I was in Virginia Beach, where we were hit by Sandy. Didn’t make the media coverage, even though it was a Hurricane and caused widespread flooding and damage with a heavy storm surge. We had the house sand bagged and avoided any serious damage, even with six feet of water in our street.
Sandy is small potatoes compared with, say, the Galveston Hurricane (not called a super storm, but responsible for 6,000 deaths, over 100 times that of Sandy).
When Andrew hit Florida, it was a cat V, and the winds were far higher than Sandy. The damage more widespread.
There are lots of hurricanes that exceed Sandy’s surge, wind speed, and damage.
Katrina had a higher surge and wind speed, but over a smaller area, for example.
None of them, and there are hundreds more examples, were called “Super Storm” because none of them hit New York. The property damage totals are as much a function of real estate values as they are Hurricane power. The storm surge of Sandy wasn’t particularly high, but it hit an area unprepared.
The irony in this discussion: you complained about media hype, then used the media hype nomenclature for a storm.
I’m not denying the damage that Hurricane Sandy caused, I’m simply saying that the media called it “Super Storm” when other storms were worse. “Super storm” is a prime example of media hype labeling. It was a Hurricane.