How Math Helped Forecast Hurricane Sandy

The mathematics of predicting a hurricane's path

In this handout satellite image provided by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Hurricane Sandy, pictured at 00:15 UTC, churns off the east coast on October 28, 2012 in the Atlantic Ocean.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Many early forecasts for Hurricane Sandy last year predicted that the system would fizzle over the Atlantic. Yet a model developed by researchers at the European Center for Medium-Range Forecasts showed a more alarming scenario: the storm would instead turn west to threaten the Eastern Seaboard. The model's refined predictions pinpointed the hurricane's landfall around the New Jersey area in time to allow residents to seek higher ground. The key to the more accurate forecast involved mathematical mastery of the storm's chaotic behavior.

Weather forecasts are calculated with computers that solve equations involving variables such as wind speed, pressure, temperature, air density and humidity. If the earth somehow possessed just one weather system, our fist shaking at forecasts could end. Instead, of course, the planet harbors many systems that intermix across boundaries and scales, making forecasting a tangled problem.

In the case of Sandy, forecasters monitored a higher-order variable called potential vorticity, a measure of a weather system's swirl, to help predict the storm's future development. A crucial ingredient for Sandy's devastating landfall proved to be an enhancement of this swirl measure caused by a trough of low-pressure air that was thousands of miles away in the northeastern Pacific when the tropical depression first formed. As Sandy moved north from the Caribbean, the distant trough traveled east across the U.S. on what turned out to be a collision course. On October 29 Sandy's warm, moist air began to rise as it approached the trough's cooler air, whipping up stronger winds. As the two weather systems coiled around each other, Sandy surged in strength and curved toward the nation's northeastern shoreline, just as the European researchers had foreseen. The ultimate accuracy of the group's forecasts about a week before Sandy's landfall can be attributed to the success of its model in predicting and capturing the interaction between these weather systems.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The step-by-step quantification of this stormy choreography was accomplished solely through the careful application of mathematics. By predicting Sandy's landfall, in a very real sense, the European team's math helped to save American lives.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe