As Irene battered the East Coast two weeks ago, Frank Lombardo knew that only after the rain and wind stopped and the floods receded, would his work begin.

That's because as a forensic meteorologist, Lombardo is often called on to consult on legal and insurance cases resulting from violent storms. His job, and that of any forensic meteorologist, is to reconstruct the weather conditions that occurred at a specific time and location in question by retrieving and analyzing archived atmospheric data and re-creating a time line of meteorological events.

"As soon as something happens…whether there's a catastrophic event or a minor localized event, forensic meteorologists understand things will quiet down, but in a few years from now, it will get into the courts," says Lombardo, president of WeatherWorks, Inc. The Hackettstown, N.J.–based company provides meteorological expertise to public and private sector organizations, including the media.

Described as a combination of science, art and interpretation, forensic meteorology mirrors the work that detectives do to solve crimes. Cases may involve whether lightning sparked a fire or, if someone slips and falls, whether ice on a property was to blame. Data comes from various sources, including observations, weather stations at airports, Doppler radar and satellite imagery, National Weather Service bulletins, and even tidal gages. Forensic meteorologists may also take their own measurements, such as wind velocity. Cases are mainly site-specific, and much of the problem-solving involves knowing what synoptic, or generalized, data is needed to reconstruct the micrometeorology at a particular location.

"A lot of what we depend on is experience, but we need tools of the industry, such as Doppler radar and good observations" to solve mysteries related to weather, Lombardo says.

He recounts one of his cases in which a crane collapsed near a building, injuring the operator. It was a blustery day, and the wind threshold of the crane ranged from approximately 48 to 56 kilometers per hour, according to the manufacturer. Hired by the operator, his charge was to determine how the localized weather influenced the crane's fall. Lombardo visited the site on a day that had similar conditions as when the accident occurred, and on noticing that the crane was positioned near a nine-meter wall, wondered if that had influenced the site's wind velocity. He measured the wind speed using an anemometer, noting that the wind intersected the wall at a 70 to 80 degree angle. By calculating simple vectors, he discovered that the wind speed near the crane was around 29 to 48 kilometers per hour, right at the edge of what the crane could withstand. "I secured information that supported the case that the [worker] shouldn't have been operating the crane," Lombardo says. "It wasn't his fault. It was a function of the wind converging on the wall, which increased the wind pressure on the crane, causing it to collapse."

Sometimes, data that is needed to decipher how atmospheric conditions affected a particular location and case is not available. Stephen Wistar, a forensic meteorologist with AccuWeather, consulted on hundreds of cases relating to Hurricane Katrina. Most of his investigations centered on insurance claims about whether wind or storm surge caused property damage. He lacked access to much of the typical data he would have used in similar circumstances because many of the standard tools, such as weather stations and tidal gages, failed when the storm hit. Instead, he utilized a massive computer model called "ADvanced CIRCulation" (ADCIRC), which predicts tidal and storm surge elevations and velocities over large areas. Combined with information he retrieved from Doppler radar sites outside of New Orleans, and on-site investigations he conducted himself, he was able to reconstruct time lines of property damage and state which hit property first—the wind or the water.

3 Comments

1. 1. KSama 01:16 PM 9/12/11

   They should sell an insurance policy which covers ALL catastrophic events. In Katrina there is a large population who believe they were insured and in fact were not. There is a difference between hurricane damage and flooding but as any sane man would know hurricane always comes with high rain and therefore it comes with flooding. Flooding damage by any cause would be covered. So in general all of the insured people in Katrina should logically have been covered for either Hurricane or flooding damage. Imho.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. RobLL 04:21 PM 9/12/11

   There is a serious market failure with insurance, and the companies bear a major responsibility for it. We buy 'fire' insurance, and it happens to cover certain hazzards - wind amongst them. Never has an insurance company come out and analyzed what perils they (and I may incur when I buy a policy). If I wanted earthquake insurance it only covers the shaking - other related perils to the earthquake are tsunami, land slides (or collapse), and subseqent fires. Insurance companies simply refuse to investigate what they are covering, but after the event spend lots of money to avoid paying. It would make more sense, should I want to buy earthquake coverage, for a trained person to come to the house and determine what the major risks seem to be - shaking, tsunami, geological, fire etc. I may have to pay for the evaluation, but when all gets said and done the insurance company (along with the federally subsidized portion) should make a recommendation for a comprehensive plan for earthquake coverage for properties. Likewise hurricane coverage needs to include storm surge, rain induced floods etc. There is gaming in the current markets, both on the part of the insurance companies and on the part of the purchasers of insurance. And without prior investigating the particular perils faced by a particular property the gaming will continue. Mr Wistars talents might be better used on the front end of insurance rather than after the storm.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. scientific earthling 09:22 PM 9/12/11

   Insurance is a mugs game. The customer always looses. Insurance companies are happy to receive money but paying is entirely up to them, if it is good advertising they will pay else you can go to hell. If you think the legal system is going to help; think again. The legal system is a money making racket where you are assumed to know nothing. Once in their web, they will bleed you dry. If you receive compensation, you will find that your legal fees still leave you loosing money.
   
   That has been my experience. When presenting your case they always leave out essential documents to support your case, they want to create debate at your cost. I was told I had a water-tight case and did not have to prove the same point multiple times. I may have won my case but because the judge was not totally convinced, got only 60% of my claim. Was awarded legal fees, but the amount awarded after another case was less than half my spend. I lost money by fighting for my rights. My lawyer made money by working with the opposing lawyer, having meetings with them and working for their mutual benefit.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this