Would you rather (part 3)

[Marcus Diaz]

Sure, let's keep this going. This question will be featured on next week's episode of The Ghost Train. So James and I figured it'd be a good thing if we got some feedback from you guys on it too.

Option #1 - See 1 photogenic tornado per year.

Option #2 - See 10 crappy tornadoes per year (low contrast or weak bird-farts)

 

[Jon Strebler]

This is probably going to be a landslide in favor of option 1. 5/11/14 is a great example of a day that can lead to several garbage tornadoes, and if those are what would go towards the 10 total, count me out. How many people saw 3, 4, or maybe even 5 crappy tornadoes on that day? Option 1 is an easy choice.

 

[Jeff Duda]

This one seems a little less controversial or subjective to me. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but this one only took me 2 seconds to decide on, whereas the other ones took me a few minutes each to decide on.

Quality > quantity

 

[StephenHenry]

Add a couple more zeros to Option 2, then it might start to become a fair fight, at least for me.

 

[Greg Higgins]

Seems to me that this is a very subjective question. Are you there to "photograph" a photogenic tornado or are you there to photograph and document for the scientific aspect? It all depends on the motivation of the chaser / spotter.

 

[Adam Lucio]

No brainer for me. Capturing quality video is my main goal in chasing. May 11th 2014 has already been brought up, but serves as the perfect example that even if I can say I technically saw 6 tornadoes, I still loathe the day because I have about 10 seconds of crappy video to show for it.

 

[Donnie Beasley]

I went with Option #1. I only got to chase once in 2012 and that day was 4/14 (My Avatar). It didn't even really bother me that I didn't get to chase again that year

 

[Dan Robinson]

#1 for sure. I'm still riding the high from Bennington - I haven't been able to stay upset about busts for very long since then.

 

[Shane Adams]

The natural choice is number one, because videography is why I'm out there. One good tornado video can get me through a lot of lean times. However, considering most chasers these days are heavy into the photography side of things, they tend to have much higher standards than I do. So when I hear the term "bird fart" I see a tornado that, for me, would probably be aesthetically pleasing enough. If there's a nice concentrated dirt whirl below a nub funnel, IMO that's not a bird fart. If it's a weak, sinous funnel that lasts less than a minute, for me that's not a bird fart and would be included on a DVD. So, the question I have is, what exactly defines "bird fart" as it applies to this thread?

 

[Adam Lucio]

A bird fart tornado to me is a tornado that lasts only a quick moment (less than a minute) that consists of only a light dust whirl. There is no longetivty, or visible condensation funnel. A great example is my very first tornado actually. It was nothing more than a 30 second ground circulation under a rapidly rotating wall cloud.

While we're on that subject...who the hell came up with that term anyways?

 

[Skip Talbot]

Add a couple more zeros to Option 2, then it might start to become a fair fight, at least for me.

I think it might be 1 photogenic vs ∞ crappy tornadoes to me.

Many tornadoes I have witnessed, I wouldn't miss at all if I hadn't seen them. They're count padders. I'd go even further and say that if there were no photogenic tornadoes, only "crappy" ones I probably wouldn't even care to chase them at all. This includes any dust whirl bird fart, but here's a good example from last year:

The faint left and right edge of a wedge is visible to the left of the cone satellite. Eh, so what if it's a 1.5 mile wide EF3, you can barely see the damn thing. It's a big, crappy tornado. I'd trade that for a pretty little bean field rope any day.

This is another reason why I put importantance on documenting and having photos of the tornadoes you see. If you've seen 200 tornadoes, but 180 of them were crap, so what? If you don't have photos of them, that number means almost nothing to me. But of course many chasers don't care what others think about their count or photos, and that's cool too.

Or 12 tornadoes on one particular chase, and one of them was good. If I only saw that one good tornadoes and missed the 11 others, no real loss. They're only for number bragging. This is often why I'll abandon an HP or difficult night chase even if it does cost me a few tornadoes. It's just not worth it to be able to say I saw some (crappy) tornadoes.

 

[Mike Marz]

This video is what I think about when I hear the term "bird fart" tornado. This isn't my video, but I also have video of this tornado somewhere, just not as clear as this guy's shot. I almost don't want to count this as a tornado in my count but technically it is one...

 

[Jeff Duda]

what exactly defines "bird fart" as it applies to this thread?

I like this game. We, as a community, should come up with an operational definition by consensus and add it to the "official" storm chasing glossary of terms.

My offering:
a birdfart tornado is either non-photogenic or forgettable, or both. Features of birdfart tornadoes include:
-no condensation funnel
-particularly weak and/or non-damaging (i.e., does not destroy or loft objects large enough to be resolved by the human eye from more than a few hundred feet away or rotation that can barely be discerned from a distance because it is so slow)
-Small radius
-Typically short-lived (a minute or two at most)
-Generally not associated with visually impressive associated supercell features like a mid-level mesocyclone or wall cloud

 

[JustinPhillips]

Def 1. Since I started chasing in 2011 I have seen a ton of weak not very photogenic tors and a couple of more decent ones. Im still waiting for my first super photogenic tornado and would easily take 1 amazing one per year over a bunch of blah ones.

 

[Caleb Grunzke]

Would nighttime stovepipe tors count as low-contrast? I'll gladly take 10 of those