On Friday morning, heavy rains led to catastrophic flooding along the Guadalupe River in central Texas.
Tragically, it appears that at least fifty people lost their lives.
But what is particularly disturbing is that the National Weather Service (NWS) provided excellent warnings and forecasts before the event that clearly predicted a substantial threat.
And yet, no attempt at evacuation was made.
Furthermore, weather model forecasts indicated the potential for a major precipitation event over this historically flood-prone region during the prior days.
The EventThe flooding occurred around 4 AM on July 4.
A heavy precipitation event was forecast for the region during the previous days. For example, the NOAA/NWS HRRR forecast from 8 PM July 3 (the evening before) predicted a band of heavy rain over central Texas.
THE DAY BEFORE, the NWS Forecast Office in San Antonia put out a flood watch for central Texas Hill Country, which included the site of the tragedy. During the subsequent hours, the National Weather Service communicated increasingly strong warnings, including flash flood warnings. A children's camp on a floodplain should have been evacuated.
Here is the warning by the local NWS office several hours before the flood.
Also consider the warning by the National Weather Service Weather Prediction Center (WPC) before the event:
As the event got closer, with National Weather Service radar showing the event unfolding, the San Antonia office made the threat explicit, noting a very dangerous flash event.
Any media or other organization suggesting that the National Weather Service was not on top of this event is not only not telling the truth, but doing a deep disservice to the highly professional and skillful folks in that organization.
Some folks are making such suggestions for patently political reasons. Extraordinarily unethical and wrong.
Areas along the Guadalupe River have flooded catastrophically many times in the past, and not evacuating low-lying areas with such warnings verges on criminal neglect. The local county (Kerr) does not even have a flood warning system in place.
The Texas flooding is another example of large numbers of deaths, even when weather forecasts are excellent, with all too many other examples, including the Maui wildfires, the LA wildfires, and flooding from Hurricane Helene.
But if you really want to experience media and advocacy group loss of moral compass, consider those claiming this event is the result of global warming.
For example, this connection was suggested by the New York Times:
There is NO EVIDENCE that the central Texas floods are the result of climate change.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency has noted that flooding is DECLINING over time in that region (see below)
I examined this issue myself. Below is a plot of the extreme daily precipitation in July for nearby San Antonio from the 1940s to today.
There is NO upward trend, which suggests that climate change is not a factor in this event.
If climate change was significant, there WOULD be an upward trend.
In summary, society needs to learn how to effectively use the greatly improved prediction and observational capabilities that now exist.
Most weather-related deaths can be prevented if society makes use of this valuable information.
Those using disasters to support their political and social change agendas are not only hurting those they wish to help, but acting in a morally and ethically indefensible way.
.jpeg)
.png)
There should be some political repercussions locally, right? Life threatening flooding was forecast and authorities didn’t call for evacuation or similar, things they do in Florida, for example, before a hurricane.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds as if you’re suggesting the culpability in this case lies with the state and/or local governments as well as private legally responsible parties which should have reacted appropriately to the accurate and timely information provided to them by NOAA/NWS but for some reason failed to do so. To be clear, I take no issue with your analysis but just want to make sure I’m understanding your conclusions.
ReplyDeleteyou will see that while significant precipitation was forecast the previous day, the flood warnings were issued at 1:30 in the morning..... when everyone is sound asleep. The flooding occurred at 4:00 a.m. Really its just some unfortunate timing.
DeleteIts still remarkably shameful that county officials started pointing fingers of blame at NWS for "poor forecasting" when clearly it was near gold standard. Being a bit off on precipitation amounts is no reason for blame either. They issued a flood warning when they knew it was warranted. Just a shame that convective showers can occur so fast and that happened when everyone was asleep
Awww. Everyone was sound asleep!
DeleteNOT. There are people whose JOB it is to pay attention to this and take appropriate ACTIONS.
Heads should roll. But they won't, will they. Because we live in the era of "Blame someone else."
Your comments are spot on!...The bone-headed Texas authorities are responsible for not communicating the coming portent of disaster.
ReplyDeleteDHS Secretary Kristi Noem said that the rainfall was "unprecedented". That descriptor seems pretty consistent with climate change. Climate science tell us that events like this will become more frequent, and possibly more intense. It seems to me that weather forecasters and emergency planners who overlook this reality will fail at their jobs.
ReplyDeleteJerry..... Noem was wrong. The rainfall was not unprecedented. The situation had no implications regarding climate change, particularly since there is no upward trend in heavy precipitation in the region. ..cliff
DeleteThere should be a weather alert warning issued to cell phones (like an Amber alert) so people in specific locations can evacuate.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really helpful analysis. Remember the famous snowstorm a few years ago that left a lot of TX frozen and without power for several days, partly because TX never made basic weatherizing upgrades to their power infrastructure and refuses to be part of the national power interchange.
ReplyDeleteIf kids died because of local incompetence, local authorities should definitely pay a political price.
Local authorities wanted to put in an audio warning system like we have for tsunamies, but voters didn't want to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing to have this sort of weather alert in text form go out to subscribers. But who among the general public receives those directly? Who is listening to TV or the radio while camping on a holiday weekend? Who takes a weather alert radio with them on vacation? Would they have even had their phones on to have received some sort of alert through them, assuming the area they were in had cell coverage? I'm sincerely wondering, Cliff -- what sorry of alert system would have worked in these circumstances? Assuming city or county emergency managers received the alert, should they have headed out in trucks with loudspeakers to all the low-lying areas and told people to hop in their cars and leave at once? Should they have had maps of the flood prone areas showing all the places that might be occupied so they would have planned on advance where they would need to drive and make the announcement? Could they have reached all the impacted areas in time if they had started promptly? Is this standard practice in areas with similar history and vulnerability? Should there be laws in place to require that sort of planning and preparation if there isn't any now? And thinking about home, does Washington State have such a law in place? Do the feds?
ReplyDeleteA quality explanation. Would that the Seattle Times, New York Times, and Washington Post would post facts rather than their political biases when examining and posting supp. osed factual information on extreme events. An extreme event unrelated to climate change is the biased perceptions these papers bring instead of reporting facts. The day this stops will be a real extreme event.
ReplyDeleteGo here: 30.009398, -99.370441 ~ ~ ~ See Camp Mystic
ReplyDeleteNote the name “Edmunson Creek”, a small drainage that flows through the property. Cypress Creek, in a larger valley, enters from the southwest. Panther Creek is another (name taken from a road). The large stream is the Guadalupe River.
Examine the siting of this camp. What is it built on? What could go wrong?
Immediate prior flood was 1987. 1959 & 1978 had large volumes in the Guadalupe.
Cliff,
ReplyDeleteYou say that there is no upward trend in flooding for this area and seem to equate flooding as a climate change indicator. However, the idea of change to me allows for increase or decrease. Why is a decrease in floods not a change indicator in terms of climate in this case?
What a horrible tragedy. And I hope meteorologists aren't taking it personally when they are berated. Federal government agencies can only do so much to put emergency information into ears of individuals. You know the old saying, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." Individuals have to be listening in order to hear the messages. This ultimately requires preparedness on the part of individuals in the danger area, as well as the those responsible for linking emergency alerts to endangered people. Letting locals off the hook because the flood happened at night makes no sense. Nature doesn't sleep at night. Blaming climate change, the NWS, or defunding of NWS skirts a lot of territory in the blame game. I'm baffled by passivity and complacence of otherwise responsible people toward well known hazards of nature in their very own communities. But it's cruel to point fingers at local agencies and individuals who are deep in mourning. The investigations and lawsuits will unearth facts which are too painful to visit this early.
ReplyDelete