As a meteorologist, my heart sinks when I see the devastation caused by events like the recent catastrophic flooding in Texas, which has tragically claimed over 50 lives, with many still missing, including 30 or more girls from a summer camp along the Guadalupe River. In the wake of such a disaster, it’s natural for people to ask, “Did this come out of nowhere? Were there warnings?” While a full review will be conducted later, I want to offer my initial perspective as a meteorologist, especially given the influx of rumors, accusations, and what I affectionately call “social meteorologists” out there.
My colleague, Meteorologist James Spann, posted on his Facebook page that “Warnings were issued by NWS Austin, and they seemed timely and proper.” He also directly addressed the unfortunate politicization of the tragedy, stating, “I am asking everyone to please stop the political rhetoric in comments here. I dealt with it all day yesterday, left wing and right wing extremists full of hate jumping on every Fourth of July post. Having a strong political opinion is fine, but please keep it on your own profile. The political hate is already injected into this Texas flood story. This is NOT the time for that. Thank you.” This sentiment is crucial, as the focus should remain on understanding the event and supporting those affected, not on baseless conspiracy theories.
The Warnings Issued
Let’s look at the facts regarding the warnings. The National Weather Service (NWS) Austin/San Antonio issued a Flash Flood Warning at 1:14 AM CDT for Bandera and Kerr Counties. This warning explicitly stated, “Life-threatening flash flooding of creeks and streams, urban areas, highways, streets, and underpasses,” and specifically identified vulnerable regions like Kerrville, Ingram, Hunt, Waltonia, Kerr Wildlife Management Area, and Lost Maples State Natural Area.
Later, at 5:34 AM Friday morning, the NWS escalated the situation by issuing a Flood Emergency for much of the region. The warning urged people to “seek higher ground” as “Automated rain gauges indicate a large and deadly flood wave is moving down the Guadalupe River.”
It’s a tough situation because many of these critical warnings happened in the middle of the night, which presents its own set of communication challenges, a point I’ll elaborate on later.
The Meteorological Narrative Unfolds
What was the meteorological narrative leading up to Friday? I reviewed an NWS discussion issued on Thursday afternoon, and several things immediately caught my eye. Forecasters noted, “A substantial plume of deep tropical moisture continues to stream north across South-Central Texas, characterized by unseasonably moist precipitable water values as high as about 2.4 inches…. The 12Z Del Rio upper-air sounding this morning observed a PW of 2.31 inches, which is near daily record high values.”
“
They continued, “The axis of a negatively tilted mid-level trough most readily apparent on 700mb analyses is beginning to move poleward towards the Edwards Plateau, leading to rounds of shower activity throughout South-Central Texas into tomorrow as the advancing trough prompts the ascent of moist air.” A feature called a mesoscale convective vortex (MCV) was also identified as a key player.
Let me decipher some of that meteorological jargon. Precipitable water (PW) is a measure of atmospheric moisture—essentially, how much water would fall if all the moisture in a column of the atmosphere condensed and precipitated out. As meteorologists, we get very concerned when we see exceedingly high PW values, as they indicate a tremendous amount of moisture available for rainfall. The MCV and the presence of the trough are crucial because they signal other necessary ingredients for heavy rain: a focusing mechanism and rising motion in the atmosphere. NWS forecasters were clearly aware of these signs. On Thursday afternoon, they wrote, “Rainfall totals of 1 to 3 inches appear likely, but locally higher amounts upwards of 5 to 7 inches could materialize if slow-moving storms begin to cluster…. A Flood Watch is now in effect through 7 AM Friday morning for the southern Edwards Plateau and western Hill Country, where the intersection of higher forecast rainfall amounts and rainfall from the past few days is most evident.”
Taking an even longer view, NOAA’s Weather Prediction Center issues a Day 3 to 7 U.S. Weather Hazards Outlook. If you look at the hazard map issued on June 30th, several days before the flooding, a heavy rain region in western Texas was clearly predicted for July 3rd, 2025. This indicates that NWS forecasters were able to identify this potential threat four or more days in advance of the disaster.
Why “Flash Flood Alley” is So Vulnerable
Balanced Weather meteorologist Alan Gerard also shed light on other aspects of this flood event in his blog. He highlighted that “The Hill Country of central Texas is known colloquially as ‘flash flood alley’ because of its high frequency of major flash floods. The region is particularly vulnerable to major flash floods because of the frequency of intense thunderstorms that can produce extreme rainfall rates in the moist Gulf air combined with terrain that favors rapid runoff into flashy rivers and streams.”
Interestingly, a 2023 study published in Natural Hazards examined over 6,000 flood events in “flash flood alley” from 2005 to 2019. They found that fatalities and injuries in the region were surprisingly rare (a 2% occurrence rate). Their predictive model, which considered environmental (topography, soil type, land use), climatic (rainfall attributes), and situational (activities, timing, location) factors, found that vehicle-related activities were the strongest indicator of likely harm. Proximity to low-water crossings and being within “flash flood alley” also increased risk. Crucially, nighttime events like this one were found to be particularly dangerous.
The Role of Drought and Other Conspiracies
Meteorology professor Jordan McLeod pointed out that this event happened within the context of a drought. Why does that matter? Flooding isn’t just about what falls from the sky; the land cover plays a significant role. McLeod speculates that the drought-stricken landscape would accelerate runoff into streams and rivers, much like paved surfaces do, rather than allowing the ground to absorb the rainfall. This compound effect—extreme rainfall on parched land—contributes to the severity of such events.
In the aftermath of any major disaster, particularly those with such tragic outcomes, various conspiracy theories often emerge. With this Texas flood, I’ve heard discussions swirling around cloud seeding and even more outlandish claims about the event being manufactured.
Cloud seeding is a weather modification technique that involves introducing substances (like silver iodide) into clouds to encourage precipitation. While it’s a real technology, it’s typically used to enhance rainfall in drought-stricken areas or increase snowpack, and its effects are generally modest and localized. The idea that cloud seeding could be responsible for a catastrophic, widespread flood of this magnitude, characterized by record-breaking moisture and complex atmospheric dynamics, is simply not supported by scientific understanding or the scale of the technology. The meteorological conditions I’ve described—an immense plume of tropical moisture, a mid-level trough, and a mesoscale convective vortex—are natural phenomena that, when they align, can produce extreme rainfall. To attribute this event to intentional cloud seeding is a significant leap without any credible evidence.
Other conspiracies, often fueled by misinformation on social media, suggest that the government or other entities deliberately caused this flood. These claims are entirely unfounded and distract from the real scientific explanations and the urgent need for recovery and preparedness. As a meteorologist, my focus is on the data, the atmospheric processes, and the accurate communication of risk. Attributing complex natural disasters to secret plots or unproven technologies not only lacks scientific basis but also undermines public trust in reliable information and the efforts of emergency responders and forecasters.
Moving Forward
This is a truly tragic event, and as a meteorologist, I feel that familiar pit in my stomach. Events like this represent a worst-case scenario where several critical factors converge, as highlighted in the Natural Hazards study. While I conclude that there were adequate warnings from a meteorological perspective, the outcomes illustrate known challenges with forecasting and communicating extreme events:
- Messaging Nighttime Events: It is critical to have a “night plan” and maintain weather situational awareness even before going to bed. Many fatalities occur during nocturnal floods because people are asleep or less aware.
- Conveying Probabilistic Risk Associated with Rainfall Events: Our models and expertise can identify the broad parameters, but the precise location and timing of moisture plumes, training (quasi-stationary rain cells), and forcing mechanisms can be incredibly difficult to pinpoint with absolute certainty. We often communicate in terms of probabilities, which can be challenging for the public to interpret.
- Did People Receive the Information and How Was It Consumed?: Even if information is available, consumption patterns vary widely. Some people may not receive warnings at all, while others may receive them but make calculated risks based on circumstances or motivated reasoning. These questions are at the heart of social science research in meteorology.
I’ll close with this vital point: The NWS issued critical warnings during late night (early morning) nocturnal hours as this event unfolded. Weather and its risks are 24/7, so we must ensure that our NWS offices are fully staffed 24/7 to provide continuous monitoring and communication, regardless of the time of day. We should also have systems in place for sirens that actually work and wake people up no matter if its a hurricane, wildfire, tornado, or flood outside their door.
What steps do you think communities can take to improve night-time weather awareness and warning reception?