Of False Witness and Weather Reports

Tuur · Saturday at 9:29 PM

I don't know the best place for it. I almost posted this as a reply to a thread outside the Christians only section, then figured it would do no good at all.

The issue is the flash flooding on the Guadeloupe River in Texas that has claimed an number of lives. Supposedly the AP claims that amount of rain wasn't in the forecast, but there's a clue in a rise of 28 feet (8.5 meters) in an hour. You only get something like that from rainfall if there is a flash flood. Flash flooding depends on terrain and condition of the soil. We have occasional flash flooding here, but it's after the ground is saturated and it's due to isolated heavy rainfall. In hilly terrain, the shape of the ground "funnels" rain to lower areas, and you have inches of rain become feet of flash floods.

Maybe because I'm not out West, but I don't think I've ever seen a forecast calling for flash floods. I don't think I've even see a flash flood watch. I've seen flood watches and forecasts warning of a potential of flooding, and I've seen flash flood warnings. The latter is when there's a flash flood right at that instance and get to higher ground immediately.

A check quickly came up with the National Weather Service issuing an "emergency" flash flood warning for the Guadeloupe (I thought all flash flood warnings were emergencies) in the early morning hours of July 4. That was from The Weather Channel and some sources local to the event. That fits with what I've seen ever since we heard of flash flood warnings on radio and TV. Here the warnings just pop up as they happen. Some aren't issues. The rainfall in half an hour that exceeded our range gauge capacity? No flash flood warning. When a creek overflowed a culvert and went over a road? No flash flood warning. But there was in the area of the Guadeloupe. The cite from the AP was that there was no forecast of the amount of rain. Yet there were flash flood warnings.

The claim in the post in the other part of CF is that this is all due to cuts in the NWS. But the tragedy that happened on the Guadeloupe fits what I've seen years ago. That creek that went over the road due to heavy rain? That was back in 2008 or 2009 or 2010. Add to it that the warning came in the early morning hours, and you have people not being aware of it. If you have a weather radio, it has to be set to the right station and it has to pick up the signal to get warnings. Cell phone alerts depend on the tower. Just because you get a warning doesn't mean that it will be picked up. Because there's a warning doesn't mean it will get heard.

A check, though does show that there was a flood watch issued the day before, and later extended to 1 PM Friday, July 4. Here's one link: https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/weather/article/weather-san-antonio-flood-watch-20420566.php

Here's a link to the extension:

https://x.com/NWSSanAntonio/status/1941038559386820616

This doesn't match what is posted in the non-Christians only section and gets to the topic of false witness. If the AP article is correctly cited, then there is no mention of the forecasts cited above. If the issue are budget cuts, then what of the instances I've related where there were no warnings at all? And if these things are known, why not report them?

As I said, I almost posted this in the non-Christian sections and figured it would do absolutely no good at all. All it would do would bring accusations of being a Trump apologist or some sort, even with the cites above. But if we have reason to think information is reported in error, do we have a responsibility to point that out? Or is is such a lost cause that we should say nothing at all.

Fantine · Saturday at 10:19 PM

My state issues flash flood warnings all the time, especially for parts of town that are near the river. There is a road or two I avoid when heavy rain is predicted.
I'd say Scientific American is a credible resource.

The National Weather Service Is Understaffed and Facing Huge Cuts—That Could Cost Lives

Weather experts warn that staff cuts at the National Weather Service that have been made by the Trump administration are a danger to public safety as tornadoes, hurricanes and heat loom this spring and summer

www.scientificamerican.com

Trump’s Deadly Assault on Weather Reporting

I’m a meteorologist, and breaking NOAA would undermine journalists’ ability to cover the story our audiences care about most.

www.thenation.com

But I can understand why the current president wanted to cut the Weather Service. After all, if you're a climate change denier, how can you keep denying when there are so many smart people in the room proving you wrong?

JosephZ · Saturday at 11:23 PM

Tuur said:
Maybe because I'm not out West, but I don't think I've ever seen a forecast calling for flash floods. I don't think I've even see a flash flood watch.

Flash Flood Watches are issued from time to time from my local NWS office.

JustaPewFiller · Sunday at 8:10 AM

I've seen plenty of flash flood warnings and watches forecast before. I used to live in a mountainous area and it was mainly there that I saw them.

Did the cuts impact the accuracy of the forecast in this instance? Honestly, its probably too early to tell and we aren't in any real position to know at this point. We are just guessing. We don't have enough data to know.

If forecasts are continually incorrect or major events continually missed over the course of the year more than in times past - then probably the NWS hasn't been able to recover from the cuts. If forecasts continue with the same accuracy as before - then the cuts made no difference. This is a very tragic event. But, 1 event isn't enough to know for sure if the cuts had any impact on the forecast.

However, it does bring up the inherent issues of cuts in certain agencies. In business if they make too many cuts usually all that happens is some project is delayed, a bill is paid late (or not sent out), customers start to leave, etc and some executive somewhere gets mad.

The inherent fear with the government cuts was that the cuts would lead to loss of life somehow. I do not doubt that there was plenty of fat to trim in the various government agencies. But, I think where Trump and Musk could have done a better job was at communication to assure the public that various critical agencies would still be able to function as needed.

Tuur · Sunday at 8:16 AM

Fantine said:
My state issues flash flood warnings all the time, especially for parts of town that are near the river. There is a road or two I avoid when heavy rain is predicted.
I'd say Scientific American is a credible resource.

The National Weather Service Is Understaffed and Facing Huge Cuts—That Could Cost Lives

Weather experts warn that staff cuts at the National Weather Service that have been made by the Trump administration are a danger to public safety as tornadoes, hurricanes and heat loom this spring and summer

www.scientificamerican.com

Trump’s Deadly Assault on Weather Reporting

I’m a meteorologist, and breaking NOAA would undermine journalists’ ability to cover the story our audiences care about most.

www.thenation.com

But I can understand why the current president wanted to cut the Weather Service. After all, if you're a climate change denier, how can you keep denying when there are so many smart people in the room proving you wrong?

Both make no sense. Aside from me regarding Scientific American in the same category as tabloids (Disclosure: have felt this way since the 1970s and have been "suckered" into subscribing at least twice before concluding it was more pretention than substance - the best thing they had was Martin Gardener's column, and he's been dead for years), it doesn't fit what went down. Especially since there were warnings of flood and then flash flood warnings. Then concluding it has something to do with opinions on anthropomorphic global warming again makes no sense, as the NWS deals with forecasts, and the best they can do climate-wise are the long-range forecasts of months in advance that are more accurate than what you'll find in one of those almanacs, but still aren't dead-on. I looked at them for electrical forecasts before without much success.

Disclosure #2: In a large envelope above my computer desk I have a hard print-out of a FORTRAN program for long-range forecasts. Learned of that from an article who misquoted the guy who came up with it, but he was good enough to send me a copy. Long story short, it wasn't what the article claimed, but he told me that when I contacted him. That was back in the 1980s. I'm sure that program's been superseded by more complex modeling. Maybe it'll make the children and possibly grandchildren scratch their heads when they go though my things after I pass away someday.

Now, your statement about flash flood warnings is interesting, and I assume based on terrain. This area would be considered "flat" in most places. When I come back from the mountains it seems flat; when I come back from the coast it seems hilly. For us, a flash flood requires saturated ground and heavy rain on top of it. In hilly terrain, flash flooding would be more likely. Still, it can happen. Flood watches and warnings are more common here.

Be that as it may, the point is that contrary to what some have claimed, there were warnings of flooding and flash flooding on the Guadeloupe prior to the incident, and this is where my concern about false witness comes in. The warnings existed; I've provided some cites. That flies in the face of claims that where were none. I can only conclude that such claims were made due to dislike of both cuts and Trump. Someone doesn't like Trump? Fine. Someone doesn't like the cuts? That's fine, too. But when some claim there were no forecasts of flash flooding when there were, if they know there were, then isn't this false witness in the name of political opinion?

BTW, if you'd like to point out that this holds for sweeping things under the carpet in the name of political opinion, be my guest. My point here is false witness. There were indeed warnings; despite claims to the contrary.

Tuur · Sunday at 8:18 AM

JosephZ said:
Flash Flood Watches are issued from time to time from my local NWS office.

View attachment 367165

Now this is interesting, and as in the post above, I assume it's due to terrain. Again, here we're what some would consider "flat," and a flash flood here requires saturated ground and a downpour on top of that. To the best of my knowledge, we have flood watches and warnings, and flash flood warnings, but not flash flood watches.

Fantine · Sunday at 8:36 AM

Tuur said:
Both make no sense. Aside from me regarding Scientific American in the same category as tabloids (Disclosure: have felt this way since the 1970s and have been "suckered" into subscribing at least twice before concluding it was more pretention than substance - the best thing they had was Martin Gardener's column, and he's been dead for years), it doesn't fit what went down. Especially since there were warnings of flood and then flash flood warnings. Then concluding it has something to do with opinions on anthropomorphic global warming again makes no sense, as the NWS deals with forecasts, and the best they can do climate-wise are the long-range forecasts of months in advance that are more accurate than what you'll find in one of those almanacs, but still aren't dead-on. I looked at them for electrical forecasts before without much success.

Disclosure #2: In a large envelope above my computer desk I have a hard print-out of a FORTRAN program for long-range forecasts. Learned of that from an article who misquoted the guy who came up with it, but he was good enough to send me a copy. Long story short, it wasn't what the article claimed, but he told me that when I contacted him. That was back in the 1980s. I'm sure that program's been superseded by more complex modeling. Maybe it'll make the children and possibly grandchildren scratch their heads when they go though my things after I pass away someday.

Now, your statement about flash flood warnings is interesting, and I assume based on terrain. This area would be considered "flat" in most places. When I come back from the mountains it seems flat; when I come back from the coast it seems hilly. For us, a flash flood requires saturated ground and heavy rain on top of it. In hilly terrain, flash flooding would be more likely. Still, it can happen. Flood watches and warnings are more common here.

Be that as it may, the point is that contrary to what some have claimed, there were warnings of flooding and flash flooding on the Guadeloupe prior to the incident, and this is where my concern about false witness comes in. The warnings existed; I've provided some cites. That flies in the face of claims that where were none. I can only conclude that such claims were made due to dislike of both cuts and Trump. Someone doesn't like Trump? Fine. Someone doesn't like the cuts? That's fine, too. But when some claim there were no forecasts of flash flooding when there were, if they know there were, then isn't this false witness in the name of political opinion?

BTW, if you'd like to point out that this holds for sweeping things under the carpet in the name of political opinion, be my guest. My point here is false witness. There were indeed warnings; despite claims to the contrary.

No one has said that there were not any warnings. They have said that the warnings were not as accurate about the potential dangers as they might have been if the National Weather Service had not lost funding which required them to fire people with the knowledge and expertise who might have provided more accurate warnings and saved the lives of those 24 people, including young children at camp.

Tuur · Sunday at 7:10 PM

Fantine said:
No one has said that there were not any warnings. They have said that the warnings were not as accurate about the potential dangers as they might have been if the National Weather Service had not lost funding which required them to fire people with the knowledge and expertise who might have provided more accurate warnings and saved the lives of those 24 people, including young children at camp.

Let's look at the two cites again:

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/weather/article/weather-san-antonio-flood-watch-20420566.php

https://x.com/NWSSanAntonio/status/1941038559386820616

Let's look at this one, too:

National Weather Service

What stronger wording to you want? How is the current wording any different that before Trump took office?

JosephZ · Sunday at 9:11 PM

JustaPewFiller said:
If forecasts are continually incorrect or major events continually missed over the course of the year more than in times past - then probably the NWS hasn't been able to recover from the cuts. If forecasts continue with the same accuracy as before - then the cuts made no difference. This is a very tragic event. But, 1 event isn't enough to know for sure if the cuts had any impact on the forecast.

I have attached a couple of images that show the rainfall forecasts for central North Carolina. The NWS forecast is from just 16 hours ago and the one from WRAL in Raleigh was just 12 hours ago.

The NWS forecast was calling for widespread 2" to 3" of rain with isolated areas seeing 3" to 4" through Wednesday. The WRAL forecast was calling for 1" to 3" with pockets of 4" to 6" inside the circled area on their map. These forecasts were off the mark by quite a bit. So far today, the area inside the red circle has seen widespread 6" to 9" of rainfall, with some areas seeing as much as 10" to 12".

Fantine · Sunday at 9:40 PM

Tuur said:
Let's look at the two cites again:

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/weather/article/weather-san-antonio-flood-watch-20420566.php

https://x.com/NWSSanAntonio/status/1941038559386820616

Let's look at this one, too:

National Weather Service

What stronger wording to you want? How is the current wording any different that before Trump took office?

A drastically downsized Department did the best they could with their meager resources and try to sound authoritative so as not to panic listeners or make them realize how short-handed and behind the eight ball they were. That is the difference.

Tropical Wilds · Sunday at 9:52 PM

Fantine said:
My state issues flash flood warnings all the time, especially for parts of town that are near the river. There is a road or two I avoid when heavy rain is predicted.
I'd say Scientific American is a credible resource.

The National Weather Service Is Understaffed and Facing Huge Cuts—That Could Cost Lives

Weather experts warn that staff cuts at the National Weather Service that have been made by the Trump administration are a danger to public safety as tornadoes, hurricanes and heat loom this spring and summer

www.scientificamerican.com

Trump’s Deadly Assault on Weather Reporting

I’m a meteorologist, and breaking NOAA would undermine journalists’ ability to cover the story our audiences care about most.

www.thenation.com

But I can understand why the current president wanted to cut the Weather Service. After all, if you're a climate change denier, how can you keep denying when there are so many smart people in the room proving you wrong?

We get flash flood watches and warnings here all the time. So do my parents, who live on top of a literal mountain. If they had a flash flood lapping at their door, Noah is already on the arc.

What is most typical is a flash flood watch that is issued before a major rain event switching to a warning as the waters rise. However, my region is near several major dams and we get flash flood warnings anytime any rain event may necessitate the urgent release of the dam. In a move specific to my town, we get flood (flash or otherwise) warnings because it notifies us that our fragile water infrastructure will likely fail and we will lose water.

With Irene, we had a good 4-5 days heads-up, though the degree of the damage was underestimated and it switched to warning too late. Our ground was saturated (which wasn’t accounted for) and the dam was left closed for too long (due to roadwork requiring a lower than average river). But looking at it, flash flood watches popped up for the river regions early.

JosephZ · Sunday at 11:04 PM

Just an update on the current situation in North Carolina.

Below is the forecast discussion out of the NWS office in Raleigh from this morning.

Area Forecast Discussion
National Weather Service Raleigh NC
640 AM EDT Sun Jul 6 2025

In discussions with WPC with respect to left/right track solutions, the anticipated QPF footprint did not change much from the day shift Sat. If anything, the system may be moving a bit faster overall.... The highest QPF, based on a suite of model guidance, including the CAMs/HREF and which matches well with the ECMWF AIFS model, shows the highest totals from the Triangle westward, over the western and southern Piedmont to Sandhills region of central NC. In this region of central NC, rainfall amounts of 1 to 3 inches, locally 4+, are possible.

No one in central NC was expecting to see such high rainfall totals today and the amount of flooding that is currently taking place. A few rivers and streams are approaching or have exceeded their all-time record crests.

Tuur · Monday at 6:44 PM

JosephZ said:
Just an update on the current situation in North Carolina.

Below is the forecast discussion out of the NWS office in Raleigh from this morning.

Area Forecast Discussion
National Weather Service Raleigh NC
640 AM EDT Sun Jul 6 2025

In discussions with WPC with respect to left/right track solutions, the anticipated QPF footprint did not change much from the day shift Sat. If anything, the system may be moving a bit faster overall.... The highest QPF, based on a suite of model guidance, including the CAMs/HREF and which matches well with the ECMWF AIFS model, shows the highest totals from the Triangle westward, over the western and southern Piedmont to Sandhills region of central NC. In this region of central NC, rainfall amounts of 1 to 3 inches, locally 4+, are possible.

No one in central NC was expecting to see such high rainfall totals today and the amount of flooding that is currently taking place. A few rivers and streams are approaching or have exceeded their all-time record crests.

View attachment 367201

View attachment 367205
View attachment 367199
View attachment 367203

Serious question: Is it doing what Tropical Storm Alberto did in 1994? Alberto went stationary for days, dropping a tremendous amount of water.

Tuur · Monday at 6:52 PM

Tropical Wilds said:
We get flash flood watches and warnings here all the time. So do my parents, who live on top of a literal mountain. If they had a flash flood lapping at their door, Noah is already on the arc.

What is most typical is a flash flood watch that is issued before a major rain event switching to a warning as the waters rise. However, my region is near several major dams and we get flash flood warnings anytime any rain event may necessitate the urgent release of the dam. In a move specific to my town, we get flood (flash or otherwise) warnings because it notifies us that our fragile water infrastructure will likely fail and we will lose water.

With Irene, we had a good 4-5 days heads-up, though the degree of the damage was underestimated and it switched to warning too late. Our ground was saturated (which wasn’t accounted for) and the dam was left closed for too long (due to roadwork requiring a lower than average river). But looking at it, flash flood watches popped up for the river regions early.

Mentioned Tropical Storm Aberto, 1994, in the above post. It went stationary and rained over the same location for days. Your post brought to mind something that happened on a Saturday after it moved into Georgia. I helped a friend move things out to high ground, and at lunch watched an emergency news program from Albany, Georgia. The WALB weatherman reported that the dam at Lake Blackshear had washed away, but there wasn't a wall of water headed down river because the water on one side of the dam was almost as high as the water on the other side of the dam.

Another time, was concerned about another dam that was threatening to give way and maybe take out bridges. Came home from work to find that the dam had already failed, but the water didn't come as high as we (the public) feared.

Tuur · Monday at 7:44 PM

Fantine said:
A drastically downsized Department did the best they could with their meager resources and try to sound authoritative so as not to panic listeners or make them realize how short-handed and behind the eight ball they were. That is the difference.

The problem is, that's not indicated. Claimed, yes; indicated, no. You've agreed the warnings were issued and said that wasn't the point. But that the warnings were issued is exactly the point. That they issued them doesn't agree with the assumption that it was missed due to budget cuts. Since the warnings were stylistically (not a good word but it comes to mind) like other NWS warnings, then there is no "try to sound authoritative," only following accepted NWS wording for such.

If there was an actual indication of a negative impact, that would be different. Some may say, "But Tuur, there was a flash flood on the Guadeloupe River; shouldn't that have been forecast?" To which comes to mind that flash flood I saw go over a highway without any warning at all well over a decade ago.

JosephZ · Monday at 9:11 PM

Tuur said:
Serious question: Is it doing what Tropical Storm Alberto did in 1994? Alberto went stationary for days, dropping a tremendous amount of water.

This fortunately was only a one day event. It was just a very slow moving system that finally rained itself out in southern Virginia, with the heaviest of the rain falling over a 6 to 8 hour period. The NWS forecast of 1" to 3" with isolated amounts of 4+" for north-central North Carolina wasn't even close to what ended up taking place.

Fantine · Monday at 9:22 PM

Tuur said:
The problem is, that's not indicated. Claimed, yes; indicated, no. You've agreed the warnings were issued and said that wasn't the point. But that the warnings were issued is exactly the point. That they issued them doesn't agree with the assumption that it was missed due to budget cuts. Since the warnings were stylistically (not a good word but it comes to mind) like other NWS warnings, then there is no "try to sound authoritative," only following accepted NWS wording for such.

If there was an actual indication of a negative impact, that would be different. Some may say, "But Tuur, there was a flash flood on the Guadeloupe River; shouldn't that have been forecast?" To which comes to mind that flash flood I saw go over a highway without any warning at all well over a decade ago.

You don't call 91 dead, many of them children, a "negative impact?"

I guess those of us who only suffer poor health with medical research halted should figure we're lucky by comparison?

Tuur · Tuesday at 7:53 PM

Fantine said:
You don't call 91 dead, many of them children, a "negative impact?"

And we're back at the beginning.

First there's criticism of the forecast, but there were multiple warnings.

Then it's claimed that the warnings aren't the issue, but how they sounded.

Then it's pointed out that the warnings were standard NWS "style."

Then the number of dead are brought up, as though there were no warnings at all.

And around and around and around we go.

The assumption is that budget cuts caused a lack of warning. But there were warnings. The problem is that those warnings undercut the implication there were none.

Now, I've given anecdotal accounts of flash flooding that I've witnessed where there were no warnings. I went to bed toward the end of September last year expecting tropical storm force winds from Helene and woke to hurricane force winds. To show that forecasts have suffered would require a before and after comparison, but unfortunately the before isn't that solid.

All of which are words that I assume will be ignored, or wind up getting me dinged on CF. That is my assumption.

And we shall see what we shall see.

Fantine · Tuesday at 9:20 PM

The Lt Governor of Texas said that they would be putting up sirens around the area because there had been no sirens. That's on Texas, not the federal government. There are enough tornadoes in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, etc. that there should be at least one tornado siren every certain number of miles--and they should be activated for flash flood warnings as well.

That being said, it is specious and arrogant for the federal government to allege that a vital department can operate as effectively with 19% less employees than it can at full strength.

Imagine if Trump had been told his Secret Service detail would be decreased by 19%. He would have rescinded Musk's order in 10 seconds flat.

Are not the children--and all 106 and counting victims--as precious (or even more so) as the president? Why was Musk permitted to downsize a department that, due to fossil-fuel related climate change, is more essential each year?

JustaPewFiller · 2025-07-09T12:30:02-0500

Sirens would have likely helped. Isn't that area prone to flash floods? I'm surprised they were not some there already.

Tuur said:
And we're back at the beginning.

First there's criticism of the forecast, but there were multiple warnings.

Then it's claimed that the warnings aren't the issue, but how they sounded.

Then it's pointed out that the warnings were standard NWS "style."

Then the number of dead are brought up, as though there were no warnings at all.

And around and around and around we go.

The assumption is that budget cuts caused a lack of warning. But there were warnings. The problem is that those warnings undercut the implication there were none.

Now, I've given anecdotal accounts of flash flooding that I've witnessed where there were no warnings. I went to bed toward the end of September last year expecting tropical storm force winds from Helene and woke to hurricane force winds. To show that forecasts have suffered would require a before and after comparison, but unfortunately the before isn't that solid.

All of which are words that I assume will be ignored, or wind up getting me dinged on CF. That is my assumption.

And we shall see what we shall see.

Yup there were warnings.

Look at it this way. 119 (at last count) dead is a tragedy.
It is human nature to grief this loss of life. It is also human nature to try and determine what could have prevented it and to try and determine who (or what) is to blame. That's what I chalk a lot of this up to. The cuts are an easy target.

Of False Witness and Weather Reports

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Active Member

Similar threads