Reading

Below are three published articles on forensic climatology for the general reader. All were written by Mike Morassutti. They are:

"Weather Evidence is Highly Probative", The Lawyer's Weekly, Aug. 18, 2000, vol. 20, no. 14, pp. 21-22.

"Forensic Climatology", Without Prejudice, Oct. 1999, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 6-13.

"Adjusting for the Weather", Canadian Underwriter, Sept. 1998, vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 30-32.

Article 1 / Weather Evidence is Highly Probative

The atmosphere is omnipresent. Many of its properties can be detected by the five senses. You can feel temperature and humidity, see clouds and sky colour, hear rainfall and wind, smell smog and even lightning. Because weather conditions have both direct and indirect effects on human behaviour, and vice versa, they can be utilized either to corroborate or refute witness testimony and other evidence.

Similarly, "climate signatures" exist in the character and movement of visible objects and conditions, be they natural or artificial. Some examples: a photograph or satellite image displaying the effusion trajectory of smoke from a chimney indicates prevailing wind direction; the presence of moss or mould tells of moist ambient conditions; crickets tend to chirp slower when temperatures are cooler; icicles hanging from a roof edge evidences recent periods of above zero temperatures. 

Humans also experience thermoregulatory and physiological changes under various weather conditions, responses being both voluntary (i.e. adaptive behaviour) and involuntary. Seemingly irrelative case information like someone squinting their eyes might indicate a sunny and bright sky. The appearance of an umbrella or a raincoat tells of recent or imminent rainfall. A high consumption of liquids suggests very hot temperatures. A multitude of such signatures exist and can be correlated with recorded weather observations. If identified to have some bearing in a case, they can be used to sway jury, judge and judgement.

Take the case of a woman who was charged with careless driving in an automobile accident that resulted in fatalities. She claimed temporary visual impairment as caused by the upsplashing of mud onto her car's windshield. This meant a wet surface and thus suggested a recent rainfall for times in and around the accident occurrence. However, a weather report indicated that conditions at the time were clear and sunny. Why the discrepancy? How credible was her testimony? It turned out that the woman's claim of muddy conditions, and hence rain, could be substantiated by examination of a satellite image. The weather data originally used were collected at point stations. The satellite view, with its extensive spatial coverage, was able to show that a small and intense rainstorm did indeed pass through the area of the accident location, yet not traversing over the point-location weather stations.

Perhaps one of best advantages of factoring weather information into a case has to do with the element of surprise. Because the atmosphere is "everywhere", that it is regularly disregarded as an inconsequential "given", and since climatology and litigation outwardly appear as completely unrelated areas, such a stratagem warrants consideration. There was a case in 1976 which proved the value of introducing unanticipated weather information. A motorist in Sudbury claimed that the stop sign he drove through was not visible from the roadway he was travelling on. He even provided the court photographic evidence showing the sign lying on the side of the road. Unfortunately for the claimant, clouds were displayed in his photograph. The opposing party afterwards presented a satellite image of the time and location of the disputed incident. The image showed a completely cloudless sky. The motorist subsequently confessed to taking the photograph five days afterwards, doing so as the addition of more demerit points to his record would have led to his license being revoked. He was later fined and convicted of perjury.

Sometimes the forensic climatologist is challenged for testifying for, and reporting on, weather conditions that were in actuality recorded by a third party. This contention can be countered by quoting from a business stipulation in the Canada Evidence Act [R.S.C 1985, c. C-5, sec. 30(1)]: "Where oral evidence would be admissible, then in lieu of such information, a record made in the normal course of business procedure is acceptable." Forensic climatologists do not commonly give first-person testimony. Their testimony can more so be classified as "circumstantial" or "demonstrable fact". Additionally, it is important to make sure that weather data, if obtained from a source or platform under the auspices of Environment Canada (which is usually the situation), are stamped and certified as official weather records (American weather data can be certified similarly, by the National Climatic Data Center at Asheville, North Carolina). This ensures that standard measuring practices and quality control procedures have been undertaken to account for instrument and observer errors or deficiencies. 

Problems can still arise, however. The National Weather Service in the U.S. retained a fireman to record temperatures in Bullhead City, Arizona. Over time it was realized that temperatures at about 5^oF more than "normal" were regularly reported. Soonafter residents were alleging a 20-30% reduction in summer business as the city became known as the hottest place in the country. Nobody wants to suffer from extreme heat on a daily basis, especially in Arizona, a state popular for retirement with elderly people who are more prone to suffer from heat stroke. An investigation later showed that temperatures were improperly recorded by the fireman. Apparently, he placed the thermometer over barren ground instead of a standard and more representative grass surface. The hotter temperatures were attributable to the fact that dry soil gains and loses heats more quickly than a vegetated surface.

There is a semi-popular saying that commonly said to have originated with Mark Twain. It reads: "Everyone talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it." Today this situation is different as talk about the weather has moved from a time killer in uncomfortable informal encounters to the prosecution of suspected killers in formal court rooms. Things are being done about it.

Article 2 / Forensic Climatology

INTRODUCTION. Weather or not? How do past weather conditions interrelate to a particular case? These are the questions some adjusters have been asking themselves. Be it vehicle accidents or vandalism, structural failures or slip and falls, poor working conditions or construction delays, and a host of others - insurance professionals are beginning to realize that processes occurring in the omnipresent atmosphere can weigh significantly in event reconstruction and the verification or disputation of claims.

The expert who investigates such matters is a forensic climatologist, someone who applies atmospheric data and theory to aid the insurance claim or litigation process. He generally relies on a number of information sources when interassociating events with weather phenomena: site observations, computer modelling, statistical analysis, even satellite imagery aid in the determination of the causation or circumstances surrounding civil or criminal events. Most often, basic elements such as temperature, precipitation, winds, pressure, clouds, humidity and lightning statistics are acquired. These data are measured at a network of ground stations throughout Canada, located predominantly in and around densely populated areas for obvious reasons. Properly understood and interpreted, they are a gold mine of information in terms of the appraisal of the coverage, duration and character of atmospheric and surface phenomena. When warranted,  a whole assortment of geoclimatic and hydrological databases can be accessed by the forensic climatologist to facilitate  his work. Our age of voracious data collection and management makes this possible. Applied climatology, then, has expanded as a field, becoming more “investigative”, applicable to a wide latitude of claims issues.

Every expert seems to be affixing the word "forensic" to his title these days. There are forensic accountants, forensic pathologists, forensic anthropologists and forensic engineers. It may seem a fashionable thing to do and a Hollywoodish way of attracting attention. Though it is not. Like the cell phone, which started as a luxury for a few and latterly became a necessary device for easy and efficient communication by many, forensic consultants have gained prominence as their respective specializations have increasingly been recognized as greatly advantageous, in both an insurance and legal context. Like any product or service, utilization is dictated by popular demand after the dissemination of new or different ways of approaching and resolving long-standing problems.

SCENARIOS OF APPLICATION. But someone may query - “What, in heaven’s name, do weather conditions have to do with the case I am working on?” Consider this scenario: The manufacturer of a machine maintains that it is operational under very cold conditions. The purchaser/operator contrarily claims that the device failed on a frigid day, causing a production delay and thus income loss. An engineer attributes the breakdown to low temperatures which increased the viscosity of the lubricating oil  thereby inciting a seizure in a hydraulic piston. True, the temperature at which the oil becomes too viscous for operation is known. But the critical viscosity threshold could be dependent upon surrounding air temperatures and its rate of change. The operators manual states that the device functions normally down to -22^oC. The machine designers examined the weather history of the area and found its average winter temperature to be -20^oC and the temperature at the time of the loss to be -19^oC. Is the manufacturer off the hook? Who, then, is liable for the breakdown? It depends. If  the designers did not account for the probability of rare extremes and wind chill (i.e. rate of cooling as a function of wind speed) the situation might turn interesting. This hypothetical may seem too intricated for the real world, though perhaps not when large costs and reputations are involved. More common cases involving weather elements are compiled below:

(1) A freeze event caused a delay to a building undergoing construction by damaging  temperature-sensitive materials stored on site. The contractor claimed the forecast called for mild weather and apparently became stone cold shocked when temperatures plummeted below zero. A look into historical archives might illustrate that, in actuality, the movement of a polar air system into the area was issued by forecasters.

(2) Temperature and humidity levels influence working conditions/effectiveness as they are indicators of comfort. Did employers adjust the air conditioning system to accommodate for the two week long heat wave? Why, then, have 3 employees fainted on site during this time period? Similarly, did the temperature monitoring system of the refrigeration unit have an override protocol to compensate for above average temperatures and thus have prevented the spoilage of stored food?

(3) A crop may grow only within a narrow temperature window. Was, then, the farmer responsible for protecting his crops (which failed) against the large temperature swings during the year’s growing season? Examination and interpretation of seasonal and daily temperature ranges for the locale in question could be of assistance.

(4) Wind speed affects downwind audibility of voices and other noises, which can be used to corroborate witness statements.

(5) Ambient temperatures affect rate of body cooling and can be used to help establish time of death of farm animals as caused by, say, hail or lightning.

(6) Snowcover properties and ground wetness can be used to ascertain the age of tire tracks and footprints.

(7) Factors affecting visibility such as fog, haze, clouds, precipitation, blowing snow, moonlight and position of sun in sky affect illumination conditions (thus the degree of visual clarity/impairment), which can be used to prove or disprove claims.

(8) Temperatures and precipitation amounts aid in discerning the formation/presence of snow/ice on a road, checking the degree of criminal negligence on the part of a driver charged with excessive speeding, causing an accident with fatalities.

(9) The construction of a complex roadway system should account for an assortment of situations, normal and anomalous:  fog, blowing snow, black ice, wind turbulence, topography, water drainage, day lengths and sun angles. Negligence or deficiencies in properly accounting for these parameters might make the designers or contractors liable for the unusually high rate of accidents occurring on this system.

(10) Solar energy panels should not be emplaced in regions where skies are frequently overcast and foggy, such as near large water bodies. Hence the purchaser of a solar powered home cannot successfully sue for low energy production because he chose his dwelling to be constructed adjacent to a lake. In like manner, wind power generators should be erected on isolated hills, high plains or  near to coastlines as windiness is generally greatest at these localities.

INDIRECT RELATIONSHIPS. Sometimes the effects of weather may not be apparent. Yet indirect effects of atmospheric conditions, in some instances, may assist in judging the reliability of claimants. Occasionally you may want simple a yes/no confirmation of the claim. Still,  you are unsure of how to approach the dilemma. How does one check it out as weather conditions seem completely irrelevant to the issue?

An example -  What do sky conditions have to do with the offhanded statement made by a claimant regarding his involvement in a slip and fall? Read closely: At the time of the incident the claimant said “I was blinded by the sun which caused me to momentarily lose my balance”. If suspicious, a perusal of the historical record might show that the skies were overcast. Moreover, a mathematical calculation of the sun’s position in the sky relative to the direction the person was walking indicated that the sun was at his back. Unless some other explanation can be provided, his credibility becomes suspect. Weather records demonstrated blockage of the sun by clouds and the mathematics showed that it would have been impossible for the sun to temporarily impair his vision. Hence the domino effect commences and bingo! the claimant starts to speak in euphemisms. His body language changes to a defensive mode when you press with more interrogation. Further inquiry, sparked by the seemingly extraneous weather condition, raises some doubt on the integrity of the claim.

WEATHER CLUES AT THE EVENT SCENE. It is important to remember that photographs taken at, during or near to the event in question - even if they include only partial coverage of the sky, can tell much about the weather conditions at the time. The colour of the sky, image brightness, including the type and shape of clouds, indicate much about the weather system over the area, such as tendencies in temperature, wind speed, pressure and illumination conditions. Smoke effusing from a chimney or car exhaust, plus the bending of trees, hint at prevailing wind direction. In marine cases, the degree of water surface roughness registers wind speed. Visual records of moisture laden or snow covered surfaces give an approximation of the time of rainfall, snowfall or dew formation. Such information are essential in situations where weather data are unavailable or questionable in terms of their representativeness (e.g. the nearest recording surface station may be many kilometres away if the event occurred in a rural region, or the station data used may be suspect if the event happened in an unusual topographical circumstance, such as in the bottom of a valley or between tall skyscrapers in an urban centre).

Similarly, particular atmospheric phenomena leave characteristic signs of their occurrence. Lightning will liquefy metal components and delaminate bark from a  tree, making it prone to disease and insect attack. A lightning strike can further be substantiated by claims of odours or even hair standing on end. Damage distribution associated with tornadoes resembles a swirling pattern. There are many others.

DATA QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS. When examination of weather conditions becomes necessary, it has become the standard to acquire the appropriate temperature, precipitation and wind records for the time and locality in question. You may find yourself in a situation, however, when such information works to contradict another expert you retained or when it is being used by an insured to validate his claim. The key to recall here is that weather and climate data themselves are not 100% accurate. If you become doubtful about a certain claim that involves meteorological factors, and if liability requires some shifting, then consideration could be given to the quality of data themselves. Some questions to consider: Were the data measured and processed by certified technicians or personnel? What is the source of the data, government or other? Were there any problems or unusual situations with respect to instrumentation? Were sensors and gauges regularly calibrated and properly maintained? What are their deficiencies and degree of precision? Human measurement errors? The main point emphasized here is that the meteorological information cannot always be taken at face value.

FINAL REMARKS. The number of applications is myriad because, as before, the atmosphere is omnipresent. Indeed, the fact that the atmosphere is “everywhere” highlights that weather conditions can be factored into many situations, directly or indirectly. Correspondingly, it can be even used as a surprise tactic since it is highly unlikely that the opposing party is going to anticipate the introduction of climatological information. However, incorporation of weather variables in a case must be done objectively, always within the realm of the law and reasonableness. It must be rooted scientific factuality, empirically verified theories and real-world data measurements. Charlatanism invariably lurks when free associations are propounded ad absurdum. For example: “Global warming caused high temperatures last summer and my grandmother died from heat exhaustion as a result. Therefore I am going to claim such and such compensation because the pollution they spewed out of their smoke stacks help intensify global warming.” A bit outlandish admittedly, though I hope the reader understands my point. Incidentally, “global warming”, despite what the media says, is not a scientifically proven fact.

By selecting and acquiring the appropriate weather data, by analyzing and interpreting these data, and even by conducting site inspections, the forensic climatologist can provide investigative reports and, when warranted, give credible expert testimony for the courts.

Article 3 / Adjusting for the Weather

Determining weather-related losses has become a true science compared with past adjusting methodology which was more of an educational guessing game. Modern day technology has enabled forensic climatology to develop as a true profession, one which is becoming increasingly valuable to insurers in rating risk.

The insurance industry is beginning to realize that atmospheric occurrences can weigh significantly in event reconstruction and the verification of claims. And, the industry is becoming more aware that not only past climatic conditions, but possible future conditions can supplement risk analysis and decision support schemes.

I often receive surprised responses from adjusters after telling them that the time and location  of a lightning strike to within 0.5 km. Or, that a fire originated from the roof of an attic, most likely caused by a lightning strike. Investigation of weather records for the day and time of the incident was said to have occurred will show whether there was an active storm and if the configuration of the structure relative to the surroundings was conducive to a strike.  Lightning sensors may have also detected an electromagnetic anomaly at the location. If so, you have a pretty good argument for establishing that the fire was naturally caused  rather than being a human action or building code violation.

ATMOSPHERIC INFLUENCES. Winds and atmospheric stability affect fire transmission rates, odour-air pollution dispersion, and a range of claims causes. For instance, mathematically computed  positions of the sun, sunshine brightness, and  fog density can be used to determine the vision impairment of a driver involved in an auto accident. Perhaps road ice accretion came into play. But how to prove or disprove the road condition with conflicting reports by witnesses and investigators? Objective evidence could be found from evaluating temperature and precipitation parameters for the days leading to the accident.

The climatologist relies on a number of information sources when investigating loss events. Most often, basic elements such as temperature, precipitation, winds, pressure, clouds and humidity are collated. These data are collected and measured at a network of ground stations throughout Canada. Additionally, weather maps and forecasts, including local radar and satellite imagery, are kept by Environment Canada.  Properly understood and interpreted, these data are a gold mine of information for purposes of appraising cover.

ROAD CONDITION DATA IMPROVES. More recently, road condition data have become available from municipal and provincial road crews recording incidences of slush, surface wetness, snow removal times, salting, temperature and visibility. Real-time cameras now exist on major highways and, although still in its infancy, Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS) are being developed in Canada.

RWIS uses subsurface pavement sensors, road observers, station data, radar and meteorological models linked on a computer network for dissemination and analysis. When warranted,  an assortment of geo-climatic and hydrological databases can be accessed by the forensic climatologist to facilitate  his work. Past climatic conditions can further be used to prepare for  possible future incidence.

This process is not quite as simple as phoning up the local weather office and getting numbers and graphics faxed over. Depending on the case - in terms of loss size, dollar value, media attention, and the vehemence of the parties and personalities involved, and so forth - a comprehensive analysis by an expert will frequently be necessitated. A bad decision made solely on facts can cause embarrassment, for you and your firm.

DATA ANALYSIS. It is the interpretation of the facts that matter, preferably done by someone with many years experience. Lack of qualification is evidenced when reports are vague, verbose and repetitive. A balance between detail and a concise report is what you are looking for.

I have visited some sites where various meteorological instruments were dilapidated or improperly set up and maintained. Knowledge of instrumentation, its workings and degree of precision can be used to shift the onus of liability away from your party. Even data quality, in terms of how it is recorded and catalogued, can prove advantageous, depending on how you look at it.

CASE STUDIES. Three cases in point: A farmer in the USA was denied $70,000 drought insurance because a keypad operator incorrectly entered 0.17 inches of rain instead of the actually observed 0.07 inches.

A fireman in Bullhead City, Arizona had the responsibility of reporting weather statistics to the National Weather Service. He situated the thermometer over dry barren ground instead of a grass surface. Because dry soil heats up more rapidly than vegetation, the temperatures recorded were higher by up to 5 degrees. Some residents later claimed a 20 to 30% reduction in summer business because the town became known as the hottest spot in the country.

In Canada, I know of a case where a scaffolding system was designed for repair work being conducted on a tall structure. The scaffolding collapsed due to strong wind gusts. Wind records were factored into the scaffolding plans, but the historical data used were for winds at only a few metres above ground level. Had it been known that wind speed increases with altitude, which can be computed from  equations or derived from weather balloon observations, the scaffolding might have been designed to compensate for higher wind speeds.

There are other factors that adjusters must deliberate on when consulting a climatologist. For instance, always keep in mind the distinction between natural and human/artificial phenomena. Retaining someone with field experience is helpful, especially if the person is proficient at identifying the physical after-effects of specific atmospheric phenomena.

A birdseye inspection of tree damage distribution after a storm can demonstrate: if the wind broken trees formed a swirling pattern, then it was likely that a tornado touched ground. If the effect is in one direction, then it was most likely a severe storm. The difference between tornado and severe storm does mean a lot in meteorological terms. It could also be significant in an insurance context - this is where the experience of the adjuster enters the arena.