Chaser convergence- getting even worse.

Trying to hide the model data is not going to work, even if it were legal or practical in this country(it's not).

You'll never get every national agency and research group to sign on.

And you don't need the model data. All the amateurs will just follow the SPC map, or simply find the location of their favorite chaser and go there.
 
Even if you hid US model data, there's plenty of publicly available data from other countries.

Early voting in my Twitter poll suggests that only slightly more than half of people will report their location while storm chasing. 28% reported rarely or never reporting, while 17% said that they usually do not. It's only 114 votes in and it's a small-ish sample size so far.

That's 55% than usually report to SN and 45% that never report, or usually do not.

I'm running the poll until the end of Thursday to see what the final results are.
 
I like the idea of comparing photos of cars against SN dot maps. I'm trying to save the data feed TXT file as often as I can to have something to compare against.
 
I was chatting with a long-time chaser friend yesterday and we got no the subject of new waves of chasers and how they come into the fold. I, lumped in with the Twister-era starters (to be fair, I just timed out that way cause that's when I got my driver's license, I consider myself an "Enemy Wind" chaser haha), were often looked down at because of the timing to which we got in to chasing. For a while, we were the new wave, and I think everyone got over that animosity pretty quick. Back in those days, we lacked social media, CAMs, and all this stuff that makes chasing so much easier. We were actually forced to learn the ropes, forced to engage with others in the field. Actually learn how to do this. Hell, it was 8 years after my first chase before I even had a computer in the car. I think a lot of folks who suffered through a few bad seasons fell out, and of course, freelancing video wasn't main stream yet, so it was truly a major financial investment to do. I'd LOVE to get a count of how many folks who started in the late 90s (Twister-era) are still around with some regularity.

I think a lot of the Twister-era surge came and went, as many who were like, "hey, that looks awesome", fell out due to lack of success. After my first chase/tornado in 1997, it was three years later when I saw #2, and three years after that I saw my next 5. The 2004 season was my first BIG successful year, including the May 12 and May 29 days. It took stamina, patience, and time. A lot of time. Something that as a whole (extending WELL beyond chasing and weather) is not even a thing. Instant gratification has topped the patience and making a career out of it (or just sticking with it til you actually got better). I don't think anyone coming into this over the last, oh say 10 years, has any clue what investing in this is (and I am talking beyond just buying gear, lights, whatever). I'm talking time investment. And again, why should they, it's basically handed to them on what I'd call a .300 average.

When Discovery Channel came out, we were in a completely different age as opposed to post-Twister. Models were better, but social media was taking over. And that immediately just blew everything up. As mentioned above, a few particular folks have aided into the spread of this fire a bit. But there is definitely a generational gap between Twister-era folks like myself and the Discovery-era/social media folks.

Because of the availability of high-rez models, social media, spotter network tracking, chasing is easier. The need for Meteorology is almost null (in terms of reasonable success ratio). Hell, kids getting out now-a-days are just as successful as multi-decade vets. And of course, the exposure has infinitely expanded, which just further fuels this fire. Now anyone can get a tank of cash paid for through selling a few seconds of video, and with help of social media, and easily find people to split costs with, so that's another factor I think in why this trend continues.

I dunno, I feel this is a giant ramble (I cut this into two parts as I ran some errands in the middle of this). Hopefully this makes sense. It is always better sounding in my head. But case-in-point, here I am jotting all this down from home instead of chasing a moderate risk. While I'll inevitably have a few higher-end risk days to cover here in KS for work, I am starting to wonder if my days of going out of my way for high-stress/higher-risk setups are numbered. The desire to do that just isn't there. There will always be tornadoes to chase, and I live in Kansas for crying out loud. While there is always plenty of money to be made in the freelance world on days like this, I just don't think the stress is worth it anymore. I'm definitely settling into a much different era of my chasing life, and I think I've turned the corner to just enoy the lower-key days cause they are as close as I'll get to reliving what I consider to be the good ol' days.
 
Reading some of these almost makes me not want to even attempt going out there.


But aside from the few crazed maniacs, how bad is it - say compared to rush-hour traffic in/near a fair-sized city ?
 
Reading some of these almost makes me not want to even attempt going out there.


But aside from the few crazed maniacs, how bad is it - say compared to rush-hour traffic in/near a fair-sized city ?

I moved out of Denver cause traffic was awful... one of a few reasons, but that was a topper.

And to answer your question, ever sit in that traffic with a Supercell coming at you?
 
I by principle oppose ideas to restrict weather data, that would be a backwards step. By same logic you could argue for restriction on radar data as well. Also, with modern computational power, what stops a dedicated enthusiast from spinning up a small WRF etc domain themselves, provided that the initial(and edge) data is still available from somewhere? I understand the concerns about crowding, but data restrictions would be throwing out the baby with bathwater.

I get it, there is a problem - I myself have regarded the US and especially the Plains as Too Toxic To Chase as early as 2010. But data restrictions are not the solution. Do you really want to go back to the old times?
 
...I was chatting with a long-time chaser friend yesterday and we got no the subject of new waves of chasers and how they come into the fold. I, lumped in with the Twister-era starters (to be fair, I just timed out that way cause that's when I got my driver's license, I consider myself an "Enemy Wind" chaser haha), were often looked down at because of the timing to which we got in to chasing. For a while, we were the new wave, and I think everyone got over that animosity pretty quick. Back in those days, we lacked social media, CAMs, and all this stuff that makes chasing so much easier. We were actually forced to learn the ropes, forced to engage with others in the field. Actually learn how to do this. Hell, it was 8 years after my first chase before I even had a computer in the car. I think a lot of folks who suffered through a few bad seasons fell out, and of course, freelancing video wasn't main stream yet, so it was truly a major financial investment to do. I'd LOVE to get a count of how many folks who started in the late 90s (Twister-era) are still around with some regularity...

Tony, I’m right there with you, started only coincidentally with the release of “Twister” and continued through some lean years. As a chase vacationer from the east coast with only a couple weeks per year (sometimes less) to chase, it took me a very long time to get any degree of proficiency and there were some very lean seasons in there (and some years when the timing of my trip was less than ideal).

I agree that chasing is EASIER today, but I do not agree that it is EASY. Of course some local yahoos can run out there after a storm that happens to have already gone up in their county, or they can target the same area as their favorite chaser on social media. But for those that have to pick a target themselves, or want to pick it themselves without being prejudiced by others’ targets or dots on SN - then it is far from “easy.” Of course, there are many field adjustments and navigational decisions to be made after picking a target. Unless I just completely suck even after this many years (admittedly still probably adding up to a relative few number of total chase days even after 22 years), it’s like baseball, a 300 Average is pretty good. Can’t say that qualifies as “easy” and 70% should still be enough of a failure percentage to keep the non-serious out of the game. Obviously that’s not happening, the numbers are still growing, but again not just because it’s “easy”. I do think a large part of the issue are the locals that come out spur of the moment, and the people are different on every storm because the locale is different - like a website, they are “unique visitors,” not returning visitors. But that’s just speculation on my part.
 
I by principle oppose ideas to restrict weather data, that would be a backwards step. By same logic you could argue for restriction on radar data as well. Also, with modern computational power, what stops a dedicated enthusiast from spinning up a small WRF etc domain themselves, provided that the initial(and edge) data is still available from somewhere? I understand the concerns about crowding, but data restrictions would be throwing out the baby with bathwater.

I get it, there is a problem - I myself have regarded the US and especially the Plains as Too Toxic To Chase as early as 2010. But data restrictions are not the solution. Do you really want to go back to the old times?

The idea isn't to restrict data or "hide it", it's to have people make an investment in it...or create a barrier to entry if you will. Data wouldn't be restricted, it would be pay to play. Sure, locals would still go out because it's local. Some who wouldn't want to make the investment would still drive three states to chase...but there's many who wouldn't which would in theory have an effect on the number of chasers and create breathing room. Imagine if you didn't have HRRR at your fingertips the morning of a chase because you didn't want to spend the money...would you still take that chasecation?

I can also think of government funded entities that either charge or don't share data. I don't think you can download blueprints to NASA rockets online on a whim, and they still charge to get into national parks.

Again, I'm not arguing it should be done, but it would be a step toward addressing the issue.
 
or create a barrier to entry if you will.

A financial barrier in hopes that you'll have less chasers on the road? Hmm....

Data wouldn't be restricted, it would be pay to play.

That goes against the very premise of an open society.

Some who wouldn't want to make the investment would still drive three states to chase...but there's many who wouldn't

I'm not following your line of thinking... You suggest that people would see a HIGH RISK from SPC yet would NOT drive across three states because they don't have model data? I'll straight out call that as wrong.

Imagine if you didn't have HRRR at your fingertips the morning of a chase because you didn't want to spend the money...would you still take that chasecation?

Sure, because 1) the HRRR busts often and 2) other non-government sources run model data so you could use those.

I don't think you can download blueprints to NASA rockets online on a whim

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf

and they still charge to get into national parks.

Out of the 419 units in the National Park Service (NPS), only 112 parks charge an entrance fee. The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) allows the NPS to collect and retain revenue and requires that fee revenue be used to enhance the visitor experience.[/quote]
 
A financial barrier in hopes that you'll have less chasers on the road? Hmm....
Somewhat of a financial barrier, more of a gamble if you're not willing to spend.
That goes against the very premise of an open society.
Can't wait til they make the turnpikes free then. Just saying lots of things that were free are being charged for these days.
I'm not following your line of thinking... You suggest that people would see a HIGH RISK from SPC yet would NOT drive across three states because they don't have model data? I'll straight out call that as wrong.
If you have a high risk from Nebraska to Texas and didn't want to spend the money on forecasting, even if it didn't stop one chaser from coming you don't think they'd be spread out on targets just a bit more if some were going just by an SPC target?
Sure, because 1) the HRRR busts often and 2) other non-government sources run model data so you could use those.
Non-government entities get their info from the same data if I'm not mistaken. They'd pay to play too. Edit: I see what you're saying there. Are their models just as easily accessible?
Out of the 419 units in the National Park Service (NPS), only 112 parks charge an entrance fee. The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) allows the NPS to collect and retain revenue and requires that fee revenue be used to enhance the visitor experience.
Couldn't you use revenue from subscribers to enhance and invest back into the NWS for betters tools/forecasting to help with planning by schools/events/safety?

I know the idea isn't a great one for chasers because it would affect chasers. Thankfully it would most likely never happen anyways...but then again you never know.
 
Can't wait til they make the turnpikes free then.

I'm not sure you understand the premise of turnpikes :) While general road taxes pay for all roads, you pay extra to use the turnkpike since it isn't required that you drive on it. Suggesting that people who already pay taxes for weather data should now pay extra in order to keep chaser convergence to a minimum just doesn't pass any sort of common sense test available.

Are their models just as easily accessible?

Yes. Texas Tech Real-Time WRF Modeling System Illinois Real-Time Modeling Site

In addition, how many chasers get their model data from weather.gov? Hint: Not many :) So how do you charge those who access from websites like Forecast Models - Tropical Tidbits NCEP GFS/NAM Model Forecast Precipitation Type and Accumulations: Snow Rain Freezing Rain Sleet pivotalweather - Models: NAM

I know the idea isn't a great one for chasers because it would affect chasers. Thankfully it would most likely never happen anyways...but then again you never know.

Actually we do know :) It would be illegal for the NWS to charge for model data.
 
I'm not sure you understand the premise of turnpikes :) While general road taxes pay for all roads, you pay extra to use the turnkpike since it isn't required that you drive on it. Suggesting that people who already pay taxes for weather data should now pay extra in order to keep chaser convergence to a minimum just doesn't pass any sort of common sense test available.
Yes I get the premise, and for regular joes like me (99%) weather models aren't required for daily life so it would like a data turnpike :)
In addition, how many chasers get their model data from weather.gov? Hint: Not many :) So how do you charge those who access from websites like Forecast Models - Tropical Tidbits NCEP GFS/NAM Model Forecast Precipitation Type and Accumulations: Snow Rain Freezing Rain Sleet pivotalweather - Models: NAM
I guess I was under the understanding that sites like Pivotal, Twisterdata, COD, etc run off the same data we see across multiple sites, but present it in a more user friendly way.

I understand where you are coming from since you spend each day living in weather data. I'm looking at it as a guy who chases in the spring and doesn't think about it again until the next season...you know, part of the convergence problem ;)
 
The way I see it, only you decide how you interact with chaser convergence. Up to and including chasing secondary targets and/or avoiding the hordes all together, even if it means missing something.

Seems pretty often that a good storm occurs far from the obvious primary target with little to no dots nearby on SN.

Additional financial barriers don't seem likely to reduce the number of people who go out. Even if gas prices tripled, I think convergence would be just as bad on high risk days, especially in Oklahoma.
 
Back
Top