• While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].

Will Tornado Chasing Eventually Become Passé?

Warren Faidley

Supporter
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
2,708
Location
Mos Isley Space Port
2025 has been a banner year for tornado coverage. Live streams, images and video footage is off the scale. What use to be a "once a decade intercept" is now a weekly event. I'm just wondering if the overload is going to eventually desensitize and overload the public and chasers to point where we lose interest. I've noticed the media has already become bored with major and/or graphic events -- or the attention span is just a few hours. For me, I'm certainly not aggressive as I use to be partially because almost every shot or video scenario I can think of has been done. How many times can we watch live video of someone driving on the fringes of a huge wedge? I sometimes think people are just watching to see if someone gets killed -- as often indicated by their chat comments.
 
I had this very thought cross my mind recently. Live streaming has certainly brought chasing to the masses, basically providing a front row seat to anyone with a computer or phone. While I believe we are still at the beginning and the audience will grow over time, I can see viewing a tornado becoming more akin to seeing Old Faithful than a newsworthy event (unless of course, casualties). With so many chasers these days and more and more live streams I can see the draw in the future (and somewhat already) being the individual personalities where each viewer has a "favorite" chaser and clings to them much like their favorite actor or golfer or Nascar driver. You can see this now because some chasers have several thousand viewers watching them drive with nothing but blue sky ahead hours before a storm even thinks about forming.

FWIW my prediction is eventually a growing number of chasers will jump on the live stream bandwagon, audiences will tune in for their favorite one, and every chase will be a battle for space on clogged roads. Tornadoes will still matter, but for much different reasons.
 
Last edited:
For me, I'm certainly not aggressive as I use to be partially because almost every shot or video scenario I can think of has been done.
True words. I like new & different, so what's new & different? I know, not much a lot of the time.
I can see viewing a tornado becoming more akin to seeing Old Faithful...each viewer has a "favorite" chaser...and every chase will be a battle for space...
As I departed a hotel in Junction City, KS one day this May, I looked into the breakfast room and two of the three people included
Freddy McKinney and Connor Croff. For a moment, it kind of startled me, because I usually see them in a video chasing.
They pursue it all relentlessly, regardless of damage to their vehicles. But, I still enjoy watching them.
 
This is a really great topic to discuss, Warren.

Several points come to mind.

The first point has to do with the "generation" of chaser one belongs to. As an old, Boomer-generation storm chaser, what I remember most about first getting involved with tornadoes was a genuine desire to learn and understand as much as I could about tornadoes. That, in turn, led me to OU in Norman, OK, where the early-research studies of tornadoes were just getting underway at NSSL. As my fortune would have it, I landed at just the right place at the right time in the history of organized severe-storm research! Back then, what was driving this research was a desire to understand how tornadoes formed, how the thunderstorms that produced them were different than "ordinary" thunderstorms, and how to forecast where and when they were likely to develop. This was a relatively "new" area of scientific research and there was a genuine curiosity and thirst for scientific understanding. This period, at the nascence of tornado research, was also before Doppler radar and easy-to-use portable mobile communication, so researching tornadoes and severe-storms in the field was really hard work, and often depended on human eyes, ears, and brains to obtain success on chases. For most chasers of this era, having one-on-one encounters with a tornado was a deeply individual experience, resulting in a myriad of emotions from the exhilaration to awe to fear. It was mostly a "game" played by scientists and academia, but a few early legendary solo chasers were around, too, like David Hoadley, Arjen and Jerrine Verkaik, Roger Jensen, and Jim Leonard, to name a few.

As time went on, both radar and communication technologies improved at a rapid pace, and with some early scientific chasing successes, the legacy/journalistic media took notice and stories and articles were cropping up on television documentaries and in mainstream newspaper and magazine articles (Warren Faidley was a very successful part of this photojournalistic trend!). This notoriety also brought out--and onto the roads--a hoard of "hobbiest" storm chasers and curiosity-seekers. Some of these even tried to "cash in" by attempting to make a living as "professional" storm chasers, most failing, but a few surviving successfully to this day as storm-chase tour operators. And, not to be outdone, Hollywood movie producers also began cashing in on this trend by the mid-1990s. Could it be that at some point, tornado chasing may have crossed over from being a purely scientific pursuit to one of entertainment and money-making?

As more-and-more younger, successive generations of people took to the roads in search of tornadoes, they adapted to and utilized whatever "state-of-art" generation of high-technology and gadgetry were available to help lead them to the bears'cage, including on-board, real-time Doppler radar, dash-mounted, continuously-streaming video cameras and continuous mobile communication, whose prices were also coming down significantly so as to make these convenient tools affordable to even hobbiest chasers. As a result, with each successive "generation," storm chasing has become almost too easy, like catching fish in a barrel! A formal knowledge of mesoscale meteorology is not really even a requirement anymore for successful chasing, but real-life chasing experience, based upon actual field observation over time, is. The one thing that all good storm-chasers also have in common is a thorough knowledge of thermodynamic (Skew T-log p) and windshear parameters, and how these interrelate on potential storm-chase days. All ST readers who regularly post here possess such knowledge, making this forum a very valuable platform from which to learn how to chase successfully. Brain knowledge will never go out-of-style in any generation of storm chasing, despite new gadgets, computer technology, or even AI.

For each step of the way as storm-chasing has evolved, from the early-day individual "scientific-minded" chaser to big-buck-backed Hollywood-movie producers and deep-pocketed social-media storm-chase gurus of nowadays, the pursuit of chasing tornadoes has not become more passe, but has become something different over time as society changes (i.e., as society becomes more desensitized to observing violent phenomena, even if natural-caused). One could make the argument that the farther away one gets from the 1970s "heyday" chaser era, the less interesting and novel tornado chasing has become. If the clogged roads and chaser-convergence often experienced today are any guage of interest in tornado chasing, I'd say that tornado chasing is alive-and-well and will continue to attract followers far into the future...
 
Last edited:
...storm chasing has become almost too easy, like catching fish in a barrel!
Yes, it has. I admit, it stings when people's chases don't work out the way they want, but Gene Rhoden said it quite well around 15 years ago, "Anybody can go out and see a tornado now."
...the less interesting and novel tornado chasing has become.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 states "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again, there is nothing new under the sun (NIV)."
And the band Kansas 10/'77 said, "All we are is dust in the wind." Just thought I'd throw that in for grins. :)
 
Another important aspect of this discussion is the sustainability of social media as a profitable outlet for storm chasing. Many chasers who rely on social media income are heavily dependent on platforms like Twitter and YouTube. If one of those platforms fails, changes its income algorithms, or bans storm chasing content following a deadly event, their revenue stream could disappear overnight. If people become bored of so many live streams, good luck hitting those YouTube income triggers.

Saturation is also becoming a concern, similar to what happened in the stock photography market. An increasing number of chasers are going live during their pursuits, and some have even considered relocating their families to the Plains so they can stream more frequently. However, it's unclear how they plan to generate income during the off-season or in years when severe weather activity is minimal.

Personally, I’ve never viewed live social media chasing as a reliable foundation for long-term financial stability—especially not if one hopes to avoid poverty, support a family, or maintain a following without resorting to increasingly extreme behavior.

Then there is AI. I've been working with developers on a project that would have a major impact on live storm chasing.
 
A couple of you (above) brought up research. Here's my related concern:

Just how many DoW intercepts and VORTEX, PECANs, etc., etc., do we need?

We rarely exploit all of the data collected in these previous projects as it is. Plus, we rarely include commonsense actions like adding field soundings collected during these projects to real-time CAM model initiation or do model starvation studies after major outbreaks and major busts to learn how much, if any, the additional soundings and other data contribute.

During the original VORTEX studies there was a great deal of excitement and optimism. Now, with at least of few of these, it appears we are just "going through the motions." I suspect that is because (at least in my opinion) we aren't much closer to understanding tornadogenesis than we were 20 years ago.

If I were NSF, I would stop funding the field projects (while funding and encouraging the study of data collected during past field projects) for a decade or so while making the PA's and others focus on squeezing every bit of data/knowledge we can from what we already have.
 
During the original VORTEX studies there was a great deal of excitement and optimism. Now, with at least of few of these, it appears we are just "going through the motions." I suspect that is because (at least in my opinion) we aren't much closer to understanding tornadogenesis than we were 20 years ago.

Tornadogenesis is like diarrhea -- there is no one cause. We know the atmospheric elements that can cause tornadoes, including some combination of elements that can create very strong tornadoes, but I do not believe there is a single solution.
 
Tornadogenesis is like diarrhea -- there is no one cause. We know the atmospheric elements that can cause tornadoes, including some combination of elements that can create very strong tornadoes, but I do not believe there is a single solution.
I believe there is more or less a single process to generate supercell tornadoes. another for non-supercell tornadoes, another for landspouts, et cetera.

If we understood the tornadogenesis process at either the synoptic scale or the mesoscale, we would not have the giant forecasts busts where we over-forecast (high risk bust in OK-KS in 2024) or underforecast (yesterday in North Dakota) as often as we do. It appears from some figures I have seen that watch accuracy has been -- at best -- flat the last decade.
 
I'm just wondering if the overload is going to eventually desensitize and overload the public and chasers to point where we lose interest.

In my opinion, the answer is “No.”

As a chaser, there is nothing like the exhilaration of being there, feeling the wind, that sense of all hell breaking loose as the storm ramps up, sensing that a tornado is imminent and hearing the emergency alert on your phone seconds after you *felt* it. The images I see on social media and live-streaming only make me want it more. Like seeing Wellfleet/Dickens footage as the tornado crossed the road right in front of Connor Croff, and realizing that in 25 years I have yet to have that experience. To suggest that over-saturation could make a chaser lose interest is only logical if your goal is solely to sell video and images. Otherwise, it’s like suggesting an NFL player will get tired of playing just because NFL games and highlights are everywhere. Or suggesting porn as a substitute for real sex.

As for the public - “the public” is an abstract notion. I suspect only a very small minority watches livestreams or takes the trouble to find specific event images in the uncurated social media flow. Will they see the images at all in their algorithmically generated content streams? Tornados are still relatively rare, especially in a given location, so they still garner attention. If anything, the prevalence of tornado images probably increases awareness and therefore should increase market demand. This will likely not translate to economic value, for reasons discussed ad nauseum, but I do not think the interest or demand will wane.

I can see viewing a tornado becoming more akin to seeing Old Faithful than a newsworthy event

I have long appreciated storm chasing precisely because it is *not* like that for me. Take any amazing wonder of the world - like Old Faithful - and when you see it in person its impact is limited because it is already familiar - it has been seen countless times in books, movies, TV shows, etc. But every storm, every tornado is different. Maybe to Joe Q. Public the *image* is familiar, but to a chaser the *experience* is always different. Plus the randomness and unpredictability- tornados do not happen on a schedule like Old Faithful, and if we ever can predict them to the mile and the minute, *that’s* when I’ll lose interest in chasing.

storm chasing has become almost too easy, like catching fish in a barrel!

Gene Rhoden said it quite well around 15 years ago, "Anybody can go out and see a tornado now."

I respectfully disagree. Easier than it used to be, sure. But not easy. It’s hard. Even the professionals blow forecasts. Nail the forecast, and there are still so many decisions to be made in the heat of the moment, thinking several moves ahead like a chess game about how to navigate, that more can go wrong than right. Do everything right and the roads may not be there, or the storm may not cooperate. I have had many more failures than successes over the years. There is more luck involved than many would care to admit. I still think it’s like baseball - a 300 average is pretty damn good. Maybe I’m wrong about this, and maybe this has been my experience only because I suck as a chaser.
 
Tornadogenesis is like diarrhea -- there is no one cause. We know the atmospheric elements that can cause tornadoes, including some combination of elements that can create very strong tornadoes, but I do not believe there is a single solution.
And then there's tornadogenesis from the perspective of the public. After the original movie Twister came out in 1996, it would be safe to assume that more of the lay (non-meteorological) public knew about storm chasing from that movie than had ever heard of Project VORTEX, which had just completed two very significant years of critical DoW field-data collection in 1994 and 1995. The principal objective of Project VORTEX was to confirm some theories existing at that time about how tornadoes acquire rotation, yet outside the professional meteorological community, comparatively little about Project VORTEX's results were widely disseminated to the lay public. Even to this day, the public's perceptions about tornadoes are still rooted in Twister and similar Hollywood versions that have followed...including the latest (2024) Twister re-make. Speaking of the latter, I do not recall whether reference was even made in that movie to terms like DoW, VORTEX, etc.

Could this be a case of Hollywood fiction becoming more "real" in the eyes of the public than reality?
 
The images I see on social media and live-streaming only make me want it more.

Great points. I'm probably the odd-duck here because the more I see something the less I want it, storms included. I had to leave social media because the constant barrage of storm photos and video, damage, hype, etc. was dulling the senses to the point I got sick of seeing it, and I didn't want to feel that way about something I had passion for, plus it was killing my creativity when it came to my photography. I found myself basically trying to take the same photos as everyone else instead of being true to myself.

I do pop into YT and catch some live streams and I have to say I've seen quite a few epic tornadoes this year all from my office chair (along with the several I saw in person). When it was over, I walked to my bedroom and went to sleep. No long drives, no motel rooms, no bad quality food, no vehicle wear and tear. Someone else did all that for me and all I needed to do was tune in to YT from 4pm-7pm pretty much any day the last two weeks (Old Faithful!). I didn't feel like I needed to be there because I'd seen all of it before in person, the good and the bad. I've done the same drives on the same roads through the same towns. But, I'm also the kind of person who never vacations in the same place twice, so as I said I'm almost sure I'm an exception to the rule.
 
I have had many more failures than successes over the years. There is more luck involved than many would care to admit. I still think it’s like baseball - a 300 average is pretty damn good. Maybe I’m wrong about this, and maybe this has been my experience only because I suck as a chaser.
No, failure to hit-it-out-of-the-park on every storm-chase outing does not mean you are NOT a good storm chaser--far from that, in fact! So, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself, as Chuck Doswell once said to me when I felt I couldn't "measure up" to my peers! Again, storm-chasing is difficult and a combination of both skill and luck, and success is measured over the long haul. I can recall many times as a chaser at OU that some chasers, such as Gene Moore, for example, were extremely good at getting to tornadoes event-after-event and season-after-season. He seemed to be less "streaky" than other chasers, especially me. For that reason, I relished those chases that I had made with him, and most of those did result in seeing and photographing tubes (Kodachrome slides were the medium of choice in those pre-video days when most students could not afford 8mm and 16mm celluloid movie cameras). Gene was sometimes the object of "trash talk" by fellow chasers at OU, but this was really due to jealousy of his much-deserved success.

One other point to clarify a statement I made my earlier post: being surrounded by "fingertip" technology in one's chase vehicle should make getting into position to witness a tornado much easier than doing it the "trial-and-error-by-sight (i.e., "reading" the cloud formations) method used during the olden days of chasing! It's still hard, however, because nowadays, the chaser is practically overwhelmed by too much information, not to mention, fiddling with all the gadgets, which could become a distraction in itself. Like being suckered off a new, weaker-looking cell to go after a stronger, more mature cell having a history of being tornado-warned; I've fallen for that and paid a big price for that mistake, and then, worse yet, had to endure the "47 thousand tornado pictures" taken by other chasers on the storm I had left! The point is: the statement, "storm chasing has gotten almost too easy" may be true when compared to the previous decade, but the new technology also presents unexpected and different challenges that were not a factor in the previous decade. So, storm-chasing is only easier in a relative (not absolute) sense, based upon one's time perspective.
 
Back
Top