NEXRAD radar holes

[Jayson Prentice]

One thing that I've always found interesting in coverage is that up here in nw IA, Emmet/Palo Alto counties cannot be reached by DMX radar so they use FSD's radar instead to cover them.

But, they are still a part of DMX office... Why wouldn't they just go along with FSD then if Des Moines can't reach em'?

 

[Tim Vasquez]

OK, here you go:

* Radar added at Kirksville, MO
* Radar added at Crockett, TX
* Radar added at Paris, TX
* Radar added at Clayton, NM (my suggestion)

Looks better. We could really use that Clayton radar today.


(click to enlarge)

BTW each range ring is exactly 10 nm; I didn't make that clear earlier.

 

[Joel Wright]

We could really use on in south central South Dakota too. I've noticed before there seems to be a shortage of data in that area.

 

[Shane Adams]

Considering these numbers from 2001, I don't see any improvements in the near future: (from Jo's Science textbook)

Our tax dollars spent (with rank in parenthesis) in 2001 (in millions)

(1) Department of Defense - 35,870
(2) National Institutes of Health - 11,334
(3) NASA (human space flight & mission support) - 8,129
(4) NASA (research & development) - 5,891
(5) Department of Energy (Environmental restoratrion; nucleur waste management) - 5,837
(6) Department of Energy (General science & research) - 5,208
(7) National Science Foundation - 3,360
(8) Department of Agriculture - 1,436
(9) National Institues of Standards & Technology - 790
(10) EPA - 350
(11) NOAA - 259

 

[Mike Smith]

Agree 100% -- there are too many critical gaps in the radar network. "Gap-filler" radars (5cm) can be purchased for a few hundred thousand dollars and operated remotely from the WFO's.

Most all of the major gaps could be filled for a fraction of what NWS is spending on NDFD.

This is why Sen. Santorum's bill is so important and in everyone's best interest. We need the NWS focused on quality data collection and public safety -- not on corporate welfare like NDFD!

 

[John Sickels]

santorum bill

Mike, I never got an answer to the question I asked supporters of this bill a couple of weeks ago.

If this bill passes, will the public still have free on-line access to

1) all current SPC products including mesoscale discussions, outlooks, storm data, convective discussions, etc.?

2) the SPC mesoscale analysis page

3) online computer model output.

Because, if the public loses access to those products, I can't see how the bill is in our best interest.

 

[Mike Smith]

John,

All of the products you listed will still be available if the bill passes.

Mike

 

[Chris Geelhart]

We could really use on in south central South Dakota too. I've noticed before there seems to be a shortage of data in that area.

I remember when I worked at the Sioux Falls NWS in the early 90's, there was talk of either placing the Aberdeen radar further south (Redfield, I think) or the North Platte radar further north, to try to cover that gap. The KLNX radar site seems to be the result of that.

Maybe something just west of Pierre would be a good place, on the higher terrain along the Missouri River.

Chris G.

 

[Chris Geelhart]

Here you go:
http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/wsr88dreceipt.jpg

1993 prices though...

Also that was probably part of the contract to build many 88D's at once. Building a single one would be more expensive. Seems like I remember the KVWX (Evansville IN) radar being of a different model than the standard 88D network since it was put in so much later than the others.

Chris G.

 

[Mike Smith]

The prices cited are for 10cm radars which are much more expensive because of the larger antennas, towers, etc.

Television station radars are 5 cm and they do a very good job unless there is heavy rain or hail near or over the radar site. Because they are far less expensive, they make good "gap fillers."

There are a number of companies that make radars, some of which have significantly better resolution than the WSR-88D's. There is a private sector company that has installed and is selling dual-polarization radars.

 

[Nick Smith]

What about the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar network (FAA)? Many of those are located at airports where an 88D isn't close enough to detect low level wind shear.

 

[Mike Smith]

The TDWR is a very good radar and it is my opinion the NWS should work with the FAA to make the data widely available. An additional advantage is the TDWR data is available every one minute.

With that said, the TDWR's are at about 22-24 major airports, so they do nothing to fill in gaps, with the possible exception of Las Vegas and perhaps one or two others in the West.

 

[Ben Cotton]

Seems like I remember the KVWX (Evansville IN) radar being of a different model than the standard 88D network since it was put in so much later than the others.

Don't forget that VWX was cobbled together from spare parts and spent the first part of existence being a festering piece of.......well, yeah. Something about it just being there to appease the Evansvillians for the loss of their WSO.


Ben

 

[Scott Olson]

Agree 100% -- there are too many critical gaps in the radar network. "Gap-filler" radars (5cm) can be purchased for a few hundred thousand dollars and operated remotely from the WFO's.

Most all of the major gaps could be filled for a fraction of what NWS is spending on NDFD.

This is why Sen. Santorum's bill is so important and in everyone's best interest. We need the NWS focused on quality data collection and public safety -- not on corporate welfare like NDFD!

I couldn't disagree with you more. The notion that somehow this bill will make more funds avaliable to expand the radar network. Or that the private industry has an interest in covering areas which are very sparsely populated. Having the NWS solely to serve private industry in data collection would be corporate welfare.

-Scott.

 

[Dan Cook]

Here we go again.. :roll: