Cat 5 flood warnings would change actions in Texas?

Texas still fights with one of the worst flood disasters in US history and at the time of writing, another round of extreme rainfall affects the country of the hill. THE death approaches 130 and about 170 people are still missing. Historically, a weather destruction of this size encourages discussion, politics and reflection. Sufficient, timely warnings of weather were issued in the days and hours that led to flood destruction, but people were still dying. As a former president of the American Meteorological Society and a scholar who studies extreme rainfall, I continue to think about whether a category of categories, such as the Saffir-Simpson (Hurricanes) or the enhanced Fujita scale (tornadoes), would have caused a different and other.

Scales have defects

To be clear, I have argued in recent years that the Saffir-Simpson scale used to communicate with the hurricane risk has its defects. It was designed as a scale of wind energy and transfers very little immediate information on internal floods, increased thunderstorms and risks of hurricane tornadoes. Studies They have shown that water (storm wave and rain) is the most deadly aspect of hurricanes. However, people tend to be fastened to the class. A study It was published by our research team at the University of Georgia, found that the most rain producers are tropical thunderstorms and weaken hurricanes. For example, high -impact rainfalls associated with thunderstorms such as Helene (2024) and Harvey (2017) were during the post -optic phase. With hurricanes, I climb when people say, “It’s just a tropical storm or the hurricane of category 1.” This statement underestimates the impact of rainfall, especially if the storm slows down or the benches as we have seen, for example, with Florence (2018) in Carolines.

Even with defects, is there an opportunity with flood risk communication?

This is a long -term way to say that design for the impact is more important than categorization. However, there is no doubt that the accusations of hurricanes receive the attention of the media, the public and the responsible decisions. In the floods of Texas on July 4, the warnings of the weather were there. As early as four days before the event, NOAA recognized the area in the 3 to 7 -day risk prospects for heavy rainfall. Let’s stop there and look at a hypothetical scenario. If a Class 5 hurricane is projected to do the land in 3 to 4 days, what do you think would happen to endangered jurisdictions? My experience tells me that evacuation planning, infrastructure preparations and media attack would be in full swing.

What if we had a class or marker system that sorted rainfall in situations such as the floods of Texas Hill Country? People often tell me that they cannot distinguish an extreme threat of flooding from more common floods. They complain about this about the saturation of information. If you live in Texas’s “Flash Flood Alley”, it is likely that watches and flood warnings are common. Let’s review the Warning Weather Warnings for Texas Floods on July 4:

1. Day 3 to 7 prospects issued on June 30, 2025, recognized rainfall potential for Texas Hill Country for July 3, 2025.
2. Flash Flood Watch issued at 1:18 pm Thursday 3 July.
3. FLAST FLOUT WARNING issued at 1:14 am Friday July 4th. The emergency warning system pushes information to the phones.
4. The Flash Flood Emergency issued at 4:03 am Friday July 4th. The emergency warning system pushes information to the phones.

In these warnings, words such as “life threatening” and “emergency flood” were transferred. NWS did its job. However, the huge area of communication and texts may not always resonate with the general public. A person asked me why they don’t only use words with a more direct, personal urgent need like “you get to the high ground now or you’ll die!” Over the years, I have seen messages with hurricanes or tornadoes using such a language. We have cute small slogans such as “Turn, don’t drown” to carry some aspects of flood risks, but I constantly see videos of latent cars on flooded roads. To be fair, NWS knows such challenges and has applied a program to simplify the danger messages.

With the floods of July 4, there was time in the hours that led to the rapid rise of the river (~ 3: 00 am) and recorded the top of the Guadalupe River (~ 5: 10am) for a series of answers. However, let’s move the conversation away from the hours that led to the event. What about days leading to the event? There were clearly signals that prompted the Meteorological Meteorological Service to identify this area in the prospects of 3 to 7 days on June 30.

The flood severity index

What happens if these signals were wrapped in a “category” and they announced in this way? Even with defects, emergency managers and the public are prepared to understand or react to high numbers on scales. Actually, 2024 study Researchers at the University of Southern Florida found that not only people know the Saffir-Simpson scale, they know its shortcomings to record the full range of risk from rainfall, growth and so on. The study has recommended public communication strategies, which may include separate evaluation systems, accessible visuals, personalized delivery of information and custom messages for different levels of risk perception.

2018 study published Natural risks He found that people in general want information about how floods can happen and when it will happen so that they can understand and process the level of danger or their decision options. 2021 study In China he revealed that over half of the respondents in their research either underestimated the flood dangers or had wrong perceptions of them. In the Texas Hill Country or in other areas that are prone to rain, narrative regularity bias that “we get a lot of rain all the time” can further complicate the incorrect perceptions or actions. This same study found that the inhabitants of the suburban and the countryside reported closer social communications with people in their community, who shaped behavior or attitude towards flood warnings.

Could a flood indicator help with such incorrect perceptions? We have known for decades that floods and heat, for some people, do not violate the same level of risk perception as tornadoes or hurricanes, although they are the two most deadly weather events in the US, one of my former doctoral students, Flood. Dr. Schroeder and a collective scholars continued to publish an original smallrake of a flood severity index in 2016. Yes, there is someone. The index has five categories based on the effects (Category 1, very small floods in category 5, catastrophic floods). Two months ago, Schroeder and a team of NWS colleagues described to Bulletin of the US Meteorological Company Extensive FFSI field test from 2018.

FFSI is a loss -based evaluation after the event, such as the improved Fujita score rating after tornadoes. However, I think there is still value in the index. Texas Hill’s country flooded on July 4 was definitely a category 5. Thanks to the EF scale, people have a strong sense of damage from an EF-5 tornado. The FFSI could help to formulate flood alphabetism and build mental models for flood risk levels, especially if warnings said they were strong things like the “possible 5 flood category”. The challenge, as with any scale, would be to find the right rhythm and use for the most extreme categories. That’s where the research comes.