"Tensions Grow Between Tornado Scientists and Storm Chasers"

[Patrick Marsh]

As someone else pointed out on a different forum/list I'm on....and was a topic during the CoD Severe Weather Symposium...this is the same disconnect that the meteorological community has seen for many years. It's the dirty little secret of the meteorological community that the research guys don't understand the operational guys and vice versa. When the research guys comment on an operational aspect (use of chasers/spotters) they are bound to get it wrong and make themselves look stupid. I suspect it's the same thing when an operations guy comments about the future of radar.

The entire community could be enhanced if the two "groups" could start working together instead of poke each other with a spoon.

Tyler, you know (or you should) that I have highest respect for you, so please don't take this personal. However, by generalizing that *all* researchers don't understand operational meteorologists you are doing the exact same thing that Josh and other V2 people are accused of doing. My research is closely tied to operations. I spend more time working with SPC and OUN forecasters than I do any other research scientist. I'm not alone, there is a small, but increasingly vocal contingent of us researchers who do see things from an operational perspective. In fact, with the support of NSSL, I've submitted the following abstract to the National Weather Association's annual meeting to discuss how research and operations need to work more closely together.

VORTEX II Operations Center:
Bridging the Gap between Research and Operations

Patrick T. Marsh, NOAA/NSSL & CIMMS/OU
Kevin Scharfenberg, NOAA/NWS/OCWWS
Jim Purpura, NOAA/NWS/SGX
Michael J. Hudson, NOAA/NWS/CRH
Steve Cobb, NOAA/NWS/LBB
Mark Britt and Fred Glass, NOAA/NWS/LSX
Chris Sohl and Kevin Brown NOAA/NWS/OUN
Michael Coniglio and Louis Wicker, NOAA/NSSL


Operational support of the activities during the 2009 and 2010 field phases of the Verification of the Origin of Rotation in Tornadoes EXperiment (VORTEX II, V2) was carried out from the Hazardous Weather Testbed (HWT), co-located with NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL), NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center (SPC), and NOAA’s National Weather Service’s (NWS) forecast office located in Norman, OK. The VORTEX II Operations Center (VOC) was tasked with maintaining situational awareness of the near-storm environment for safety and facilitating real-time collaboration between researchers in the field and NWS operational meteorologists. Additionally, VOC staff, comprised of research meteorologists from NSSL, operational meteorologists from NWS, and student volunteers, provided backup forecast and nowcast support to the field command (FC).

The success of the VOC during the 2009 and 2010 V2 field campaigns can be attributed to the cooperation and professionalism of all those involved, particularly the VOC Manager, NWS Liaison, and visiting NWS forecasters. This presentation will detail the responsibilities of each member of the VOC staff, discuss VOC activities from several high-profile events, and provide insights on lessons learned from collaborations between researchers and operational meteorologists in an intense environment.

Please don't extrapolate your frustrations with respect to some "ivory tower" type researchers. There are those of us who *do* spend a considerable amount of our research time working with the operational community. I'm sure any one of the coauthors on my abstract would back me up on this.

Now, I know I'll take a lot of flak for this, and by no means am I wanting to defend the V2 scientists, but I do want to ask people to at least see things from their point of view before criticizing. There are a lot of scientists who have spent the better part of the last 5-7 years working on getting this project funded. Imagine if you spent 5-7 years, putting your blood, sweat and tears into a project , only to have someone else (rightly or wrongly so) come between you and your ultimate goal. It's going to be incredibly frustrating. When asked about it while still out working on your project, exhausted from the daily grind, you will probably say things or word things in a manner you will regret later.

Those who know me well, know that I completely disagree with the statements of Dr. Wurman and others. I believe that everyone has a right to chase if they so choose. We all pay tax dollars, we all pay for the roads. I'm not trying to offer excuses. I'm simply asking for you to see things from their point of view before jumping on them. Trust me, the last two years have been incredibly gut wrenching for everyone involved in V2. I chose to take what they say with a grain of salt...

 

[Bob Schafer]

Excuse me if I should have seen the answer to this question elsewhere, but didn't V2 have some great success this year, Patrick? My gosh, it seems as though you were on some big tornadoes many many times. No??

If that's true (that you sampled a bunch of storms/tornadoes), why the disgruntlement coming to light?

 

[Karen St John]

As the VORTEX 2 Operations Center manager for both years of the project, and being involved in the day-to-day planning or the project, I can tell you unequivocally that this was not the case. While there were alternative targets discussed during the morning meeting, the focus on this day was southeast Wyoming. As for the particular storm, it was the primary focus the entire afternoon.

Acknowledged. All the more reason to have not been involved with Discovery last year.

Communication, communication, communication...

 

[Patrick Marsh]

Excuse me if I should have seen the answer to this question elsewhere, but didn't V2 have some great success this year, Patrick? My gosh, it seems as though you were on some big tornadoes many many times. No??

If that's true (that you sampled a bunch of storms/tornadoes), why the disgruntlement coming to light?

VORTEX 2 observed some transient tornadoes, but I am unaware of being on "big tornadoes many many times". Also, remember, VORTEX 2 was a collaboration of many different groups, each with a different goal. Just because one group may or may not have achieve their scientific objectives, doesn't mean that everyone did.

In the case of Josh Wurman and CSWR, one of the goals was to observe the low-level wind-field around tornadoes - particularly cyclic tornadoes. This never happened in the two years. I know the SMART-R radar group wanted to get data on tornadogenesis and also of cyclic supercells. This didn't happen. Goshen county was by far the biggest / most clearcut tornado observed by VORTEX 2. Unfortunately, the road network and other issues prevented all the scientific objectives from being met.

Although a lot of great data were collected - and we still don't know the full extent of the data we collected - all of the objectives for VORTEX 2 were not met. This is incredibly disappointing and gut-wrenching for some (probably more than people would admit).

 

[Tyler Allison]

Tyler, you know (or you should) that I have highest respect for you, so please don't take this personal.

I have thick skin, and to be honest..I haven't done anything worth respect (at least in meteorology). But thanks all the same.

However, by generalizing that *all* researchers don't understand operational meteorologists you are doing the exact same thing that Josh and other V2 people are accused of doing.

I was generalizing to conserve characters as I was typing the post I said to myself "someone is going to call you out for generalizing". I just didn't feel like adding 6 more sentences

There are a lot of scientists who have spent the better part of the last 5-7 years working on getting this project funded. Imagine if you spent 5-7 years, putting your blood, sweat and tears into a project , only to have someone else (rightly or wrongly so) come between you and your ultimate goal. It's going to be incredibly frustrating. When asked about it while still out working on your project, exhausted from the daily grind, you will probably say things or word things in a manner you will regret later.

Actually I see this differently. If you spend 5-7 years of your life working to make this happen and fail to account for a fundamental logistical issue as "chaser convergence" you havn't done your job. This isn't like a gaping hole opened up out of no where. People have been complaining about chaser convergence for at least the past 4 years if not longer. Any failures to plan and account for a _known_ issue is unfortunate. To blame a failure to plan on someones else is inexcusable.

If chasers truly caused a major failure in the V2 goals, then the proper answer to the question of why did you not meet your goals is "_I_ failed to plan for this"....not "those jerks screwed us over".

-Tyler

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Actually I see this differently. If you spend 5-7 years of your life working to make this happen and fail to account for a fundamental logistical issue as "chaser convergence" you havn't done your job. This isn't like a gaping hole opened up out of no where. People have been complaining about chaser convergence for at least the past 4 years if not longer. Any failures to plan and account for a _known_ issue is unfortunate. To blame a failure to plan on someones else is inexcusable.

Tyler -- where did you get the impression that V2 PIs did not consider chaser convergence? We (those involved with V2) were reminded of potential chaser convergence more than a few times. Heck, many participants are chasers themselves/ourselves, and we know all too well the traffic jam that occurs around storms sometimes.

If chasers truly caused a major failure in the V2 goals, then the proper answer to the question of why did you not meet your goals is "_I_ failed to plan for this"....not "those jerks screwed us over".

-Tyler

As I noted before, many of those I saw out on the one day that brought all of this to light (5/19 - Kingfisher, OK) certainly didn't "look" like chasers. Sure, not all chasers have antennas on their vehicles, or camcorders, but I saw a LOT of people who looked like locals out for some fun. The VORTEX 2 PIs (though I certainly don't speak for them) realize that everyone has a right to be around a storm, but it may be worth trying to discourage locals from going out if it's going to prohibit data collection on a tornadic supercell. Please remember that we had very limited opportunities to perform coordinated data collection -- a lot of time, money, and energy went into getting all of these instruments and people together, and the atmosphere only gives us a limited number of opportunities to sample tornadic supercells.

There are quite a few respected chasers on Stormtrack that participated in VORTEX 2, so blanket statements like those above probably offend and disrespect a considerable number of people. Please do not take the words of one V2 PI to speak for the entirety of the group.

I don't recall more than one V2 PI concluding that "chasers truly caused a major failure in the V2 goals". In fact, I can confidently say that chasers did NOT "cause a major failure in the V2 goals", and I'm sure most V2 participants and PIs would say the same.

 

[Tyler Allison]

Tyler -- where did you get the impression that V2 PIs did not consider chaser convergence? We (those involved with V2) were reminded of potential chaser convergence more than a few times. Heck, many participants are chasers themselves/ourselves, and we know all too well the traffic jam that occurs around storms sometimes.

So why complain about it then? If it was a known issue and a solution was identified...where's the issue? The fact that the most visible of the PI's is complaining about chasers is _direct_ evidence that at least _he_ did not consider them worth dealing with. If another PI identified them as an issue and offered a solution to deal with it then nobody told Josh.

As I noted before, many of those I saw out on the one day that brought all of this to light (5/19 - Kingfisher, OK) certainly didn't "look" like chasers. Sure, not all chasers have antennas on their vehicles, or camcorders, but I saw a LOT of people who looked like locals out for some fun. The VORTEX 2 steering committee and PIs certainly realize that everyone has a right to be around a storm, but it's worth trying to discourage locals from going out if it's going to prohibit data collection on a tornadic supercell.

And here is where we differ. Instead of "discouraging locals from going out" which will never work...identify a solution that will actually work. This is what went wrong....not people out on the road. A dose of reality is needed.

There are quite a few respected chasers on Stormtrack that participated in VORTEX 2, so blanket statements like those above probably offend and disrespect a considerable number of people. Please do not take the words of one V2 PI to speak for the entirety of the group.

Josh is the "figure head" or "pitchman" or whatever you want to call it for V2. What he says reflects on V2 as much as the rest of the V2 participants want to disagree with him. Much like the article (nearly every article?) quotes Josh when they want a V2 quote, they quoted Chuck for the chaser perspective. I don't agree with Chuck on all things chasing, but he is the defacto spokes person for chasers....like it or not. That's reality.

I think V2 was a great idea and I wish(ed) it the best of luck. And was excited to see it get funded. I'd vote to have my tax dollars used for V3 if I had that kind of choice. But Josh needs to stop mouthing off..it's making the entire Vortex project look bad...wrongly or rightly.

-Tyler

 

[Jeff Snyder]

So why complain about it then? If it was a known issue and a solution was identified...where's the issue? The fact that the most visible of the PI's is complaining about chasers is _direct_ evidence that at least _he_ did not consider them worth dealing with. If another PI identified them as an issue and offered a solution to deal with it then nobody told Josh.

And here is where we differ. Instead of "discouraging locals from going out" which will never work...identify a solution that will actually work. This is what went wrong....not people out on the road. A dose of reality is needed.

The choices are (1) either do what V2/we can around "chaser" convergence or (2) break off of the storm and hope for / target something else. I know first-hand that both of those were discussed last year, and again this year.

Re: not discourage locals from going out because it "will never work". Do you take issue when mets (both TV and NWS) recommend that people not go out to find the tornado when in a tornado warning? After all, telling people not to go out in the yard to spot a rain-wrapped tornado will never work, right? Maybe folks won't pay attn, or maybe it'll keep a few more folks off the road, just like how recommending that people seek shelter BEFORE confirming the threat may keep a few more people in safety before the threat is realized.

Josh is the "figure head" or "pitchman" or whatever you want to call it for V2. What he says reflects on V2 as much as the rest of the V2 participants want to disagree with him. Much like the article (nearly every article?) quotes Josh when they want a V2 quote, they quoted Chuck for the chaser perspective. I don't agree with Chuck on all things chasing, but he is the defacto spokes person for chasers....like it or not. That's reality.

So, if Chuck says something you strongly disagree with, and Joe Q Public complains about Chuck's quote, would you not say "Hey, Chuck doesn't speak for all chasers!"? Just because the media use Chuck as a "spokesman" for chasing, does that mean that his viewpoints speak for all chasers? Of course not, and you noted such above. Just as it seems naive for Joe Q Public to think that Chuck's viewpoint is the viewpoint of each and every chaser, I feel it's not prudent to think that Josh's opinion represents each and every V2 PI or the project as a whole. Do you blame Chuck for a differing opinion, do you blame yourself because you aren't yelling a different opinion loudly enough for others to hear, or do you blame other chasers for not getting a different message out? IMO, if these answers are "no", then why do you implicitly blame other V2 PIs for not jumping on Josh and screaming a different message?

Re: V2 creating it's own 'chaser convergence'.... This really wasn't an issue, just as chaser convergence on the majority of other chase days the past two years wasn't an issue. The >30 vehicles in V2 have different "jobs", and oftentimes spread out quite a ways around a storm. For example, the MGAUS sounding group may go out dozens of miles from the storm to collect a near-storm environment sounding, while the SMART-R group deploys 20 miles away to setup a storm-scale dual-Doppler lobe. Some of the mobile mesonets may transect the RFD, while others are busy transecting the FFD. So, though there were a lot of vehicles with VORTEX 2, the many different missions of individual groups meant that many of these vehicles spread out of a relatively large area.

 

[Jeff Passner]

The thing that bugs me is the arrogance displayed by researchers. I'm NOT saying it's everyone, but the impression comes across is that research is more important than anything else. Over the 28 years I've been chasing I have learned that some "chasers" know more than the so-called brilliant researchers. Look, I know this will get me in trouble, but we've hit a limit in this science. You can do all the research in the world but what will we find out? Wow, the whole 1995 Dimmit tornado effort found out that LCLs are lower in strong tornadoes..... You can't be serious??? That's what they found out? I agree, VORTEX 2 will find out more, it was worth it, but I learned so much the last two years out there chasing on my own. I'm learning too and I have the RIGHT to learn..... I won't write fancy papers, but I know more about tornadoes now than I did two years ago and I have nothing to do with VORTEX. Tyler is RIGHT... Josh Wurman comes across as some arrogant jerk... Strange as it may sound, it's going to be some "little" chaser who is going to come up with some video that gives insight to tornadogenisis. This is what a certain researcher said... Share your video, it makes us smarter. Sheets of vorticity or solid vorticity. You tell me....

 

[Tyler Allison]

Re: not discourage locals from going out because it "will never work". Do you take issue when mets (both TV and NWS) recommend that people not go out to find the tornado when in a tornado warning? After all, telling people not to go out in the yard to spot a rain-wrapped tornado will never work, right? Maybe folks won't pay attn, or maybe it'll keep a few more folks off the road, just like how recommending that people seek shelter BEFORE confirming the threat may keep a few more people in safety before the threat is realized.

I don't take issue with it, it needs to be said. But don't expect _ANYONE_ to actually do what they recommend. That fact that some do is a bonus. If there truly where 200-300 cars on the road, 5 more people staying home isn't going to help.

So, if Chuck says something you strongly disagree with, and Joe Q Public complains about Chuck's quote, would you not say "Hey, Chuck doesn't speak for all chasers!"? Just because the media use Chuck as a "spokesman" for chasing, does that mean that his viewpoints speak for all chasers? Of course not, and you noted such above. Just as it seems naive for Joe Q Public to think that Chuck's viewpoint is the viewpoint of each and every chaser, I feel it's not prudent to think that Josh's opinion represents each and every V2 PI or the project as a whole.

Oh my god. If I knew my earlier generalization would become the crux of this discussion I would have done a better job of communicating from the beginning. Trying to be concise always bites me in the butt.

I'm torxed with Josh. Not the rest of the V2 PI's. Of course none of the other V2 PI's have commented on the situation, so maybe I'm torxed with them too...I don't know. I hear the heavy lifters (yourself, etc) disagreeing, but nobody who is a "public face" for V2 is disagreeing. Left unspoken, Josh _IS_ the public face of V2 and what he says is what V2 believes.

Yes yes...for the love of tornados...I _know_ he doesn't speak for V2. But the perception is that he _does_ speak for V2 until someone of similar "face value" publicly stands up and disagrees.

Do you blame Chuck for a differing opinion, do you blame yourself because you aren't yelling a different opinion loudly enough for others to hear, or do you blame other chasers for not getting a different message out?

Please don't equate my opinion within the community as carrying the same weight as Chuck. If other chasers of Chuck's "respect" (trying to align the concept of the V2 PI's with chaser "leaders" is a bit difficult) are not disagreeing loudly enough on a particular topic then yes..I would be torxed with them as well.

IMO, if these answers are "no", then why do you implicitly blame other V2 PIs for not jumping on Josh and screaming a different message?

I didn't answer "no"...so yes. If the V2 PI's do disagree with Josh then they should be screaming a different message.

-Tyler

 

[Patrick Marsh]

The thing that bugs me is the arrogance displayed by researchers. I'm NOT saying it's everyone, but the impression comes across is that research is more important than anything else.

And then there are some chasers who are so arrogant they fail to realize all the discoveries that researchers have made that have advanced our science and knowledge. It's human nature that some people will act arrogant. I don't think researchers have a corner on this market.

Over the 28 years I've been chasing I have learned that some "chasers" know more than the so-called brilliant researchers. Look, I know this will get me in trouble, but we've hit a limit in this science. You can do all the research in the world but what will we find out? Wow, the whole 1995 Dimmit tornado effort found out that LCLs are lower in strong tornadoes..... You can't be serious???

If you honestly believe we have hit a limit in this science you obviously aren't turned in to what's going on. It's exciting times. We are making new discoveries all the time. They may not seem all that important to those who aren't intimately involved, but it's these little daily discoveries that lead us to the big discoveries.

That's what they found out? I agree, VORTEX 2 will find out more, it was worth it, but I learned so much the last two years out there chasing on my own. I'm learning too and I have the RIGHT to learn..... I won't write fancy papers, but I know more about tornadoes now than I did two years ago and I have nothing to do with VORTEX. Tyler is RIGHT...

In my opinion, some of the best things that will come out of VORTEX 2 are what questions to ask. And no one is denying your right to learn. Any and all data collected by VORTEX 2 will eventually be open to the public. However, to think you learned all you did on your own, in a vacuum is quite presumptuous. Science is furthered by building on the works of others. A famous quote about science is, "If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulder's of giants." In other words, you have learned more about tornadoes because of the work done by scientists to learn more about tornadoes. You have learned more because we *all* have learned more.

Josh Wurman comes across as some arrogant jerk...

I won't argue with you about how someone comes across to you. However, you can't speak for me, nor others, regarding how he comes across to us. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And even if he does come across a certain way, it doesn't mean he is one.

Strange as it may sound, it's going to be some "little" chaser who is going to come up with some video that gives insight to tornadogenisis. This is what a certain researcher said... Share your video, it makes us smarter. Sheets of vorticity or solid vorticity. You tell me....

I won't deny that this could happen. We don't know everything, and it would be foolish of me to say think we know enough to say it won't happen. However, there is something to be said about making sure instruments are calibrated and of highest scientific integrity.

 

[Tyler Allison]

Excellent comments Patrick. Thank you.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

If the V2 PI's do disagree with Josh then they should be screaming a different message.

Hardly a day went by where it wasn't discussed amongst other PIs. However, a conscious decision was made to not get dragged into a debate and to focus on the science at hand. It wasn't an easy decision, but ultimately it was one that allowed V2 to do the best it could to focus on collecting data.

 

[Tyler Allison]

Thanks Patrick...but I meant in regards to chasers causing the failure of Josh to get what he wanted.

 

[Jeff Passner]

Ooohh, let's suck up to them.... I'm gonna drop out this. I should never have entered this. You know nothing about me or anything. I'm NOT some freaking idiot. I'll let this drop. It's my opinion. And yes, we have reached limits in this science. We'll make some small gains in radar and small gains in other areas, but it's a sad truth in science that as we progress in life we reach limits. It's NOT just meteorology, it's everyting in science. We are at the point when human civilization can't make advancements beacuse we know almost as much as we can. Cancer research... Yep, we've moved forward but do you think we're making moves to solve it? Tidal waves? Now we put ot warnings on every earthquake....I have an MS in meteorology and like many of the "unknown" chasers of the world we all learn. So I'll take a deep breath and won't let you put down my degree in this science so I don't need you to tell me about research in this science and to tell me I'm NOT in tune with this science is some insult I won't even respond to. This science has been MY life!!! I know exactly what's going on and I knew exactly what was going on in 1984 when Lilly invented helicity. Ever talk to Doug???? Look, I'm ONE of those obnoxious quiet cars in the line that intrudes on this science making some break that will discover what helicity really is. So I won't stand for YOU or anyone putting me down. And really, take a deep breath because the learning curve is slow, no matter how much data you collect and how GREAT they think they are for doing it. And yes, we're reaching limits... In my opinion Fawbush and Miller are the heroes in this science... They were the first to truly "get it" and push forward. All this equipment and and this reseach, we won't see a thing until someone stands up at some boring AMS conference and presents a result in 2018. Oh, and say hi to Howie and Fred for me.. I owe them a lot. They were great men and great teachers. Peace out.