Comments on: Double duty for Doppler? http://blogs.kansas.com/weather/2008/04/15/double-duty-for-doppler/ Stan Finger has covered Wichita weather for 25 years. Now he's blogging about it. Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:15:07 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: Rick_Sojda http://blogs.kansas.com/weather/2008/04/15/double-duty-for-doppler/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Rick_Sojda Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:06:34 +0000 http://blogs.kansas.com/weather/2008/04/15/double-duty-for-doppler/#comment-5 That is a great observation (by gwandrews) and a system with which my colleagues and I have some familiarity. Sound science requires our work to undergo scientific peer review. Because the military and related contractors have been unable to publish their computer algorithms in the scientific literature, we are unable to use them for sifting through the NEXRAD archive. Should we base our work on unpublished methods, we are not confident that we could fully publish our resultant findings in a manner that will pass scientific muster. There are some other differences in our work from theirs, but this is not the crux of the point made by the previous blog poster. In another vein, we hope that our collaborations beginning with the National Weather Service will help inform our research in the realm of building our methods on published science. The USGS has a web site describing some of our work: http://www.fort.usgs.gov/radar/ . And, you can read extended abstracts from our most recent workshop: http://www.fort.usgs.gov/radar/ That is a great observation (by gwandrews) and a system with which my colleagues and I have some familiarity. Sound science requires our work to undergo scientific peer review. Because the military and related contractors have been unable to publish their computer algorithms in the scientific literature, we are unable to use them for sifting through the NEXRAD archive. Should we base our work on unpublished methods, we are not confident that we could fully publish our resultant findings in a manner that will pass scientific muster. There are some other differences in our work from theirs, but this is not the crux of the point made by the previous blog poster. In another vein, we hope that our collaborations beginning with the National Weather Service will help inform our research in the realm of building our methods on published science.

The USGS has a web site describing some of our work: http://www.fort.usgs.gov/radar/ . And, you can read extended abstracts from our most recent workshop: http://www.fort.usgs.gov/radar/

]]> By: gwandrews http://blogs.kansas.com/weather/2008/04/15/double-duty-for-doppler/comment-page-1/#comment-2 gwandrews Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:14:17 +0000 http://blogs.kansas.com/weather/2008/04/15/double-duty-for-doppler/#comment-2 This "technology" already exists and the USGS is "reinventing the wheel" ... the US Air Force has a system - the Avian Hazard Advisory System (www.usAHAS.com) - that has been using NEXRAD to track bird movements/ activity and provide risk advisories to US military flying units for bird-aricraft strike risk management since 1998. The system first covers the continental US providing 6 minutes bird activity data updates 24-7. Over 8 years of data is archived that already being used to assess a variety of sites with avian issues such as wind farms, landfills and new airports. This “technology” already exists and the USGS is “reinventing the wheel” … the US Air Force has a system – the Avian Hazard Advisory System (www.usAHAS.com) – that has been using NEXRAD to track bird movements/ activity and provide risk advisories to US military flying units for bird-aricraft strike risk management since 1998. The system first covers the continental US providing 6 minutes bird activity data updates 24-7. Over 8 years of data is archived that already being used to assess a variety of sites with avian issues such as wind farms, landfills and new airports.

]]>