-
While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].
Fraud Allegations for the Center for Severe Weather Research (the DOWs)
- Thread starter Bill Hark
- Start date
Mike Thornton
EF2
Couldn't imagine having to pay back over 2 million dollars to the government. Holy cow.
Warren Faidley
Supporter
As Josh noted, it sounds more like sloppy accounting rather than a crime. DOW research is important so I hope it does not effect their ability to work. There have been far more egregious acts by chasers.
Mike Thornton
EF2
Oh absolutely. Most of these places that get randomly audited usually don't keep track of everything so they just have to pay back what they didn't keep track of. I bet that's what happened.
rdale
EF5
The DOWs were sold to UIUC, presumably to cover the funds that needed to be paid back to NSF/DOJ.
Doppler on Wheels (DOW) | Department of Climate, Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences | Illinois
The Doppler on Wheels (DOW) mobile radar and instrumentation facility has joined the Department of CliMAS at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Suggesting that chasers do things more egregious than one that required a DOJ investigation seems to be a pretty crappy view of chasers. Any examples?
JamesCaruso
Staff member
The DOWs were sold to UIUC, presumably to cover the funds that needed to be paid back to NSF/DOJ.
Doppler on Wheels (DOW) | Department of Climate, Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences | Illinois
The Doppler on Wheels (DOW) mobile radar and instrumentation facility has joined the Department of CliMAS at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.atmos.illinois.edu
From the UIUC piece linked to by Rob above:
- “How much did the new facility cost? How did the department raise funding for the facility?”
“The department doesn’t actually own the multi-million dollar facility, but instead has acquired it through a long-term contract. The contract is currently financed through internal departmental funds, but soon will be supported through external research grants through the National Science Foundation, other government agencies, and hopefully private industry usage and sponsorship.”
Admittedly I have no idea how these types of things work in academia, but it sounds like the DOWs were not actually “sold.” The language used by UIUC is confusing, because “acquired” typically means purchased in a business/finance context, but perhaps here is just intended to mean *physically* acquired. I’m wondering if the DOWs were confiscated by a government agency as collateral and/or as direct repayment of the debt, and now UIUC is paying to use them? I would tend to think UIUC is leasing them, but then again why wouldn’t they just come out and say that? It can’t be that they are just financing the purchase, because when you finance something you own it, just like your car or your house. The statement clearly says they do not own the DOWs.
Interesting that Karen Kosiba remains involved with the DOWs as an adjunct professor of UIUC. Wasn’t she basically Josh Wurman’s #2? Josh is not mentioned as having any involvement.
Kind of funny to get caught up in this story as relative outsiders… While the general public couldn’t care less, here I am as a “fan” and observer of the “severe weather enterprise,” finding myself fascinated by the intrigue, no different than with scandals in sports, business or politics...
Randy Jennings
Supporter
- Joined
- May 18, 2013
- Messages
- 855
The CWSR webpage now says "This website contains information that was current as of October 2020. The DOW Radar and Surface Instrumentation Facility has partnered with the University of Illinois and is excited to continue providing the best possible education and research opportunities! A new website currently is under development at: FARM: Home" The staff page has also been blanked out on the CWSR website. When you go to the new website, it looks very similar to the old one (and it's staff page just has a coming soon).
It is important to note that sloppy accounting on federal grant funds is a crime - and a serious one at that. While it is common for a company to self report and repay funds when errors are found in accounting, it is a serious matter when you see a DOJ investigation like this. The US Attorney for Colorado accused Wurman and Chan of improperly obtaining payments to which they were not entitled. Hopefully with UIUC taking over the DOWs the funding and research will continue.
It is important to note that sloppy accounting on federal grant funds is a crime - and a serious one at that. While it is common for a company to self report and repay funds when errors are found in accounting, it is a serious matter when you see a DOJ investigation like this. The US Attorney for Colorado accused Wurman and Chan of improperly obtaining payments to which they were not entitled. Hopefully with UIUC taking over the DOWs the funding and research will continue.
Mike Smith
EF5
I beg to differ. We've been chasing tornadoes with DOWs for a quarter century. I can't tell that they have made a contribution to better tornado warnings or tornado forecasts.
And, to dial up the blasphemy, I can't tell that VORTEX (with its multiple DOWs, mobile instrumentation, etc., etc.) have made a difference, either in the Great Plains or Southeast.
The road to understanding is sometimes long and winding, and science is not always just a means to a specific end. Applications follow discovery of fundamentals.
The corroboration of low level wind data with damage surveys alone is worthwhile from the DOW. Some of the white papers associated with DOW and mesonet studies are quite interesting and revealing. Also, these instruments have looked at hurricanes, fires, snowstorms, and other topics all over the world. The DOW fleet and mesonets support broader science, not just a one track simple goal. It is easy to be dismissive if you focus on one thing like a laser, but there is value there I think you are overlooking. Capable instrumentation is useful in any well designed experiments, and properly applied, the DOW fleet can see things that add to the total knowledge of weather and other atmospheric phenomenon.
I've been critical of CSWR and some of its personalities and choices in the past myself, but as for the news story, I don't know the facts beyond what is reported. It is a shame correct accounting was not followed. Since no charges were filed and the monies paid back, I assume the issue was largely accounting based and the media headline of fraud is a bit alarmist. An organization has to screw up bad to get DOJ audit, but that still doesn't prove criminal intent, more like negligence.
Mike Smith
EF5
I wish to be clear: my comments apply to the entire field of DOWs, not just to CSWR.
If we lived in an era of unlimited resources, I would agree with you. Unfortunately we don't. What is worse is the DOW data, the special soundings and surface obs from VORTEX, etc., etc., do not get into the real time models' initializations (where they could be used for data starvation experiments) nor, in many cases, to NWS and other public and private sector forecasters.
My opinion is that every VORTEX experiment and every DOW observation should be used to wring out every morsel of value we can get from them until any new DOWs or field experiments are proposed, let alone approved. If we have (and I'm making this number up) observed 150 tornadoes from DOWs, I don't see what value #151 and #152 will bring -- especially since much of this field data has been sitting on a shelf.
And, yes, this applies to hurricanes, winter storms, etc.
The people whose very hard-earned (especially in the era of COVID) tax dollars go to fund this deserve value for their money, not esoteric science data that never gets used.
rdale
EF5
Just to clarify - Mike's comments do not reflect the opinions of actual warning meteorologists. We know that DOW and VORTEX work has dramatically improved tornado forecasting.
Now back to your regularly scheduled rants
Now back to your regularly scheduled rants
Mike Smith
EF5
I am an actual warning meteorologist, Rob. While I'm retired, visit Wichita and I'll show you the state-of-the art warning center I created.
rdale
EF5
Here are just a brief snip of papers showing the value...
www.pnas.org
journals.ametsoc.org
www.cswr.org
Supercell tornadoes are much stronger and wider than damage-based ratings indicate
This study documents the actual distribution of supercell-tornado wind intensities and sizes, revealing that most are much stronger than damage surveys indicate, with >20% of tornadoes potentially capable of causing catastrophic EF-4/EF-5 damage. Additionally, supercell tornadoes are shown to be...
The Role of Multiple-Vortex Tornado Structure in Causing Storm Researcher Fatalities
A large and violent tornado/multiple-vortex mesocyclone (MVMC) tracked east and northeastward near El Reno, Oklahoma, on 31 May 2013, causing eight fatalities, including storm chasers/researchers attempting to deploy in situ instrumentation. Subvortices moved within and near the MVMC, some in...
Center for Severe Weather Research: Publications
Center for Severe Weather Research, cswr.org
Mike Smith
EF5
Rob,
Evidently, you didn't go far enough up in the thread to see my objection to continuing to fund DOWs and Vortex-type field experiments. I wrote:
I beg to differ. We've been chasing tornadoes with DOWs for a quarter century. I can't tell that they have made a contribution to better tornado warnings or tornado forecasts.
While what you posted was interesting, it had nothing to do with forecasting or warning of storms.
Evidently, you didn't go far enough up in the thread to see my objection to continuing to fund DOWs and Vortex-type field experiments. I wrote:
I beg to differ. We've been chasing tornadoes with DOWs for a quarter century. I can't tell that they have made a contribution to better tornado warnings or tornado forecasts.
While what you posted was interesting, it had nothing to do with forecasting or warning of storms.
JamesCaruso
Staff member
I am not a meteorologist (although I wish I were!) so perhaps I shouldn’t comment, but I think it is pretty clear that severe weather and tornado forecasts and warnings have improved over the past 25 years. Whether or not it is possible to draw a direct correlation to specific data or findings attributable to the DOW, how could they not have had at least some contribution to the overall body of knowledge that has made the improvements possible?
Similar threads
