Reed Timmers new Dominator 3

[Jeff Wright]

The last time I saw that level of care taken was from the researchers investigating the trajectory of the Chelyabinsk bolide

 

[James K]

Imagine the work that was required to manually reduce the video record to actual wind velocities.

Honestly I think ... the amount of time/effort/dedication it had to have taken to do all that manually ... is nothing short of amazing.
(and to think these days a computer with the right software could spit that out in mere minutes, if not seconds)

 

[Jeff Wright]

There is an amateur rocket enthusiast who wanted good videos from rockets…which can spin wildly.

He developed a counterspin device

Hobby Rocket Topics - BPS Space

Hobby Rocket Topics - BPS Space

forum.nasaspaceflight.com

I bet that could have a use in storm chasing drones

 

[Dave C]

A couple of quick comments.

• Reed has contributed to the science by shooting that rocket into a tornadic supercell. Obtaining that data and making it available was quite an accomplishment.

• That sounds very much like the Fujita downburst controversy from 1977 to 1985. Virtually the entire mainstream of weather science said Fujita was wrong and that downbursts didn't exist. It was probably the most intense controversy in the history of meteorology. Ted was so upset that it affected his health. Of course, Fujita was vindicated. We don't know what we don't know. Who knows whether a probe -- surface or aloft -- might be significantly useful?

This is a fair point Mike, that we don't know what we don't know. I also realize from your career you have probably seen that gains in our understanding can seemingly come out of nowhere and next thing we know are state of the art. I think the downbursts issue feels a bit different though because there was an observable phenomenon people were not getting on board with, but Fujita already had a theory when incidents started happening with aircraft and gathered evidence enough to win the scientific community over. I am not sure Dominator is applying itself in this way of hypothesis, test, apply new knowledge. Maybe I need to be more patient? Certainly the rocket was an accomplishment in terms of deployment style of an instrument into an updraft, but not sure to what result?

I am always receptive to new science and willing to change my mind on a dime if the data supports it, but so far that Dominator rocket data or any other recent probe data I've read about does not seem to contribute anything truly new that we can apply to our understanding of severe storms, unless I missed something (very possible and I'd be happily informed of where I can go educate myself if you know of something). The footage from some of these intercepts is cool, the achievement requires skill, but I would like to understand the application of the data if the claim is made it is done for science data.

I have looked pretty deeply into probes in the past and was briefly involved in a technical role with an entity funding a design project for a probe not unlike the Tim Samaras concept HITPR, but with significantly upgraded sensors and electronics and ability to track location and receive data in more ways and much higher sample rates. The design was finished and tested to a degree, but I left that project due to personal reasons before any deployment.... but I can reiterate as said in my previous post that in outreach to the couple scientists we asked whose life work is in severe weather research, there seemed to be a consensus that no one was that impressed with or calling for this type of in situ data due to not having a way to apply it to improved understanding or new models. It is almost as if certain types of in situ data is regarded as just measurements for the sake of measuring without a real goal or much promise of a usable result, and an unacceptably high degree of risk to obtain. Hey, maybe I am wrong and that type of approach gets lucky or someone has a specific plan and I have not come across the idea or data. Also many random curiosity experiments eventually yield something new about our world or universe, but targeted research with a hypothesis probably hits the mark more often (and in this specific case is much safer).

Previously, that I know of, there has been collected temperature, humidity, wind speed (until anemometers fail destructively), pressure data, or full mesonets gathering all of this placed in the path of tornadoes by several research teams. There has been attempts to bypass the anemometer failures in violent tornadoes with differential wind speed estimates made from multi-angular simultaneous pressure sensing on a carefully designed probe shapes (Samaras 'turtle' probe or HITPR). The idea of the HITPR design specifically was very clever in several regards, but I have yet to read a paper where that data (which I regard as arguably the best in situ data collected from a tornado to date) is really applied to anything useful or concrete, going all the way back to 2004 when the famous pressure readings were taken by Samaras in concert with Wurman DOW team gathering radar data. Most of the papers I can think of end with a general belief that more fine resolution of in situ sensing is required across the entire tornadic circulation area (a line of probes with higher fidelity each, etc) before anything more could be learned than the existing measured parameters or what they might mean, but yet no current team I am aware of is bothering to do anything really new with probes or in situ measuring. Is that because no one has thought of it, or we have learned it is not bearing fruit? Same feeling with the Dominator rocket, it seems very cool, but is it really a new concept, and what is the intended end application? Has anyone done anything with the data? Was the experiment designed out of pure curiosity without a specific goal or theory, or was it believed it would tell us something new? Is it improving any simulation models, etc? Maybe we just need to wait longer for the Dominator instrument projects to mature and data to be utilized.... time will tell and I believe it is fair to withhold judgement on most aspects of the project.

Personally I am much more convinced by the nearly immediate value of high resolution photogrammetry and carefully positioned low level mobile radar and mesonet experiments of the last few years, including the simultaneous radiosonde overflights, etc. that seek to paint a complete picture of the supercell components and parameters during various life stages. Some of this data has already begun to be fed into simulations that seem to correlate well with reality and suggest quite compelling new theories on storm and tornado genesis and maintenance. Even high res. drone footage taken without Dominator by Reed may be more useful here than the rocket launches, to my current thinking.

To be clear since I did not come out and say it before, from a science perspective or a do your own thing perspective, I am not anti Dominator or Reed or any other instrumented vehicle or probe or new experiments in any way, not even a little bit. I'd likely enjoy a stormside chat or meal asking some of these folks serious questions about their ideas (no real interest in the celebrity aspects). I have no negativity towards anything going with Dominators or TIVs or anything else like them except for the almost continuous circus attracted that diminishes a lot of the other positive parts of chasing for myself and many others, and also that any science or service to society claims regarding them should be held accountable to reality and kept in context of results. I think Reed and team seem like very passionate and decent people overall, are obviously very skilled chasers, are entertaining and allowed to be human and do what they want, and have potential for adding to the science effort, but I don't understand their current research goal if there is indeed one. Perhaps they feel need to hold this knowledge close? I'll give the benefit of the doubt, as I don't really know. When I encounter these vehicles in the field though, I head the other way to preserve my safety and enjoyment of the storm. The last place I want to be is near the main circus line of chasers on any storm.

Anyway, it seems to me there is only so much you can learn from right inside a tornado or updraft where you cannot see much on many bandwidths of seeing, and physical measurements of environmental parameters by most sensor types are very difficult. Radar above 30m tells us an incredible amount about the supercell volume that a probe is not adding much to yet. I applaud the Dominator and TIV type successes in one light, just not without full context that much of the goals have been clearly entertainment, outreach, publicity, and are not life saving or productive from a purely science perspective as some believe. Some of the awareness generated via publicity might be contributing more than the science effort to people having tornado plans, etc. and public safety, so credit to the outreach when it is positive. In my opinion the high profile operation of Dominators and TIVs and similar is conducted in a way that greatly reduces effectiveness as a science platform. I imagine if Reed and team are quite serious about the science, they too are probably frustrated with the circus themselves as it must be hard with all the fanfare around them to get much done or even enjoy a chase day. If that is the case, I would expect them to dial things down over time, but maybe that's just my way of doing things.

To a lot of people, cool footage and excitement is going to continue to obscure deeper thinking about the science or other aspects of storm encounters with any rigor, or worst-case they have no real interest or knowledge and are more virtue signaling that they like science (talking generically here about the public, not anyone on this thread). Anyway I have rambled on rather uselessly here, but I maintain hope that disciplined research will continue to produce tangible results from the field, and can be decoupled from entertainment enough to be effective. I also hope (partially selfishly) that the chaser circus aspects will not continue to disturb my own enjoyment of storms or put locals at risk which I have seen far too much in recent years. Nothing wrong with recreation or entertainment values within decent reason, just makes it hard to do research as effectively when they get too intertwined in my opinion, and of course all the other negatives already mentioned.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I remind everyone that there are legitimate research investigations being conducted. I ran into multiple research teams from OU and the University of Nebraska this year. This is "genuine" research, using calibrated instruments, focused entirely on the mission of science, not on getting the hottest footage for YouTube viewers. Their work is NOT to be confused with entertainment based pursuits, salted with an occasional claim of "science" to legitimize chasing as something "special," or "life saving." There are multiple chasers and news stations with drone / helicopter footage of tornadoes going back 20+ years - so it's nothing new.

When the discussions turn to bad behavior by anyone, as previously noted in this and other threads, we have to remember that our pursuits are being conducted on public roads and highways, not on closed-circuit ski slopes or on sanctioned race tracks. Entertainers, researchers, EMT's or anyone chasing must follow the rules and there are NO special exemptions no matter how special you think you are. This includes running multiple stop signs, speeding in school zones and stopping in the middle of the highway, for example.

 

[Mike Smith]

but so far that Dominator rocket data or any other recent probe data I've read about does not seem to contribute anything truly new that we can apply to our understanding of severe storms

Dave, you wrote a significant and heartfelt piece which I have now read twice. Thanks for writing it.

I have been a professional meteorologist since 1971, a storm chaser since 1972 (I believe I am the only one of the original OU chasers still doing it) and I have seen a lot of change in the profession. One of the few good things about getting older is that the range of experience gives one a perspective that others may not have. So, now I'm going to write something that I'm nearly certain at least 80% of you will not appreciate.

Exactly what have all of the DoWs running around the past 28 years, sometimes breaking speed limits, found that have led to better tornado forecasting and tornado warnings?

If that is the standard that to which we are going to hold the Dominator and Reed Timmer, then it is the standard by which the entire field should be held. If we are going to criticize people for breaking the speed limit then that criticism should apply to all. I paced a DoW going over 90 mph (trying to get to the Lyndon-Lawrence Tornado) at which time I stopped accelerating because it was too unsafe. I believe the DoW was going over 100 mph. Much more recently, I have photos of a DoW southwest of Wichita blocking a heavily traveled two-lane road in a tornado situation with cars backed up behind it.

I got into the field because I have a passion for saving lives and property in extreme weather (tornadoes, yes, and also hurricanes, ice storms, blizzards, etc.). During that time I've seen many field programs (including the initial VORTEX programs) and I can't tell that they have contributed much, if anything, to better tornado forecasting and warnings. As many of you know, it is clear tornado warnings are getting less accurate and it appears tornado and severe thunderstorm watch (the forecast aspect) accuracy has flattened.

One can, probably accurately, contend that the accuracy of tornado forecasts and warnings depend on more than just total accumulated knowledge of the meteorological field. Nevertheless, the taxpayers keep giving us money to keep doing these field programs (at least one in progress right now). If we criticize people using their own money, we should apply the same standards to those spending money that comes from hard-working taxpayers.

 

[Aaron Pyzik]

I figured this would also be great to add to this conversation. It's from a press release where Joshua Wurman and CSWR distanced themselves from the Tornado Attack crew, and disavowed airborne-based probes made to gather measurements from inside tornadoes.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I can see both sides of the argument.

Come up out of the weeds of assessing the value, or lack thereof, of individual RT “experiments,” and I think in the big picture it’s pretty obvious his *primary* focus is on media exposure and not research. It seems to me he sprinkles a few gimmicky “experiments” in here and there for credibility, although we can never know another’s intent - he may have a true interest in this type of thing.

On the other hand, I agree that you never know what findings may turn out to have value - even by accident, regardless of the original intent of the “experiment.” Everyone thought Ben Franklin was crazy running around with a kite in a thunderstorm. Post-It’s were an accidental invention. Tim Samaras is now lionized, but he lacked credibility in the scientific community as well. I am not comparing RT to Tim or to Ben Franklin; just trying to present some alternative perspectives.

Josh Wurman has had his own troubles. Wasn’t there recently some scandal around funding or something? In any event, he mixed his own serious research with reality TV. And the press release Aaron shared could be construed as trying to protect his own radar-based research funding against ”competition” from probes etc. He even promotes his radar as necessary for such observations (“driving into a tornado…would be reckless except under the most constrained circumstances, which would include, at a minimum, rapidly updated near real time wind mapping…by high resolution DOW-like radar…”) His later statement could be used against his own research: “The mere act of collecting data in or near a tornado does not cause that data to be useful scientifically.”

However, I disagree with Mike that DOW research has not provided value in forecasting. Clearly DOW , VORTEX, etc. have added to the body of human knowledge about tornados - as have chasers, including RT. It is not always possible to directly trace specific outcomes to specific experiments or findings, but that body of knowledge is leveraged and dots are connected to form new knowledge and theories on the edges of what is already known. There are many other variables that impact forecast accuracy. If Mike is right that accuracy is actually degrading, it is very possible that is the result of entirely separate adverse factors that are offsetting the gains in knowledge from DOW etc.

I have been all over the map here, but just trying to share some different possible perspectives. All I know is, RT’s social media antics are somewhat of a clown show. It was discouraging to hear a few different people (non-chasers) on the Plains mention RT - he is like the only chaser they know, and I would be worried if they were to be inspired to chase by him and use him as a model for what it’s all about or how to go about it…

 

[Mike Smith]

A couple of comments pertaining to Jim's post (above). A reminder that the topic is the usefulness of field observations to tornado/severe thunderstorm forecasts and warnings.

Please note: Government is still touting -- just this week -- that field programs will yield better tornado forecasts and warnings. See: New airborne radar planned to improve weather forecasts on land and sea

Do they really?

Here are some meteorological accomplishments pertaining to forecasting and warning of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms made by ordinary storm chasing:

• Wall cloud, precursor of tornadoes; resulting in spotter reports that can lead to tornado warnings.This was just the second year of the OU/NSSL chase program!
• Tornado Vortex Signature which was validated by two chase teams in the Union City Tornado. Still used by some in tornado warnings.
• Gustnados.
• Downburst confirmation to Fujita's downburst hypothesis.
• Leading edge curl -- signature of a downburst. Taught to pilots for downburst avoidance.

In most cases, those were discovered by volunteers spending their own money. In at least three cases, the chasers involved paid their own page charges to get this information out to the wider meteorological community. No governmental support involved.

I have a minor in engineering from OU and my meteorology degree is from that college. In that program, I learned "the engineering method."

1. Program of (rudimentarily trained) chasers begins in 1972.
2. Two chase teams intercept 1973 Union City Tornado, one at close range (Golden's) and at medium range (Tegtmeier's). Complete photographic record, with time of day for each photo, is made by both teams.
3. Both NSSL dual-Dopplers record entire history of thunderstorm and F-4 tornado.
4. Chasers publish that wall cloud proceeded tornado. Hypothesis: wall clouds precede tornadoes.
5. NSSL publishes tornado vortex signature proceeded tornado. Hypothesis: TVS precedes tornadoes.

In other words, the chase program, within two years, yielded two -- major -- testable hypothesis. And, both were quite useful for tornado warnings. Conclusion: scientific storm chasing was highly useful, at least the first 20 years or so. It is still useful today to provide "ground truth" to NWS and media for tornado warning purposes.

Here is a list of DoW findings that are directly useful to forecasts and warnings.

The only thing I can think of that are useful in applied meteorology are the El Reno and Bridge Creek maximum wind measurements. They can be used in architecture and building engineering (e.g., nuclear power plant containment structures).

While I agree with Jim that we don't always know where science may lead, the taxpayers have been supporting DoW's for 28 years! I think that if they were going any yield direct forecast/warning knowledge, they would have done so after more than a quarter century. It is crazy to keep spending tax dollars on these programs. I have previously proposed a ten year moratorium on new field programs. The wealth of info and data collected by all of the previous programs will still be there for research. Continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the very definition of stupidity.

It is rather hypocritical for Josh W to criticize people spending their own money when he is supported by tax dollars and has not produced any data directly useful to these topics.

Finally, as to whether warnings are becoming less accurate, please see my article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/05/21/joplin-tornado-warning-improvement-nws/
In the article, you will find the NWS's own figures show the alarming decrease in warning accuracy. What has occurred since? Don't know. The NWS has, since that article, put its accuracy stats behind a login. Does that seem like something they would do if warnings were improving?

As to watch accuracy, the most recent figures I have been able to find are from 2017. When I was writing the WaPo column, I made two requests to NOAA for the figures and they would not send them. Again, is that the behavior of people proud of their performance?

If anyone has access to more recent numbers please post them! I would love to be proven wrong.

So, the bottom line (at least for me) is that if Reed and others -- obeying traffic laws and spending their own money -- want to collect data and run experiments, fine.

As for Josh and similar government programs, for gosh sakes stop! Perhaps if researchers were forced to focus their efforts on the data they've already collected, we might get somewhere at much lower cost that all of these field programs.

 

[John Farley]

Mike knows a lot more about this stuff than I do, so I am a little hesitant to jump into this discussion. However, there is one thing that occurs to me as a way the DOWS might ultimately prove useful. From things I heard two or three different years at the now-defunct Chasercon, one major advance in the past decade or so was understanding the role of the rear flank downdraft (RFD) in tornadogenesis. My sense, which could be wrong, was that some of this came from DOW data. Could be some of it just came from chaser observations, though, but perhaps including by chasers with the DOW teams. Now, I know it is not just RFD alone but also the temperature of the RFD that makes a difference, i.e. more tornado-triggering effect with warmer RFD if I recall correctly. It would seem to me that, over the longer run, this information might be helpful - better detection of warm RFD might lead to more accurate tornado warnings. Now, I don't know if there is any good way, for warning purposes, to assess the temperature of an RFD, but it would seem to me that if we could more accurately detect warm RFD, we might be able to more accurately warn for tornadoes. Not a benefit that has come yet, but perhaps one that might come in the future?

 

[gdlewen]

As for Josh and similar government programs, for gosh sakes stop! Perhaps if researchers were forced to focus their efforts on the data they've already collected, we might get somewhere at much lower cost that all of these field programs.

This is a really important point. Not only is a lot of existing data not being analyzed, but the balance of that data is not often made available to the public in a form where it could be leveraged (analyzed.) Admittedly, not many would bother, but that's not the point.

I get the feeling that many "marginal" events are not being analyzed--there are exceptions of course, and the published analyses of non-CI dry line events come to mind--but I think there is a lot to be learned from "marginal events". (Of course, how do you convince a grad student to pin their dissertation/thesis-hopes to an event their advisor has had archived for 10-20 years?)

 

[Mike Smith]

From things I heard two or three different years at the now-defunct Chasercon, one major advance in the past decade or so was understanding the role of the rear flank downdraft (RFD) in tornadogenesis.

Thanks so much, John. It was driving me crazy. As I was writing the piece at #69, I knew there was one more thing ordinary chasing discovered that was confirmed by the DoW's and field programs.

Here is what we thought was going to be the ground-breaking paper on the subject:
Tornado formation and the rear flank downdraft

Why didn't I list it under DoW accomplishments? Because, unless I have read the literature wrong, the "warming" RDF-tornadogenesis connection is not nearly as clear cut as originally hypothesized. In fact, if you go to Markowski's more recent summary page,

How tornadoes form – Markowski Research Group

that paper is not included in the list at the top and the "warm RFD" hypothesis is not discussed. He does say the downdraft is "only slightly cooler" than the environment with stronger tornadoes, but that is a long way from the original hypothesis.

Thus, that does not seem to be a piece of information useful in either tornado or forecasting or warnings.

As to G.D. Lewin's contribution to the discussion (#71), he's right. The when the collected data does get analyzed, it is only the big storms. The non-violent and, just as important, the forecast misses (e.g., tornadoes forecast, none occurs) seemingly never get published.

There is plentiful data for analysis sitting around. Let's do something useful with it rather than spending (wasting) millions on more field projects.

 

[John Farley]

Thanks, Mike. I thought the last two paragraphs of the "How tornadoes form" piece were particularly informative about issues surrounding making tornado warnings more accurate.

 

[Jeff Duda]

Staff note
It seems like this thread has more than run its course and has moved over into a discussion about non-scientific vs. government-funded-scientific storm research. Those who want to discuss this topic need to move this over to a new thread. If this doesn't return to the topic of the title of the thread, I will close it.

 

[Mike Smith]

Here is an interesting story pertaining to how two men -- with zero medical training whatsoever -- revolutionized how we clot blood.

How to stop the bleeding

The Wall Street Journal published Dr. David Shaywitz’s May 29 review of Charles Barber’s In the Blood: How Two Outsiders Solved a Centuries-Old Medical Mystery and Took On the US Army. …

www.powerlineblog.com

My point being that a great discovery is a great discovery regardless of the credentials of the discover.