Chaser convergence- getting even worse.

[Jesse Risley]

Has me wondering what would happen if you put all model data behind a paywall (like $100 a month subscription with a minimum of 6 months). Would it affect the numbers of chasers with data not being so readily available and funneled through paying channels? Revenue would certainly help government weather entities. Just a thought that crossed my mind that wouldn't be a legislative avenue.

It's certainly not a terrible idea for combating this problem, though there are broader policy issues at play when it comes to restricting data from taxpayer-funded, public entities such as NOAA/NWS. It would end up in federal court and probably be a losing proposition for the federal government if they tried to greatly restrict access.

 

[Mikayla Norris]

I will say this, the setups this year have been annoyingly maximizing the problems like no other years before. Seemingly big events (moderate/high risks) that turn into just one storm heading through choke points and horrible road networks. Today might be another if we end up with just one storm.

That, and how lackluster last year was for a lot of people. In comparison, just about anything this year could trigger a convergence event I would imagine.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Yesterday's SN count peaked at 976. Using the temporary formula subtracting the "always beaconing" spotters and factoring in the preliminary 70% chaser beaconing rate, we get 839. Yesterday was likely mostly chase vacationers and "serious" chasers with very little locals and opportunists, so that may be near our baseline "peak season" count. As long as there is more than one storm and/or a good road network, those numbers shouldn't cause much issues, as they haven't in the past. Where we run into problems is if a higher categorical risk is issued near OKC (significantly increasing the numbers) and/or the road network/one storm problem crops up.

 

[Mikayla Norris]

Has me wondering what would happen if you put all model data behind a paywall (like $100 a month subscription with a minimum of 6 months). Would it affect the numbers of chasers with data not being so readily available and funneled through paying channels? Revenue would certainly help government weather entities. Just a thought that crossed my mind that wouldn't be a legislative avenue.

I feel like that could make the problem of uneducated chasers even worse. Some folks (myself included) wouldn't have that kind of money in the budget to post up for a hobby. Not on top of all the other chase expenses. Therefore, wouldn't building a paywall just push the folks who have the desire to chase, to just simply chase less informed? Plus I think it could push a lot of the more responsible chasers out of the game entirely just based off of the extra cost. Not to mention I am against the restriction of info like this in general.

I think a better idea might be to somehow introduce some sort of a license for it. You pay a one time licensing/ testing fee and then have a reasonable annual renewal fee. And it would essentially create a data base that could be used to hold bad actors accountable, not only on the roads, but as far as poor reports and other things.

 

[Matthew Crowther]

Yesterday's SN count peaked at 976. Using the temporary formula subtracting the "always beaconing" spotters and factoring in the preliminary 70% chaser beaconing rate, we get 839. Yesterday was likely mostly chase vacationers and "serious" chasers with very little locals and opportunists, so that may be near our baseline "peak season" count. As long as there is more than one storm and/or a good road network, those numbers shouldn't cause much issues, as they haven't in the past. Where we run into problems is if a higher categorical risk is issued near OKC (significantly increasing the numbers) and/or the road network/one storm problem crops up.

I was in an area Monday where I saw maybe 5 or 6 dots, but passed/saw probably 20 or 30 cars that were obviously chasing. I think the # of chasers is way more than what SN shows, at least in Oklahoma.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

I feel like that could make the problem of uneducated chasers even worse. Some folks (myself included) wouldn't have that kind of money in the budget to post up for a hobby. Not on top of all the other chase expenses. Therefore, wouldn't building a paywall just push the folks who have the desire to chase, to just simply chase less informed? Plus I think it could push a lot of the more responsible chasers out of the game entirely just based off of the extra cost. Not to mention I am against the restriction of info like this in general.

Not that I want to, but that would be the point of something like this. Would you be willing to drive 500 miles based on a gut feeling (or SPC outlook) or would you invest back into the very thing that allows you enjoy it in the first place? I don't think the lack of forecast models put you in any more/less danger when you're out there, they allow you to know when/where to be when you're out.

 

[Mikayla Norris]

Not that I want to, but that would be the point of something like this. Would you be willing to drive 500 miles based on a gut feeling (or SPC outlook) or would you invest back into the very thing that allows you enjoy it in the first place? I don't think the lack of forecast models put you in any more/less danger when you're out there, they allow you to know when/where to be when you're out.

For me personally I would probably just have to scale back to local events only. Because you are right, I wouldn't go that far on a gut feeling, and the chase budget is tight enough as it is. I agree in spirit for sure though. Maybe I just disagree with this specifically as I know it would basically prevent me from chasing just as I am getting back into it. Something definitely needs to change, because as things are now it isn't if a tragedy happens, its when. There just isn't an easy answer that I can see.

 

[Quincy Vagell]

I will say this, the setups this year have been annoyingly maximizing the problems like no other years before. Seemingly big events (moderate/high risks) that turn into just one storm heading through choke points and horrible road networks. Today might be another if we end up with just one storm.

Agree with this. We haven't had many nuanced setups with multiple legit targets. Today looks very focused and with flooding in the area, as well as more woody areas that you'd see west of I-35, it's probably going to be more bottlenecking with chaser traffic.

Even tomorrow may end up being fairly focused too with the main target area, but we'll see.

 

[Marc R. O'Leary]

Has me wondering what would happen if you put all model data behind a paywall (like $100 a month subscription with a minimum of 6 months). Would it affect the numbers of chasers with data not being so readily available and funneled through paying channels? Revenue would certainly help government weather entities. Just a thought that crossed my mind that wouldn't be a legislative avenue.

Hard to justify charging for a public safety product.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

Hard to justify charging for a public safety product.

I could argue that SPC dispersed information is a public safety product, and the model data is a tool to deliver that information . I do know this, I would be hard pressed to find more than 1% of the population who cared what temps were at 700mb at 22z. But overall, it was just a thought that could address chaser convergence and no need to get into the weeds.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I was in an area Monday where I saw maybe 5 or 6 dots, but passed/saw probably 20 or 30 cars that were obviously chasing. I think the # of chasers is way more than what SN shows, at least in Oklahoma.

Matt, how close to OKC was this? I have a theory that the number of locals/opportunistic chasers increases the closer you get to metro areas, particularly OKC. I could be wrong though. The polls I ran the other day on here and on Twitter showed 90% of chasers beaconing once storms were in progress. That poll could be flawed, but both Twitter and Stormtrack results showed similar percentages. I figure SN might ultimately be the best tool for estimating chaser numbers, we just have to figure out how many aren't beaconing.

 

[Dan Robinson]

FWIW, today's SN count at 11:35PM was at 390, which was the number at 7AM on the 17th (Nebraska day). Significantly fewer today, but we'll see how that responds to the SPC risk upgrade.

 

[Mark Blue]

I was in an area Monday where I saw maybe 5 or 6 dots, but passed/saw probably 20 or 30 cars that were obviously chasing. I think the # of chasers is way more than what SN shows, at least in Oklahoma.

That’s a good observation Matthew. There is just no way to quantify locals or others who are chasing but not using SN. Since we implemented the SN support forum the number of daily email inquiries I receive with RS/SN questions is off-the-chain. In addition to that several people post questions in the forum who cannot figure it out. To me it’s so very simple. Just login to SN through RS and that’s it. Using your observation that would raise the chasers on a storm by a factor of 5. Instead of 5 there are actually 25.

 

[Quincy Vagell]

Matt, how close to OKC was this? I have a theory that the number of locals/opportunistic chasers increases the closer you get to metro areas, particularly OKC. I could be wrong though. The polls I ran the other day on here and on Twitter showed 90% of chasers beaconing once storms were in progress. That poll could be flawed, but both Twitter and Stormtrack results showed similar percentages. I figure SN might ultimately be the best tool for estimating chaser numbers, we just have to figure out how many aren't beaconing.

I think there is possibly a large number of chasers who may not be all that involved with social media, as hard as it might be to believe that these days. Meaning, they were not able to vote in any polls and may not even be aware of how to report a location on SN.

You have older generations, but also the more casual enthusiasts who may only get interested in this sort of thing a few weeks or a month or two out of the year. Even I didn't start reporting my location until about a year after chasing and I considered myself pretty strongly interested in chasing from the start. I've been out on days with no dots around and have seen a few chasers, so I think the polls may not closely match what the actual numbers may be.

Most who are active on Twitter and/or here are very enthusiastic and thus, have a higher likelihood to report locations.

Maybe a test one day would be for someone to observe the number of vehicles in a line, for example, and review SN maps to see how many dots are on. I bet the numbers might be surprisingly different, especially on higher-end days in Oklahoma.

Edit:
I posted a poll on Twitter with four possible responses about reporting locations while chasing. I'm curious to see what the results are.
The options I put were...

• Yes, most times
• Yes, when on/near a storm
• Sometimes, but usually no
• No (rarely or never)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1131245982501527553

 

[Jeff Duda]

Has me wondering what would happen if you put all model data behind a paywall (like $100 a month subscription with a minimum of 6 months). Would it affect the numbers of chasers with data not being so readily available and funneled through paying channels? Revenue would certainly help government weather entities. Just a thought that crossed my mind that wouldn't be a legislative avenue.

Computational resources and imagery from the EMC/MAG site (Model Analyses and Guidance) are publicly funded by taxpayer dollars, so I doubt such a move would survive a court battle.