John Farley
Supporter
Interview is available online here:
http://chronicle.com/article/A-Stor...-a/127681/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
http://chronicle.com/article/A-Stor...-a/127681/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Chronicle of Higher Education interview with Reed Timmer
- Thread starter John Farley
- Start date
Logan Karsten
Oh so many things about this article.....
1.) Until I see some published severe weather journal articles with his data used in the analysis and his name on the paper, I will continue to find it very hard to believe that he will actually do anything with the "data" he is collecting with his "dominator" I truly believe it's nothing more than a PR stunt.
2.) He says he is funding private research? I would like to know exactly who that is and how many papers they have published.
3.) Keep in mind his storm chasing has nothing to do with his PhD research.
4.) He blames the high number of tornadoes this year on global warming. Big mistake.
If you are going to make a career out of storm chasing by building up a media career with the Discover Channel, fine, whatever. However, I can't stand it when he tries to act like what he is doing is advancing severe weather research or saving lives. What a load of crap.
1.) Until I see some published severe weather journal articles with his data used in the analysis and his name on the paper, I will continue to find it very hard to believe that he will actually do anything with the "data" he is collecting with his "dominator" I truly believe it's nothing more than a PR stunt.
2.) He says he is funding private research? I would like to know exactly who that is and how many papers they have published.
3.) Keep in mind his storm chasing has nothing to do with his PhD research.
4.) He blames the high number of tornadoes this year on global warming. Big mistake.
If you are going to make a career out of storm chasing by building up a media career with the Discover Channel, fine, whatever. However, I can't stand it when he tries to act like what he is doing is advancing severe weather research or saving lives. What a load of crap.
Andrew Burnett
EF2
yeah he had it rolling pretty good until the global warming comment.
He makes a lot of valid points. So many hobbiest are ignored as "unqualified" or "uneducated" masses. Many great breakthroughs across all schools have occured from the folks who were not classically trained. There is even a flavor of that same bias on here.
He makes a lot of valid points. So many hobbiest are ignored as "unqualified" or "uneducated" masses. Many great breakthroughs across all schools have occured from the folks who were not classically trained. There is even a flavor of that same bias on here.
rdale
EF5
Interesting point of view... Do you have any examples in the storm research arena? I think the issue with his interview (and show) is that he keeps saying this is all being done for research and publications, yet it's been years now and there still are no publications.
Mike Johnston
EF5
Yeah, I'm not sure about how sincere or factual the comments about chasing in the interest of science really are. However, there was one little nugget in the interview that I've often wondered about myself. To wit:
"If there's a way to mount accurate instruments on every [storm chaser's] vehicle and have almost a dense network of reporting observations around the tornado, I think that would be extremely useful."
I've often thought about this model vis-a-vis the centrally commanded "armada" research projects ie. VORTEX. It seems like with GPS technology, there could be quite a breadth of data to be collected by individual chasers on different storms if they were equiped with basic instrumentation devices.
"If there's a way to mount accurate instruments on every [storm chaser's] vehicle and have almost a dense network of reporting observations around the tornado, I think that would be extremely useful."
I've often thought about this model vis-a-vis the centrally commanded "armada" research projects ie. VORTEX. It seems like with GPS technology, there could be quite a breadth of data to be collected by individual chasers on different storms if they were equiped with basic instrumentation devices.
rdale
EF5
Agreed - Patrick brought this up last year http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/sho...ons-for-Working-Together&highlight=anemometer and Tyler has mentioned a project to incorporate the data directly into SpotterNetwork in http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?22304-Would-you-mobile-mesonet-for-science
Logan Karsten
The problem with having a mesonet vehicle on top of every chase vehicle and archiving the data is maintenance. With so many chase vehicles with mesonets, you have to begin to worry about where to store the data, and quality-control all of the observations. You also have to have faith that every chaser has checked the mesonet to make sure it's working accurately before departing on a chase, including calibration of the instruments from time to time. This begins to create a lot of work over time. It is possible, but it would take a lot of work to implement. However, I would think a dense network of mesonet readings around storms (not just supercells) could contribute to the science research or even severe weather nowcasting. However, every chaser would also have to be ok with their data being streamed and archived for free for research purposes, etc. Whether or not every chaser would be ok with that is a completely different question.
Mike Johnston
EF5
Well, I'm not qualified to speak to all the technical issues, but I'm not sure why chasers would be averse to sharing basic meteorological data with the scientific community.
rdale
EF5
I think you misunderstood my question... I'm curious what revelations in the severe weather field came from "hobbyist" chasers?
Nobody said Reed is under qualified so you got me wondering there too
He has said for years that research and helping the warning process was his reason for chasing. But he hasn't published any research, and nothing he has done improved the warning process. So there's some confusion.
Nobody said Reed is under qualified so you got me wondering there too
He has said for years that research and helping the warning process was his reason for chasing. But he hasn't published any research, and nothing he has done improved the warning process. So there's some confusion.Logan Karsten
ahaberlie,
He should be qualified to collect and analyze field observations, that's not the issue here. In fact, with a PhD, he's expected to be able to perform these tasks. The issue is he parades his instrumentation around all over television, claims he is doing this to advance the science. However, like rdale said, he has yet to produce any published research using his data. If he were to say, "I chase to get professional footage and experience the adrenaline rush of being near a tornado", I wouldn't have as much of an issue. However, to say he is advancing the science through his activities is a slap in the face to all those who put in the effort to further the science.
As far as the global warming comment goes, yes, it's still controversial. It's very possible that global warming may have played SOME role in severe weather this spring. However, it's nearly impossible right now to quantify what role climate change played. Severe weather outbreaks are a result of several factors, so it's premature to generalize this spring, and wrap it up with the "global warming" argument. For all we know, the violent tornadoes could have occurred regardless of if climate change was occurring or not. We just don't know, and it's premature to point to that right now. If this develops into a trend over the next several years, then that argument may have some merit. Trends are one thing, but one specific year is another.
He should be qualified to collect and analyze field observations, that's not the issue here. In fact, with a PhD, he's expected to be able to perform these tasks. The issue is he parades his instrumentation around all over television, claims he is doing this to advance the science. However, like rdale said, he has yet to produce any published research using his data. If he were to say, "I chase to get professional footage and experience the adrenaline rush of being near a tornado", I wouldn't have as much of an issue. However, to say he is advancing the science through his activities is a slap in the face to all those who put in the effort to further the science.
As far as the global warming comment goes, yes, it's still controversial. It's very possible that global warming may have played SOME role in severe weather this spring. However, it's nearly impossible right now to quantify what role climate change played. Severe weather outbreaks are a result of several factors, so it's premature to generalize this spring, and wrap it up with the "global warming" argument. For all we know, the violent tornadoes could have occurred regardless of if climate change was occurring or not. We just don't know, and it's premature to point to that right now. If this develops into a trend over the next several years, then that argument may have some merit. Trends are one thing, but one specific year is another.
rdale
EF5
Again, nobody has said his data collection is PR. But data collection without publication is useless. There is not one thing he has done to improve the NWS warning process. So maintain those as the "focus" of his chasing is not an accurate conclusion.
Strange, I had been under the assumption that he had finished his PhD a few years ago. I first met him at the AMS conference in Phoenix in 2009 where he had a poster on something regarding the relationship between climate change and dust storms in Australia or something to that extent. After having seen that, I'm guessing his PhD work is not, in fact, for severe convective weather. I'm not sure why, exactly, but he certainly seems to have focused on some aspect of climate change instead.
Matt Hunt
EF3
I figured I'd read some more Reed Timmer hate comments in here. You guys are judging based on what you see on TV and in the press (we should all be smart enough to know that "reality" TV doesn't always portray the TRUE reality). Can any of US say with 100% certainty that it's just a PR stunt, or that it's legit? NO. We aren't there with them in the field, and we aren't around Reed the rest of the year to see what else he is doing. He also mentioned in the article that he is getting the data into the hands of people who can use it. So maybe he's not necessarily publishing anything, YET. If you haven't noticed, he seems to be a pretty busy guy as he's running multiple businesses, making appearances for TV, radio, magazines, shows, speeches, etc, AND finishing up a PhD. I seriously doubt that a guy would get a PhD as a PR stunt. That's not an easy thing to do. How many of you have PhD's? He's obviously very interested in the science. I also doubt he spent $50k on a vertical radar for publicity. Not to mention the air cannon system and parachute probes, however much that cost. Oh yeah, and the remote control airplane he had a couple years ago. He can sell videos without any of that stuff, so what would he have to gain by pretending to be interested in the science if he wasn't?
Sean Ramsey
EF4
I think it's because the scientific side of it brings some legitimacy and reasoning to carry on the TV show, and it looks much better in general to propose that you are doing it for science and not just going out for the hell of it. He's built a pretty good business out of all this. I doubt all of the things like the radar, plane, probes, "Dominator 2", etc were all paid for out of his own pocket...I'm sure Discovery Channel has invested in their own show so to speak. I'm also sure the data being collected is real, but what is done with it afterwards is anyone's guess at this point.
As for the interview, it was good and I was pleased that he didn't take the "too many yahoo's out there" approach.
As for the interview, it was good and I was pleased that he didn't take the "too many yahoo's out there" approach.
Warren Faidley
Supporter
I find the most troubling element of "reality" shows and their participants, is not so much the "reality" of science or research, or personal attacks on individuals, but rather, the overall serious damage they have done to the chasing community and public safety. Their overall lack of professionalism and often careless antics, have basically destroyed decades of accurate public awareness towards severe weather safety -- and the efforts of many responsible chasers and scientists to keep chasing a respectable pursuit. I receive countless comments on the road and emails to my office from individuals who now think it's safe or "cool" to challenge severe weather, e.g., driving near tornadoes because self-proclaimed "experts" or "scientists" do it. Because I own stormchasers.com, I receive a large volume of email intended for others.
Despite carefully calculated and pre-planned efforts to make heroes out of stooges, most people involved with severe weather know the difference. While in Piedmont, Oklahoma, assisting with a search, a firefighter noticed my "storm chaser" shirt before my EMT badge and made a rather rude comment, thinking I was associated with a popular TV show. I can assure everyone this is not the first time this has happened.
Although the public may buy Jackass style stunts on TV, I think the majority of professionals see through the attempts to "justify" the stupidity. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to ensure sponsors, speaking engagement inquiries and clients that I am not involved with the lunacy. In some ways, I feel for those individuals who have been caught up in the tainted limelight, as they have destroyed their reputations and any chance of ever being taken seriously.
W.
Despite carefully calculated and pre-planned efforts to make heroes out of stooges, most people involved with severe weather know the difference. While in Piedmont, Oklahoma, assisting with a search, a firefighter noticed my "storm chaser" shirt before my EMT badge and made a rather rude comment, thinking I was associated with a popular TV show. I can assure everyone this is not the first time this has happened.
Although the public may buy Jackass style stunts on TV, I think the majority of professionals see through the attempts to "justify" the stupidity. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to ensure sponsors, speaking engagement inquiries and clients that I am not involved with the lunacy. In some ways, I feel for those individuals who have been caught up in the tainted limelight, as they have destroyed their reputations and any chance of ever being taken seriously.
W.
Similar threads
