Though New Orleans residents were told to evacuate days before the arrival of Hurricane Katrina, no one could have predicted the real extent of the devastation that would follow.
Researchers from Tel Aviv University say they may be ableto make just such a prediction in the future. They say a reliable way to help predict the intensity of the next big flood can use common cell phone towers across the United States. Their model, which analyzes cell phone signals, adds a critical component to weather forecasting never before available.
"By monitoring the specific and fluctuating atmospheric moisture around cell phone towers throughout America, we can cheaply, effectively and reliably provide a more accurate 'critical moisture distribution' level for fine-tuning model predictions of big floods," says Prof. Pinhas Alpert, a geophysicist and head of Tel Aviv University's Porter School for Environmental Education.
Cell phone towers emit radio waves that are diminished by moisture in the air, a factor that can be used to improve model warnings on flood levels. In addition, the researchers measured the rainfall distributions and were able to accurately estimate the size of impending floods before they struck. This was demonstrated in post-analysis of two case-studies of floods in the Judean Desert in Israel, where cell phone towers - and flash floods - are abundant.
Using real data measurements collected from the towers, the researchers demonstrated how microwave links in a cellular network correlated with surface station humidity measurements. The data provided by cell phone towers is the missing link weather forecasters need to improve the accuracy of flood forecasting. The microwave data used in this study was supplied by two cellular providers Cellcom and Pelephone in Israel.
Can texting save lives?
"Our method provides reliable measurement of moisture fields near the flood zone for the first time," notes Prof. Alpert, who also works with NASA on developing models to study global warming weather patterns. This new tool, he says, can add to the bigger picture of understanding climate change patterns in general.
"Accurate predictions of flooding were difficult before because there haven't been enough reliable measurements of moisture fields in remote locations," Prof. Alpert adds. Using the signals collected from cell phone towers as they communicate with base stations and our handsets, weather forecasters will now have a crucial missing piece of information for flood prediction that they never had before. It will permit forecasters and residents alike to more accurately gauge the danger they face from an impending flood.
Because hundreds of thousands of cell phone towers are already in place, the Tel Aviv University invention can be adopted quickly. And cell phone companies are already collecting the data anyway, as Americans continue to ramp up their minutes of call time every month.
Alpert and his co-researchers Prof. Hagit Messer Yaron and doctoral fellow Noam David reported on their research in the April 2009 Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Comments
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 15:13 PM
- Reply to This »
- Link
As the lead investigators, Raymond Seed and Robert Bea, both highly qualified engineers, pointed out, if the levee and flood wall system had not catastrophically failed due to what can only be characterized as gross engineering malpractice, New Orleans would have suffered nothing more than "wet ankles" from any flooding. By the time it arrived at New Orleans in a glancing blow, it was a Saffir-Simpson Category 2 or weak Category 3 hurricane.
Unless cell phone towers can somehow predict bad engineering, they would have done nothing to prevent the damage to New Orleans.
Steve (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 18:13 PM
If we check the records, the Army Corps of Engineers had recommended changes all throughout that area in the 1990s and into the 2000s and were blocked by lawsuits from environmental groups saying that expanding flood protection was bad.
It wasn't bad engineering as much as only what was allowed to be done. It's after the fact that people choose to say that government should have been solution-based rather than politically sensitive. The NSF doesn't dig any ditches, as far as I know.
It wasn't bad engineering as much as only what was allowed to be done. It's after the fact that people choose to say that government should have been solution-based rather than politically sensitive. The NSF doesn't dig any ditches, as far as I know.
Hank Campbell | 07/07/09 | 18:27 PM
While there might have been improvements to the levees and floodwalls, the bottom line is that the structures which were built were unsound from the get-go.
Personally, I believe that large portions of the New Orleans "flood control" system should never have been built and, consequently, large areas in flood-prone areas should never have been settled. Since the 1920s, population, according to the Campanella report (issued in 2006 but seemingly, no longer on line), has shifted from higher elevation areas to lower elevations. While New Orleans, contrary to common belief, is not entirely below sea level, about half of it is. Unfortuately, more than 60 percent of the population lives below sea level. The worst thing that happened to New Orleans, again in my opinion, was the invention of the Wood Pump, which allowed drainage of swampy areas and opened it up for development.
However, setting that aside, the fact is that the Corps failed and failed spectacularly, and suggesting that environmentalists were the cause of the flooding of the city is somewhat disingenuous, to say the least. Bad constuction is bad construction.
The NSF may not dig ditches, but the engineers who wrote the report certainly did.
Steve (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 18:41 PM
If you recommend changes, get them approved and lawsuits stop you ... what else is there to do? You may have a beef against the Army, that's fine by me ... but sanctimonious outrage reads like pure partisanship. It is not possible that the NSF, a bureaucracy that is in the funding business, has better actual engineers than the Army. After disaster happens, everyone is an expert. Were you on the side of the Army in the 1990s when they wanted to fix that stuff?
Hank Campbell | 07/07/09 | 18:56 PM









