Slashdot Mirror


Tornado Scientists Butt Heads With Storm Chasers

An anonymous reader writes "Tornado researchers say amateurs — inspired by movies like Twister and shows like Storm Chasers — are getting in their way, hampering science and creating hazards. 'Hundreds of camera-toting amateurs in cars ended up chasing the same storms as a fleet of scientific vehicles during the high-profile research project, called Vortex2, which wrapped up data collection this week. At times the line of traffic caused the Midwestern roads to look like the freeways of Los Angeles, said Roger Wakimoto, director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, during a briefing for reporters this week. "I worry about this as a safety hazard," Mr. Wakimoto said. "These people were blocking our escape routes because of the sheer number of cars."' Storm chasers say they have as much right to watch storms as Ph.D.s."

28 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. Storm chasers say they have as much right to watch by BrianRoach · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hmm, sure ... as long as your stupidity doesn't get the Phd folk killed.

    I'm amazed we haven't had a fail of epic proportions yet where a storm changes directions and sucks up a bunch of them.

  2. Re:Big fucking deal. by earls · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agreed, the scientists started somewhere, just because the "amateurs" aren't being compensated and don't have a million dollar chase vehicle doesn't mean they have any less right to follow the storms - fuck off.

  3. Re:Storm chasers say they have as much right to wa by brainboyz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if it does get them killed, every last one of the bunch stuck in traffic went there knowing they could get blocked in by other people. Who says the PhD types couldn't contribute to some amateurs getting killed? There's a storm that can put a toothpick through an oak tree: everyone running towards it is responsible for their own consequences.

  4. Re:Big fucking deal. by earls · · Score: 5, Funny

    I AM BUILDING, thank you very much.

  5. The problem is not the chasers... by skivvies · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a chaser, emergency first responder, and media chaser... I can say that the problem is NOT the chasers but the "Chaser-chasers". The article references May 19th in Oklahoma where most commonly you could find local folks with their kids and dogs in the back of the family pickup truck taking pictures with their phones and point and shoots. Regardless of what the masses in Oklahoma think... just because you have an iPhone app with radar does NOT classify you as a "chaser"! On top of VORTEX2's caravan of 40+ vehicles, you have NBC/The Weather Channel following the VORTEX2 project that are not included with that count. You've also got the Discovery Channel's team of production vehicles coupled with the "Dominator" and TIV2, which both were captured passing miles worth of vehicles on a two lane highway in a no passing zone! Throw a few tour groups, emergency management, a couple media chasers in the mix... and you've got yourself a problem on the roadways. But those numbers nowhere add up to the amount of local yahoos who gathered up the family and put themselves in more harm than anything. This situation defiantly makes me think twice of chasing in Oklahoma again.

  6. Re:Big fucking deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, but the chasers are just there to go "hyurp, issa terrnado!" while the scientists are there to learn about tornadoes and how they form so they can save thousands of lives.

  7. Just as much right? by theghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps, in a painfully literal sense, but claiming that your desire to seek an adrenaline high is just as valid as their desire to do research that will save lives is high asshattery.

    --
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
    1. Re:Just as much right? by GooberToo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The entire thing about "storm chasing saves lives" is complete bunk to give the PhD's moral authority over the amateur chasers who are in it for the thrill.

      All I can say is, "WHOOOSH!"

      The entire point of the research is to better improve tornado detection, tracking, and analysis. As well as to better predict when and where they'll pop up. In short, they absolutely DO have moral authority on the scene. That's not to say every trip raises the bar for what science can do, but just the same, the entire purpose for them to be there absolutely establishes morale authority in hopes to further improve things for EVERYONE - including these thrill seeking fuck-tards. If this were not true, there would be no need for continued research. And at this time there exists a need for LOTS of continued research. In short, the fact that a need persists, in of itself, establishes morale authority.

      Anyone else who isn't contributing to the scientific body of knowledge has no right or need to be there. Even with established criminal laws, its illegal for them to be there; such that it hinders a scientist's ability to "safely" conduct research. This is called reckless endangerment. Should the worst happen, these idiots are setting themselves up for both criminal and civil prosecution - to wit I sincerely hope the law does so to its fullest extent possible. If you bother to read the provided link, you'll find this fuck-tard behavior of people who don't need to be there are the literal definition of reckless endangerment. So in short, morally and legally they shouldn't be there so long as they are creating these types of hazards for legitimate researchers.

    2. Re:Just as much right? by BarefootClown · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oooh, can I play jailhouse lawyer too?

      Let's start with links. You opened with Wikipedia; I'll see your Wikipedia and raise you Oklahoma's Legislative Service Bureau, http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/. Click the nifty underlined bit and it'll take you to the text of the entire body of Oklahoma statutes (I picked Oklahoma because it's a noted hotbed of tornado activity). "Reckless endangerment," by name or concept, didn't exist under Title 21, Crimes and Punishments, but Title 47, Motor Vehicles, contains "reckless driving:"

      47 11 901. Reckless driving.
      A. It shall be deemed reckless driving for any person to drive a motor vehicle in a careless or wanton manner without regard for the safety of persons or property or in violation of the conditions outlined in Section 11 801 of this title.
      B. Every person convicted of reckless driving shall be punished upon a first conviction by imprisonment for a period of not less than five (5) days nor more than ninety (90) days, or by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment; on a second or subsequent conviction, punishment shall be imprisonment for not less than ten (10) days nor more than six (6) months, or by a fine of not less than One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

      Now, that makes true reckless driving a misdemeanor. However, you're arguing that driving in a place where one has every legal right to be becomes reckless driving simply because of inclement weather. The courts disagree. To wit:

      • Athey v. Bingham, 823 P.2d 347 (Okla. 1991). "Snow and sleet were falling on the ice-covered road. . . . The fact that a motor vehicle collision occurred does not necessarily raise the presumption that the defendant was following too closely, driving too fast to bring the car to a stop, or driving too fast for highway conditions." The Court did not even consider the idea that the driver shouldn't have been out in the weather at all.
      • Wade v. Reimer, 359 P.2d 1071 (Okla. 1961). "Shortly after they left [the city of] Yale it started raining hard and puddles of water began to accumulate on the surface of the highway. Defendant, driving at a speed estimated variously from 50 to 65 miles per hour, steered the vehicle so as to avoid these puddles. As they approached a point approximately 10 miles west of Yale, the two right wheels of the pick-up suddenly came off the pavement to the right shoulder of the road. The vehicle slid ‘sideways' back across the entire concrete width of the highway and then through the adjoining bar ditch crashing into a tree. . . . Before a driver may be found guilty of [reckless driving], the triers must necessarily conclude first that his actions amounted to ordinary common law negligence." The court held that even a guilty plea to reckless driving does not establish negligence per se; the jury still has to decide whether the specific actions were negligent. The jury did not find the defendant negligent. Again, the idea that "you shouldn't have been out in this weather" was never even considered, let alone seriously entertained by the Court.
      • Green v. Thompson, 344 P.2d 272 (Okla. 1959). Holding that the fact that an accident occurred does not necessarily mean anybody was negligent; citations to Taylor v. Ray, 56 P.2d 376 (Okla 1936) and National Tank Co. v. Scott, 130 P.2d 316 (Okla. 1942) and Kraft Foods Co. v. Chadwell, 249 P.2d 1002 (Okla. 1952), all of which also held that the mere fact of an accident doesn't prove negligence or recklessness.

      So, if you'll bother to read the provided cases, I think you'll find that chasing tornadoes does not ipso factor constitute "reckless endangerment" (or even the actual crime of reckless driving), nor the tort of negligence. The specific circumstances of the case may give rise to an action in either, but it's not "the literal definition."

      Sorry to burst your bubble.

      --

      "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
      --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

  8. Re:Big fucking deal. by earls · · Score: 5, Funny

    Silly rednecks, you would think they'd know that staying in their trailer park would grant them the best view.

  9. The problem is not the chaser chasers... by aapold · · Score: 5, Funny

    but the "chaser-chaser" chasers. They put the "fun" back into "funnel".

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  10. It's Oklahoma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    They're pretty sure all that science stuff is an elitist, commie, atheist plot to steal their vital bodily fluids and turn them all gay.

  11. Re:Big fucking deal. by spidercoz · · Score: 5, Funny

    and kill two birds with one storm

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  12. Re:Big fucking deal. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I doubt that many of these folk will become scientists.
    Why they have the right to be stupid let's be honest.
    1. This is a dangerous activity.
    2. They have caused issues with scientists trying to do proper data collection.
    3. They could cause problems for first responders trying to help people.
    So yes the have the right but is it ethical or even morally right to get in the way of real scientists?
    I would say that most of these folk should get the heck off the rode and let the professionals have their crack at getting real data that might actually end up helping people.
    Otherwise they are just using their right to be dumb jerks to hurt the advancement of science for in exchange for some thrill seeking.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  13. Re:Big fucking deal. by gringofrijolero · · Score: 5, Informative

    The message missed by all:

    FTFA - While people have no legal obligation to yield to radar trucks, he said that he felt the amateurs should have given way as a courtesy... it's just polite..

    We do encourage that, don't we? Or is it fuck everybody?

    --
    Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
  14. Tornadoes are DANGEROUS by starseeker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I always flinch when I see images of roads clogged with folks chasing a tornadic storm either just for the thrill or for the purposes of filming it - doing so is a Bad Idea and sooner or later is going to get some people (possibly a LOT of people) needlessly killed.

    Professional scientific researchers have training, equipment and experience. They are fully aware of the danger the storm presents, and are risking it to perform scientific studies for the purpose of increasing human knowledge about these systems. They know what they're doing, they have things like mobile doppler radar to help them keep track of the situation, and aren't out there for cheap thrills.

    People, you need to respect these storms. Sure, they produce awesome video. Great. Watch the Discovery show or the latest PBS special - don't go charging into the middle of danger! Does watching snake handlers on television make you want to go hunt up a rattler and start juggling it??? These storms are DANGEROUS. People DIE in these things, and cars are not a safe place to be. Particularly in heavy traffic.

    Scientific study of these storms is a legitimate activity, and is more legitimate (and deserves precedence over) thrill seekers and people looking to make a cool home movie. If it comes down to it, maybe we should license storm chasers and fine anyone else who tries it - send some police cars along with the scientific teams. Make their special status explicit under the law, if that's what it takes, because people seeking knowledge to help make better warning systems are surely more important than cheap thrills for people with no common sense or survival instincts.

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
  15. Re:Storm chasers say they have as much right to wa by SleazyRidr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given that the amateurs are just there for kicks, they should know and accept that they are willingly putting themselves into a risky situation.

    The PhDs also know that they are willingly putting themselves into a risky situation, but they are doing so to increase the sum of human knowledge, which makes it slightly more worthwhile.

  16. Dr. Joshua Wurman.... by malakai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What this article fails to mention is one of the reasons Vortex2 even got a go was partially because of the success and semi-stardom Dr. Josh Wurman got from participating in "Storm Chasers".

    The publicity that show generated for them no doubt helped lube the federal funding money chute.

    Besides, you can't just declare martial law and saw "No one can storm chase". There's no solution that will ever be enacted that ends with making it illegal, so you may as well stop bitching about it and simply work with the other guys. I'm amazed there isn't a federal call center or something for these chasers to all phone in to, and a website with realtime dopplar radar provided to them. The faster these guys report a tornado on a ground, the easier it is for the weather people to push a button for a siren or some other event.

    This just sounds like sour grapes. You could see the annoyance on the part of the "funded" scientist when that little no-name crew successfully flew a model airplane around a tornado and dropped sensors into it. The fact that was done on a budget put together by selling Tornado videos to news channels sounds like a win/win for me. Took none of my tax dollars, and reaped novel data.

  17. Re:Storm chasers say they have as much right to wa by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who says the PhD types couldn't contribute to some amateurs getting killed?

    Well, the PhDs have a little thing called KNOWING WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE DOING.

    There's a storm that can put a toothpick through an oak tree: everyone running towards it is responsible for their own consequences.

    But apparently not the consequences their ignorance and sense of entitlement force on others.

  18. Re:Storm chasers say they have as much right to wa by EricWright · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you sure? I have a PhD and sometimes, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing. I'm just making it up as I go along...

    Lucky for society my PhD isn't related to my job.

  19. SKYWARN does that. by bellers · · Score: 5, Informative

    ---CUT---
    I'm amazed there isn't a federal call center or something for these chasers to all phone in to, and a website with realtime dopplar radar provided to them. The faster these guys report a tornado on a ground, the easier it is for the weather people to push a button for a siren or some other event.
    ---CUT---

    There is. SKYWARN is a program run by the NWS/NOAA, local law enforcement, and private citizens that lets anyone with some basic (really basic) meterological knowledge (what a wall cloud looks like, how to spot early rotation, etc) utilize an amateur radio to call in sightings of severe and tornadic weather using thier SKYWARN volunteer designator.

    NWS will turn a tornado watch into a warning based solely on observer reports.

    SKYWARN is a great program, IMO. BTW, most of those awesome tornado videos you see arent from scientists, they're from storm chasers and SKYWARN people.

    --
    This space for rent.
  20. Re:Big fucking deal. by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He didn't say that, you stuffed your own definition in there.
    real scientist.
    Someone who collects data and applies the scientific method to it.

    Most of these amateur storm watchers don't do that. They get a camera and take photos. Hardly any of them will do any research.

    Those people are in the way.

    You have a right to stand around and gawk,, but when you get in the way you are being a dick.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  21. Re:Big fucking deal. by WeatherGod · · Score: 4, Informative

    You do realize that most of those successful storm chasers you are talking about are scientists who chase as a "hobby"? Where I work, if there is a good chance for tornadoes in the state, good luck finding a professor or graduate student as many of them are out chasing for fun (and learning). Many discoveries on how tornadoes work happened during these "chase days" by scientists watching what they love (e.g. - Markowski and Bluestein are two names off the top of my head).

  22. Many storm chasers have earned the sideways looks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I rode with an organized storm chasing group for a couple of years. When I say organized, I mean there were meetings, committees, bylaws, a training program, certifications, schedules, and procedures. The group had its own commercial FM repeater, as well as being authorized to use a number of amateur radio repeaters, for communications. You didn't just show up and go storm chasing, you had to go through the training and orientation first.

    Many times, members of the group called in weather reports that resulted in warnings being issued. It was a standing requirement that we attend yearly spotter training courses from the National Weather Service, and many members of the group did have an interest in the science behind the storms. Many people in the group had a genuine interest in doing something for the public good.

    However, many *others* in the group were deeply caught up in the whole thing; they'd take any opportunity to criticize the forecasters at the local National Weather Service office, the weather guy on TV, and local emergency management officials. They'd never pass up a chance to be interviewed, especially on television. It was common at meetings to watch storm chasing video, often of people doing 95 down some two lane highway, shooting video while driving. People would talk in the same breath about how much the group was needed, respected, and adored by local government officials.

    I eventually left the group, because the training and certifications and all that were meaningless. While there were some genuinely interested people in the group, the people who founded and ran the group really were in it for the adrenaline, and the glory, and the TV footage, and the science was only included as a means to get better video. No one from the group went to school to study atmospheric sciences, or even took classes.

    If storm chasers are getting a bad reputation, it's because they've earned it. It may be just a few bad apples, but enough of the sorta good apples follow the bad ones down the highway.

    You can be a storm spotter, trained or not, on your front porch. You're likely to do more good doing that, than wasting fuel and polluting the air driving 150 miles across Nebraska in the rain.

  23. Re:What a joke by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't understand this anti-intellectual campaign. Is it so hard to understand that if you don't have a degree then chances are you don't know what you are talking about?

    Actually the problem people have is with the arrogance and egotism of people who have pieces of paper. Simply because I don't have a piece of paper, doesn't mean I don't have a clue on how to plot my own weather maps and provide valid meteorological data to other sources. I can do both. But I've got no paper, but I have been studying weather since I was a kid. So 22 years give or take.

    The interesting thing is, I can say the same about people in many scientific fields. The reality is, many academia believe that if you have a piece of paper your knowledge is more worthy then the guy who doesn't. Even if your paper is from another distant field that isn't related.

    To sum it up, a 4 year education doesn't mean you have enough experience to understand more then the guy on the ground who's been doing it for 40 years without the same. You probably don't.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  24. Re:Big fucking deal. by Kreigaffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except you're missing a pretty important point.

    Sure, everyone's got a right to the road. Thing is these amateurs are getting in the way of people who are trying to study this shit so we can better understand and so better prepare and warn people of disaster.

    In other words, the amateurs have their heads up their asses. Yeah, they have as much right as the PhDs to be there, but what they SHOULD do, were they decent people, is concede that people other than themselves are better able to do better work and that because of this they should allow them better access.

    If someone's choking to death, only an asshole would stand in the way of trained paramedics and claim that they have just as much right to stand there as the paramedic. That's a thin analogy but still works -- get the hell out of the way of the professionals, they know what they're doing more than you do.

    --
    ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  25. Re:Storm chasers say they have as much right to wa by smellsofbikes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you sure? I have a PhD and sometimes, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing. I'm just making it up as I go along...

    When you graduate from high school you know everything.

    When you graduate from college you realize you don't actually know everything.

    When you get a masters' degree you realize you don't know *anything*.

    When you get a PhD you realize nobody else does, either.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  26. Re:Storm chasers say they have as much right to wa by Vasheron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As Einstein famously pointed out, "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?"