing a storm surge that penetrated 40 kilometers inland, resulting in over 138,000 fatalities, marking it as the deadliest cyclone-related event of the to date. landed on , , on September 13, 2008, as a Category 2 hurricane, with storm surge reaching 22 feet at and flooding vast coastal areas, including complete destruction of communities like Gilchrist. The surge affected over 100 miles of coastline, causing 113 deaths in the U.S., many surge-related. Superstorm Sandy approached the U.S. East Coast and made landfall near , on October 29, 2012, as a , driving a storm surge of up to 14 feet in and 13 feet in , flooding subways and tunnels. This event led to 159 deaths in the U.S., with surge exacerbating in densely populated areas. Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) hit the on November 8, 2013, generating a 5-7 meter storm surge in , which demolished coastal infrastructure and contributed to approximately 6,300 deaths. The surge amplified destruction in low-lying regions due to the storm's extreme winds exceeding 300 km/h. Cyclone Idai made landfall near , on March 14, 2019, producing a storm surge up to 6 meters that compounded inland flooding, resulting in over 1,300 deaths across . Hurricane Ian struck southwestern on September 28, 2022, as a Category 4 storm, with storm surge heights of 12-18 feet in areas like Fort Myers Beach, claiming 41 lives directly from surge and causing widespread . Hurricane Helene hit Florida's region on September 26, 2024, as a Category 4 hurricane, shattering storm surge records with over 10 feet at Cedar Key and 7 feet in , leading to coastal inundation amid broader inland flooding that caused 252 deaths.

Impacts and Consequences

Hydrodynamic and Geomorphic Effects

Storm surges generate elevated water levels through wind-driven water pileup, reduced , and the Coriolis effect, which interact with tidal cycles to produce total s exceeding astronomical tides. Hydrodynamic processes amplify this elevation via wave setup, where breaking waves transfer momentum to the , raising the mean shoreline by up to 1 meter or more during intense events, and wave runup, the maximum vertical extent of individual wave uprush on beaches or structures. These dynamics result in high-velocity currents, often exceeding 2-3 m/s nearshore, that drive sediment suspension and coastal inundation depths reaching several meters inland, with forces capable of undermining foundations and scouring channels. Geomorphically, storm surges induce widespread erosion of coastal landforms, including beaches, dunes, and barrier islands, through direct wave impact and prolonged inundation that removes sediment volumes up to 300 cubic meters per meter of shoreline. For instance, on August 24, 1992, eroded sand from 70% of Louisiana's barrier islands, exposing underlying marshes and destroying over 70 km of dune habitat. Dune breaching and overwash redistribute material inland or offshore; during on September 11, 1992, in , surge-driven overwash extended 300 meters inland to elevations of nearly 9 meters, while post-surge retreat transported sediment seaward, exacerbating net losses. In back-barrier environments, such as marshes, surges cause both erosion and deposition, with in October 2012 compacting soils and depositing variable sediment layers that alter elevation by centimeters to decimeters, though net accretion depends on availability and vegetation resistance. These effects reshape coastal profiles long-term, widening beaches through foredune scarping and promoting inlet formation via scoured channels, as observed in post-storm surveys where surge velocities exceed erosion thresholds for unconsolidated sediments. Deposition of coarse sediments can temporarily build berms or cheniers, but frequent surges often lead to cumulative retreat, with barrier islands losing meters to tens of meters of width per event. Empirical data from USGS lidar surveys confirm these changes, highlighting how hydrodynamic forcing directly governs sediment budgets and landform evolution.

Human Casualties and Economic Losses

Storm surges have inflicted substantial human casualties throughout history, primarily through in flooded areas and trauma from debris-laden waters. In the United States, the deadliest recorded event was the , where a storm tide of 8-15 feet inundated the island city, killing at least 8,000 people. Globally, tropical cyclones with intense surges have caused tens of thousands of deaths; for instance, in in 2008 generated a surge that contributed to over 138,000 fatalities, though exact attribution varies by source due to limited post-event verification. In more recent U.S. events, storm surge accounted for 49% of direct fatalities from Atlantic tropical cyclones between 1963 and 2012, highlighting its persistent lethality despite improved warnings. From 2000 to 2025, notable U.S. storm surge casualties include in 2005, with approximately 1,800 total deaths where surge and breaches played a central role in coastal fatalities. in 2022 resulted in 41 surge-related deaths amid widespread coastal inundation. Cumulative U.S. fatalities since 2000 exceed 2,000, with surges contributing disproportionately in low-lying areas due to rapid onset flooding that overwhelms evacuation efforts.
EventYearSurge-Related FatalitiesPrimary Source
Galveston Hurricane1900~8,000NOAA/NWS
2005~1,000+ (of 1,800 total)NHC/NOAA
202241NOAA
Economic losses from storm surges arise mainly from property destruction, infrastructure disruption, and long-term welfare reductions in affected regions. In the U.S., hurricanes since 1980 have generated over $1.5 trillion in damages (adjusted for inflation), with tropical cyclones averaging $23 billion per event, where surges amplify costs through of homes, ports, and utilities. Storm surge events specifically impose persistent adverse impacts, with models estimating potential welfare losses up to $990 billion across U.S. states due to reduced consumption and productivity over decades. Recent examples underscore surge-driven economics: Hurricane Ian inflicted $112 billion in total losses in 2022, largely from surge devastation to Florida's barrier islands and infrastructure. Hurricane Ike in 2008 caused $38 billion in damages, with surge flooding eroding beaches and destroying thousands of structures along the Texas Gulf Coast. Globally, surges exacerbate development disparities, increasing loss magnitudes in economically active coastal zones, though U.S. events account for about 60% of worldwide hurricane damages despite fewer landfalls. These costs reflect not only direct inundation but also indirect effects like supply chain interruptions and heightened insurance premiums.

Ecological and Environmental Damage

Storm surges induce profound ecological disruptions through inundation, hydrodynamic forces, and geochemical alterations in coastal zones. The elevated water levels erode shorelines and redistribute sediments, leading to scouring in exposed areas and burial of benthic habitats elsewhere, which can smother organisms and alter substrate composition critical for assemblages. For instance, during on September 13, 2008, surges exceeding 4 meters along the caused widespread sediment deposition that buried beds and reefs, reducing habitat suitability for epifaunal communities. Salinization represents a primary environmental impact, as surges introduce into freshwater-dependent ecosystems, elevating levels and disrupting osmotic balance in and . In coastal wetlands, this can trigger die-off of oligohaline , with recovery impeded by repeated events; a study of moderate surges in Virginia's found groundwater increases persisting for weeks, affecting microbial processes and cycling. Short-term spikes from surges, such as those during cold-front events or hurricanes, have been linked to reduced plant productivity and shifts in populations, compounding stress from hypoxia induced by stratification. Coastal vegetation, including mangroves and salt marshes, sustains direct structural damage from surge forces, with fringing stands experiencing uprooting, defoliation, and fragmentation. Mangroves on shorelines adjacent to open water incur the most severe impacts from wave-driven surges, as observed in post-hurricane assessments where breakage and burial led to canopy loss exceeding 50% in vulnerable stands. In southwest Florida, combined surge and ponding from events like Hurricane Irma in September 2017 caused mangrove dieback through prolonged submersion, overriding wind effects and altering forest composition toward less resilient species. Such losses diminish carbon sequestration capacity and exacerbate future surge penetration by reducing natural wave attenuation. Biodiversity declines follow from and contaminant mobilization, where surges flood industrial sites and agricultural lands, releasing pollutants like and nutrients into estuaries. This fuels algal blooms, depleting oxygen and harming fisheries; for example, post-Katrina surges in 2005 along the coast mobilized sediments laden with legacy contaminants, leading to fishery closures and persistent in . Long-term, repeated surges hinder resilience by preventing succession in disturbed areas, with empirical data indicating slowed recovery of elevation and vegetation cover, potentially amplifying vulnerability to in subsiding deltas.

Mitigation Strategies

Engineering and Structural Defenses

Engineering defenses against storm surges primarily consist of hard infrastructure such as levees, dikes, seawalls, and movable flood barriers designed to interrupt water flow and prevent inundation of coastal and estuarine areas. These structures aim to withstand hydrodynamic forces from surges, which can exceed 5 meters in height, by providing physical barriers that are either fixed or operable to allow normal tidal exchange while closing during extreme events. Effectiveness depends on design standards accounting for surge height, wave impact, and foundation stability, though failures occur from overtopping, , or material degradation if maintenance lapses. The Netherlands' Delta Works, initiated after the 1953 North Sea flood that killed 1,836 people and inundated 9% of farmland, exemplify comprehensive structural protection. Completed between 1954 and 1997 at a cost exceeding €5 billion, the system includes 13 components such as dams, sluices, and the Storm Surge Barrier—a 9-kilometer structure with 65 pillars and sliding gates capable of withstanding surges up to 3 meters above mean while preserving partial tidal flow for ecology. The Maeslant Barrier near , part of this network, features two 22-meter-high, 97-meter-span arms that rotate to close the harbor entrance, rated for 5-meter surges and closed only four times since 1997 due to automated wind and water level triggers. These defenses protect over 60% of the Dutch population and have reduced flood probability to once every 10,000 years in protected polders. In the , the safeguards from surges propagating up the estuary. Constructed from to 1982 at a cost of £534 million (1980s values), it comprises 10 rising steel gates spanning 520 meters across the river, which pivot upward via hydraulic rams to block surges while permitting navigation and tidal flow when open. Operational since December 1982, it has closed over 130 times for surge protection and high river flows, averting floods during events like the 2013–2014 winter storms that generated surges up to 4.8 meters at . Design standards target a 1-in-1,000-year event, though projections indicate potential obsolescence by 2070 without upgrades due to relative . Italy's (Modulo Sperimentale Elettromeccanico) system defends from Adriatic surges and high . Completed after decades of delays and €6.5 billion in costs, the network of 78 mobile steel gates at three inlets—Lido, Malamocco, and Chioggia—lifts via and water to elevations up to 3 meters, isolating the lagoon during events. First fully activated on October 3, 2020, it has prevented flooding in 80+ closures through 2023, including during Storm Alex, though frequent operations raise concerns over sediment trapping and disruption in the semi-enclosed lagoon. In the United States, post-Hurricane Katrina reconstructions highlight adaptive improvements to systems vulnerable to surge overtopping and breaches. The 2005 , with surges up to 7.6 meters, caused 50+ failures in New Orleans due to inadequate crest heights and foundation scour, flooding 80% of the city. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' $14.6 billion Hurricane and Damage Risk Reduction System, implemented from 2007 onward, raised heights to 5.5–7.6 meters, added T-walls, armored slopes, and gates like the , achieving 100-year protection levels against surges and 200-year rainfall events as of 2017 testing. However, rates of 1–2 cm per year and ongoing maintenance shortfalls, estimated at $1 billion needed by 2025, underscore limitations in subsiding deltaic soils.

Forecasting, Warning, and Evacuation Systems

Storm surge forecasting relies on numerical hydrodynamic models that simulate water levels driven by wind, pressure, and wave forces from or extratropical storms. The U.S. (NOAA) employs the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model, a finite-difference model developed by NOAA's Meteorological Development Laboratory to predict surge heights on grids covering specific basins. SLOSH has been operational since the and forms the basis for probabilistic extensions like P-Surge, which generates ensembles of surge probabilities by varying track, intensity, and parameters from official forecasts, accounting for in predictions. In May 2023, NOAA upgraded its operational systems, enhancing resolution and integration with the Surge and Tide Operational Forecast System (STOFS) to provide deterministic and probabilistic surge guidance up to 96 hours ahead. Operational forecasting at the (NHC) integrates SLOSH and P-Surge outputs into products like the National Storm Surge Risk Maps, which delineate probabilistic inundation zones for planning and real-time use, with surge probabilities exceeding 10% triggering risk assessments. Verification studies show that P-Surge peak surge probabilities have improved forecast skill over deterministic methods, particularly for hurricanes making within 50-70 hours, though errors persist due to track forecast inaccuracies and unmodeled factors like inland flooding interactions. Historical evaluations, such as for in 1992, indicate SLOSH-based predictions captured surge heights within 1-2 meters of observations in , but underestimations occurred in cases with rapid intensification, like in 2018, where pre-landfall upgrades refined but did not eliminate biases. Warning systems translate forecasts into public alerts, with NOAA's NHC issuing Storm Surge Watches for potential life-threatening inundation within 48 hours and Storm Surge Warnings for imminent danger within 36 hours, specified by coastal segments rather than counties to reflect varying surge exposure. These are disseminated via the National Service's watch/warning/advisory system, incorporating color-coded graphics and inundation maps to communicate surge depths of 4 feet or more, which correlate with evacuation needs. In and other regions, analogous systems like the European Centre for Medium-Range Forecasts provide surge guidance, but U.S. operations emphasize hurricane-prone areas, where warnings have reduced fatalities by prompting timely actions, as evidenced by post-event analyses showing 90% compliance in ordered zones during in 2017. Evacuation systems activate upon Storm Surge Warnings, with local authorities designating zones based on SLOSH-modeled surge risks—typically A through E zones in hurricane-vulnerable states like and , where Zone A faces surges over 10 feet. Procedures mandate immediate departure via pre-planned routes, with contra-flow lane reversals on highways to expedite outbound traffic, as implemented during in 2008, evacuating over 1 million from with minimal gridlock. Success depends on forecast lead time; for in 2012, accurate 72-hour surge predictions enabled New York City's evacuation of 375,000 residents, averting higher casualties despite 2-3 meter surges, though challenges like and shelter capacity highlight limitations in densely populated areas. Failures, such as delayed orders during in 2005, underscore the need for integrated modeling with real-time observations from tide gauges and buoys to refine evacuation triggers.

Land-Use Planning and Insurance Mechanisms

Land-use planning for storm surge mitigation involves regulatory measures to restrict or guide development in vulnerable coastal areas, thereby reducing exposure to inundation risks. Local governments, often guided by federal frameworks like the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hazard mitigation plans, enforce zoning ordinances that limit construction in designated flood hazard zones, such as those delineated by base flood elevations (BFEs). These plans require analysis of mitigation policies' effectiveness, including prohibitions on new builds in high-risk areas and requirements for elevating structures above projected surge levels plus freeboard—typically 1-2 feet above BFE—to account for wave action and uncertainty. For instance, Florida statutes define coastal high-hazard areas as zones below the Category 1 storm surge line, as modeled by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) system, mandating stricter building standards like pile foundations and breakaway walls in these regions. Coastal zoning also incorporates setbacks from shorelines and dunes to preserve natural buffers like wetlands, which attenuate surge energy through friction and infiltration. , employs five storm surge planning zones (A through E), with Zone A—most prone to Category 1+ surges—subject to evacuation prioritization and development restrictions to minimize human exposure. Post-event adaptations, such as after in 2008, have led to local ordinances in promoting land acquisition for open space in repeatedly flooded areas, converting private property to public buffers rather than rebuilding. These strategies causally reduce surge impacts by limiting impervious surfaces that exacerbate runoff and by maintaining vegetative roughness to dissipate wave energy, though enforcement varies by jurisdiction and faces challenges from property rights disputes. Insurance mechanisms complement planning by providing financial incentives and mandates that discourage risky development. The U.S. (NFIP), established in 1968, conditions availability on community adoption of management regulations, including that prohibits substantial improvements below BFE in special flood hazard areas prone to storm surges. This dual structure— provision alongside reduction—has insured over 5 million policies as of 2023, with premiums reflecting actuarial to encourage and resilient ; for example, structures elevated to or above BFE qualify for lower rates, while freeboard additions can yield further discounts. NFIP coverage extends to storm surge-induced flooding defined as general inundation from tidal or offshore waters, excluding direct wave impact but incentivizing breakaway non-structural elements to mitigate total losses. Critics note that historical NFIP subsidies for repetitive loss properties—those claiming multiple payouts—have sometimes perpetuated development in surge-vulnerable zones, prompting reforms like the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, which raised rates for high-risk policies to better align costs with hazards. , such as restoring mangroves or dunes, can qualify properties for premium reductions under NFIP's Community Rating System, as these features demonstrably lower surge propagation by increasing coastal roughness coefficients. Internationally, similar programs like the Netherlands' integrate insurance premiums with to fund adaptive land-use shifts, such as managed realignment where low-lying polders are returned to tidal influence to absorb surges. Overall, these mechanisms link economic signals to physical planning, though their efficacy depends on accurate surge modeling and consistent enforcement to avoid .

Reverse Storm Surges

Mechanisms and Conditions

A reverse storm surge, also known as a negative storm surge, manifests as a significant seaward retreat of coastal waters, exposing seabeds and reducing levels below astronomical . This arises primarily from offshore-directed winds that drive away from the shoreline, counteracting the typical onshore forcing seen in positive surges. The core mechanism involves wind stress exerting a seaward force on the water surface, generating setup gradients that propagate as negative surges. In numerical models of in September 2022, seaward winds with speeds of 50–60 m/s produced reverse surges exceeding 2.4 m in amplitude along Florida's coast, surpassing contemporaneous positive surges over 1.8 m. The inverse effect from storm-related drops (e.g., 961.6 hPa minimum during Ian) tends to elevate water levels, but this is overpowered by the wind-driven seaward transport when winds align offshore. Coastal geometry, including shelf and configurations, amplifies these effects through and convergence/divergence patterns; for instance, divergent winds along peninsular coasts enhance offshore flow. Favorable conditions for reverse surges include hurricanes tracking parallel to or landward of the coast in the , positioning affected areas in the storm's left-forward quadrant where anticyclonic winds blow offshore. During in September 2017, oblique offshore and divergent winds on Florida's west coast yielded a -2.7 m surge at Cedar Key after approximately 10 hours of sustained forcing. Shallow coastal waters and enclosed bays facilitate rapid drawdown, as seen in during , where reverse surges mitigated onshore flooding risks. These events are not uncommon in such setups but depend on storm intensity, translation speed, and precise track relative to bathymetric features.

Notable Occurrences and Implications

One prominent example occurred during on September 10, 2017, when strong offshore winds in , , generated a reverse storm surge that receded waters from the shoreline, exposing portions of the bay bottom. Similar conditions arose during on September 28, 2022, as the storm approached from the southwest; (NOAA) tide gauges recorded a water level drop exceeding 5 feet (1.5 meters) in , nearly fully exposing the bay floor before levels rebounded by over 4.5 feet post-storm. This phenomenon repeated during Hurricane Milton on October 9-10, 2024, with offshore winds again draining ; NOAA gauges near Tampa detected an abrupt 5-foot decline late on October 9, leaving the estuary unusually shallow and averting predicted inundation. These events, concentrated in Florida's Gulf Coast due to regional and storm tracks, highlight how reverse surges often manifest to the north or left of a hurricane's path where winds align offshore. Reverse storm surges mitigate coastal flooding risks by displacing water seaward, as observed in cases where they countered forecasts of 8-12 feet of positive surge, thereby reducing immediate threats to urban and populations. However, they pose hazards including vessel groundings and structural damage to docks, marinas, and pilings as water recedes and abruptly returns, potentially stranding boats on exposed substrates. Ecologically, the temporary exposure of intertidal zones can stress benthic organisms and mobilize sediments or pollutants, though recovery typically follows tidal restoration; navigation disruptions and safety risks for low-lying areas persist until water levels normalize. Overall, these surges underscore wind-driven coastal dynamics independent of long-term trends, emphasizing the need for adaptive maritime precautions during offshore regimes. Empirical analyses of tide gauge records spanning the reveal no consistent global increase in the frequency of storm surges, with many locations showing stable or declining rates after accounting for local factors such as . A study of U.S. East Coast tide gauges found no appreciable rise in storm frequency at open-coast stations over recent decades, though sheltered harbors exhibited slight upticks potentially due to altered wave dynamics rather than broader atmospheric changes. Similarly, multi-century reconstructions in the indicate episodic elevations in surge activity during the late 19th and 20th centuries but no significant long-term upward trend in occurrence. Storm surge heights, isolated from mean sea level (MSL) and astronomical , display regional heterogeneity rather than a uniform escalation. In the North Atlantic, winter surge extremes at select tide gauges have intensified since the mid-20th century, linked to shifts in paths influenced by variability in the , while adjacent areas like the southern show stasis or reductions. U.S. coastal assessments confirm this variability, with surge intensity rising in northeastern regions since 1950 but declining along parts of the Gulf Coast, underscoring the role of decadal climate oscillations over any secular progression. Globally, reviews of extreme (ESL) datasets attribute most observed escalations in total water heights to regional rather than amplified surge components, with surge height distributions remaining largely stationary when MSL trends are removed. These patterns highlight the dominance of natural variability, including modes like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, in modulating surge metrics, with no of widespread acceleration tied to global temperature changes in the instrumental record. networks, operational since the late at many sites, provide robust baselines, though data gaps and local land motion complicate interpretations; nonetheless, ensemble analyses across hundreds of stations affirm the absence of a coherent global signal in surge height or frequency escalation.

Attribution to Natural Variability vs. Anthropogenic Factors

Attribution of changes in storm surge characteristics to anthropogenic factors versus natural variability remains challenging due to the dominance of multidecadal oscillations in storm activity and limited long-term observational records. data from regions like the U.S. East Coast and reveal strong influences from modes such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), where warm phases correlate with heightened tropical cyclone activity and associated surges, as seen in elevated North Atlantic hurricane counts during the mid-20th century AMO peak. Similarly, El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) modulates extratropical storm tracks, contributing to interannual surge variability without a detectable secular trend tied to . These natural drivers explain much of the observed fluctuations, with analyses of century-scale records showing no consistent global increase in surge frequency or peak heights after adjusting for improved detection and local . Empirical assessments indicate low confidence in a discernible anthropogenic signal in historical storm surge extremes separate from mean . For instance, European studies from 1960–2018 found that trends in surge extremes primarily track mean variations, modulated by internal variability rather than . In the North Atlantic, while unadjusted hurricane counts rose since the , adjustments for observational biases reveal no strong frequency trend, and any intensity increases in Category 3–5 storms lack confident attribution to human influence amid cycles. Event attribution efforts, such as those for intensified rainfall in hurricanes like Harvey (2017), attribute enhanced —and thus potential surge amplification—to warming with high confidence, but basin-wide surge records do not exhibit a matching anthropogenic , underscoring variability's role. Projections from coupled models suggest anthropogenic warming could elevate extreme surge risks through intensified tropical cyclones, with medium confidence in a 1–10% global increase in cyclone intensity under 2°C warming, potentially raising surge heights in vulnerable regions like . However, these rely on assumptions about storm dynamics that historical data do not fully validate, and countervailing effects like reduced global cyclone frequency (medium confidence) may offset surge escalation in some basins. Critiques highlight methodological limitations in attribution, including model biases toward overestimating extremes and insufficient accounting for natural forcings, emphasizing that observed surges align more closely with variability than with CO2-driven changes. Overall, natural processes continue to predominate in explaining past surges, with anthropogenic contributions emerging primarily in projections rather than verified observations.

Role of Relative Sea Level Rise in Total Water Levels

Relative sea level rise (RSLR) refers to the net change in sea height relative to the local land surface, incorporating global mean from and ice melt, as well as regional variations due to vertical land motion such as or isostatic . In the context of storm surges, RSLR elevates the baseline water level against which surge heights are superimposed, thereby increasing total water levels and inundation depths during events. This additive effect means that equivalent meteorological forcing—winds, pressure, and waves—produces higher flooding relative to fixed land features as RSLR accumulates. Empirical modeling of U.S. coastal regions demonstrates that RSLR amplifies storm surge inundation, with projections indicating substantial increases in extents even for moderate rises. For instance, in coastal , analyses of synthetic storms under scenarios of 0.5 meters of combined with land show that RSLR accounts for the majority of expanded flooding areas, often doubling or tripling inundated zones compared to surge alone. Similarly, hydrodynamic models applied to the contiguous U.S. coastline reveal that a 0.2-meter RSLR can elevate expected extreme water levels by comparable amounts, shifting the frequency of high-water events from rare to more recurrent without altering storm surge generation mechanisms. Historical tide gauge records provide evidence of RSLR's role in past surges, particularly in subsiding regions. Along the U.S. East Coast, where local RSLR rates often exceed the global average of approximately 3.7 mm per year due to groundwater extraction and sediment compaction, reconstructed flood heights in New York Harbor rose by over 1.2 meters from A.D. 850 to 2005, directly contributing to greater inundation during hurricanes like those in the 19th and 20th centuries. In such areas, subsidence amplifies the effect; for example, rates of 5-10 mm per year in parts of the Gulf Coast mean that RSLR can outpace global trends, raising baseline levels and exacerbating surge impacts on infrastructure. However, interactions like altered bathymetry from erosion or accretion can modulate this, though the primary mechanism remains the vertical offset. While RSLR undeniably compounds total water levels, its contribution is spatially variable and often secondary to the surge's dynamic height in any single event, as surges can reach 5-10 meters while decadal RSLR increments are typically centimeters. Studies emphasize that without RSLR, surge-driven flooding would still dominate acute risks, but the trend elevates chronic vulnerabilities, such as reduced freeboard for defenses and increased frequency of overtopping. Peer-reviewed assessments consistently project that by 2100, under intermediate scenarios, RSLR could increase U.S. coastal flood probabilities by factors of 2-10 in low-lying areas, underscoring its incremental but compounding influence.

Critiques of Climate Model Projections

Climate models used for projecting future storm surges, primarily global climate models (GCMs) coupled with hydrodynamic models, often exhibit substantial biases in simulating present-day conditions, which undermines confidence in their future projections. For instance, high-resolution CMIP6 GCMs in the HighResMIP ensemble show large biases in storm surge simulations compared to reanalysis data like ERA5, with overestimations particularly pronounced in coastal regions of semi-enclosed seas prone to frequent surges. These biases stem from coarse spatial resolutions in GCMs, typically insufficient to resolve individual storm dynamics, leading to low accuracy in surge predictions even under current climate forcing. Additionally, overestimation of tropical cyclone intensity in models contributes to inflated surge heights, as surge levels are sensitive to wind and pressure fields that GCMs struggle to represent accurately. Projections of future storm surge changes, which typically combine mean sea level rise with dynamic alterations in storm characteristics, inherit these foundational inaccuracies, amplifying uncertainties. Climate models demonstrate limited skill in forecasting decadal-scale variability in ocean-atmosphere patterns, such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that strongly influence hurricane activity and associated surges. Assessments like the IPCC's AR5 and U.S. National Climate Assessment express low confidence in human attribution to changes in tropical cyclone frequency or intensity, citing model disagreements and insufficient evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to surge-driving storm metrics. Dynamic projections (excluding sea level rise) often predict modest increases in surge extremes under high-emission scenarios, but these rely on assumptions about storm intensification that remain unverified and contested due to the models' poor hindcast performance. Empirical records reveal no clear upward trend in storm surge extremes or related damages that aligns with model-projected increases in dynamic surge components, further highlighting projection limitations. Normalized U.S. hurricane damages from to , which include surge impacts, show no significant long-term trend after adjusting for , wealth, and , consistent with stable landfall frequencies and intensities. Tide gauge data indicate mixed regional trends in surge extremes, with negligible or declining patterns in areas like the western Gulf Coast, contrasting with models' emphasis on widespread intensification. This discrepancy suggests that natural variability dominates observed surge behavior, while model projections may overstate anthropogenic signals amid unresolved biases and validation challenges.

References

  1. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/stormsurge-stormtide.html
  2. https://www.noaa.gov/storm-surge-overview
  3. https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/storms/what-causes-storm-surge
  4. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutgloss.shtml
  5. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/prepare/hazards.php
  6. https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/floods/types/
  7. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/59765/noaa_59765_DS1.pdf
  8. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/nationalsurge/
  9. https://slosh.nws.noaa.gov/etsurge/DefineAGL.pdf
  10. https://slosh.nws.noaa.gov/docs/data/CHARACTERISTICS_STORM_SURGE.pdf
  11. https://faculty.eng.ufl.edu/donald-slinn/wp-content/uploads/sites/326/2020/11/weaver_slinn_surge.pdf
  12. https://physicstoday.aip.org/features/modeling-the-physics-of-storm-surges
  13. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/53590/noaa_53590_DS1.pdf
  14. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JC015793
  15. https://www.weather.gov/media/erh/ta/ta2011-04.pdf
  16. https://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_drives_short.html
  17. https://www.weather.gov/media/owp/oh/hdsc/docs/TP48.pdf
  18. https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/extremes/causes-extreme-sea-levels/
  19. https://chnep.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/Weisberg1.pdf
  20. https://slosh.nws.noaa.gov/docs/data/TechMemo50.pdf
  21. https://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~ddmitry/fvcom_surge/Dukhovskoy_surgeDennis_online_version.pdf
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674237017300339
  23. https://slosh.nws.noaa.gov/docs/data/Pore_1964_RelationOfWindPressure.pdf
  24. https://www.geological-digressions.com/storms-and-storm-surges-forces-at-play/
  25. https://onepetro.org/ISOPEIOPEC/proceedings/ISOPE11/All-ISOPE11/ISOPE-I-11-425/13436
  26. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/storm-surge/
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378383920305251
  28. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2024.1355095/full
  29. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/phoc/54/7/JPO-D-23-0190.1.pdf
  30. https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/8087/1/Coastal_Flooding_paper_final.pdf
  31. https://www1.udel.edu/kirby/papers/chen-etal-cacr-10-06.pdf
  32. https://www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Infragravity_waves
  33. https://icce-ojs-tamu.tdl.org/icce/article/download/12747/12020
  34. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/51273
  35. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/8/8/545
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333046832_Storm_Waves_at_the_Shoreline_When_and_Where_Are_Infragravity_Waves_Important
  37. https://univ-rochelle.hal.science/hal-02416041/file/jmse-07-00205.pdf
  38. https://www.weather.gov/phi/stormsurge
  39. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JC005285
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272771417302676
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245219489_Influence_of_bathymetric_fluctuations_on_coastal_storm_surge
  42. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/11/9/1832
  43. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AGUFMOS41G0522T/abstract
  44. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023JC020498
  45. https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/24/2461/2024/
  46. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1611&context=cengin_fac
  47. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023JC020400
  48. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/phoc/38/9/2008jpo3727.1.pdf
  49. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43527552_How_storm_size_matters_for_surge_height
  50. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008gl036953
  51. https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/about/k-12-education/oceans-coasts/what-storm-surge
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924796320300142
  53. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13131-018-1081-z
  54. https://slosh.nws.noaa.gov/docs/data/2023-wefo-WAF-D-22-0209.1.pdf
  55. https://www.britannica.com/science/tropical-cyclone/The-storm-surge
  56. https://www.hurricanescience.org/society/impacts/stormsurge/index.html
  57. https://www.noaa.gov/stories/storm-surge-deadliest-threat-from-tropical-cyclones
  58. https://besafenet.net/hazards/hurricanes-and-storm-surges/
  59. https://www.weather.gov/mob/tropical_definitions
  60. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094004
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094724000501
  62. https://journals.seagullpublications.com/ijeer/assets/paper/IJ0420190530/f_IJ0420190530.pdf
  63. https://njseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/StormSurgeFINAL.pdf
  64. https://www.nps.gov/acad/learn/nature/noreasters.htm
  65. https://www.environmentandsociety.org/arcadia/north-sea-flood-1953
  66. https://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=jpmsp
  67. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369156754_Tropical_or_extratropical_cyclones_what_drives_the_compound_flood_hazard_impact_and_risk_for_the_United_States_Southeast_Atlantic_coast
  68. https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/wefo/26/6/waf-d-10-05055_1.pdf
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4608035/
  70. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024RG000867
  71. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/meteotsunami.html
  72. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/28470/noaa_28470_DS1.pdf
  73. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/60/11/JAMC-D-21-0062.1.xml
  74. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/go06300n.html
  75. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/nwlon.html
  76. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/inundationdb/cidstorm.html?stormname=Nine
  77. https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/surge-wave-and-tide-hydrodynamics-swath-network
  78. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/36/10/jtech-d-18-0235.1.xml
  79. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/19817/noaa_19817_DS1.pdf
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Tide-gauge-records-used-to-identify-significant-storm-surge-events-in-this-study_tbl2_225744985
  81. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309133319879324
  82. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013JC009782
  83. https://tos.org/oceanography/article/hurricane-sandy-storm-surge-measured-by-satellite-altimetry
  84. https://www.iceye.com/blog/tracking-hurricane-ian-remote-sensing-sar
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027277142400026X
  86. https://floodobservatory.colorado.edu/Publications/Brakenridgeandothers2012a.pdf
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272771419300253
  88. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017EGUGA..19.5048H/abstract
  89. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/4/657
  90. https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/documents/1633/
  91. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GC010708
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825224001016
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379113000681
  94. https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/20/4/article/i1052-5173-20-4-52.htm
  95. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00844-z
  96. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45112-6
  97. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024PA004870
  98. https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/mwre/91/10/1520-0493_1963_091_0710_armfss_2_3_co_2.pdf
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378383924002394
  100. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC68133/lbna25233enn_v1.pdf
  101. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167610522003610
  102. https://vlab.noaa.gov/web/mdl/psurge
  103. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/wefo/38/12/WAF-D-22-0209.1.xml
  104. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/14/1/96
  105. https://www.hurricanescience.org/science/forecast/models/modeltypes/stormsurge/index.html
  106. https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-12/gmd-2024-12.pdf
  107. https://vlab.noaa.gov/web/mdl/slosh
  108. https://www.weather.gov/media/mdl/Vol-33-Nu1-Glahn.pdf
  109. https://slosh.nws.noaa.gov/
  110. https://slosh.nws.noaa.gov/psurge/
  111. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/nationalsurge/?text
  112. https://adcirc.org/home/documentation/adcirc-related-publications/
  113. https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/17/5497/2024/
  114. https://www.pnnl.gov/projects/ocean-dynamics-modeling/storm-surge
  115. https://www.weather.gov/media/notification/pdf2/scn21-41p_surge2.9.pdf
  116. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378383925000262
  117. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15732479.2020.1721543
  118. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/11/9/1729
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378383924002345
  120. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/58828/noaa_58828_DS1.pdf
  121. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1463500324000210
  122. https://os.copernicus.org/articles/20/1513/
  123. https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/bitstream/handle/11329/393/wmo_1076_en.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  124. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21664250.2021.1997506
  125. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272771410002465
  126. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013JC009604
  127. https://ihrc.fiu.edu/research/project-articles/storm-surge-model-evaluation/
  128. http://www.hvonstorch.de/klima/pdf/160718.CGJOINT-formatted.pdf
  129. https://premium.weatherweb.net/weather-in-history-1200-1299-ad/
  130. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/12/st-lucias-storm-the-flood-that-changed-the-face-of-netherlands-europe
  131. https://www.medievalists.net/2024/01/10-natural-disasters-middle-ages/
  132. https://academic.oup.com/past/article/241/1/143/5049207
  133. https://premium.weatherweb.net/weather-in-history-1400-to-1499-ad/
  134. https://www.nps.gov/articles/galveston-hurricane-of-1900.htm
  135. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/
  136. https://www.weather.gov/mfl/okeechobee
  137. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-64414388
  138. https://www.weather.gov/mob/camille
  139. https://www.usace.army.mil/About/History/Historical-Vignettes/Relief-and-Recovery/073-Hurricane-Camille/
  140. https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hurricane_blog/45th-anniversary-of-the-bhola-cyclone/
  141. https://www.britannica.com/event/Ganges-Brahmaputra-delta-cyclone
  142. https://www.weather.gov/lix/katrina_anniversary
  143. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/13833/noaa_13833_DS1.pdf
  144. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL122005_Katrina.pdf
  145. https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/jcqjal06x25eq/hzrj531ehn4f8/je61m1py7vt6/Nargis_Myanmar_Fritz_ngeo558_combined.pdf
  146. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251183953_Cyclone_Nargis_storm_surge_in_Myanmar
  147. https://www.weather.gov/hgx/projects_ike08
  148. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf
  149. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/97/1/bams-d-14-00245.1.xml
  150. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420914000922
  151. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-record-breaking-super-typhoon-haiyan
  152. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/144712/devastation-in-mozambique
  153. https://www.internetgeography.net/weather-and-climate/cyclone-idai-case-study/
  154. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL092022_Ian.pdf
  155. https://www.britannica.com/event/Hurricane-Ian-2022
  156. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL092024_Helene.pdf
  157. https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/images/docs/Hurricane-Helene-Summary-Report.pdf
  158. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/Wave_Runup_and_Overtopping_Guidance_Feb_2018.pdf
  159. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/spcmsc/science/storm-induced-coastal-change
  160. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/hurricane-impacts/
  161. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/context/vimsarticles/article/2997/viewcontent/Yeates2020_Article_HurricaneSandyEffectsOnCoastal.pdf
  162. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JF006948
  163. https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/news/moving-past-water-level-study-reveals-how-sea-level-rise-impacts-storm-surge-on-barrier-islands/
  164. https://blog.ametsoc.org/2023/08/08/recent-trends-in-tropical-cyclone-fatalities-in-the-united-states/
  165. https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-hurricanes
  166. https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/hurricane-costs.html
  167. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2024-active-year-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters
  168. https://idrt.tamug.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Economic-impacts-of-storm-surge.pdf
  169. https://beinsure.com/us-hurricanes-list/
  170. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/
  171. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2024/eb_24_38
  172. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2024/11/25/the-economic-impact-of-hurricanes-and-natural-disasters/
  173. https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/hurricanes/science/ecosystem-impacts
  174. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6996050/
  175. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3406&context=vimsarticles
  176. https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2647&context=gradschool_theses
  177. https://www.sciencejournalforkids.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/tropical-cyclones_article.pdf
  178. https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/TNC_MangroveHurricaneDamages_Report.pdf
  179. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8238932/
  180. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5385662/
  181. https://guides.lib.lsu.edu/Hurricanes/KatrinaEnvironment
  182. https://juniperpublishers.com/cerj/pdf/CERJ.MS.ID.555649.pdf
  183. https://www.ctc-n.org/technologies/storm-surge-barriers-and-closure-dams
  184. https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/en/projects/iconic-structures/maeslant-barrier
  185. https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/katrina/reports/erpreport.pdf
  186. https://www.ice.org.uk/what-is-civil-engineering/infrastructure-projects/delta-works
  187. https://www.holland.com/global/tourism/discover-the-netherlands/visit-the-regions/zeeland/oosterschelde-storm-surge-barrier
  188. https://www.ice.org.uk/what-is-civil-engineering/infrastructure-projects/thames-barrier
  189. https://climatelondon.org.uk/articles/the-storm-surge-of-2013/
  190. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/30/before-the-flood-how-much-longer-will-the-thames-barrier-protect-london
  191. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10143115/
  192. https://www.designboom.com/architecture/mose-flood-barrier-venice-storm-alex-10-05-2020/
  193. https://www.fox8live.com/2025/05/21/look-new-orleans-storm-surge-defenses-20-years-after-hurricane-katrina/
  194. https://lailluminator.com/2025/08/28/katrina-levee/
  195. https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-upgrades-model-to-improve-storm-surge-forecasting
  196. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/warning/
  197. https://www.weather.gov/safety/hurricane-ww
  198. https://www.weather.gov/lwx/warningsdefined
  199. https://pinellas.gov/storm-surge/
  200. https://www.nga.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GovGuideMassEvacuation.pdf
  201. https://www.vaemergency.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023-hurricane-evacuation-guide-1.pdf
  202. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/wefo/37/7/WAF-D-21-0132.1.xml
  203. https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/hazard-mitigation-planning
  204. https://mm.nh.gov/files/uploads/hsem/documents/region-1-mitigation-ideas.pdf
  205. https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.3178.html
  206. https://www.miamidade.gov/global/emergency/hurricane/storm-surge-zones.page
  207. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_protect-your-property-storm-surge.pdf
  208. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44593
  209. https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance
  210. https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/floodinsurancequestions.pdf
  211. https://www.rff.org/documents/3448/IB_22-06.pdf
  212. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1463500323000914
  213. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272771419302914
  214. https://www.wusf.org/news/2017-09-13/the-science-behind-irmas-reverse-storm-surge
  215. https://www.newsweek.com/hurricane-milton-reverse-storm-surge-sparks-warning-tampa-bay-1966790
  216. https://www.tampabay.com/hurricane/2022/09/29/water-returns-tampa-bay-after-ian-driven-reverse-storm-surge/
  217. https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-milton-tampa-bay-reverse-surge-3ac00f9d341d6ec5fa024af253f5bdc1
  218. https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2024/10/10/reverse-storm-surge-spared-tampa-dried-up-bay-heres-how-it-works/75603251007/
  219. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/10/10/hurricane-milton-tampa-bay-storm-surge-impact/75603290007/
  220. https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-milton-tampa-bay-ace324900762a0e3c385830f3cf1479b
  221. https://iee.psu.edu/news/blog/what-reverse-storm-surge-and-it-related-climate-change
  222. https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-656/egusphere-2024-656.pdf
  223. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/27/10/jcli-d-13-00427.1.xml
  224. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389755175_Regional_changes_in_extreme_storm_surges_revealed_by_tide_gauge_analysis
  225. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/cmhrp/news/frequency-and-intensity-storm-surges-underestimated-nationally-study-finds
  226. https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
  227. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/
  228. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Historical-trends-in-storm-surge-extremes-Estimates-of-the-trend-in-m-during-the-period_fig4_359606917
  229. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10008210/
  230. https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/regional-sea-level/overview/
  231. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=cee_fac_pubs
  232. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8568897/
  233. https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptation-library/united-states/national/us---other-national-reports/Tebaldi-et-al.-2012.-US-Modeling-SLR-Impacts-on-Storm-Surge.pdf
  234. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1513127112
  235. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/36/13/JCLI-D-22-0670.1.xml
  236. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023EF003993
  237. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-13021-3
  238. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023EF003479
  239. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1869916
  240. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/07/Curry-NaturalDisasters.pdf
  241. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/106/1/BAMS-D-23-0280.1.xml
  242. https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/weinkle-et-al-natsus-2018.pdf
  243. https://cpree.princeton.edu/news/2025/researchers-uncover-clearer-patterns-extreme-storm-surge-trends-amid-rising-sea-levels
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.