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

[Jeff Duda]

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?

You brought up two separate points in your first block of text that, in my opinion, don't go together.

I also agree that the mantra "chasers save lives" is at best, an insignificant contribution of chasers to society. Instead, I believe it's the validation (confirmation of severe weather occurring or not occurring) that is their most significant contribution, and I believe the verification utility of chasers is increasing and increasingly important. Your reports as a chaser are VERY IMPORTANT, because they tell media/NWS/anyone who is listening what is going on in areas that in-situ and remote sensing weather equipment can't see.

With the above said, I have a problem with the SpotterNetwork. I provide as an example an image I just made and uploaded to FB last night (see image; again, if you're not FB friends with me, sorry, but you can still see this on the SN QC list until tomorrow night). For those who can't see it, it shows a report from a reputable chaser in the QC list. I find this report valuable, but the kicker is that the report had two reviews: one was a gold-star (perfect report) while the other one was a red triangle (unacceptable report). So obviously the SN QC advisors don't agree on the nature of this report. I understand it is the mission of SN to basically confirm what is occurring and to refrain from saying anything about what is not occurring, so technically that report probably goes against SN policies. However, if I were an NWS warning meteorologist warning for this storm, I would absolutely love to see that report since the storm this report was coming from was rapidly cycling with very strong rotation at very low levels at times, and with 5 minute updates it would be very hard for me to determine whether a tornado was in progress under that storm on each scan.

The point of this anecdote is to reinforce my belief that chasers will always be valuable to the validation process of severe weather. While I think some forms of reporting are better than others (i.e., calling 911, the NWS, or a media outlet directly instead of streaming or sending an SN report), reporting anything, even if it's "storm is no longer producing severe weather" is better than saying nothing. This isn't the end of an era so much as it is a changing of gears, or an upgrade, rather, to better ways for chasers to contribute.

 

[Bob Hartig]

The impact of chaser reports today probably depends at least in part on the area where they are made. Out west, with a lot more chasers out in the field live-streaming, particularly during big events, I think it would normally be next to impossible to say definitively what kind of life-saving impact individual chasers have. The overall result is plenty of ground proof for warning meteorologists--but just how much of that do they need before plenty is more than enough?

In areas less densely chased, the value of reports may have greater significance. With relatively few skilled eyes in the field, the value of those that are there probably increases. I think that's the case here in Michigan, where I live. It's not an easy state to chase in for a number of reasons, and it's in no danger of becoming a chaser mecca. So qualified verification of severe weather is probably helpful because it's more scarce. Life-saving? It probably has the potential to be so, but rarely in any heroic capacity; mostly what chasers offer is simply an enhancement to the warning system.

On May 25, 2008, my buddies and I were chasing the storm that produced the EF-5 Parkersburg, Iowa, tornado. This was after the storm had hit Parkersburg, and we were stairstepping down ahead of it. We had already encountered debris falling out of the sky miles ahead of the circulation, so we knew that what we were seeing on the radar meant business. As we approached the town of Fairbank, we came upon an Amish couple moseying down the roadside with their horse and buggy, right in the path of the storm. We informed them that a tornado was on the way and they needed to seek shelter. We then pulled down a side road between a couple of Amish farmhouses to get a good look at the sky, whose features were hard to discern due to the haze. Eventually, we could make out a wall cloud not far to our west heading our way. An Amish family was standing outside, also looking at the sky, but presumably not having a clue what they were seeing or what to look for. Bill Oosterbaan yelled at them to take shelter, and they did, fast. We then dropped south and tracked east with the circulation, which formed into a large tornado that did EF-3 damage in Hazleton.

Did we save lives? Heck, I don't know, and I'll never claim we did. But those families we warned were no doubt glad we were there to inform them of their imminent danger.

Realistically, I don't chase to save lives. I chase because I'm fascinated with tornadoes. If I can make a contribution while I'm doing so, whether as a set of eyes in the field or in a more direct way, I will do so. But I don't need that for my raison d'etre as a chaser. I do what I do because that's what I love to do, bottom line.

 

[Will Campbell]

On May 25, 2010, my buddies and I were chasing the storm that produced the EF-5 Parkersburg tornado.

Not to criticize, but how about May 25, 2008?

 

[rdale]

There's really no need to get caught up in semantics when common sense will suffice.

You'd think common sense would suffice, but all too often it's not common enough. For example, one chaser says he may stop chasing in Kansas and here is a quote reflecting the impact of his decision:

"How many people are going to have to die before people realize we're worth our weight in gold out there?" asked Dean.​

 

[Bob Hartig]

Not to criticize, but how about May 25, 2008?

Ah, ya got me! Thanks, I meant 2008.

 

[Will Campbell]

Ah, ya got me! Thanks, I meant 2008.

I know it was just a typo deal. But you had me seriously doubting my own mind there.."What the....was it really only two years ago??? No way, that was the convergence climax month, I would remember that for sure!....or would I..." Haha!