Matt Lanza

Spring rains causing serious, dangerous flooding issues from Texas to the Midwest

This post will discuss what happened last week in the Rio Grande Valley, which saw historic rainfall in spots. We will also take a look at a growing risk of serious, possibly dangerous weather in the Midwest and Mid-South later in the upcoming week.

Anatomy of a rainfall forecast partial miss

For some time leading into this past week, there were signs of, not really a pattern change, but a disruption in the stagnant, dry Texas weather pattern we’ve seen much of this year. But it was evident that a significant burst of increased rain chances would impact South Texas at least by later in the week. Indeed, by the time the models got into the high-resolution range, we could see a very strong signal for heavy rain in parts of South Texas. The probability matched mean from NOAA’s HREF model on Tuesday showed 48 hour rainfall totals in excess of 7 inches in portions of the Victoria Crossroads or Brush Country.

A very strong signal for significant rainfall in South Texas was showing up well ahead of the event, but as high resolution models came into range, the totals started to look even more concerning. (NOAA SPC)

Even when you looked under the hood, this model showed potential for 10 to 15 inches of rain. This was mainly between the McAllen area east to Port Mansfield north to Victoria. By the time we got to Wednesday morning, the HREF model shown above showed potential maximum totals on the order of 5 to 15 inches over a wide swath of South Texas.

HREF ensemble max member totals exceeded 10 inches in numerous places in South Texas on Wednesday morning indicating a widespread, significant flash flood event was possible. (NOAA SPC)

This was well captured by the excessive rainfall outlook issued on Thursday morning, showing a moderate risk (level 3 of 4) for South Texas. Previous iterations of this outlook on Wednesday had included the Lower Rio Grande Valley in the outlook but just outside the moderate risk zone. The course correction Thursday morning paid off.

Thursday morning’s updated excessive rainfall outlook, which increased the coverage of moderate risk to include the Lower RGV. (NOAA WPC)

Ahead of the event, as you can even see from the HREF modeling above, there had been a lot of focus of heavier rain totals in interior South Texas and up toward Victoria or closer to Corpus Christi. On Thursday morning, the ICON and GFS models had the bullseye near Matagorda Bay. The European model had it near Corpus. The AI model from Europe (AIFS) had it offshore. It ended up coming in much farther south than any model had.

Total rainfall this week peaked just north of the Rio Grande in South Texas, with the Harlingen area hardest hit. (NOAA NSSL MRMS)

This exposes a major flaw in weather modeling today: Precipitation placement. This issue has been long standing and well known in the meteorology community. When you get major mesoscale driven (smaller, more localized forces at play) weather events like this, models often fail on precipitation placement, even if they offer a significant signal of risk and generalized location. In other words, models alerted us in this case to a strong signal that we’d have some big ticket rain totals in the double digits in South Texas. But whether that was going to occur in Victoria, Corpus Christi, or the Valley was not at all clear. The smart money play was on the area between Corpus and Victoria, much farther north than where the bullseye actually occurred. True, there were definitely areas of 4 to 8 inches of rain in that area, but that much heavier stuff whiffed way to the south.

WPC/NOAA rainfall forecast on Wednesday for the rest of the week, showing a bullseye of 4 to 8 inches between Corpus Christi and Matagorda Bay, TX (NOAA)

Indeed, the WPC forecast went that way on Wednesday. Even on Thursday, while the forecast was adjusted to the south, it was focused more offshore. The Flood Watch for the Valley was issued Wednesday evening/Thursday morning just after midnight.

Ultimately, there was some adequate warning, but it would have been nicer to have had some additional lead time. Alas, we do the best we can with the tools we have, and in this case, there had been an indication that someone would get bombarded but not that it would be Harlingen, which smashed their all-time daily rainfall record by 3 inches. Notably, in this top 10 list of wettest days in Harlingen going back to the 1950s, every day occurred between late May and the beginning of October, not March.

It can rain like crazy in Texas any time of year, but to pull a feat like this off in March makes the rainfall record in Harlingen even more impressive. For McAllen, it was the 3rd wettest day on record, with records back to the 1940s. Unfortunately, many communities saw damage and loss of life from this event. The toll is still being tallied (both in the U.S. and in Reynosa, MX across the border), but it was another in a bad history of Texas floods.

We’ve seen this precipitation hits that also miss during bigger storms like Harvey, Florence, and others. But it’s clear that we need to continue to work on our modeling capabilities with respect to precipitation, as flooding has always been a problem and is getting worse.

More spring flooding risk to come, this time northward

No rest for the weary. Flooding (and severe weather) are going to be hot topics over the next week or more. Today’s severe weather and flooding threat is a little more scattered over a wide area. The next really bad setup hits on Wednesday and Thursday this week. We’ll get to the severe weather outlook in a sec, but first, the rainfall risk. The day 5 excessive rainfall outlook from NOAA’s WPC on Thursday is already at a moderate (3/3) for much of the Ohio Valley.

A moderate risk (3/3) for Thursday is in place for flooding rainfall between Memphis and Cincinnati. (NOAA WPC)

Here’s a look at a loop of Sunday morning’s European model forecast centered over Kentucky between Wednesday and Sunday, showing several, repeating rounds of thunderstorms across the Ohio Valley and points south. This is a multi-day heavy rainfall events, and the potential totals from this series of storms is significant.

European model forecast for storms between Wednesday and Sunday shows multiple rounds of heavy rain that will likely add up into at least the 4 to 8 inch range. (Pivotal Weather)

In addition, the severe weather risk on Wednesday is already significant. There seems to be a good deal of model support on Wednesday for developing severe thunderstorms across the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys. Modes look to vary between potential for supercells capable of strong tornadoes and large hail and more “lined out” structure that would carry more of a damaging wind threat. But the signals are all there, leading the Storm Prediction Center to highlight a 30% risk on day 4. I would anticipate this to lead to an enhanced risk to open the bidding tomorrow, with potential for a moderate risk (4/5) before all is said and done.

Severe weather risk on Wednesday in particular looks significant between the Arklatex and potentially Lower Michigan. (NOAA SPC)

Between the storms and the potential for developing flooding, it appears the Wednesday through weekend period is going to be one of those more enhanced time periods to remain weather aware in parts of the Midwest, Mid-South, and Deep South.

Total rainfall between today’s storms and what we see to close next week may be on the order of 5 to 10 inches.

Potential total rainfall between Sunday and Sunday in the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys. (Pivotal Weather)

I have to be frank here: Both AI modeling and the traditional ensemble models are in strong agreement on this type of map. Historically, those models tend to underdo rain amounts this far out in this type of setup. So while the expectation is 5 to 10 inches, it seems likely that some places will exceed those values, and those are the areas that could see even more significant, potentially dangerous flooding. This is an event you’ll want to continue to follow closely.

Weather balloon launch cuts: An honest look at how it should impact forecasts

As we navigate the world right now, we have an obligation to keep our readers informed on the news of the day as it relates to weather forecasting. After all, if you are using this site and others for weather forecast information, you have an interest. But there’s a lot of news out there, and a lot of opinions masquerading as news. No matter your political leanings, the “zone” as it were is flooded and trying to piece together facts vs. stretched truths can be difficult in any ideology. So, periodically I think it helps to take a step back and assess a topic as realistically as possible. This is meant to be as unbiased a look as possible at one topic of note: Weather balloon launches being cut.

What is happening?

Due to staffing constraints, as a result of recent budget cuts and retirements, the National Weather Service has announced a series of suspensions involving weather balloon launches in recent weeks.

On February 27, it was announced that balloon launches would be suspended entirely at Kotzebue, Alaska due to staffing shortages. In early March, Albany, NY and Gray, Maine announced periodic disruptions in launches. Since March 7th, it appears that Gray has not missed any balloon launches through Saturday. Albany, however, has missed 14 of them, all during the morning launch cycle (12z).

Sunday morning’s upper air launch map showing a gaping hole over the Rockies and some of the Plains. (University of Wyoming)

The kicker came on Thursday afternoon when it was announced that all balloon launches would be suspended in Omaha, NE and Rapid City, SD due to staffing shortages. Additionally, the balloon launches in Aberdeen, SD, Grand Junction, CO, Green Bay, WI, Gaylord, MI, North Platte, NE, and Riverton, WY would be reduced to once a day from twice a day.

What are weather balloons anyway?

In a normal time, weather balloons would be launched across the country and world twice per day right at about 8 AM ET and 8 PM ET (one hour earlier in winter), or what we call 12z and 00z. That’s Zulu time, or Noon and Midnight in Greenwich, England. Rather than explain the whole reasoning behind why we use Zulu time in meteorology, here’s a primer on everything you need to know. Weather balloons are launched around the world at the same time. It’s a unique collaboration and example of global cooperation in the sciences, something that has endured for many years.

An example of a radiosonde. (NOAA)

These weather balloons are loaded up with hydrogen or helium, soar into the sky, up to and beyond jet stream level, getting to a height of over 100,000 feet before they pop. Attached to the weather balloon is a tool known as a radiosonde, or sonde for short. This is basically a weather sensing device that measures all sorts of weather variables, like temperature, dewpoint, pressure, and more. Wind speed is usually derived from this based on GPS transmitting from the sonde. What goes up must come down, so when the balloon pops, that radiosonde falls from the sky. A parachute is attached to it, slowing its descent and ensuring no one gets plunked on the head by one. If you find a radiosonde, it should be clearly marked, and you can keep it, let the NWS know you found it, or dispose of it properly. In some instances, there may still be a way to mail it back to the NWS (postage and envelope included and prepaid).

A radiosonde with mailing instructions. (NWS Pittsburgh)

What does the data from weather balloons do?

In order to run a weather model, you need an accurate snapshot of what we call the initial conditions. What is the weather at time = zero? That’s your initialization point. Not coincidentally, weather models are almost always run at 12z and 00z, to time in line with retrieving the data from these weather balloons. It’s a critically important input to almost all weather modeling we use. The data from balloon launches can be plotted on a chart called a sounding, which gives meteorologists a vertical profile of the atmosphere at a point. During severe weather season, we use these observations to understand the environment we are in, assess risks to model output, and make changes to our own forecasts. During winter, these observations are critical to knowing if a storm will produce snow, sleet, or freezing rain. Observations from soundings are important inputs for assessing turbulence that may impact air travel, marine weather, fire weather, and air pollution. Other than some tools on some aircraft that we utilize, the data from balloon launches is the only real good verification tool we have for understanding how the upper atmosphere is behaving.

Haven’t we lost weather balloon data before?

We typically lose out on a data point or two each day for various reasons when the balloons are launched. We’ve also been operating without a weather balloon launch in Chatham, MA for a few years because coastal erosion made the site too challenging and unsafe. Tallahassee, FL has been pausing balloon launches for almost a year now due to a helium shortage and inability to safely switch to hydrogen gas for launching the balloons. In Denver, balloon launches have been paused since 2022 due to the helium shortage as well.

Those are three sites though, spread out across the country. We are doubling or tripling the number of sites without launches now, many in critical areas upstream of significant weather.

Can’t satellites replace weather balloons?

Yes and no. On one hand, satellites today are capable of incredible observations that can rival weather balloons at times. And they also cover the globe constantly, which is important. That being said, satellites cannot completely replace balloon launches. Why? Because the radiosonde data those balloon launches give us basically acts as a verification metric for models in a way that satellites cannot. It also helps calibrate derived satellite data to ensure that what the satellite is seeing is recorded correctly.

But in general, satellites cannot yet replace weather balloons. They merely act to improve upon what weather balloons do. A study done in the middle part of the last decade found that wind observations improved rainfall forecasts by 30 percent. The one tool at that time that made the biggest difference in improving the forecast were radiosondes. Has this changed since then? Yes, almost certainly. Our satellites have better resolution, are capable of getting more data, and send data back more frequently. So certainly it’s improved some. But enough? That’s unclear.

An analysis done more recently on the value of dropsondes (the opposite of balloon launches; this time the sensor is dropped from an aircraft instead of launched from the ground) in forecasting west coast atmospheric rivers showed a marked improvement in forecasts when those targeted drops occur. Another study in 2017 showed that aircraft observations actually did a good job filling gaps in the upper air data network. Even with aircraft observations, there were mixed studies done in the wake of the COVID-19 reduction in air travel that suggested no impact could be detected above usual forecast error noise or that there was some regional degradation in model performance.

The element with the second highest impact on the NASA GEOS model? Radiosondes.
(NASA)

But to be quite honest, there have not been a whole lot of studies that I can find in recent years that assess how the new breed of satellites has (or has not) changed the value of upper air observations. The NASA GEOS model keeps a record of what data sources are of most impact to model verification with respect to 24 hour forecasts. Number two on the list? Radiosondes. This could be considered probably a loose comp to the GFS model, one of the major weather models used by meteorologists globally.

What’s the verdict?

In reality, the verdict in all this is to be determined, particularly statistically. Will it make a meaningful statistical difference in model accuracy? Over time, yes probably, but not in ways that most people will notice day to day.

However, based on 20 years of experience and a number of conversations about this with others in the field, there are some very real, very serious concerns beyond statistics. One thing is that the suspended weather balloon launches are occurring in relatively important areas for weather impacts downstream. A missed weather balloon launch in Omaha or Albany won’t impact the forecast in California. But what if a hurricane is coming? What if a severe weather event is coming? You’ll definitely see impacts to forecast quality during major, impactful events. At the very least, these launch suspensions will increase the noise to signal ratio with respect to forecasts.

In other words, there may be situations where you have a severe weather event expected to kickstart in one place but the lack of knowing the precise location of an upper air disturbance in the Rockies thanks to a suspended launch from Grand Junction, CO will lead to those storms forming 50 miles farther east than expected. In other words, losing this data increases the risk profile for more people in terms of knowing about weather, particularly high impact weather.

A map of what’s happening 20,000 feet over our heads this morning, showing a strong disturbance exiting an area where upper air observations were sparse yesterday and this morning. An example of a situation where those would be helpful. (Tropical Tidbits)

Let’s say we have a hurricane in the Gulf that is rapidly intensifying, and we are expecting it to turn north and northeast thanks to a strong upper air disturbance coming out of the Rockies, leading to landfall on the Alabama coast. What if the lack of upper air observations has led to that disturbance being misplaced by 75 miles. Now, instead of Alabama, the storm is heading toward New Orleans. Is this an extreme example? Honestly, I don’t think it is as extreme as you think. We often have timing and amplitude forecast issues with upper air disturbances during hurricane season, and the reality is that we may have to make some more frequent last second adjustments now that we didn’t have to in recent years. As a Gulf Coast resident, this is very concerning.

I don’t want to overstate things: Weather forecasts aren’t going to dramatically degrade day to day because we’ve reduced some balloon launches across the country. They will degrade, but the general public probably won’t notice much difference 90 percent of the time. But that 10 percent of the time? It’s not that the differences will be gigantic. But the impact of those differences? That could very well be gigantic, put more people in harm’s way, and increase the risk profile for an awful lot of people. That’s what this does: It increases the risk profile, it will lead to reduced weather forecast skill scores, and it may lead to an event that surprises a portion of the population that isn’t used to be surprised in the 2020s. To me, that makes the value of weather balloons very, very significant, and I find these cuts to be extremely troubling.

One addendum that I have edited to add: This is our current situation. It’s a static look at a fluid problem. Should further cuts in staffing lead to further suspensions in weather balloon launches, we will see this problem magnify more often and involve bigger misses. In other words, the impacts here may not be linear, and repeated increased loss of real-world observational data will lead to very significant degradation in weather model performance that may be noticed more often than described above.

The 2025 drying of Texas has commenced, so what does it mean?

We’re off to a fairly volatile start to spring in Texas, and the risks are not really coming via thunderstorms but rather via wildfire risk. For the third time in less than 2 weeks, there is a “critical” wildfire risk in Texas (as well as Oklahoma) today. This means the threat of wildfires is about as bad as it gets for some of these areas.

(NOAA SPC)

Not all of Texas is included in this risk, but much of the western half of the state, as well as North Texas into Oklahoma are there. The combination of dry ground, expanding drought, low humidity, and strong winds will make for a dangerous wildfire risk in those parts of the southern Plains.

Powerful wind gusts in the Panhandle, Oklahoma, and West Texas will exacerbate high fire risks today. (Pivotal Weather)

Wind gusts of 40 to 80 mph are likely this morning and afternoon, especially in the Texas Panhandle, the Caprock, perhaps the Hill Country and North Texas to the west of Dallas-Fort Worth through Wichita Falls and up into parts of Oklahoma. In fact, winds have already gusted to 81 mph in Amarillo and 83 mph in Lubbock today. Those winds will be hospitable to rapid fire spread should something get started, hence the concern. Additionally, winds that strong will be capable of producing some non-thunderstorm wind damage on their own west of I-35.

Additional fire risks will follow in the days ahead, including tomorrow, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, especially in west Texas and eastern New Mexico.

How did we get here?

Texas has been in and drought as it often is, but in recent years it sure feels like we’ve been “in” drought more than out of it. Since the start of 2025, Texas has struggled mightily in the rainfall department. With the exception of the Piney Woods and parts of Southeast Texas near Houston, it has been a very, very dry start to the year.

Much of the western two-thirds of Texas are off to a painfully dry start to 2025. (High Plains Regional Climate Center)

Lubbock, Midland, and El Paso are all having top 15 driest starts to a year, with El Paso seeing less than a tenth of an inch of rainfall so far in 2025. Wichita Falls, Abilene, and San Angelo are all having very dry starts to a year, though not historically so. This has allowed for expansion of drought since the beginning of year, with the beginning stages of a rapid onset drought in the last 10 days or so.

Drought has expanded in coverage across Texas since January with a somewhat increased pace just in the last 10 days or so. (US Drought Monitor)

The recent bump in windy, dry storms has helped accelerate this process. According to an early March forecast update from the National Interagency Fire Center, “Confidence is increasing in a high impact spring fire season across the southern Great Plains. The expected weather pattern and its impacts to the fire environment are of major concern, and at least weekly high-end wind events are plausible through March and April.”

What’s to come?

It would appear that after this weekend’s event, we have another one (albeit less intense) coming around midweek next week, followed by perhaps another one next weekend. In fact, the 8 to 14 day hazard outlook from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center suggests worsening drought over the next 2 weeks in west Texas and New Mexico.

Rapid onset, worsening drought is likely in western portions of Texas and eastern New Mexico over the next two weeks. (NOAA CPC)

The next two weeks suggest near to below average precipitation in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma as well, with some areas likely to remain quite dry. This is not uncommon in a La Niña event, even one that’s winding down. But this is a rather significant event for a generally minor La Niña. Perhaps things can alleviate some later this spring or by summer. Otherwise, it could be a long, painfully hot, problematic summer in the southern Plains.

Austerity measures threaten to stall absolutely amazing, cost-saving hurricane forecast progress

Hurricane forecasting has never been better. We say that a lot, but the statistics bear that out, and last hurricane season was literally the best one yet.

National Hurricane Center track forecast errors have been steadily improving over the last 30 years, and 2024 set a new benchmark. (NOAA)

This week, the National Hurricane Center released a preview of their annual verification report. They rigorously verify their forecasts each year and compare them to the key tools that they utilize to assist in forecasting. And this year was a doozy in a good way. Put one way: The track forecast 5 days out in 2024 was equivalent to the error of a 2-day track forecast as recently as 2000-2005. Think about that for a second. They have improved track forecast errors by a whopping 3 days on average in 20 years. A 3-day track forecast today performs better than a 1-day track forecast did on average in the late 90s and early 2000s as well. The amount of improved lead time you have on storms today compared to less than 20 years ago is incredible.

Intensity forecasting is another matter. While it too has improved over the last 20 to 30 years, the rate of improvement is not quite to the level of track error. That said, a lot of research has been coming out in recent years with respect to rapid intensification, and one would expect to see these forecasts pick up further improvement in the years ahead. This statement will likely put off some folks, but sometimes the truth can do that: It is likely that climate change plays some role in the idea of chasing a moving target. This is especially true in recent years with extremely warm water temperatures in the Atlantic basin. How has this changed the behavior of rapid intensification? That in and of itself makes things difficult. So while the long-term average continues to go in the right direction, we need to continually invest in research and understanding of the mechanics of hurricanes to improve both lead time and forecast accuracy even more.

Intensity forecast errors have been improving at a slower rate and with more year-to-year noise than track forecasts, however the trends are very positive. (NOAA)

Within the report, the probability of detecting a rapidly intensifying hurricane in 2024 sat at around 70 percent. I don’t know what that was 20 years ago, but it was nowhere near that level. Per the report, “although RI remains one of the biggest challenges at NHC, it is worth noting that advancements in hurricane modeling and understanding of the science are making a difference in improving forecasts for even the most challenging cases.” Investment in research is literally paying dividends. As Jeff Masters noted in his discussion on this topic, these research improvements likely saved billions of dollars in 2024 itself, let alone over the last 10 years or so.

Some of the work that’s gotten us here has happened organically through research to improve forecasts and models, often funded by federal programs, but the bulk of this specific for hurricanes is likely attributable to the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project (HFIP). HFIP was established within NOAA back in 2007 after the very bad 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. HFIP goals are to improve hurricane forecasts, extend lead time, extend forecast confidence, and more. It’s interesting to read comments from Bill Read in 2008 about the HFIP and then to see the results we have in the 15+ years since. Our Houston audience should know Bill Read who is about as legendary as a meteorologist can be in a community. He was also the director of the National Hurricane Center from 2008 through 2012 as HFIP began being implemented.

A 2008 interview with Bill Read for the Tampa Tribune discussing the state of hurricane forecasting. (Tampa Tribune via newspapers.com)

The problem is always funding. HFIP got a nice boost back in the first Trump administration when the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act was passed by Congress. Millions of dollars were allocated to weather research with that law. HFIP was specifically cited in the bill as an area to focus on. And indeed all this money and hard work to improve these forecasts is now bearing fruit.

But we sit in a perilous moment. At the risk of getting too political here, the current “slash and burn” philosophy of cutting government spending risks halting the progress that has been made. Meteorology is sitting at a crossroads right now as it is: Physics-based modeling and AI-based modeling are now both entering operational phases together, and the work being done to marry the best parts of these different technologies is just beginning. The potential results are tantalizing. Forecasts will never be perfect. But if we can continue to reduce errors and improve forecast lead time, we can save lives, save property, and reduce the economic impact from storms. If the couple billion that was put into this effort led to the economy saving tens of billions of dollars from hurricane impacts in recent years, then how does cutting a few hundred million or a billion help improve efficiency, as is the stated goal of Department of Government Efficiency? It’s a simple math problem, and the math doesn’t check out, no matter how much of a deficit hawk you may be. If these programs added no value and cost more than they saved or added to the economy, that would be another thing entirely.

Bill Proenza was director of the NHC back in 2007. He had an interesting tenure, leading the NHC through a tumultuous 6 months. He was known for being a bit brash and for publicly criticizing his bosses, the combination of which led him to be let go from that job. That style may work in some sectors, but in the NHC, the best leaders usually cause fewer distractions. Regardless of that, he made a very good point back in 2011 during talk of budget cuts in that Congress He told the Miami Herald at the time that the short-term savings of cutting hurricane research flights (allocating $17 million in funding to the program it was under versus the $29 million it had been funded at) would come with higher long-term costs. This is exactly the problem. Your political ideology may color how you feel about cutting spending, but the simple reality is that when people without expertise in matters begin to cut programs without understanding them, they’re accepting higher long-term costs in exchange for the short-term gratification of “hey, we did something.” If one is truly concerned about budgets and deficits, they would look at this problem through nuanced lens. Could efficiency be improved in certain areas of programs or research and development? Absolutely. I’m sure it could be. Does the possibility of taking an axe to a program through significant personnel losses or funding cuts put us all at risk of poorer long-term outcomes both physically and fiscally? Yes. Is the prudent way slower? Yes. Is the slower way smarter? Also, yes.

The forecast improvements in recent years have produced amazing outcomes, saved lives, and saved the economy billions of dollars. If we pull the rug out from under this program right when it’s literally at its best, we risk halting that progress, increasing costs and burdens on federal, state, and local governments, not to mention people and small businesses in the path of increasingly complex and dangerous storms. It’s simply not the fiscally prudent thing to do. Many folks in hurricane alley share the priorities of the current administration, which is fine but it’s important to understand the potential ramifications and impacts to us all in certain instances and to make sure your elected officials understand that. Given what we’ve witnessed between Texas and Florida since 2017 or so, it’s in our best interest to continue to work to improve hurricane forecasts as much as possible.