I began by trying to prove or disprove this statement made in Isaac’s Storm:
I began by querying the TM in this thread.
With the plethora of WAGs proponed I began to backtrack the two cites, via the authors of the two books in a second thread.
This morning I received the following e-mail from Dr. Hugh E. Willoughby, Director of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory:
*Dear Chief Kalbach,
I share your skepticism, but I have no idea where the “urban legend” came from. One possibility is that it was the first explanation that occurred to people who found dead birds in (or below) trees after hurricanes. The results of necropsies would be informative. I can’t imagine that a bird’s chances are very good in 160kt winds, given their low body mass and fragile skeletons. From an avian perspective, a midair collision with just about anything at those speeds would clearly ruin the whole day.
On the other hand, human survivors in the sea during high winds have trouble breathing because of blowing spray. I can attest to that from experience with helicopter “rotor wash” (~40kt) during my own navy days. Still, our nostils
are bigger than bird’s and there is a lot more spray 6 in above the surface of the sea than there is rain.
There is an alternative explanation for dead birds that show no signs of trauma. Land birds don’t have as much oil in their feathers as water birds such as ducks, gulls, etc do. Consequently, in torrential tropical rainfall, where the rates can approach 100 mm/h, they probably become soaked to the skin. The weight of the water will keep them from flying and its superior heat conduction and evaporation will sap their body temperature. Maybe the birds died of exhaustion, malnutrition and especially of hypothermia. Their metabolisms are really fast so that a
combination of not eating because of water loading and the storm’s ravages generally, and the energetic requirements of maintaining body temperature when the normal insulating qualities of their plumage is compromised could easily do them in. It would be interesting to hear what an ornithologist might think of this idea.
…
hew*
So to sum up:
We have Mr. Larson who used a cite by Mr. Pielke, who got the information from an ecologist from the University of Virginia, which was reviewed by Dr. Willoughby and called an “urban legend.” Dr. Willoughby then asserts that the birds could have died from hypothermia.
Then we have Mr. Junger who used a cite from an as yet unfound article in The New Yorker.
So following Hurricane Camille, we have dead birds, which weren’t killed by wind, which an ecologist says drowned because of their upturned nostrils.
Then we have a doctor who questions that assumption and propones that the (possible inland) birds lost the natural oils which keep them dry in bad weather and “Maybe the birds died of exhaustion, malnutrition and especially of hypothermia.”
He does admit “The results of necropsies would be informative.”
Here are, in descending order of what I feel is most important, the ways to finally answer whether this is a spurious fact or not:
- Necropsies on several birds which died in torential downpours with little wind;
- Contact an ornithologist, present the two theories of death and find out what he/she believes to be true;
- Contact the ecologist and ask him if he possibly made a mistake in diagnosing the birds deaths;
- Find the New Yorker article, track down its sources and hope it shed more light on the subject.
Here is my plan of attack:
- Track down an ornithologist for his/her opinion;
- Continue to look for the New Yorker article and backtrack the cites.
The reasons I’m not taking the other tracks is 1) I have no dead birds and am not going to wait for a hurricane and 2) Mr. Larson and Mr. Pielke were so helpful that I do not want to go back through them to get to Mr. Pielke’s ecologist friend just so I can grill him and call him an idiot.
Right now, I’m wont to believe the hyperthermia angle and need an ornithologist to back the theory up.
I will be, as always, open to other theories which can be proven. But without a necropcy, I think we’ll have to go with expert opinion.
Is there an ornithologist in the house?