Legislation to Create a National Disaster Review Board

[William Monfredo]

Worth a look and some comments...

 

[William Monfredo]

Santa Ana winds and Los Angeles area fires observed by California governor Wednesday, January 8, 2025 below (sourced from X.)

I've been watching the weather maps, high pressure over the Great Basin, lower pressures toward the coast, downslope winds, the desiccating gusts, and the fires, and I'm reminded of a couple of lines from a Coen brother's movie filmed in New Mexico, No Country for Old Men:
Deputy Wendell: This is turnin' into a hell of a mess, ain't it, Sheriff?
Sheriff Ed Tom Bell: If it isn't, it'll do until the mess gets here.

 

[Mike Smith]

Andy Revkin wrote a piece on the LA-area fires and asked me to comment. You'll find both here: "Wild" Fire is Inevitable; Urban Home Ignitions Are Not

Below is my comment upon which I will elaborate under the brown text:

Andy @Revkin

Mike Smith, a longtime severe-weather meteorolgist who's been on Sustain What, sent this note by email:

Thank you for writing your substack piece today.

I wish to make several points which are predicated on accurate news reports. You noted the similarities of the Palisades Fire to the Maui Fire and to the Superior/Boulder Fire. Please consider:

One of the most terrifying similarities is that L.A. County officials made exactly the same mistakes regarding traffic evacuations as were made in those two fires. There was no proactivity (again, assuming news reports are correct), no contraflow (used in hurricane evacuations), nothing. People abandoned their cars in droves and fled on foot. KTLA TV Tuesday afternoon had live images of a LAC bulldozer pushing cars to the side to make a lane for emergency equipment. In Maui, officials blocked every road out of the city except one. Panicked people desperately fled in all directions, including into the ocean, trying to escape the flames. Traffic issues were also reported in Colorado.

In the case of Maui, up mountain officials decided not to release upstream water to lower reservoirs, so there was little water for firefighting. Headline from this morning ( MSN ):

[headline is nearby]

Fire hydrants ran dry as Pacific Palisades burned. L.A. city officials blame ‘tremendous demand’ when the root cause was water held in upstream reservoirs.

The National Weather Service in Hawaii did an extraordinary job — four days in advance — forecasting the extreme conditions that led to the Maui Wildfire. This past weekend, National Weather Service officials forecast extreme fire conditions in Southern California. On Maui, nothing was done with that critical forecast and the eight emergency managers assigned to the island boarded a plane and went to Honolulu for routine meetings. None were present on the island when the fires broke out. In Los Angeles, little to nothing was done with the forecast of “extremely critical” fire risk while the mayor was in Ghana to attend the swearing-in of that nation’s president.

Unlike many European nations, the United States lacks a systematic way of learning from past disasters and applying those lessons to prevent them from being made in the future. We have a hugely successful National Transportation Safety Board, a Chemical Safety Board, a U.S. Climate Assessment and others. These disastrous events, and the recurring errors, cry out for U.S National Disaster Review Board. Otherwise, these fatal and hugely expensive disasters are bound to continue and grow worse.

Mike Smith

Here's our conversation on the need for a National Disaster Safety (or Review) Board: Former Trump Administration Weather Expert Warns Trump 2.0 Against Damaging NOAA

Regardless of whether it was the 2022 "Marshall" Fire (Boulder), the 2023 Maui Fire or the current Los Angeles fires, the script is always the same: wrong move after wrong move! This is utter insanity,

Please, please write a note to your congresspeople! As we have many on this blog from Oklahoma, here's how to emails Sen. James Lankford:
Email James - Senator James Lankford There's a little arrow you can click on to bring up "Email James." It really is that easy!

Every other senator and representative has a similar easy way to contact them.

Otherwise, we are doomed to lose more lives and more billions of dollars and to live with ever higher insurance rates.

 

[John Farley]

Another thing that played a role in this disaster is the swing from extremely wet winters the last two years to an extremely dry one now - resulting in prolific growth of vegetation, which then dried out with the current very dry period. Although swings between wet and dry periods have always occurred, a new article in Nature on hydroclimate volatility shows that these swings are becoming more extreme. I know Mike does not want a disaster review board to address climate issues, but if they are part of what contributes to a disaster, we cannot address the causes or develop a good prevention strategy if nobody considers whether they are relevant to a particular disaster. I posted a link to the article in the Academic Journals section of ST.

 

[Mike Smith]

I know Mike does not want a disaster review board to address climate issues, but if they are part of what contributes to a disaster, we cannot address the causes or develop a good prevention strategy if nobody considers whether they are relevant to a particular disaster.

Why, John, do we need need to have the U.S. Climate Assessment and the National Disaster Review Board looking at the climate effects of disasters, especially with a $36 trillion deficit?

Also, strongly, disagree climate has anything to do with the LA fires. The fact is that Los Angeles is getting wetter over time. See NOAA's graph of L.A. rainfall nearby. There were no thunderstorms so the ignition source(s) were human.

 

[John Farley]

You missed my point on a couple things, Mike. I said SOMEBODY needs to examine the role of climate change in any particular disaster. If this can be coordinated between a Disaster Review Board and the U.S. Climate Assessment, that is fine with me. I don't care how it is done as long as it is done. And my point on LA was not that it is getting drier, but that it has experienced big swings between wet and dry. Wetter is not always good in terms of fire danger if it is followed by a very dry period. Two wet years and a dry year DO average out to wetter, but in this case it likely contributed to fire danger for the reasons I noted in my earlier post. And our disagreement over this, and likely that of many others, is exactly why there needs to be some analysis of what role it played in the disaster. By whom I don't care, as long as it gets done and is as scientific and unbiased as possible in an era where seemingly EVERYTHING is politicized.

 

[Mike Smith]

Okay, John, I'll bite.

What difference would it have made to the people of North Carolina if "somebody" found Helene's awful flash floods were due in part or in whole due to climate change? Please be specific.

 

[John Farley]

Okay, John, I'll bite.

What difference would it have made to the people of North Carolina if "somebody" found Helene's awful flash floods were due in part or in whole due to climate change? Please be specific.

If politicians actually followed the findings, they would 1) undertake efforts to combat climate change, and 2) work on finding ways of adapting to it. Of course that can't change what has already happened, but it might prevent something of the same severity from happening again. And that general principle applies to anything a Disaster Review Board might do. Nothing they could do after the fact would make any difference in what happened, but it might prevent it from happening again, or reduce the severity of future disasters. Isn't that the point of any kind of disaster review board? Just like the NTSB?

 

[Mike Smith]

You didn't come close to answering my question, John.

Let me pose it again:

What difference would it have made to the people of North Carolina if "somebody" found Helene's awful flash floods were due in part or in whole due to climate change?

By people of North Carolina, I mean the victims and the indirect victims (e.g., people who lost their jobs in Asheville even through their homes were okay). How will they benefit from learning that climate change affected Helene's rains?

Somehow, the National Transportation Safety Board has managed to make flying incredibly safe without going into climate change when there is a weather-related plane crash.

You also wrote:

If politicians actually followed the findings, they would 1) undertake efforts to combat climate change,

My gosh, the U.S. has spent $1.5 trillion on climate change and the world has spent north of $6 trillion. Climate alarmists keep trying to fool people into thinking little or nothing has been done. We are spending ourselves into poverty ($36 trillion deficit and adding another trillion every 100 days) on this topic.

 

[John Farley]

You didn't come close to answering my question, John.

Let me pose it again:

By people of North Carolina, I mean the victims and the indirect victims (e.g., people who lost their jobs in Asheville even through their homes were okay). How will they benefit from learning that climate change affected Helene's rains?

I have a friend in Asheville in a similar situation. House is OK, but their family had to endure 6 weeks without running water. I am quite sure he would appreciate any action that would reduce the likelihood of that happening again.

My gosh, the U.S. has spent $1.5 trillion on climate change and the world has spent north of $6 trillion. Climate alarmists keep trying to fool people into thinking little or nothing has been done. We are spending ourselves into poverty ($36 trillion deficit and adding another trillion every 100 days) on this topic.

Over how many years, Mike? The GDP for the U.S. in 2024 is going to come in around 30 trillion. So depending on how many years you are talking about for that total, that is maybe 1 percent of the GDP. IMHO a good investment, given the level of damage that disasters related to climate change are causing and are going to cause in the future if we don't do more to address the problem. And spending to reduce climate change is not all a negative. Many jobs have been created in Industires such as wind and solar energy. I think "invested" is perhaps a better word than "spent."

 

[Jamie H]

Mike, this is quoted in one of the Substank links you shared.

"He said there’s no evidence climate change is changing, or will change, California’s fabled Santa Ana winds, but there is evidence CO2-driven warming is shifting wet/dry patterns so dry conditions can line up more frequently with the seasonal gales."

So in this instance, it is believed that climate change is shifting weather patterns to create these 'perfect storms'.

If you pull any review of the changing climate from predictions and modelling, how will you ever prepare people for the outcomes?

Also, according to the IMF, the United States spent $760 billion in 2022 alone on fossil fuel subsidies. Perhaps the deficit could be reduced by cutting those subsidies and apportioning some to clean fuels, which would have multiple benefits?

 

[Mike Smith]

Also, according to the IMF, the United States spent $760 billion in 2022 alone on fossil fuel subsidies.

There are no 'subsides' unique to the fossil fuel industry. They are referring to depreciation which every business, including commercial weather companies, receives. I've challenged dozens of people who have made this contention about subsidies to prove me wrong and not one has.

That said, let's assume that "shifting weather patterns" (a tautology if there ever was one) are caused by global warming. How does that help the people trapped because EM's and police screw up the evacuation? How does it help people when the fire hydrants are dry? How does that help when the NWS screws up a tornado warning?

If the the weather is worse now (it isn'!!) than it used to be, how is it that almost all of the "worst" U.S. weather occurrences (worst tornado, worst hurricane, worst drought, worst flood, highest state temperature records) occurred in the 1920's and 1930's? And, if those were to occur again, what would stop you, John and others from blaming it on 'climate change' when we know Mother Nature is completely capable to causing that weather on her own?

How is it the NTSB was so successful at solving the mystery of commercial airline accidents caused by wing vortices without getting into climate change?

These endless, and non-productive, conversations are exactly why I want the NDRB to be forbidden from getting into global warming.

The annual 100+ page U.S. Climate Assessment is where you should express your concerns about climate and urban wildfires.

Addition: To everyone who believes the weather is worse today than in former decades, please, please read this:
When the Climate Was Perfect

 

[John Farley]

That said, let's assume that "shifting weather patterns" (a tautology if there ever was one) are caused by global warming. How does that help the people trapped because EM's and police screw up the evacuation? How does it help people when the fire hydrants are dry? How does that help when the NWS screws up a tornado warning?

It helps them to the same extent as a finding that evacuations were mishandled or avoidable mistakes were made in the water supply system. In other words, it makes no difference to people who have suffered from this disaster, but might reduce the severity of future disasters. That is why any Disaster Review Board needs to be able to look into all causes and contributing factors to a disaster without any pre-censorship on what it can or cannot look into.

If the the weather is worse now (it isn'!!) than it used to be, how is it that almost all of the "worst" U.S. weather occurrences (worst tornado, worst hurricane, worst drought, worst flood, highest state temperature records) occurred in the 1920's and 1930's? And, if those were to occur again, what would stop you, John and others from blaming it on 'climate change' when we know Mother Nature is completely capable to causing that weather on her own?

Mike, despite your legitimate concerns about problems with current warning systems, I think even you would agree that warnings are a lot better now than they were in the 1920s, 1930s, and before. So it may not be that storms back then were worse, but the warning systems, to the extent they existed at all, were. I tie many of today's disasters to climate change largely because that is the position of a sizable majority of weather and climate scientists, and because it looks that way to me. For example, 15 of California's 20 most destructive fires have come since 2015. Sure there are other contributing factors such as inflation, population growth, and sprawl, but climate change also seems to be a factor via processes such as more extreme wet-dry periods and mroe intense storms that generate more wind - both of which contribute to fires. So it makes sense to me. That said, I do not think climate change plays a role in each and every disaster that occurs, but I also think it is excessive to argue that it is never a factor.

I will end by saying I think we are in about 80 percent agreement. We agree on the need for a Disaster Review Board. It is only the scope of what can be addressed where we disagree.

 

[Mike Smith]

I will end by saying I think we are in about 80 percent agreement. We agree on the need for a Disaster Review Board. It is only the scope of what can be addressed where we disagree.

I agree that we are in 80% agreement.

But I believe you might have misunderstood my contention about "worst" storms. They have nothing to do with dollar amounts or lives lost:

• Worst Tornado: Tri-State, 1925.
• Worst Flood: Lower Mississippi River, 1927. At one point the river was 50 miles (!) wide.
• Worst Drought: 1933-34. The Palmer Drought Index was at its severest level from Pennsylvania to Nevada (!). A temperature reading using an official thermometer with an unknown shelter reached 119° in Times Square NY.
• Highest State Temperature Records: From Alabama to North Dakota to Oklahoma (and, possibly, Texas), the all-time state temperature records were sent between 1932 and 1936.
• Worst Hurricane: Labor Day, 1935.

Again, please read Roger's piece about the weather from 1850 to 1899: When the Climate Was Perfect

15 of California's 20 most destructive fires have come since 2015

Destructive (e.g., acreage) or expensive? Sincere question.

As to storm warnings, the tornado warning lead-time and PoD are back to 1994 levels!

Storms are driven by the laws of physics. It matters not if a storm is actually affected by global warming because the laws of physics are the same. A hook echo is a hook echo whether it is the late 1940's (when they were discovered and before global warming) or today. Politics aside, I don't see -- at all -- the need for the NDRB to get into climate change.

What is wrong with the U.S. Climate Assessment handling any connection? So far, no one has explained that.

 

[William Monfredo]

I've enjoyed reading the various opinions. But, a disaster review board will not be capable of dealing with global warming even if it wanted to;
it would be doomed to fail on that particular aspect. It's a matter of scale; it's currently impossible to conflate planetary climate w/ mesoscale (& micro-scale) phenomenon, as much as one might like to. I'm not just being negative, that's just the regional state of the art (fig. by David Babb.)