End of an institution? The (in)significance of chaser reports

[Dan Robinson]

The outcry in recent years against the "chasers save lives" fallacy has brought up an important point. If our reports are meaningless and insignificant in the grand scope of the warning process, then why should we continue to prioritize reporting? Why spend money on HAM rigs and licenses, why put down our cameras to make a report, why install and run SpotterNetwork?

I've been mostly on the side of those saying that chasers really don't contibute much to the warning process, but I now realize this position may have the unintended consequence of tempering the motivations of those who have been historically dedicated to making reports.

If everyone is convinced that "chasers save lives" is a sham, will that signal the end of reports from chasers? If we really contribute nothing, then is there still a reason to report?

It can't be had both ways. We can't say that chaser reports are meaningless, then turn around and compel chasers to make reports. What's it going to be?

 

[Jason Haller]

Because it is the right thing to do. No mater what other people think.

 

[Timothy Finn]

For me, it will be two-sided.

As far as flat out honesty goes, I am in this to learn about atmospheric science. However, if something should happen where I am in a position to help, well, that is the moral and ethical thing to do, and that is what I will do.

That's how it will be.

It really doesn't seem that much more complicated to me. I think it boils down to motivations.

Tim

 

[Sean Ramsey]

After the chaser convergence flood of stories in the media, the one thing I took away from it was that there was value in having eyes on the ground and there was a purpose for chasers in the eyes of law enforcement, emergency folk, and the meteorology people. One of the things that sticks out to me when a warning is issued on weather radio is "tornado has been confirmed on the ground and being tracked".

I don't think the "chasers save lives" is a total sham. People who say they do it for that specific reason are probably full of it. I've always thought if someone is watching my stream, or hears a report or warning that I had a part of generating, or just knows via Facebook where I'm chasing for the day, that raises awareness, and if it indirectly saves someone by making them more aware then that's great, but it's not something I would ever think of as "the reason" why I chase.

 

[Jesse Risley]

I'd echo Sean's observations as well. I had this conversation with an NWS meteorologist over the weekend. Though I would agree that some could stand to be more candid about their ulterior motivations behind storm chasing, I don't necessarily think that said criticim of "chasing to save lives" is concomitant with carte blanche abrogation of all chaser reports to the NWS.

It is that NWS employee's opinion that chasers continue to provide a valuable role in adding ground truth to the warning process, namely by submitting reports of observed severe weather when necessary. When they get several reports, it helps either a) expedite a warning process, if one was only being considered prior to the flood of reports, or b) add verification that the warning already issued likely has some sort of validity.

As Sean opined, this NWS employee also mentioned that there likely is a degree of urgency added to the text of a warning if it can be stated that spotters and/or chasers on the ground are, for example, actually reporting a tornado, as opposed to the warning being based on Doppler radar indications alone. Obviously this latter contingency gets into the whole social science of the warning process, and how people perceive the threat as being real (or not) to them, but it's worth consideration too.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

First, I do not believe that I have saved lives, nor am I in to storm chasing for this. However, I believe reports from storm chasers are necessary for warnings to be accurate. Case in point: While extremely rare, last year I reported on a tornado where the storm neither had a tornado or severe thunderstorm warning on it. Had I not spent the time on the phone to identify which storm was producing a tornado, that storm may have never been warned. While the tornado did no damage, I could imagine a scenario where the tornado had been closer to a town (which there was one down the road a few miles). I believe the report would have been the only way for the NWS office to know that a tornado warning should be issued. Secondly, for there to be the 'new' enhanced wording in warnings like as stated above, it requires someone to actually see and report the tornado. Nevertheless, I do believe the NWS appreciates the reports (even if they don't encourage the activity), and was thanked over the phone the last time I reported a tornado. I will also continue to report, even though I missed a good photo opportunity.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Well, one thing I noticed on the recent plains outbreak is that many of the ground confirmations were based on "storm chaser" reports per several warning messages. Traditionally, confirmations have been either "trained weather spotter", "law enforcement", or "general public" reports. So, at least chasers seem to be recognized as a distinct class, at least by some NWS offices.

 

[Skip Talbot]

Reporting has become so quick and easy that even if the contribution seems insignificant, it's no real burden to the reporter to make that tiny contribution. You're already using all the hardware and most of the software you need since you've already got a GPS and radar software. Reporting becomes as easy as getting the client, making a few clicks, typing out a few words and hitting send. I don't think it's the end of the reporting era, it's the end of an era on how reporting is done. We're shifting from cumbersome and tightly controlled nets to faster, open to the public, internet based reports.

 

[Tim Shriver]

Over all I think the NWS does need good spotters and chasers to send in reports.
BUT, I have noticed over the years that these reports are not as important to them, or some WFO's.

During the recent almost "Federal Gov. Shutdowns" last year we found just how important our reports
are.
The media could still call in reports to the local WFO, but spotter/chase groups were told to call 911.
We suggested that we could limit the calls from our group by only allowing certified relay people to do it, but the
answer was still no.
How about radioing them into a net control and that net control would phone them in. Still no.

They also would not allow reports to be submitted via NWSChat. Then or now.

During this years budget cuts the spotter classes in many places were cut or they had other
folks hold them for the NWS.

When it comes down to brass tacks, the NWS says we are important but do not reflect this in their actions many times.

I am not saying this is something the NWS as a whole seems to reflect, but it does seem to be more prevalent.

Tim

 

[Dan Robinson]

There is a growing voice in the science community seeking to near-completely disconnect the contributions of chasers from operational warning generation and dissemination in terms of its value. While I realize this is largely in response to the demographic of chasers that overstate and.or misrepresent their "live-saving" motives, it does seem to swing the pendulum in the other direction in suggesting chaser reports of having a near-zero value to protection of life and property.

As with most issues like this, I'd expect the truth to be somewhere in the middle. I'd be interested to hear from those who have been disparaging the value of chaser reports to state whether or not they would suggest that chasers continue to send in reports, and if so, what the benefit of these reports would be in light of their previously stated position.

 

[Timothy Finn]

There is a growing voice in the science community seeking to near-completely disconnect the contributions of chasers from operational warning generation and dissemination in terms of its value.

Could you cite a source for this information?

Tim

 

[rdale]

The outcry in recent years against the "chasers save lives" fallacy has brought up an important point.

Do you have a source for this claim? The only "outcry" I've seen is against the claim that many chasers ONLY DO THIS to save lives, and that the actual chase is just secondary. That is clearly a fallacy.

 

[Dan Robinson]

These viewpoints have been well-circulated, especially in light of the recent news stories! But, I'll go ahead and post a couple of links for those that have not seen any of it.

http://www.patricktmarsh.com/2012/0...-chaser-contributions-to-the-warning-process/

http://cadiiitalk.blogspot.com/2010/12/chasing-mythology-2.html

 

[rdale]

These viewpoints have been well-circulated, especially in light of the recent news stories!

I think you added the wrong link. Here is what Patrick posted right off the top:

This post is not an “anti-chasing” post. I have no problem with people wanting to chase.
I merely have a problem with people justifying their chase activities by saying they do it to “help the NWS” or to “save lives”.

Can you find the correct ones and try again? Dr Doswell pointed out that chasers don't save lives, warnings save lives. Chasers can be part of that process when they report tornadoes, but by themselves they do not save lives.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Rob, this isn't about whether chasing is good or bad. It's about whether we contribute any value to the warning process by making reports. Those links say either no or very little.