Spirituality and loss of self

After some discussions with friends over the weekend, I was reminded of very profound events that have occurred during storm chases, and during the pursuit of my scientific understanding of the world.  The essential element in this is what I refer to as "loss of self" that can occur when your ordinary life with its concerns about yourself and your needs or obligations fades away and is replaced by a peaceful surrender to what is happening around you.  Your ego disappears and you experience a feeling of merger with what you are experiencing.

During storm chases, this can happen when you find yourself confronted with something much larger than yourself that's just so awe-inspiring you may be "thunderstruck" (pun intended) - your jaw drops open and you're mesmerized by what you're seeing.  A chaser might well be so absorbed with what she's witnessing that cameras are just hanging in her hand by her side, unraised and unused.  The majesty of what you see can be so overwhelming in its majesty and power, you can become completely absorbed in the event.  The "self" has disappeared, in a flood of astonishment.  Such moments are unpredictable (as are the events that create them) and are always unexpected.  These examples are relatively easy to explain and are understandable to most people.  This part of storm chasing is often described by storm chasers in their accounts of their adventures.  It leads to such adjectives as "incredible", "awesome", "jaw dropping", and so forth - terms that in my opinion are both overused and somewhat misleading.  They seek to describe the triggers for this loss of self.

When Al Moller and I intercepted the 08 June 1995 tornado in Pampa, TX, about halfway through its life cycle, we stopped and got out of our chase vehicle to continue our photography and videography of the tornado.  When the tornado finally dissipated, I discovered that my mouth was completely dry.  Perhaps this was because of adrenaline, or the fact that my jaw had dropped open and stayed that way, or both.  Regardless, it's somewhat amazing I managed to continue operating my video camera during this time of loss of self.  I was transfixed with the spectacle.  It felt like waking up from a dream when the last remnants of the rope-out faded away.

There's another way I've had this loss of self during chasing.  I've developed a serious love affair with the U.S. central and high plains and the people who live there.  In the process of a chase, there can be a certain amount of down time and I often try to use that down time to capture images that convey the emotional content of my feelings toward the plains.  Yes, I'm a hopeless romantic when it comes to those oceans of seemingly empty real estate.  What I see clearly is influenced by the light we encounter (photography can be thought of as "capturing the light"), by the dramatics unfolding in the sky, by the flora and fauna of the plains, by the wistful character of weather-beaten human structures and the stories they can tell, and so on.  When we get out of our cars and walk into the landscapes of the plains, I can find myself in a very spiritual state where my self vanishes.  For instance, many of the beautiful wildflowers of the plains are at the end of relatively long stalks, so they're prone to flailing about from the action of the virtually inevitable plains wind.  To capture what we envision, we may have to wait for that brief moment when the wind calms down and we can capture that moment.  Ordinarily, I can be impatient and not want to spend time essentially doing nothing.  But I find I can call upon something in those moments that lets me wait, silent and immobile, for just that brief instant, for many minutes, if need be.  When my self disappears, I'm able to wait, like a spider, to capture my "prey".  I experience in a first hand way something akin to what that spider in her web experiences.

In becoming totally absorbed in doing my science, the effort to concentrate on what I'm doing becomes easy when I'm so wound up in my work that time and seemingly boring, repetitive simple tasks become important only as the means of reaching my goal of following some new insight.  What might look to someone else as a task both tedious and trivial is, for me, a transcendental experience.  The passage of time is not noticeable.  I can immerse myself in this for hours without difficulty, as I'm so fixated on finishing the work.  Most of science seems boring to non-scientists but in my world, it can be transformed into a deeply spiritual adventure with the potential for something really exciting at the end.

I often tell people that the plains can elicit spiritual experiences, but in order to experience them, you have to slow down, go to quiet places in your mind, stop talking, and focus deeply on what's going on around you.  The light, the wind, the sky, the life of the plains can transport you to a world you can experience at the the deepest levels of your conscious mind.  Such moments can't be summoned on command.  You don't reach them simply by willing them to happen (although you can put yourself in situations that might lead you to them).  They come on without you being aware of their approach until you realize you're in them - a timeless state of union with the world around you and the universe.  As Robinson Jeffers wrote:
 
Integrity is wholeness,
the greatest beauty is
Organic wholeness, the wholeness of life and things, the divine beauty
of the universe. Love that, not man
Apart from that, or else you will share man's pitiful confusions,
or drown in despair when his days darken. 

Man, a part of that, not man apart from that.  Your self disappears when you have that deep sense of being a small part of the majesty and glory of the natural world.  The feeling that we dwindle to insignificance is by no means negative when we feel we've somehow merged with those majesties.

Tornado chasing versus storm chasing

Now that spring is well underway, I've observed an increasing tendency for many chasers to be focused totally on tornadoes.  In a way, I can understand this obsession, as I've had a mild form of it all my life.  I wanted to see a tornado for many years before I saw my first on 30 April 1972, near Mangum, OK.  As a chaser, I've chosen not to keep count of the number of tornadoes I've seen.  I don't see the experience as a means to increase the number of tornado notches in my metaphorical gun.  One reason for my choice not to keep count is I detest the notion that one must compete in some sort of machismo contest about who's seen the most tornadoes.  There has always been some tendency for some chasers to seek some sort of mythical crown as the king of chasing.  But it's not my reason for chasing.

I also find that what I see in storms doesn't always allow some uncontestable enumeration of how many tornadoes I saw.  This may or may not be cleared up in a post-storm survey.  Given the vagaries of chasing, one doesn't always have the luxury of being close to the action for the duration of an event, so what may seem to be separate tornadoes may just be gaps between observations of a continuing tornado.  Or it may be a real gap between distinct tornadoes.  It's not always easy to be sure. Tornadoes change their appearance rapidly sometimes and their evolution can include such complications as rapid dissipation and re-forming, satellite tornadoes, etc.  I've discussed some of this here - storms can get complicated in a hurry, making tornado counts problematic.  Hence, when someone says they've seen XX tornadoes, I always have a nagging doubt about their numbers.  So I don't even try to keep track.  Or I just make my best guess in the complex situations, without necessarily having much confidence in the number.  If someone wants to brag about how many tornadoes they've seen, that's up to them.  It's not something I want to do, at least in part because I'm never absolutely sure how many I've seen (in multi-tornado episodes), and in part because it just doesn't matter to me.

Nowadays, chasers are so tornado-focused, they apparently consider any chase in which they fail to see a tornado to be a total bust.  Moreover, they go to extreme lengths to see a tornado - such as going into the "notch" of an HP supercell to check out the possibility of a rain-wrapped tornado, or "core punching".  Apart from taking what I consider to be foolish risks just to see a tornado, they often then proudly post shaky, poor contrast imagery wherein a tornado may be just barely visible, if at all.  Evidently, showing imagery of a tornado, no matter how amateurish it may appear to be, is the most important goal of chasing for some chasers.

Moreover, I guess I've seen enough tornadoes by now that I've become rather circumspect about my images.  A nearly monochromatic shot that shows a dark, backlit cone tornado certainly may document the event for a tornado-count person, but I find them pretty uninteresting.  Same goes for poor-contrast and/or blurry images.  They might serve the purpose of documenting the tornado count, but I just can't get all worked up about imagery of that mediocre sort.  I suppose I've become a bit jaded, at least in this limited sense.  If I see a tornado, even a non-photogenic one, I'm still excited about it, but if I'm going to show off my imagery, it's not going to be like a lot of what I see posted on social media - boring backlit silhouettes, shaky video, low contrast, etc.  In fact, if I don't see a tornado, but I'm able to catch a great lightning show, or see the dramatic structure of a striated supercell storm, I'm just as pleased as if I've seen a tornado.  [I also love images that draw attention to the setting where Plains tornadoes happen - chasing has given me a love affair with the plains and its people, even when there are no storms happening.]  And I don't experience any particular compulsion to court disaster by being as close to a tornado as possible.  Recognition that I'm in the path is virtually always a signal to me to move!  No tornado is worth my life or the life of someone chasing with me.

These days, in certain situations, the chaser hordes are a major concern.  Many horde participants are tornado-obsessed, so they want to get into the "bear's cage" to the maximum extent.  Therefore, one can reduce the impact of the hordes by staying back a few miles, which I usually try to do.  It's not so crowded and, many times, the structure of the storms is far more interesting (at least to me) than some non-photogenic tornado.  I'm no longer a tornado chaser, but a storm chaser.  I'll welcome any tornado opportunities, of course, but that's not my only reason to be out there chasing.  I've never felt the need to be the world's best tornado chaser, nor do I see it as necessary to chase every possible chase day in and near Oklahoma.  I suppose this is the result of 45 years of chasing.  My original goals as a chaser have all been fulfilled, and adding more layers of frosting to the cake doesn't necessarily make it better.

More on "extreme" storm chasing, part 3

Another tragic storm chasing incident has occurred:  a traffic crash on rural roads in the Texas Panhandle.  There were three fatalities - 2 in a vehicle that ran a stop sign, and 1 in the vehicle into which they collided.  All three victims of this were storm chasing at the time.  I wrote about an eerily similar incident that happened in 2015, here.  The evidence is mounting that being on the highways is indeed the most dangerous threat to chasers (and others).  I wrote a guide to safe, responsible storm chasing decades ago, and I rated being on the roads as the #1 threat before anyone had been killed.  At least 7 people have died in road wrecks during storm chases, that I know of.  Additional fatalities are inevitable.  It only takes a few seconds of inattention to the task of driving to result in terrible consequences.

I am not somehow invulnerable to all this.  I could be distracted by something while driving on a chase and be responsible for a fatal crash.  Like the tragedy of the 31 May 2013 deaths of the Twistex team:  Tim and Paul Samaras, and Carl Young - bad things can happen to anyone, even someone trying their best to behave responsibly.  However, these recent traffic fatalities both involved a chaser running a stop sign.  It might be possible to do so in relative safety on a rural road, but even on rural roads, it's both illegal and foolish to do.

These are unnecessary deaths.  The so-called "chase community" (which really isn't a "community" at all, but rather a group of people with a shared hobby) needs to take a long look at their behavior during their chase activities.  If someone has done some irresponsible driving in the past, this might be a good time to resolve to discontinue such practices for good.  This is the 2nd recent wake-up call, folks.  The time is long overdue to get serious about ceasing illegal and unsafe driving during a storm chase [or any other time, for that matter!]  No one gets a free pass on the roads, and this includes people chasing for TV.

Supplement:   Some news media have gone into attack mode on storm chasers as "thrill-seekers" as a result of this tragedy.  If someone can witness the grandeur and beauty of the atmosphere and NOT get an adrenaline rush, I would have to wonder for what reason they're chasing.  I see no problem with being a thrill-seeker - as I noted in my 2014 talk at ChaserCon. That doesn't mean we all have a death wish or are intentionally putting ourselves in imminent danger.

The media narrative they always pre-suppose is that the people who do this are all crazy fools with a death wish. They struggle to grasp why people choose to chase and their pre-supposition blinds them to what chasers actually say. They look for a sound bite to support their already-written storyline about crazy storm chasers. Their usually crappy stories show they don't get it and likely never will ... see here. 

More on "extreme" storm chasing, part 2

Recent events reveal that a prediction I made long ago apparently has been verified.  I'm not happy about that, however.  Sadly, a storm chaser has been charged with running a stop sign and killing two people in the resulting collision.  Time will be needed to learn the details, and to determine whether or not he is guilty as charged.  If this storm chaser was actually chasing at the time, and the fatalities are proven in court to be his responsibility, this will be a very sad time in the history of storm chasing.  It's another predictable but terrible "milestone" in storm chase history, just as 31 May 2013 will live in infamy because of the unfortunate deaths of three storm chasers who were hit by the El Reno, OK tornado.  Although Tim Samaras and the Twistex team were quite responsible storm chasers, their objectives required them to take extreme risks.  Note:  at this point, I have no idea if this chaser is routinely irresponsible in his chasing, but it only takes one incident of irresponsibility to ruin everything.  Hence, although some of this blog may not apply to him, it's the incident that has caused me to reflect on extreme chasers, who engage freely in life-threatening acts.

Extreme (or "outlaw") storm chasing has become relatively widespread, likely in part because of what people routinely see in entertainment media.  It's not reflective of the majority of chasers, but extreme chasers apparently like to think of themselves as "above" most other chasers.  The whole notion of being an "extreme" chaser is considered in those circles as a badge of honor, worn with pride by those willing to do virtually anything to catch a sensational event, right up to the edges of death.  Those of us advocating a responsible approach to chasing have been ignored openly.  Further, we've even been bashed in social media by some of the extreme chasers, who enjoy flaunting their disrespect for advocates of responsible chasing.  I certainly have been singled out by some as a target for their antipathy.  It's precisely that sort of macho bravado that concerns me:  I predicted that fatalities inevitably would result from extreme chasing and, in this case, being right is cold comfort.

This case is even worse than having chasers die in a tornado chase.  Having one's actions result in the death of two innocent people simply going about their business is worse, as I see it, than a chaser dying as a result of doing dangerous things around a storm.  I've said all along the greatest threat to chasers is being on the streets and highways, and that threat includes any non-chasers who happen to be in the path of a chaser doing extreme things.

Years ago, my wife and I were chasing - I think it was in Nebraska but I can't recall - and we came upon the scene of a collision in a small town (with brick streets).  A chaser had T-boned some locals, although apparently without serious injuries.  The chaser's vehicle wasn't one we recognized; it had some decals that indicated it was a chaser, however, and had CO license plates.  Although we didn't see the collision, it seemed evident that the local driver had underestimated the speed of the approaching chaser (who likely was exceeding the in-town speed limit) and tried to cross the intersection before the chaser came through.  I never heard anything afterward about this wreck, so evidently the media never picked up on it.  With today's social media, we'd probably have heard more about what happened and who was responsible.  This was a very sobering consideration - many extreme chasers are quite ready to admit they often exceed speed limits in their efforts to get a storm*.  I've seen their own videos showing them speeding, driving on the wrong side of the road, running stop signs, etc.!

I'm unaware of any fatal collision initiated by a chaser before the current example.  However, if any such wreck has happened in the past, we just may not know about it.  Although not as well-known, it seems some inexperienced chasers were killed by the Tuscaloosa, AL tornado two years before the sad death of Tim Samaras and his team.  The AL fatalities didn't receive a great deal of media attention, so there could be earlier incidents of chaser-responsible traffic fatalities about which we haven't heard.  If extreme chasers continue to be irresponsible, my forecast is that there surely will be more examples!

The "outlaw" chaser, perhaps seeking to borrow from the romanticized image of the fictional anti-heroes so popular in the entertainment industry, is not a flattering image for storm chasers.  I certainly have become quite tired of having to answer for the irresponsible deeds of "extreme" chasers.  These are not just playful antics or about the courage of the chaser - they represent a real hazard to the extreme chasers and those who happen to be near them in the heat of a chase.

__________________
*I won't claim I never exceed the speed limits, but I certainly would not want to speed through a small town - not just to avoid getting a speeding ticket, but because it isn't a very responsible thing to do.  If I occasionally speed in open country, it's not something I would choose to boast about with the media.  It's behavior I prefer not to advertise as something of which to be proud!

VORTEX - SE: A political scientific boondoggle

It's come to my attention that a project to study tornadoes in the Southeastern US has been created, via political 'pork barrel' machinations.  This project is predicated on the following basis:

"The southeastern United States commonly experiences devastating tornadoes under conditions that differ considerable from those on the Great Plains region where tornado research has historically been focused.  NOAA/NSSL has a newly funded mandate to collaborate with the National Science Foundation in better understanding how environmental factors that are characteristic of the southeastern U.S. affect the formation, intensity, and storm path of tornadoes for this region."

Several institutions within the southeastern US have been pushing this sort of idea for years.  With the help of their Congressional delegations, they evidently have succeeded in forcing this absurd project on the rest of us.  They assert that tornadoes in the southeast are different, and that their regional storm problems therefore have been overlooked.  There's little doubt that tornado fatality counts in the southeastern US are higher than elsewhere, but it's never been demonstrated that this is the result of a difference in the meteorology of tornadic storms in the southeast.  There are many non-meteorological reasons for high death rates in the southeastern US - this blog isn't the venue for a complete discussion of those non-meteorological explanations. 

Nor has it ever been shown that tornadoes in the southeastern US are the result of some (as yet, unspecified) difference in the physics of severe storms and tornadoes.  To the contrary, there is every reason to believe that the meteorology of severe storms and tornadoes is the same the world over.  Absent a compelling demonstration of an important difference in the meteorology, this program is based on an unvalidated hypothesis. 

Yes, the climatology of tornadoes in the southeast differs from that of the Great Plains.  For instance, there's a well-defined tornado "season" in the plains:  tornadoes occur with high frequency in the months of April, May, and June on the plains, and relatively low frequency at other times of the year.  In the southeast, tornado frequencies generally are much lower than the peak months of the plains tornado season, but those relatively low frequencies only decrease substantially during the summer months in the southeast.  Thus, although tornadoes are less frequent in the southeast, they can occur at almost any time of the year, including in the winter.  The reasons for this are clear to most severe storms meteorologists:  they have to do with the ingredients for severe storms and tornadoes, which come together often in the early to late spring on the Plains, and rather less frequently in the southeast but without a clearly defined "tornado season".  This is a clear indication that severe storms and tornadoes in the southeast are more or less identical to comparable storms on the Plains.  The only difference in the regions is the climatology of the ingredients, but the ingredients are everywhere the same!  It seems quite unlikely that any particularly useful meteorological insight is to be gained by this project.

The proposed program is patterned after the already completed VORTEX and VORTEX2 field observation campaigns in 1994-5, and 2009-10, respectively.  These observational campaigns included mobile radars, instrumented vehicles to intercept storms, and so on.  Doing a similar project in the southeast will be much more challenging, owing to the presence of extensive trees, substantial orography, a high frequency of low cloud bases, and a higher overall population density compared to the Plains.  Visibilities needed for successful storm intercepts are just not common in most of the southeastern US.  This renders even more questionable the basic concept of conducting such an exercise in the southeastern US, since it adds to the danger level for the participants, who will be much less able to see and avoid storm hazards in the course of their observational assignments.

This situation is simply an example of how some institutions can game the system to secure funding for themselves.  Unfortunately, government funding is basically a zero-sum game.  What existing programs and projects will have to be cancelled or delayed because of this boondoggle?  This is not the path to scientific cooperation and collaboration - rather, it's divisive and will damage the relations among scientists for decades to come.  This is not a good idea in any way, and it speaks loudly that this ill-advised reallocation of scarce scientific resources is the result of political posturing rather than a reflection of sound scientific justification.

A look at the 'photojournalism' argument

So I've been seeing lots of arguments to justify photographing of a little girl who subsequently died from injuries in a tornado, and marketing of that photo.  Virtually all of them have called attention to other famous shocking images shot by photojournalists and published widely - an RVN army officer executing a Vietcong prisoner, or the firefighter holding a child he'd recovered from the rubble of the OKC bombing [who later died], and so on.

In general, photojournalists believe they have an obligation to record the truth of what they see, without regard to how others might feel about their photographs.  To me at least, this is especially so when the truth about a situation is not well-known (starving children in some far-off national civil war, for instance), or even being suppressed (as in many goings-on in Vietnam and other wars).  Heartbreaking images of victims of some sort of illegal or horrific activity convey the real-world consequences of those poorly-known or nefarious situations.  They can galvanize efforts to pull back either the shroud of cover-up or the shroud of ignorance.  I get that, and support it wholeheartedly.  I think if put in the sort of situation where unreported or unethical activity was going in front of me, I'd attempt to record for all to see what is not known.  I wouldn't deliberately seek out such a situation - I leave that for those who have the stomach for it.

But where is the widespread ignorance of the fatal consequences often associated with violent tornadoes?  What government agency is flooding the media with claims that tornadoes do no harm to anyone?  Yes, a photojournalist might be compelled to take such an image and it might be within the boundaries of photojournalism's ethics, but is that image needed to right some wrong, or to reveal something heretofore unknown?  What useful purpose was served by publishing that image?  A photojournalist made some money.  A public medium presented it as "news".   Anything else?

From a purely technical viewpoint, shooting and marketing the image is likely not illegal in any way.  Nevertheless, how does seeing the image make you feel?  Did you previously think tornadoes killed people in nice, neat ways?  Were you unaware of the threat from tornadoes?  Were you misled about tornado hazards by someone or some agency?  I'm pretty confident most people don't want to think about what tornadoes do to humans, so perhaps there's at least some reason to reveal the true horror of it.  Facing its reality might induce some positive action.  But as a viewer of the image, does it make you feel it was the right thing to photograph and publish?  I'll leave that to my readers.

After the 03 May 1999 tornado in the OKC area, my wife, who worked in the Norman hospital ER that night, told me about the horrible things she had seen coming in to the ER.  I had absolutely no wish for her to have recorded images of that agony for me to look at.  I'm pretty confident no one in an ER would allow such a thing!  After the Jarrell, TX tornado, I was told that the death toll had been difficult to determine after the event, in part because many of the victims had been cut to pieces by the tornado, making it very challenging to know to whom the scattered bodyparts belonged.  Again, I have no wish for anyone to share images of those grisly reminders of the violence of tornadoes. 

It's repugnant for me even to think about seeking out and finding horrific injuries inflicted on tornado victims, to say nothing of photographing them and selling the photographs.  I leave the seeking part to the trained and experienced first responders, who surely must go through some awful experiences in dealing with tornado victims on the scene.  I salute them for their courage and devotion to help people in awful circumstances.  I don't want to be within the damage path after a tornado.  If I'm nearby, my policy is to leave search and rescue to the professionals, and stay out of their way.

One thing that happens virtually all the time is when bodies are recovered in a fatality situation, they're covered up as soon as possible, until they can be taken to a morgue.  Why?  Surely it's out of respect for the dead and their families.  Would it be respectful to uncover them just so a photojournalist could record that carnage and perhaps win a Pulitzer prize?  I definitely think not, and I'm confident most (if not all) first responders would feel the same way.  If any photographs were taken before the bodies were covered, it would be for identification purposes, not for a photojournalist to record. 

In fact, in the case of the little girl in Nebraska, it's my understanding that first responders on the scene did ask the "photojournalist" to stop photographing the victims, but he refused to stop.  He's been backpedaling like mad to make himself out to be some sort of saint.  This is a troubled young man and his credentials as a photojournalist are pretty thin, it seems to me, although I don't know enough to be sure.  I actually find his story to be a pretty sad one, based on what I have heard second-hand, so I don't want to demonize him, despite my concerns over what he did before and after the event.  What I find especially disturbing now are the rationalizations I hear about the duties of photojournalists.  I ask again:  what would you do, given the situation of being there right after the tornado?  Would you take the shot?  Would you feel right about being paid for its use?

In my case, no ... and no.  Opinions vary, as usual.

Me! Me!! ME!!!

According to Wikipedia, the "Me Generation" is the so-called Baby Boomers - my generation.  Of late, it seems to me that our current 20-somethings are strong competitors for that label.  As a weather geek, I'm probably not the most knowledgeable about such things, but it sure seems to me that storm chasing is being flooded with a large infusion of folks out there chasing who are, as my friend Gene Moore says, mostly about themselves and not so much about the storms.  "Look at me!" they shout.  "I'm special because I chase storms [stupidly!]."  They seem to care little or nothing about the feelings of storm victims as they cheer a tornado touchdown in their videos.  They thumb their noses at the very notion of chasers being responsible to others.  They wallow in their uncaring "outlaw" status, joyful as a pig in a mud puddle when they get publicity for their "exploits". "We can do whatever we want to and you can't do anything about it!"  And that part's true - I can't.

The dominant theme seems to be to get your video on TV (and/or to post it on Facebook) to show the "adventure" of being caught in a tornado, even when the video is pretty clear evidence in some cases that they're not in the tornado.  They often like to claim they're out chasing in order to save lives - which is pretty evidently ludicrous.  No, for these egomaniacs, it's all about shouting themselves into fame and fortune, pushing their foolishness onto our TVs and computer screens so that they become renowned - if not famous, then infamous for their foolishness.

In the wake of the tornadoes in Nebraska on yesterday, we have an image spread far and wide by a self-proclaimed photojournalist that purports to show the body of a little girl on a gurney shortly before she died from her injuries.  The photojournalist seems quite defensive about some of the reactions to his marketing of this image and, in my view, he has cause to be defensive.  I acknowledge that photos may show an unpleasant or even offensive image of a situation, and a photojournalist surely has the job to record those images and to show the rest of us the truth of the situation.  I get that.  But profiting from this image just seems wrong to me.  The event his image records is not about the photojournalist and his reaction to the situation, upon which he seems primarily focused.  It's about the little girl, her family, and the town's struggle to cope with a disaster.  In my opinion, his proceeds from selling that image should be donated to disaster relief, or to the family of the little girl.  He advises others to send relief to the town - should he not do likewise (preferably without fanfare or the cameras rolling as he does it) when he is profiting from their misfortune?  Does his success as a photojournalist make him immune to the immorality of personal gain at another's expense?

Also, an arrogant private sector weather forecaster has taken the same opportunity to promote himself and his services, heaping scorn on the forecasts and warnings by the National Weather Service (NWS).  Private sector forecasters have a proclivity for this, especially when they actually appear on the air, promoting themselves rather than focusing on their statutory obligation to disseminate weather information.  Disrespecting forecast competition isn't limited to other private sector forecasters - they often spread their net of scorn to include the NWS, whose ability to respond is basically zero, regardless of the truth or falsehood of such criticism.  No, the private sector is blatantly self-promotional, and is evidently willing to use every situation to promote themselves and disparage their "competition".  They are the quintessential proponents of themselves.  Rarely do they subject their own products to rigorous verification, and even more infrequently do they publish their verification statistics for all to see.  "I'm great! Take my word for it!" they proclaim.  A few are exceptions to this typical behavior - more power to them.  But self-serving promotion of themselves is rampant and unethical, in my view.  The American Meteorological Society should be much more aggressive in pursuing ethical violations by its members, it seems to me.

Self-promotion seems pervasive in today's world.  It's surely not limited to my generation.  And it seems to be increasing, at least as it relates to severe weather.  It surely can be argued that this blog could be interpreted as a form of self-promotion, but I think rather than seeking fame and fortune, I'm putting my thoughts out as catalyst for discussion - not lining my pockets with cash or attempting to gain fame as a consequence.

More on "extreme" storm chasing

Recent tornado situations once again have produced incidents where chasers have found themselves in danger from tornadoes, and narrowly escaped serious injuries or death.  Then, to compound the irresponsibility of such actions, they post their "I'm in the tornado!" videos as a digital badge of their "courage".  And they license such videos, hoping to get them aired - for a price, of course.

I've talked about this at some length before, and expressed my concerns.  But a recent Facebook post accused those critical of "extreme" chasers as being "haters", encouraging the posters of extreme videos to keep up their actions in the face of any criticism.  Chasers unwilling to risk themselves by getting close to tornadoes are called "sissies" or worse.  The particular subset of chasers represented by such extreme attitudes has been with us for quite a while.  They rightly say we have no power to stop them from what they choose to do.  I expect to change no one's mind with this blog.

The loss of the Twistex chase team on 31 May last year in the El Reno tornado has sent a message to all chasers:  even seasoned veterans trying to be as safe and responsible as possible (while trying to carry out an inherently dangerous mission) can make a mistake in certain situations.  The El Reno HP supercell storm produced a large, "wedge" tornado, moving somewhat erratically, wrapped in rain.  By getting in close to the mesocyclone where situation awareness became difficult, many chasers were putting themselves in danger and several had some narrow escapes, in addition to those who did not manage to escape.  Many of us came away from that experience with the new (and old) lessons for safety becoming increasingly relevant to us in our chasing decisions.  Many of us learned several lessons from the tragic outcome of 31 May 2013 - but of course, the "extreme" crowd has already demonstrated this year they have learned little or nothing from the loss of their friends and chasing colleagues.  Some of those lessons were already known from the now decades-long history of storm chasing, some came from that terrible day.  That some chasers would ignore these lessons was, unfortunately, a predictable response from that group of extreme chasers who consistently thumb their noses in defiance at anyone critical of their behavior, sneering contemptuously at those whom they label as "haters", and referring to them as "sissies" for not indulging in dangerous behavior of the sort they crave.

I have no problem with someone selling their stills and video from storm chasing.  I've been doing it for a long time, and it's helped pay for the costs of storm chasing - but the tally sheet at the end of most years tells me I just about break even with my sales.  That's fine by me - I continue to think of storm chasing as a hobby, not a profession, so I do it for the fun and excitement of being able to witness the awesome spectacle of severe storms.  I shoot stills and video to capture the moments during a chase and - to sell if I can.  I don't chase "competitively" with anyone and I'm never jealous of someone else's success.  All I care about when it comes to the extreme chasers is that when they broadcast their near-death experiences and contempt for responsible behavior, they do two things that concern me:

1. They glorify doing dangerous things that could result in their fatalities and those who chase with whom they chase.  This confirms the bias the media have in regarding storm chasers as crazy.  It reinforces an image of chasing that's not appropriate for most of us.  In effect, it's promoting an inappropriate stereotype applied to all of us.
2. They encourage others to emulate their behavior, perhaps in hopes of achieving fame and fortune as a chaser, or perhaps just for the adrenaline.  Real fame and fortune, of course, is just an illusion for all but a very tiny fraction of chasers who have marketed themselves as "extreme", only a few of whom actually know what they're doing well enough to become rich and famous for their exploits.

If someone has video of a near-fatal encounter, the most valuable thing they could do with that is to use that footage to present and discuss what mistakes they made in getting into that situation, in order to help other chasers not to make the same mistakes.  Several experienced chasers have done just that - admitting they made a mistake, accepting the responsibility for it, and then sharing that information in a way that helps other chasers.  This is something extreme chasers never do, whereas many experienced, responsible chasers have already done so.  Sadly, extreme chasers don't seem to want to use their errors to help others - it's all about them, not even remotely about the storms.  Their actions speak so loudly, I can't hear the words they're saying.

Thoughts on an event 15 years ago

Today marks the 15th anniversary of the tornado outbreak that began on the afternoon of 03 May 1999.  That day, I was "head down" into my research at my NSSL office, not planning on chasing, because I always had much to do professionally before I went on my annual chase vacation.  As the afternoon wore on, word filtered up from the SPC below (in the old NSSL building on North Campus) that the outlook had been upgraded to "high risk".  Then, toward the end of my workday, about to leave for home, I drifted down to the research/operational workstation room that was next door to the SPC operations area.  In checking out the developing storms, it seemed that the storms beginning to our southwest were left-movers and didn't pose much of a threat - but I thought "Well, it's going to be in my backyard, so I might as well go out and take a look-see."  I hadn't brought my cameras, so I had to go home to fetch them.  By the time I got home, a quick look at the TV showed a tornado in progress on live feed!  I barreled out the door and got into the chase recounted here.

But I don't want to reminisce about that chase, per se, in today's blog post.  Rather I want to consider the account (in that link above) of my damage surveys and how I feel about things today, with the passage of 15 years.  I remember a talk I gave somewhere about storms and storm chasing - during the Q&A following the talk, someone asked me if I'd ever seen an F-5 tornado, and I'd responded, "No, the strongest tornadoes I've ever seen were only F-4s."  I recall being mildly amused by the question, but also a bit offended by the implications.  That question also reminds me of the scene in that awful movie Twister where the hero Bill Harding (played by Bill Paxton) is held in awe because he's the only one in their merry band who's actually seen an F-5.  Somehow, it seemed my status as a chaser, as seen by others, was diminished because I'd not seen an F-5 tornado.  Like an F-5 tornado was the chasing equivalent of a 12-point buck mounted on my wall.

After the incredible day's chase on 03 May 1999, I was pretty sure I'd seen my first F-5 tornado and that carried with it some sense of fulfillment - until the BPAT survey began, and I had another chance to see for myself, with my own senses, what tornadoes can do.  I'd participated in other surveys before, included that done for the storied 24 May 1973 tornado that hit Union City, OK.  That tornado had initiated some concern within me (see item #32, here) for the morality of storm chasing (see my previous blog) and I eventually resolved that concern when I remembered that my desire to see a tornado had absolutely no effect on the atmosphere.  I was not responsible for the devastation of tornadoes, so my conscience was clear.

I hope my overall feeling of horror comes through in my personal account of the BPAT survey.  In the days following the event, I felt a growing anger over the superficial and sensationalized media treatment of the 03 May 1999 outbreak.  In retrospect, my real take-away from the survey was the realization that no one who had not experienced a devastating tornado could even begin to understand the feelings of the survivors.  That feeling has been reinforced by a project reviewing the 1925 Tri-State tornado - it was clear by interviewing the survivors that the impact of their experiences still was felt strongly nearly more than 70 years later!  As obvious as that seems to me now, it was something of a revelation then.  With the passage of 15 years, that theme has come more and more to the forefront of my feelings about storms. 

I haven't lost my fascination with tornadoes and the storms that produce them.  I haven't lost the desire to go out and see them for myself.  But as time passes and more events accumulate in the record books of tornadoes, it's become much more difficult than it used to be to detach myself from the tragedies they produce and stay focused on the science and the storm chasing experience.  I understand why some people can view storm chasing as immoral or hostile activity, although I maintain that it's neither of those.  When I think about the storms of 03 May 1999, it's no longer only in terms of the excitement of that chase.  I now feel more strongly than ever that we professionals need to put more effort behind programs that can mitigate the awful consequences of a tornado in a populated area:  improve our forecasts, support the imposition of more substantial building construction and the spread of suitable tornado shelters, and so on. 

Rather than feeling a sort of wistful echo of my experiences as a chaser on 03 May 1999, I'm now reminded of the terrible feelings I had during the BPAT survey, talking with survivors and seeing first hand what this phenomenon can do to humans.  How can I feel excited recalling a successful chase on that day when I think about what that storm did to the people in its path?  It's taken me several decades of storm chasing to reach this point, so I certainly can understand some of the enthusiasm for the experience that relatively new chasers feel.  I just hope they can begin to develop more empathy for the survivors and not let their excitement dominate that empathy. 

Is storm chasing inherently an immoral behavior?

Since the deaths of storm chasers during the El Reno tornado of 31 May 2013, there's been a growing concern expressed on social media about the ethical basis for storm chasing.  I can understand those concerns and have expressed my own concerns on this blog several times, and in my web essays.

The question is, then, is chasing inherently immoral?  I wrote a lengthy essay a while back on chasing safety (see the "web essays" link above).  It's been updated several times as new issues have come to light.  There's another excellent blog by Barb Mayes Boustead on the post-El Reno tragedy that reflects what I think responsible chasers feel about this topic.  But some have the belief that even the concept of chaser responsibility is meaningless, because it's chasers who decide for themselves what responsibility means to them!  Thus, in this view, chaser responsibility has no meaning because it's a relative morality.  This has some similarity to the religious arguments about relative versus absolute morality.

Who besides chasers should decide what chase behavior is responsible?  There are no wholly objective chaser morality boards, and even if such did exist, any regulations they might impose are essentially unenforceable.  In the absence of a set of god-given chasing responsibility commands, I think most chasers have a pretty clear idea of what is responsible and what isn't - I tried to articulate this in my essay on the topic.  Part of the problem is that some chasers choose to flaunt their irresponsibility for all to see - a red badge of testimony to their extreme disdain for responsibility. They think of me (and other critics) as a self-righteous prude and thumb their noses at my concerns - these are storm chasing's "yahoos".  And of course some chasers have different opinions about this or that component of my safety essay.  The fact that such disagreement exists doesn't mean that it's not possible to define chaser responsibility in a meaningful way.  I suspect if a survey of chasers were to be done, the resulting consensus wouldn't be too different from what I've listed in my essay.   There might be circumstances where something mitigates the apparent irresponsibility of some act I've deemed to be of concern in that essay.  Not all nighttime chasing is irresponsible, for instance.

Some believe that by being on the roads, chasers are threatening the safety and efficacy of first responders and ordinary citizens - blocking the roads at a time when those roads are needed the most.  This is most serious whenever major chaser convergences arise, of course.  It's not so relevant for solo chasers.  Often, of late, locals on "joyride" chases in their vicinity or fleeing their homes can combine with numerous chasers to create long lines of vehicles, effectively blocking the roads, so this is not an unfounded concern.  I readily admit that massive chaser convergences can be a big problem, and I avoid them whenever possible.

I also believe that when chasers become casualties, they're adding to the burden imposed on first responders.  Resources needed to rescue an irresponsible chaser who got in close and paid the price are not available to the real victims of a devastating storm.  Responsible chasers avoid such situations. 

Another thing that I believe concerns critics of chasing in the post-El Reno era is the sensationalization of chasing and the celebrations of chasers over their successes, even as people's lives are devastated.  In fact, I've written about that here.  I share the concerns of critics about chasers showing their joy in videos.  At the very least, I recommend the audio portion of their glee be suppressed when their videos become public.  I understand the excitement of a successful chase, but chasers should be mindful that tornadoes can result in tragedy, and be respectful of those who have been unfortunate in having their lives destroyed by tornadoes.  Showing your excitement on videos shared in public media is simply not being responsible!

In the same way that the atmosphere doesn't obey my wishes, so that I bear no real responsibility for what tornadoes do, it seems that chasers are under no obligation to obey my "rules" about being responsible.  Widespread glamorization of chasers via the media has produced massive chaser convergences and brought in many new irresponsible chasers over the years.  I know of no way to stop the process and I have no authority to do so.

But is chasing inherently hostile/immoral?  Not when done by responsible chasers, some of whom have made contributions to the science of storms that have led to important new understanding that can be applied to the warning and forecasting of tornadoes.  Some have played roles in storm spotter training that undoubtedly have saved lives.  Chasing cannot inherently be hostile.  It becomes immoral only when the actions of irresponsible chasers lead, directly or indirectly, to harm to our society.

Let me illustrate this with an example:  many have seen the infamous "Turnpike" video from the 26 April 1991 event in Kansas.  That video showed people sheltering under an overpass as a tornado supposedly went right over them - their survival was implicitly advocating the use of overpasses as shelters.  The TV news team members were storm chasing, not accidentally caught and seeking to escape the danger, and their award-winning (!) video led to 3 fatalities under overpasses in the 03 May 1999 event in Oklahoma, as some of us had predicted eventually would happen.  No doubt the news team was unaware of the consequences of their video.  But it had unfortunate consequences, nonetheless, that were predictable.

How many people already have died in tornadoes with video cameras or cell phone cameras in their hands?  No one knows.  There may be many more of these about which we have little or no information - it may have happened in Tuscaloosa on 27 April 2011, two years before the El Reno chaser deaths.  Is this another unintended consequence of chasing?  Probably so - especially the sensationalization of tornado chasing that has become so pervasive in the media.   The competition to get the wildest, near-death experience recorded and broadcast has begun and clearly will result in more chaser fatalities.  And, likely, more irresponsible chasers.

I agree with the storm chasing's critics about how chasing is getting out of hand.  And there are aspects of chasing that I disavow.  But in the end, I chase storms because I'm fascinated by them.  I never did so to gain fame or fortune, but rather for the love of the natural world in all its awesome power and majesty.  I've tried to use my chasing experience to give something back to society in exchange for the opportunities I've been given to pursue a lifelong fascination.  I don't think that's being irresponsible or immoral.  I can't speak for others ...

The myth of professional versus amateur chasers

It's not uncommon to hear storm chasers described as either professional or amateur chasers.  There might be a very, very tiny fraction of chasers who make their entire income from storm chasing and nothing else.  Such are the only chasers who might literally consider themselves professional chasers and their ranks are negligibly small compared with the number of people who chase storms.  If that's the case, then essentially everyone else is an amateur!  That's not a useful way to group storm chasers, so I'm proposing some new groupings.

1.  As I've said many times, most all regular veteran storm chasers - those who make an annual storm chase trek and have done so more than a few times - are not seeking to become dependent on chasing for their livelihood.  It's a hobby they enjoy for the thrill of the hunt and the awesome spectacle they can witness with their own eyes.  Many spend a fair sum on chasing (my costs run about $1000 per week), and they may be able to offset that to a greater or lesser extent by selling photos and videos.  Since these are people who have chased for several years, they may have accumulated considerable expertise in chasing techniques and learned a fair amount about storms even if they're not meteorologists.  There are many different reasons for someone to be a regular chaser and those reasons usually dictate their personal chasing behavior choices.  Some are willing to take on relatively high risk situations, others not so much risk.  Not all veterans engage in responsible chasing, and anyone, no matter how experienced, can make serious mistakes, as we have learned this year (2013). 

2.  Then there are chasers who participate regularly in serious scientific field observations (perhaps in addition to their own personal chase treks) and are either students or practicing professional scientists.  Let me call them scientific storm chasers.  For anyone who has ever done this, it can be quite constraining compared to a private chase - you have duties and have to be in pre-assigned positions rather than just going for whatever interests you.  This sort of chasing is hard work and its main reward comes when the data collected are used for scientific analysis of the storms, leading to publications in journals and presentations at scientific conferences.  It's not at all about personal chasing goals.  It's about contributing to the growth of scientific knowledge.  That said, such chasers should accept a very high standard of responsible chase behavior:  primarily regarding their driving on public roads.  Unfortunately, not all of them do so all the time.

3.  We have seen a growth in what I might call opportunistic chasing.  These are people who chase primarily within a limited area, on occasions when storms develop nearby.  I sometimes operate in this mode, when I'm not on my annual storm chase vacation - targeting storms in central Oklahoma, as I did on 20 May 2013.  We have referred to this as a "gentleman's" chase - usually more or less leisurely and without all the complex preparations that a chase trek involves.  Some local citizens, perhaps having seen storm videos on TV, venture out on storms near where they live, seeking to sample the chase experience without expending a lot of effort.  Many such opportunistic chasers know very little about storms and sometimes behave very irresponsibly (including drunk driving!).  Because such opportunistic chasers are ignorant and inexperienced, they can be a danger to themselves and others, adding to the problem of "chaser convergence" in certain situations.

4.  Recently, there's been some growth in media chasers going out as sort-of 'spotters' for TV stations, providing on-scene reports of storms, including live video for the station to broadcast.  Such chasers are usually restricted to a certain territory within or close to the viewing area for their sponsoring station.  The quality of these media chasers varies considerably.  Many of them are seriously deficient in their understanding of what they're seeing and doing, and some of them engage in very irresponsible driving behavior, and a few are prone to serious exaggeration of what they're seeing.  A colleague and I wrote about them here.

5.  Finally, there's the ever-changing group new chasers.  They've just begun serious chasing and may or may not go on to become regular veteran chasers.  Their experience level is low, their chasing tactics are still new and evolving, they may or may not yet have seen some major events.  Many are defensive about their status as 'newbies' - feeling they may not get the respect they think they deserve.  Respect from others as a chaser is earned over time, not something granted automatically.  Some may have a lot to learn about chasing responsibly - others do so without much fanfare.  A lack of experience always represents something of a danger in storm chasing.  What happens in those first few years can have a large impact on how they develop as a storm chaser.

Thus, I'm proposing five broad classes of storm chasers.  Some individuals can appear in more than one of these classes.  There can be a wide range of knowledge within each group, as the experience level can vary considerably.  Thus, the distinction is not at all between "professional" and "amateur" chasers.  Such words have little relevance in the real world of storm chasing. 

Another tornado outbreak - Second thoughts about chasing?

The November 17th tornado outbreak, affecting mostly some small towns in Illinois, is an example of several things.  As bad as it was, it could have been much worse - no major population centers were hit, so that particular bullet was dodged.  Despite some pitiful decisions made by the NFL about the Bears-Ravens game in Chicago, this large-venue event was not hit by a tornado.  The choice to wait to suspend the game and evacuate the field more or less at the last minute would have been a disaster if the storm had produced a violent tornado that actually hit the field.  Another bullet dodged.

There's a relentless inevitability about tornadoes, however.  Such escapes can lead people to fail to appreciate how fortunate they were, and how their luck simply can't go on forever.  Eventually, a 'worst case' scenario will happen!  The forecasters at the Storm Prediction Center did a fantastic job, anticipating this event several days in advance and ratcheting up the perceived risk as the day approached.  I hope people understand how far such forecasting has advanced during the course of my professional career, and take their forecasts seriously enough to be prepared for dangerous tornado outbreaks.

There have been some expressions of second thoughts by some thoughtful storm chasers after yesterday's events in Illinois (and elsewhere).  It seems that the events of this past May in Oklahoma, including the 31 May El Reno tornado in which 4 (or possibly 5) storm chasers were killed, have caused thoughtful storm chasers to consider how their hobby of storm chasing has a dark side:  tornadoes can cause massive human suffering that can go on for years afterward.  It's not just a show put on by the atmosphere for the benefit of storm chasers.  I've said many times that tornadoes are not evil or malevolent - rather, they're simply indifferent to their impact on humans.  When we humans are in the path, it's not by any person's design or wish, and certainly the atmosphere is not producing the carnage in any purposeful way.  (see item #32 here)

I think it's entirely appropriate for storm chasers to think over what they're doing out there - to contemplate just what they're out there for, and whether or not that reason justifies their behavior.   I hear a lot of chasers (not all, of course) going on and on about how what they do is saving lives.  I beg to disagree - that's not what you're out there to do, for the most part.  You're deluding yourself if you think so.  Virtually all storm chasers are out there because they love to see storms, myself included.  It's basically a selfish activity unlike, say, storm spotting, which is done to provide protection for communities.  If you say you're out there to save lives, prove it!  Demonstrate by your actions that your primary commitment is to save lives.  Most of the storm chasers who make such claims have done little or nothing to save lives - I've seen this with my own eyes.  In more than one case of 'chaser convergence' involving scores of chasers gathered around a storm, I learned that the call that I made to an NWS office to let them know what we were seeing was the only call from a chaser!  Irresponsible chasers of that sort are the norm, and I've watched how they behave.   What have they actually done to save lives?  Can they honestly say that's why they're out there?  I don't think so.

Irresponsible chasers certainly should take the time to reconsider their chasing!  Is a tornado outbreak just a majestic display put on by the atmosphere for their entertainment?  What price is paid by the victims so chasers can sell their video for top dollar and have their names (and faces) on the TV?  A responsible storm chaser must realize eventually that the atmosphere doesn't produce tornadoes just because chasers want to see them - chasers don't cause tornadoes, obviously.  But responsible chasers should come to understand that they need to give something back to our society that can mitigate the impact of these devastating storms.  If some chasers feel no empathy for the victims of such events, they're a poor excuse for a human being.  And they should set an example of responsible chasing rather than chasing as a trash sport.  They shouldn't be bragging about the 'extreme' risks they're taking and sneering at the notion that they should be responsible.

Tim Samaras was a responsible chaser and his loss is going to be felt for a long time - he was not about pretending to save lives.  And he didn't brag about his exploits.  Rather, he was attempting to do serious science to learn more about tornadoes, which clearly fascinated him (as they do to most chasers).  If that knowledge he was seeking could ever be used to reduce casualties, he would have been ecstatic, I'm sure.  But to be honest, that thought wasn't what drove Tim to do what he did - and there's no shame or irresponsibility to admit that's what you're doing out there.  What matters is he was doing what he could to give something back.

More on the EF-Scale controversy

I've already had to answer several questions regarding the EF-Scale, so I feel the need to say more on this topic.

It is true that mobile Doppler radar measurements typically are at heights well above the 'standard' anemometer height of 10 m.  In the case of hurricane recon flights, their winds are not measured at 10 m, either, but there is an 'established' procedure for converting those measurements to the standard height.  For tornadic winds, there is as yet no consensus for such a conversion.  There are some indications that in some cases, wind speeds might actually increase downward from where the radars are measuring the wind speed!  And there's little reason to believe that the winds in a tornado follow something like the conventional 'logarithmic law'.  Real tornadic winds are virtually certain to be quite complicated, with enormous changes in both space and time.  The notion of a tornado as a Rankine vortex is typically a grotesque oversimplification of what's going on.  Numerical model simulations, mobile Doppler radar observations, film/videos of tornadoes,  and laboratory vortex models have indicated that many tornadoes are much more complicated than a simple translating symmetric vortex.  Although we don't yet have the capability to map in great detail the winds in real tornadoes over the lifetime of the tornado, it's evident that the picture is mostly much more complex than any simple model can describe.

In the case of the El Reno tornado of 31 May 2013, it's my understanding that the individual subvortices within the large tornado were observed by mobile radars to be rotating at about 75 m s^-1 (more than 150 mph!  If the individual intravortex flow adds only 50 mph to that, the result would be 200 mph:  the threshold windspeed for EF-5.  This information doesn't require any extrapolation to a height of 10 m.

I note that a publication exists regarding the Spencer, SD tornado of 30 May 1998 and the relationship between radar-observed winds and damage.  It's only one study, but among the conclusions was that the radar-measured winds converted to F-scale (not EF-scale!) ratings typically exceeded the actual damage at the ground.  A number of hypotheses were offered to explain the discrepancies.  Clearly, much more such work needs to be done and perhaps a consensus may emerge on how to convert Doppler-measured winds to EF-scale ratings.

Another part of the criteria for wind measurements (besides reduction to a height of 10 m) is the use of a 3-second average.  This is a standard favored by engineers for reasons they might want to chime in and explain.  But consider the aforementioned subvortex moving at 75 m s^-1- such a vortex that is, say, 75 m in diameter would pass by a house in about one second.  Whatever damage such a vortex would cause to the home would be done mostly within that one second, not by a 3 s average wind!  Doppler radar wind velocities are quasi-instantaneous and extremely rapid changes in those velocities are seen even at sampling intervals of 2-s!  What meaning does the 3-s criterion have in the context of such rapid time changes in the wind speed?

After the Jarrell, TX tornado of 27 May 1997, which was rated F-5, some engineers argued that the slow movement of a large tornado magnified the damage beyond what one would expect from the winds alone - that is, winds blowing for a long time would be more damaging than winds sustained only briefly.  This seems reasonable, but what about a wind that accelerates extremely rapidly?  Could not that also enhance the damage potential?  The duration of the wind likely has some impact on the damage, but the real relationship of wind duration and damage isn't necessarily simple.  The aforementioned paper on the Spencer tornado discussed this, among other factors regarding the complex relationship between wind and damage.

Since I mentioned the diameter of a subvortex - just how does one measure the width of a tornado?  The El Reno tornado was claimed to be 2.6 miles in diameter, supposedly a record surpassing that of the tornado that hit Hallam, NE after sunset on the evening of 22 May 2004.  But how does one define the width of a tornado?  The damage doesn't have a hard edge to it, so even if you're driving at right angles to the track, how can you tell where tornado damage begins/ends?  Try it sometime.  It's not so easy as you might think!!  Debris is often centrifuged out of the tornado, so the presence of debris doesn't define the edge of the track.  Insofar as I can tell, tornado width estimates in Storm Data are probably even more inconsistent than F/EF-scale ratings.

So fast forward to a day when we can have continuous wind speed information all along the track of a tornado (not in my lifetime!) - imagine we can have a complete picture of the time-space history of the wind.  Still, where does the tornado begin and end?  Is there an arbitrary wind speed that defines a 'tornadic' wind?  How does one distinguish between winds in the rear flank downdraft (which usually is adjacent to the tornado) from the 'tornadic' winds?   One thing is for certain:  the edge of a tornado is not at the edge of the condensation funnel!  Remember - the tornado is the (invisible) wind, not the cloud. 

Given the complexity of comparing winds to damage, it seems to me that if we can obtain wind speeds from measurements, we should seek to find ways to use them, rather than to ignore them.

One final word:  there's a question about who 'owns' the EF-scale.  Who has the right to modify the rating criteria in light of new observational capability and/or new science?  At the moment, the EF-scale is something that was created by a process involving scientists and engineers, resulting in a document that forms the basis for how the scale is implemented within the National Weather Service (NWS).  But the NWS doesn't claim to 'own' the EF-scale and they should not.  No one does, at present.  It properly belongs to the whole scientific and engineering community.  Efforts are underway to establish a systematic, inclusive process for modifying the criteria as new science is available.  I can't say much about it, as it's still in the formative stages, but I sincerely hope it eventually can be recognized as the place wherein the EF-scale can become a 'living' process, rather than a set of criteria frozen into a document.  Hopefully, within such a process, many of these issues will be resolved and we can move forward to take advantage of new capabilities and new science/engineering.

Photo contests - a license to steal your photos

Various and sundry photo (and/or video) contests pop up from time to time on the Web and elsewhere.  Many of them with which I'm familiar are associated with media - TV weather broadcasters, private weather companies, and such.  If you read the fine print in the agreement you sign when you submit your photos, you'll typically find something like this (an actual agreement):

By submitting your photo or media to AccuWeather for use, publication on its websites, or in its photo gallery, you hereby grant AccuWeather the perpetual, world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free right and license to use, reproduce, distribute and create customized versions, derivative works, and ancillaries of the photo or media in all forms of media now known or hereafter developed, including print, non-print, internet transmission, film, electronic media, advertising, and broadcasting, in all editions and in any language or technical format, for any commercial or non-commercial purpose." This effectively gives them unlimited use of your images for all time for any purpose whatsover ... let the submitter beware!!

Let's go through this carefully:

perpetual = the agreement lasts indefinitely - it never ends
world-wide = they can use your photo anywhere in the world
non-exclusive = [from here] they can resell your photo to anyone
royalty-free = they can use your photo as much as they want without paying you anything for that use
license to use, reproduce, distribute, and create customized versions, derivative works, and ancillaries of the photo = they can do whatever they want with your photo
in all forms of media now known or hereafter developed, including ... = they can use your photo in any medium existing now or in the future
for any commercial and non-commercial purpose = they can make money by using your photo 

Your photo could appear thousands of times without your express permission, thereby rendering your photo copyright effectively useless.  You may retain the copyright, but it will be of no value to you in protecting your copyright privilege.  For all intents and purposes, your photo can become "public domain" through widespread usage, rendering your copyright protection completely impotent.  You can't go after anyone for using your photo if they obtained it from the folks running your contest, and I doubt seriously that the contest folks are giving your work away for free.

The prizes in such contests are usually not all that lucrative, even for "winning" images.  Just getting your work on TV or whatever is meaningless to you if you no longer control how those photos are used. You should weigh any perceived benefit to you carefully in relation to what you're giving up just to have your photo considered.

Potential photo submitters should read the fine print associated with any such contest if they have any image good enough to win a 'prize'.  The people running such contests do not have your best interests at heart.  The image "industry" has evolved to become very unfriendly to photographers and that rapaciousness has spread far and wide.  The fact that terms like the above are widespread doesn't mean that you have to give in to them. 

Much of the same applies to video submitted to media for re-broadcast - they may pay you a modest license fee, but if you sign a license for them to broadcast your video, read the fine print and be aware of what rights you're granting. They may own it forever and have the right to use it for anything, including selling it to others ...

I strongly recommend negotiating a license only for one-time use for a specific purpose, that includes a reasonable licensing fee for you.  If they don't agree to that, don't give them license to steal your work!!  If you really don't understand the terms of a licensing agreement offered to you, don't sign anything until you search out some help in translating the legalese of the contract.  Develop your own licensing agreement and counter-offer yours to theirs.  If they won't compromise, don't let them have your work!

Target Fixation - A Tornado Danger

There have been a host of videos making the rounds in the past few years showing people evidently so fascinated with tornadoes, they seem not to notice the tornado is coming towards them!  I've shaken my head over such videos - how could people be so stupid?  But a recent conversation with a friend reminded me of an incident on 05 June 1995 near Dougherty, TX when I was so fascinated by what I was seeing in my camcorder viewfinder, I was oblivious to the reality that the tornado was coming right at us!  Thanks to the insistence of my chase partner - my most excellent friend, Al Moller - I was alerted to the situation in plenty of time for us to move to a position well out of the path, and we were able safely to capture some dramatic images and video of the storm.  A similar thing happened to me this year, on 31 May with the El Reno tornado - this time, I was roused from my trance by Tempest Tours tour director Bill Reid.  Again, I was brought back to reality in plenty of time for us to escape.  Perhaps coincidentally, there were a lot of similarities between those storms. 

I mention these incidents in my chasing experience because I believe that anyone can become 'target fixated' - specifically, even me.  Somehow, seeing things unfold through a viewfinder can create a loss of situation awareness.  What we see on our camera screens has a sort of unreality that detaches us from what's actually happening.  Rather than making smug comments about how stupid the people are who fall victim to this, I need to remind myself that I too can behave stupidly when mesmerized by an unfolding tornado event.

The expression 'target fixation' apparently has its roots in WWII, where fighter pilots became so focused on their targets, they literally would fly into the ground!  There can be little doubt that some of the most dramatic tornado videos going around the Internet are a direct result of this, so it behooves all of us to be aware that none of us are immune and we need to look away from our viewfinders from time to time, in order to assess the situation - to ensure we haven't lost our situational awareness to a dangerous extent. 

As a sidebar to this, the ready availability of near real-time radar in a chase vehicle can create something similar to target fixation.  There have been some incidents where people in the vehicles had their heads down staring at their laptop radar displays, without paying much attention to the reality unfolding around them.  When you're in or near the "bear's cage" you need to pop your head up out of your laptop screen frequently and look at what's actually going on around you!  The radar data you're using to make navigational safety decisions may be several minutes old, and your safety margins may be less than what the laptop screen is suggesting.

Part of being a responsible storm chaser is accepting the responsibility for your personal safety!

Once again, for the record

This blog is likely going to piss off some folks, but I feel I have to say it anyway.  Actually, I've already said most of this in other blogs and web essays, so this is somewhat redundant, but I continue to grow weary of the same old mythology being repeated endlessly.

Storm chasers and real scientists (some of whom are also storm chasers, including me) have something in common.  They cling to the myth that they're out in the field to help save lives - that their primary motivation is for the good of society.  They risk life and limb while doing so, as recently demonstrated in the most compelling way with the deaths of Tim and Paul Samaras, and Carl Young, as well as one (or possibly more) non-scientist chaser(s) on 31 May 2013.  It's a fair question for someone to ask what they died for.  Was Tim's really gathering data inside tornadoes in order save lives?  Does that really justify the risks that Tim took to obtain his unprecedented observations?

In some long-term perspective, it might be that somewhere down the road, the data that Tim obtained might help fill a gap that will somehow lead to saving lives.  I certainly can't rule out that possibility.  Tim's observations are so pioneering, at this point in the history of tornado science, it's really hard to say just what impact the data might eventually have.  Saying that his work was directly tied to life-saving is, in my opinion, simply not justified.  His work was tied to a single element of a complicated topic - tornadoes - that might someday lead to an improved understanding of internal tornado dynamics, and so is important in the way that all basic science is important.  We're pushing forward the frontiers of our understanding, certainly.  But a greater understanding of tornado dynamics doesn't do anything to save lives at present.  Why do I make such a statement?

Let me summarize as briefly as possible where I believe we stand when it comes to saving lives.  Since 1925, the fatality rates from tornadoes have been declining pretty steadily.  This is, I believe, the result of several factors, including growing public awareness, the development of infrastructure to spread tornado warnings ahead of dangerous storms, the re-emergence of tornado forecasting in the late 1940s, and probably a number of things I should have mentioned but have not, perhaps out of ignorance but certainly in the interest of brevity.  Tornado science in the USA began to be serious as a direct result of the resumption of tornado forecasting - the basic science originally was being driven by a need to learn more about how to forecast tornadoes.  That basic research now has a life of its own, mostly independent of forecasting needs.  But tornado scientists still feel obligated to say their research, no matter how abstract or unconnected to the real world it might be, is justified because of its potential to save lives.  They may even believe that to be the case - but I don't.

As it stands right now, most tornado fatalities are the result of long-track violent tornadoes that hit populated areas.  For such storms, virtually all of which are associated with supercells, the forecasts and the warnings are already pretty darned good.  Not many people are dying in tornadoes for the lack of adequate warnings.  The warning lead times for long-track violent tornadoes average much larger than for lesser events that are much less likely to cause multiple fatalities.  I've estimated that since the mid-1950s, the NWS outlook/watch/warning system is responsible for saving perhaps 10,000 lives.  Yes, the system isn't perfect and there are many things we can and should do to improve it.  Nevertheless, it's neither the absence of warnings nor the inadequacy of lead times that cause by far the majority of most deaths in tornadoes today!

People still are dying when violent tornadoes hit populated areas because, for one thing, most of the people in the tornado-prone areas have nowhere to go for adequate shelter from such a violent tornado.  Basements are good, but not adequate by themselves, and many American homes have no basements.  Typical frame home construction in the US is pathetically flimsy, even when built to code.  The structural integrity of most homes in the plains is limited to winds of 90 mph or less, when built to code.  Sadly, building codes are widely violated, even in expensive homes, reducing their structural integrity still more.  Flying debris from flimsy homes add to the fatality counts.  More than half of the annual tornado fatalities are now tied to mobile homes.  Poor people can't afford even a flimsy frame home and so mobile homes are a cheap way to have the American dream at an affordable cost - until they're in the path of a tornado!  And many people have done little or nothing to prepare for a tornado;  they don't even have a proper plan for what to do at home or at school/work.

Very few scientists do their research specifically to save lives.  They do it because they love what they do!  It may ultimately be practical, but that's not why they do what they do in the here and now.    Storm chasers don't chase to save lives.  They do it because of a passion for storms!  Tim Samaras was a scientist/engineer and a storm chaser.  I know and understand his real motivations better than most people, not just because we were friends but because I have the same motivations, and I honor his memory in no small part because he was doing what he loved.  Tim wasn't really doing it to save lives.  And neither are virtually all the other scientists and storm chasers.  If what they do might eventually lead to saving lives - and they choose to spend some extra time and effort specifically for doing that - I'm confident they'll have a right to feel good about that.

My friend Al Moller helped me to find ways to give some of what I'd learned in my chasing and in my research back to the National Weather Service and to the many storm spotters whose real role is to save lives.  I do feel proud that I learned how to do that with Al's help and I choose to believe that some lives indeed were spared through our efforts.  But saving lives wasn't why I became a scientist and a storm chaser.  It's time to put that myth to rest and be honest with ourselves and the public!