More radar coverage?

[Joel Wright]

I think this topic has been discussed in the past, but is there any chance of adding to the existing web of WSR 88D coverage? You can't help but notice some rather large holes in the existing coverage during storm events. A few of these holes are in areas of the country that have frequent thunderstorm and tornado outbreaks.

Just a few areas I think could use more radar coverage...

Valentine, Nebraska.
Kirksville, Missouri.
Antlers, Oklahoma.
Pecos, Texas.
Chanute, Kansas.

I think some of these areas may be covered by other radars, such as older NWS radars and TV station radars. How usefull these are to the NWS is beyond my knowledge.

So is the current network of radars going to be what have for many years to come, or is there at least the possibility of adding more?

[rdale]

Nothing will be added to the current network... I imagine when PAR comes to fruition next decade then the coverage will be examined.

[Dann Cianca]

... nobody lives there and there are only a few severe days a year, but SE Montana, NE Wyoming would be nice. There's a massive hole there.

[Jay McCoy]

NW oklahoma and SE colorado would be really nice. The whole around Woodward had always been a concern since it is at the max range of all 3 surounding sites of Amariilo, Dodge city and Enid. Many storms in that area can look average but in reallity be monsters dropping tornados. Also storms coming into western kansas and oklahoma panhandle are barely in range of Amarillo and Dodge city.

If they do add any in the future they need to add them where weather is active and more people are effected. The eastern 1/2 of the US is pretty well cobered with overlapping radar. Not so for the plains (tornado alley by the way) and intermountain region.

[rdale]

If they do add any in the future they need to add them where weather is active and more people are effected. The eastern 1/2 of the US is pretty well cobered with overlapping radar.

Remember though that it was deployed in an era where we thought most meso's have tornadoes, and for plains storms those can be detected at long range.

That's also one of the pushes for CASA radars.

[Tim Shriver]

When PAR is put into place the plan, at least right now, is to reduce the number
of radar sites. Hopefully each site will cover more area though.

Tim

[rdale]

I've not heard that before... The laws of physics still state that the Earth curves, so PAR will still have to deal with the beam height at distances away. That plan doesn't make sense to me.

[Ryan Wichman]

I know personally from living in Western Illinois that there is a large radar gap between STL and DVN for storms entering from the West. The radars have the range to cover extreme NE MO and extreme west central IL but cannot scan the base of the storms, this is a major problem during severe weather.

[Brandon Sullivan]

I agree with Ryan.

SE IA NE MO and Western IL is at the edge of many radar sites. EAX DMX LSX DVN....

Processes of sub refraction really play a good number on being able to detect low level signatures.

[Tim Shriver]

I've not heard that before... The laws of physics still state that the Earth curves, so PAR will still have to deal with the beam height at distances away. That plan doesn't make sense to me.

I agree,,but I read it on a NOAA website somewhere along the way.
But as with any plan, I am sure it will change dozens of times
before it actually hits dirt..

Tim

[Kory Hartman]

Here's an interesting report from AMS:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0434(2002)017%3C0927%3AWRCOTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

[rdale]

One of the neat things that the new SPG version 3 will offer to NWS is the ability to get processed data (one hour precip, meso algorithm, echo tops, etc.) from TDWR and in the future TV station radars. That's coming in the fall.

http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/buildTraining/SPG3/index.html

So potentially you could have output from TV radars that fills in the gaps and is in the similar format to 88D.

[John Wetter]

When PAR is put into place the plan, at least right now, is to reduce the number
of radar sites. Hopefully each site will cover more area though.


The idea is that it will reduce the TOTAL number of radars among NWS, FAA, and DoD sites. The main savings will be with the FAA to replace the ASR and ARSR radars and to either replace or augment the TDWR's. This would still be a net GAIN in the number of weather capable radar sites.

-John

[rdale]

Thanks for clarifying John - that makes a little more sense in a world where HQ doesn't always make sense :D

[Tim Shriver]

The idea is that it will reduce the TOTAL number of radars among NWS, FAA, and DoD sites. The main savings will be with the FAA to replace the ASR and ARSR radars and to either replace or augment the TDWR's. This would still be a net GAIN in the number of weather capable radar sites.

-John

This sounds better to me...

Thanks,

Tim