The Stats Are In: Superstorm Sandy Totals

Sandy may not have been the most powerful hurricane to make landfall, but it is likely to be the most damaging ever

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Sandy caused many problems during its life. Here are some of the most impressive statistics from the storm.

SANDY DEBUNKED:

Sandy is not the strongest hurricane north of Cape Hatteras.

A near-record low barometric pressure occurred with Sandy offshore Monday afternoon. The pressure bottomed at 27.76 inches. For a storm north of Cape Hatteras, N.C., Hurricane Gladys of 1977 holds the record at 27.73 inches. Gladys was a Category 4 hurricane which remained off the coast of the U.S.

HIGHEST RAINFALL TOTALS BY STATE:

Andrews AFB, Md.: 15.3" (unconfirmed)

Easton, Md.: 12.55"

Wildwood Crest, N.J.: 11.67"

Virginia Beach, Va.: 9.57"

Milford, Del.: 9.55"

Maysville, W.Va.: 7.75"

Hanover, Pa.: 7.61"

Washington, D.C.: 5.44"

Lorain, Ohio: 4.29"

East Milton, Mass.: 3.03"

Jaffrey, N.H.: 3.83"

Niagara Falls, N.Y.: 3.02"

HIGHEST WIND GUSTS BY STATE (>74 mph):

Eatons Neck, N.Y.: 94 mph

Montclair, N.J.: 88 mph

Westerly, R.I.: 86 mph

Madison, Conn.: 85 mph

Cuttyhunk, Mass.: 83 mph

Allentown, Pa.: 81 mph

Highland Beach, Md.: 79 mph

Chester Gap, Va.: 79 mph

HIGHEST SNOW AMOUNTS BY STATE:

Redhouse, Md.: 26"

Bowden, W.Va.: 24"

Champion, Pa.: 13"

Newfound Gap, N.C.: 22"

Wise, Va.: 24"

Mt. Leconte, Tenn.: 20"

Payne Gap, Ky.: 14"

Bellefontaine, Ohio: 3.5"

POWER OUTAGES: CNN reported more than 7.5 million

By comparison, Hurricane Ike had 7.5 million over his entire path.

TOP WAVES:

39.67 feet (Buoy #41048)

TOP STORM SURGES:

The Battery, N.Y.: ~9 feet above normal

Kings Point, N.Y.: ~12.5 feet above normal

New Haven, Conn.: ~9 feet above normal

RECORD LOWEST PRESSURE (ON LAND):

Atlantic City, N.J.: 948.3 mb (28.00" Hg)

Philadelphia, Pa.: 953mb (28.23" Hg)

Harrisburg, Pa.: 963mb (28.46" Hg)

Scranton, Pa.: 971mb (28.69" Hg)

Trenton, N.J.: 958mb (28.31" Hg)

Baltimore, Md.: 965mb (28.49" Hg)

Harrisburg, Pa.: 964mb (28.46" Hb)

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.

Reprinted with permission from AccuWeather.com. The o riginal story was published on October 30, 2012.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American