Storm Chasers - The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

[dw2872]

Storm Chasers - The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

A post about Tim Samaras and his Twistex team being killed while conducting valuable scientific research into tornado activity prompted a discussion of and the pros and cons of storm chasers and related activity. It was getting off the topic of the original post so I wanted to see if people want to discuss those subjects here.

I believe people agree that there are good and bad ones out there. There are even some that detract from the profession. Someone even suggested laws against the activity or to curb it. It is strange how the suggestion of new laws come up when situations happen that new laws would not have even made a difference. It may be debatable, but it seems like Tim's team was iconic when it came to safety and science. So a new law wouldn't even be targeted by a team like that.

Thoughts?

 

[KD8DVR]

There are trained personnel who do this for a living. They collect information for scientific research. These folks know what they are doing. When you are dealing with nature, you cannot 100% of the time guarantee a path a storm takes. These guys do it right, and sometimes, it just doesn't work.

Then you have the "whackers". The thrill seekers, the idiots who storm chase for the thrill, disguising it behind a ham license and the guise of "public service" Vehicles usually full of flashy lights and signs.

In my area, spotters are just that.. spotters. The NWS discourages storm chasing as our population density is such that storms can be located and reported much easier than the wide open spaces of the southwest. On our local weather net, some whackers were called out by a sheriff deputy who was also a ham and on the net.... he said this whacker was doing about 70 mph going after this storm. These guys do it wrong... stupid. We just need to sit still, keep our mouths shut, and eyes open. some people... just. don't. get. it.

Legislation? No. Every time something happens, the knee-jerk reaction is to make something illegal.

Well, you can't legislate stupidity.

73

 

[Confuzzled]

There can't be any laws as long as they don't interfere. If they do, existing laws can be applied.

I do believe they should be required to have special liability insurance over and above any standard or commercial vehicle policies. And they need to be registered somewhere with their ID, vehicle information and a list of their next of kin.

Also, if they get in trouble and have to call on public safety personnel to be rescued, they should have to pay for all associated costs, much like climbers or hikers in certain areas.

 

[Confuzzled]

Also, regarding existing laws for traffic as noted over there, most places already have laws regarding technology use by drivers. ENFORCE that strictly for chasers. Must be at least two on board and the driver must NOT use ANY of the tech items. Passengers must be the only ones allowed to do any of that.

 

[newsphotog]

If there are storm chasers around, law enforcement isn't going to want to enforce laws more strictly on them. If there are storm chasers around, law enforcement is going to have their hands full with whatever is about to go down. New legislation isn't going to help if existing laws aren't even enforced.

How about we just stop this glorifying BS of storm chasers?

 

[rapidcharger]

(((continued from other thread)))

Please point a link to real, substantial scientific data that these "storm chasers" who selfishly put themselves in harm's way to make videos (which many sell commercially) while getting adrenaline rushes do to better society?

One has to distinguish between those that aren't really filming the tornados but more interested in launching some sort of scientific instrument into the tornado and those who are out looking for an adrenaline rush and want to put videos on their youtube channel and those who are filming for profit. And many respected scientists have conceded that there is no hope of ever achieving any substantial advance warning of where a tornado is going to strike. There's just too many variables. One has to wonder what can come of more launching of instruments directly into tornados at this point.

I mean, what more do you need to know? It's windy. And it'll make houses disappear.

As for the thrill seekers, youtubers and professional stringers, it's become pretty apparent from watching the show on discovery channel that there are actually many, many, many people other there doing that now. Having not seen it in person, I wonder if it's become even more dangerous now that there is so much traffic and congestion from all the hoards of people out there. I can only imagine it would be especially from getting stuck behind all the non-drivers where I live. If the storm takes a sudden turn and you need to get out fast, aren't you going to get stuck behind multiple convoys of gawkers and rubberneckers?

Ya I guess I did open up a whole new argument.
Sport was the wrong term I suppose.

I could see the thread going into a debate as to whether storm chasers were heros and now athletes. Glad we nipped that one in the bud.

 

[rdale]

And many respected scientists have conceded that there is no hope of ever achieving any substantial advance warning of where a tornado is going to strike.

Scientists? Or meteorologists? Sounds like you heard of some from the former batch who are not familiar with severe weather research. There is plenty of opportunity for more advanced warning. The schools in Moore had 20-30 minutes of notice which was UNHEARD of 30 years ago. We've made leaps and bounds, and as computing power increases the ability to fine tune time and location will continue to grow.

 

[rapidcharger]

The schools in Moore had 20-30 minutes of notice which was UNHEARD of 30 years ago. We've made leaps and bounds, and as computing power increases the ability to fine tune time and location will continue to grow.

Was that the result of sending little devices up in the core of a tornado or was that from spotters or someone miles away in an office looking at a radar picture?

I'm not saying warning and knowledge hasn't improved in the last 30 years. What I'm saying is some scientists believe that advance warning resulting from sending something in to a tornado has probably plateaued. There are so many unique variables with the each storm that predicting exactly where tornados are going to go is not possible and most likely never will be.

 

[rdale]

Was that the result of sending little devices up in the core of a tornado

Uhh, that was a movie. That doesn't happen in real life

was that from spotters or someone miles away in an office looking at a radar picture?

A combination.

What I'm saying is some scientists believe that advance warning resulting from sending something in to a tornado has probably plateaued

Again, I think you saw Twister too many times! Nobody does that or ever proposed doing so.

 

[Drachen_Fire]

Yeah, probe deployment into tornadoes happens. It's what Tim Samaras was doing, and several others still do. The movie's plot point was based on a nearly identical device (TOTO) that Howie Bluestein tried t launch back in the mid-1980's.

 

[Halfpint]

Was that the result of sending little devices up in the core of a tornado or was that from spotters or someone miles away in an office looking at a radar picture?

I'd say that it was a result of both things happening though, probably not at exactly the same time and/or place.

I'm not saying warning and knowledge hasn't improved in the last 30 years. What I'm saying is some scientists believe that advance warning resulting from sending something in to a tornado has probably plateaued. There are so many unique variables with the each storm that predicting exactly where tornados are going to go is not possible and most likely never will be.

From what I've heard from various friends and individuals who work at NOAA while things may be somewhat plateauing `data-wise' around severe storms such as these. It is storms like the EF5 ones where there are still more than just a few things that aren't yet understood via the currently collected information. While quite few are saying that it is looking more and more like `observer' launched probes are approaching their useful end of life they are also saying that they still need more similarly `direct' data collection about things `inside' these storms and are actively looking at many other ways to do said data collection. Unfortunately, the SOTA of radar and sat data collection, even as advanced as it currently is, still cannot quite replace `on the ground' type of information, yet. (Not too surprisingly most of the people *I* know bemoan the situation of putting people's lives at stake to gather such information yet also bemoan the lack of ability to do so without such risk. They realize that as it now stands there isn't any `sterile' form of data collection available that doesn't involve any observer risk as much as they may want.)

Oh, well just an `Olde Fart's' 2 cents worth?

 

[rdale]

Yeah, probe deployment into tornadoes happens.

No, there really are no scientists that shoot probes into tornadoes.

It's what Tim Samaras was doing

No, it absolutely was not. He launched nothing. He placed some ground based data platforms in the path.

. The movie's plot point was based on a nearly identical device (TOTO) that Howie Bluestein tried t launch back in the mid-1980's.

Dr Bluestein's device was not even remotely close to what was depicted in Twister. Once again, nobody launches probes or rockets or anything into a tornado.

 

[rdale]

things may be somewhat plateauing `data-wise' around severe storms such as these.

I think you asked the wrong question then

While quite few are saying that it is looking more and more like `observer' launched probes are approaching their useful end of life

Again... Twister was a movie. It was fake. No researcher launches probes into tornadoes. Reed Timmer did it into the storm inflow as a publicity stunt in his TV series, but that was not for science.

They realize that as it now stands there isn't any `sterile' form of data collection available that doesn't involve any observer risk as much as they may want.

Incorrect. The mobile Doppler radar platforms are at a safe distance and provide new looks inside a tornado never before seen, especially in Moore.

 

[dw2872]

As for the research that has been conducted and published, while this has helped with advance warning times, many believe the benefit of this research (early warning) has largely plateaued because there are simply too many unique variables with each storm system to accurately pinpoint precisely where they are going to go and when.

Using hurricanes as an example, I've lived on the coast in florida for 25 years and I've been through my fair share of "cones of death". The truth of the matter is accurate prediction is a wonderful goal to shoot for but at the end of the day, nobody has any frrrriggggin idea where those things are gonna go!

... But the whole idea just seems unnecessary at this point. We can see them on the radar.

It's funny how people can generalize and act like they know everything there is to know about severe weather and nothing more can be learned. Like radar is the only and last thing we need to warn of tornadoes or something. Really? That is a pretty ignorant way of thinking.

Weather research and medical research are similar in that you will never know everything there is to know and research should not stop simply because some goofball who thinks he knows everything says lets just stop, we have radar. If someone said stop in the medical research field because we had x-rays, where would we be? We don't have a clue who will get cancer and where, but we don't just stop. That would be lazy... like the guy who says it's "unnecessary at this point. We can see them on the radar." Lazy and ignorant.

 

[Drachen_Fire]

Yeppo. Radar is a straight beam. The Earth's surface is curved. The radar only sees a cross section of a narrow width, and is known to lie. Every year, we still have deadly tornadoes that were invisible on radar, as well as severe/tornado-warned storms with strong hook echoes that never amounted to anything more than rain. You actually need human eyes on the ground still.

 

[AK9R]

The radar only sees a cross section of a narrow width, and is known to lie.

Lie? Lying assumes an understanding of right from wrong.

The radar doesn't lie. It only reports data that it can detect. If a tornado spins up between scans, or below the radar's beam, or the spin-up is too small for the resolution of the radar (which gets worse the further the tornado is from the radar) to detect, the radar simply won't report anything. But, it doesn't lie.

 

[Jimru]

Although I've been a NWS spotter for years (and not all that active, really), as much as I love stormy weather; I just have never had any desire to go chasing.

I've seen plenty of nasty weather right from my own home, or if I am traveling and that's enough for me, thanks.

It's not that I haven't taken any chances in my life; I was a NYC cab driver for two years; I went skydiving (once) and I rode a bicycle from NYC to San Francisco, plus a lot of other outdoorsy type stuff; but putting myself into or even near the path of a tornado is just nuts.

With so many out there trying to get a view and take pictures now, it's not just that you are possibly putting yourself at risk, but you are, it seems, putting others at risk by creating congestion on the roads where that was not an issue before.

I understand the "awe" factor, I guess, but still...

 

[MistyCraig]

Hurricane season is upon us again, as if the pummeling the Gulf Coast just took from blowhard Isaac wasn't enough proof. And in the wake of hurricanes, as with most natural disasters, come the storm chaser: a particularly low kind of fraudster who is desperate to make a fast killing at the cost of the sufferers. Typically, those are every-day consumers who can ill-afford to have their already-strained pockets picked. Being a storm chaser has its advantages. Do other jobs let the employees save the public from an approaching fatal storm? Admittedly there are some jobs out there that do that, but storm chasers are the unsung heroes.
Article source: <a="http://personalmoneynetwork.com/moneyblog/2012/09/04/storm-chaser-scams/">Beware of storm chaser scams</a>

 

[dw2872]

The article above is referring to a different kind of storm chaser. The article is talking about those lowlife types that come knocking on your door after a storm (even hail storms) to tell you that you need a new roof. Or even worse, those vultures that came into areas destroyed by a storm with insurance scams related to construction or even damaged vehicles.

This thread is mainly been about people that drive into or ahead of the storms to study (for scientific purposes) or just get photos or video of the storm attributes for news or tv.

But I learned something new about the term storm chaser from the article!

 

[KA9QPN]

Nobody launches rockets into tornadoes?

Stirling Colgate would like to talk about his 1981 attempts.

Moss Growth Podcast: Stirling Colgate Attempts to Fire Rockets into a Tornado from a Plane

And, page 2 here:
Probing the many mysteries of the tornado - CSMonitor.com