Scientist To Tackle "Thundersnow" Rarity - Another Great Use Of Tax Dollars

Red Nova News - AP ^ | November 12, 2003 | BILL DRAPER

[Paradox]

While it might not seem like the most worthwhile endevour, there are far many less deserving studies that get funded every year.. wasn't there an award that was given to these things each year? Named after a now dead famous senator.....

[DoctorMichael]

I've been in a couple of these in Montana.

One, in fact, was a Thunder-Fog-Snowstorm (ALL at the same time!). Very bizzare.

[ChemistCat]

In Michigan, perhaps you have no problems with inaccurate snow forecasts. It's a huge problem in places that get only infrequent heavy snow.

This one project likely won't cure the problem of inaccurate weather forecasts. But weather forecasting is becoming more a science and less an art because of the cumulative knowledge from many studies.

They're studying tornadoes here in Oklahoma--and learning a great deal that applies to other weather issues in the process.

[from occupied ga]

So this is a potentially signficant weather issue that merits study

Not with my money.

[TX Bluebonnet]

My brother's friend was struck by lightning (and died) while snow skiing. I always thought that was so strange.

[mikegi]

We had a thunder snowstorm in Seattle in the early 90s. I think the total on the eastside where I lived (Redmond) was about 15 inches in a couple of hours. Completely paralyzed the entire area. People abandoned their cars on the 520 floating bridge. I think there was some concern that the bridge might sink due to the cars/buses combined with the ice accumulation from the high winds blowing Lk Washington water onto it. It took me two hours to get home from work - and I only lived about four miles away!

All this is a separate issue from whether it would be useful to study thundersnow. The lightning occured while the storm was in progress. In other words, detecting the lightning would not have changed the outcome since the storm was so intense.

BTW, although Seattle is very far north in the US it doesn't have very many serious snowstorms (Puget Sound and the Pacific moderate the cold). We would get snow but it rarely stuck to the roads. The snowflakes were always huge because of the Pacific moisture - one radio DJ had a great description of the flakes: "it looks like its snowing little pillows".

[Skywarner]

We have "thundersnow" up here in upstate NY from time to time, too.

But, spending almost half a mil on it? I can tell you what it is for free. It's simply a thunderstorm during colder weather. If conditions are right, no matter the temperature range, thunderstorms can result.

Now, where do I go to collect my check? ;-)

[ChemistCat]

Can you predict it? Can you warn a city that conditions are right for a snowstorm that will generate lightning and freakishly high snow levels?

[DK Zimmerman]

Apparently you misunderstood my point.

"...thunder growls and lightning sends dull flashes among the clouds. A University of Missouri researcher has received a $460,000 grant from the National Science Foundation to find out when and why...thundersnow, an apparently rare event that some researchers believe foreshadows an intense snowstorm with heavy accumulation."

I applaud this clown's salesmanship, unless of course, he is truly ignorant of the facts, in which case - why give him so much money to educate himself? A plane ticket to Germany and living expenses for 3 winter months shouldn't run more than about 15k.

I ABHOR the fact that someone in charge of some 500k of our tax money GAVE him (grant) so much money to study a rare event that simply ain't rare.

In the big picture of things, is 500k to study weather of note a worthwhile effort? Generally, yes. In this particular case, however, it appears to be potentially fraudulent. Clear?

[ChemistCat]

I think you are a victim of poor journalism, and can't see that fact. This article does not fully inform the public about the cost AND benefits from the research. That's all. I admit I'm heavily biased toward scientific research--real research in hard science fields. (When money is going to find out that some men are attracted to women and some men are attracted to men--WOW! what a revelation!--then that's another matter, but I do not consider psychology in general to be hard science.)

[DK Zimmerman]

I freely admit that no discussion of costs versus benefits is present.

That said, I don't think the journalist made up the "selling point" that this is a rare event and doubtless, it figured prominently in the justification of the grant.

Apparently, you are willing to overlook fraud, in the name of funding scientific research. I am not. Extremely poor (inadequate) secondary research appears to be the least of which this guy is guilty. Some such study may even be justifiable on this exact subject for this cost.

In my book, such applications ought to be scrutinized closely, to include verifiable cost/benefit considerations. This does not appear to pass the smell test. Unfortunately, we'll never know what more meaningful research will not be conducted because of the sloppy research/grant approval process that appears to be in evidence.

[ChemistCat]

I don't see this research as fraudulent or sloppy. The journalism sure is sloppy!

It's a brand new weather study of a phenonemon no one has studied before. There's no data to work with, secondary or otherwise. He's collecting information via the internet--certainly a cheap resource--about which regions are most likely to suffer thundersnow storms he can study. Then he will take teams to try to be at the right place at the right time. This is how tornadoes are studied, too. Conditions are monitored in places most likely to have tornadoes--and when they see likely conditions, they send out teams and equipment.

When Salt Lake City has a tornado nobody is ready, because the region isn't expected to have them, so no one is there to watch--but hundreds of lives are saved in Oklahoma every year because weather researchers have developed methods of studying AND FORECASTING dangerous (and costly) storms.

Thundersnow isn't as dangerous but it is part of a larger weather picture. Information they learn by studying thundersnow will be applicable to other weather problems.

I just don't see this as fraudulent, and considering that the study will go on for years, it's a bargain. I just hope they're successful at being at the right place at the right time. That's been the challenge of tornado research too.

[DK Zimmerman]

I apologize, I didn’t checked back until tonight.

Re the poor reporting, the guy himself practically wrote the article, so don’t blame the journalist (see):

http://www.missouri.edu/~news/releases/thundersnow.html

As to “It's a brand new weather study of a phenonemon no one has studied before. There's no data to work with, secondary or otherwise.” Allow me to refer you to:

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/wrhq/02TAs/0213/

It refers to an ‘atypical’ case, obviously, they have been studied (see citations, therein).

The Weather Channel sure seems sure of the causes and circumstances involved: http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/334/

If you’re a scientist, please consider, for 500k, this guy is soliciting eyewitness reports. Now, how cost effective is that, compared to say, superimposing lightening strike maps over winter storm maps and using databases to determine which of those coincidences included snow?

Oh, I’m sorry, that wouldn’t support the (in my eyes) discredited “rareness” (see the numerous reports in a simple google search), nor a 500k grant.

Sorry, still sounds like slop, but don’t feel bad, you weren’t the only that “bit.” Now, it took me about 10 minutes to gather this. Does that mean I can bill someone 10k? What a scam.

[stripes1776]

I have experienced this many times during trips to Chicago during the winter. I thought that it was something unique to that area but the article says otherwise.