The Myth that Storm Chasing Saves Lives
Fair-use excerpt for commentary purposes, from Storm Chasers: On the Trail of Deadly Tornadoes by Matt White
Along with book entries, such as the one above, recent media and BLOG stories* have offered the gross and unsupported over-generalization that storm chasers “save lives”. Bullcrap! Look: I used to live in Missouri, and I say, “Show me!”
Patrick Marsh (storm observer and top-caliber young scientist) has suggested quite the opposite so far. As Patrick stated, “more people out saving lives should result in more lives being saved.” Eminently logical, right? But that’s not what has happened. He put that notion to the numerical test.
In his excellent BLOG, Fighting Hyperbole with Data, Patrick has done a fine job of using statistics to indicate that storm chasing hasn’t affected tornado death tolls, nor warning verification metrics, in any detectable way! Please look at his analyses, if you haven’t done so already, before proceeding.
Now that Patrick has covered the “Chasers Save Lives” myth from a numerical standpoint, some personal anecdotes and opinions follow…
I’ve been observing storms and (often, but not always) calling and/or e-mailing storm reports for over a quarter of a century. This covers countless thousands of supercells and hundreds of tornadoes, both for scientific field projects and personal storm observing. I have written and/or contributed to scientific papers (formal examples here, here and here) on that storms I have observed and documented while chasing. Nonetheless, I am no hero and have no scientific or anecdotal justification to pretend to be. I can’t certify for you that I’ve saved a single life by storm observing, or knowledge and research derived therefrom.
All I can do is speculate that my enriched conceptual understanding of severe storms, as a result of directly observing them afield for many years, might help to save lives indirectly via unquantifiable improvements to forecasts that I issue. Does it, in reality? There’s no way to know–except for one single instance (4 May 2003). A couple of days later, a lady in the Kansas City area wrote me to thank me for a “high risk” forecast that she saw online, that got her attention in advance, and that prompted her to locate adequate shelter well in advance of the tornado that hit her place. That’s it…one single event where I can be reasonably sure it made a difference. [That alone is well worth every bit of effort in learning and forecasting, by the way!] Eight years later, this is the first I’ve shared in public about it. Again, it’s nothing heroic…just doing what I’m supposed to. Hundreds of other forecasters are working on shift, as you read this, night or day, unheralded and largely unrecognized, for the same purpose.
The main reason I spend so much of my own time and money observing storms involves a holistic blend of fascination, appreciation, learning, potential research topics, improved forecasting skills, event documentation, honing photography skills, calling in reports at times, and yes, the selfish thrill of the hunt. You bet there’s a selfish element to part of it–and I emphasize, part of it. Any storm chaser who doesn’t admit this is being dishonest by omission. For the record, I do not chase to make money in any way; in fact, I spend far, far more than I’d ever recoup. I don’t sell video, period. Any photos I license are much later, totally incidental and inconsequential to the chase effort itself.
My efforts might have helped some folks over the years. I have advised several people not to drive any farther, as they stopped to ask about a potentially tornadic supercell looming over their itinerary. When a rain-wrapped tornado was about to cross Interstate 80 last year near Hampton, Nebraska, I stopped shooting photos long enough to wave down some motorists who were driving that direction, on the other side of the road. I don’t know if that “saved lives” or not; but I won’t be so presumptuous as to claim that it did. There’s no way to say for sure.
None of this makes me a hero or “life saver” either! When in the field, I’m just a storm observer–one person among many out there with a deep, lifelong passion for severe and unusual weather. That’s it…nothing more, nothing less, nothing special…and not heroic!
Providing reports to NWS is nothing heroic either. It’s simply the right thing to do, in reciprocal service to those who bring us the data we use to chase in the first place. It’s important, it’s informative, it’s helpful documentation…but by in large, it is still not “life saving”. Somebody portraying it as some amazing accomplishment, deserving of lavish laud, merely is pandering to an ignorant audience.
Real-time chaser reports can aid the warning process in some cases where native storm spotters either aren’t there, or aren’t seeing the event as well. That’s a good thing…keep it up! Good for you! Good for NWS! Getting storm reports in, whether in real time or later, helps meteorologists understand what’s happening and what has happened, which does help event verification. But any effect on saving lives is indirect and unknown, at best. Don’t falsely advertise your reporting as anything more than what it is–providing storm observations.
Here’s one litmus test for storm chasers’ purpose out there with regard to”saving lives”. Never–I mean not once since the mid-1980s–have I heard a single chaser say anything like, “I’m headed out to Woodward today to call in storm reports to the weather service.” That’s right, never. Have you? That alone speaks volumes about storm-chaser priorities. Reporting is just not the primary, or in many cases secondary or tertiary, motivation. Anyone who says otherwise in an interview is either delusional or deliberately lying.
Storm chasers are there to see storms, regardless of the stated reason. All else is tangential. Those of us who drive out to observe (“chase”) storms, on a regular basis, are there because we are either:
1. Passionately interested in the phenomena for learning’s and appreciation’s sake;
2. Driven to behold and document (via photos/video) the beauty and power of nature;
3. Conducting legitimate scientific research that actually will be published in real science papers (such as the now-completed V.O.R.T.EX. projects);
4. Operating any of a growing fleet of for-profit storm tours;
5. A member of for-profit TV media, seeking live tornado footage;
6. Pseudoscientific posers, pretending to collect data for the sake of “science”–but never have published a damn thing with that “data” in the peer-reviewed literature;
7. Adrenaline junkies desperately trying to get high on the thrillseeking rush (far more people than will admit to it!),
8. Stroking the ego trip of publicity and recognition,
9. Posers in another way, trying to see and be seen, to show off (such as a vehicles festooned with unused weather instruments or unnecessary lights); and/or
10. Out to get the “money shot” video footage of somebody’s home or town being blasted apart–this, to me, is absolutely diabolical, inhumane, greedy, and deranged! Far fewer will admit to this than those who actually do have such motivations in reality.
11. Some combination of the above.
Yes, there are a few very isolated and unrepresentative incidents where chasers have helped to save lives. On a tiny few occasions, a tiny few chasers have aided with search and rescue efforts, or called in a report that nobody else did just before the town got hit.
I am convinced, for example, that Jason Persoff and Robert Balogh, licensed medical doctors who chased the Joplin supercell, saved many lives by stopping the chase and joining in triage treatment of numerous victims of that deadliest tornado of this century. Using their skills as physicians, they voluntarily put in hours and hours of grueling, messy, bloody, exhausting work, pro bono. For doing this, Jason and Robert are heroes to me, even though they wouldn’t characterize themselves such. To Jason, he simply was doing what’s right, as compelled by his specialized knowledge, his oath, and duty to humanity.
Such altruism and unadulterated selflessness is so unrepresentative of storm chasing, as a whole, as to be laughably misleading in the form of generalizations like the one pictured above. Who else has done what Jason and Robert have? Why should others, who does far less tangible life-saving action than Jason, act like life-saving bigshots? Self-portrayed heroism in storm chasing is absolutely unjustified, a big fat lie.
Extremely isolated events (like Jason’s, and a handful of search/rescue ops by qualified chaser-EMTs) aside, the idea that chasers “save lives” is just bogus! Unmitigated BS. I’m tired of seeing people arrogantly touting themselves as heroes because they’re chasing and calling in reports. The great majority of time, that’s accomplished by the spotters already in the area. There’s no proof of chasers “saving lives”, except in quite rare and specific incidents that don’t support the sweeping generalization.
If you’re making yourself out to be a hero, you’re not one. I have to wonder sometimes…
Where is the humility in the world of storm chasing?
The main benefits accomplished by chasers, over the decades when video was fairly rare, was to provide footage for spotting and research interests. That has helped us all to understand storms better. Many meteorologist-chasers (including me) have published scientific papers based on their observations. [This doesn't make us heroes either, just successful field researchers.] The returns are diminishing fast on that, as video and photos have saturated the market (both commercially and conceptually), and understanding improves beyond that which can be seen visually. There’s precious little that is new to the science that is being documented in video form anymore.
Bottom line: If you are a storm chaser who “saves lives”, then I’m calling your bluff, right here, right now. Prove it. Otherwise, cut the crap, shut your trap, and quit your pompous preening for the TV cameras and news reporters.
* FOOTNOTE: Here are some of the many stories and sources that offer the myth:
- From a purported science writer for CNN, featuring a chaser who was “well know [sic] on the popular show on Discovery Channel, Storm Chasers.”
- AP, via USA Today
- Los Angeles Times
- Wiki Answers entry: “How does [sic] storm chasers saves lives?”
- Branson News
30 Years Ago Today: Paris TX Tornado
On 2 April 1982, a series of tornadic supercells wrought great violence across portions of northeast Texas and southeastern Oklahoma. Ten folks perished in Paris, TX, with 170 injured and damage rated F4. A separate supercell spawned an arguably f5-rated tornado that crossed mostly rural areas near Speer and Broken Bow, OK, and deposited a motel sign from Broken Bow 30 miles away in Arkansas. After dark, the outbreak shifted into southwestern Arkansas, with several more deaths from tornadoes produced by the same supercells that ravaged the Broken Bow and Paris areas.
- Image courtesy NCDC and NWS Ft. Worth
I still recall that day vividly, as a young teen in east Dallas. Already stoked by morning hail, and knowing of severe weather potential via weatehr radio, I was hoping to see some storms again in the afternoon, before the dryline surged through. I got out of school early for a doctor’s appointment, and rode my bike there. The office had a radio on and a TV off. After hearing warnings broadcast on WBAP radio, I asked the receptionist to turn on the TV for news of tornadoes to our north.
On Channel 5, Harold Taft was relaying Al Moller‘s NWS tornado warnings for the area around Bonham. Through trees and buildings, I could see parts of a massive pile of convection to the NNE.
Fortunately, I needed just a shot and a prescription; and the appointment didn’t take long. It was time to get a better view of some atmospheric action. I got on my bike and “chased” a vantage point for the soon-to-be Paris storm, on a hilltop about a mile away that had a good N and NE view.
Dallas was behind the dryline and in some blowing dust by the time I saw the supercell in its optimal splendor. That storm, lit with an orange tinge through the dust and in the late-afternoon light, blew my mind. The backshear, knuckles, enormous towers boiling into the back side of that storm at an upward pace visible to the stare, even from that distance. At that time it was producing six-inch diameter hailstones. To this day, despite hundreds of supercells seen since, I don’t recall clearly more powerful-looking, robust rear-flank convective structure that what was rolling up into the SW side of the Paris storm. It was a transcendental, awe-inspiring experience. The dust eventually got too dense to see much, the storm moved farther away, and the daylight faded.
Thanks to Jeff Passner for stirring up memories of that event on another forum.
Why Rights-Managed Photography Licensing Still Matters
Rights-managed stock photography (RMSP for short) simply means that the customer and the photographer (or his/her agent) negotiate the terms of the photo use. This provides a customized licensing contract, known as an end-user licensing agreement (EULA). The EULA can be renewed or renegotiated later, and the customer gets direct personal service. Another advantage to RMSP is that the customer can negotiate either:
1. Exclusive usage (nobody else can use the image at all). Photographers and their agents seldom do this except at relatively high rates, because it locks the photo away from any other commercial use until the contract is over. Not many photos in any given portfolio are high enough in quality, yet limited in audience by their narrowly specialized subject matter, that they would garner this sort of agreement. Yet it can be done, and the capability is there…for the right price. Such has been the case for the shot above, which has been demanded only by a specific hydroelectric concern, and was “perfect” (in their words) for the intended purpose. Or…
2. Limited exclusivity–no other usage is done by clients in the same field or a competing industry. For example, if I license this image of a tornado going through a wind farm, to a wind-power company, limited exclusivity would keep me from licensing the same shot to another wind-power company. It’s a fair deal for both parties, but might cost a little more than non-exclusive (below). I’ve licensed many images this way, and am glad to do so. [The photo above is not licensed, either exclusively or with limited exclusivity, as of this writing.]
3. Non-exclusive–nothing in the agreement prevents any other client to license the same photo. For example, this “Impaled Palm” image once was contracted simultaneously to an insurance agent, to a material supplier for the construction industry, and to attorneys who represent clients against insurers! It seems weird, but none of those parties asked for even limited exclusivity. Photographers prefer this, because it maximizes their licensing freedom. Many clients don’t seem to mind that, but of course it comes with some risk of redundancy.
——————
Then there are the royalty-free and “dollar” sites, which offer images to anyone for any use, for a one-time, flat fee. It’s the cheap and easy way for many photo users to go, especially websites and small businesses who don’t want to pay for either exclusivity or professional quality/service. But there are three big pitfalls that many cheap-photo buyers do not understand, at least until after they see the same image used by a competitor, or by a disreputable outfit, or the legal notice is served for copyright violation.
The company you keep: For example of this, I’ve heard of the same “dollar” image being used on the websites of a church, and of a whorehouse in Nevada. I promise you this: neither my stock agent nor I ever will license my photography to anyone in industries I consider immoral or objectionable (such as businesses or websites that are sexually explicit, racist, terrorist, or anti-American). The royalty-free sellers have no such scruples–everyone come, everyone served…for a few bucks! If you don’t think the Hezbollah jihadists, Ku Klux Klan, any given bordello in Bangkok, or a rated-X hardcore site can’t have a use for any of the images you display, think again. You’d be surprised.
Your photo is his photo is their photo: What happens when you buy “stock” images from the cheap sites? Aside from losing professionally high quality and skilled composition that you find in RMSP, you sacrifice uniqueness or rarity. Your image is also that of many, many others. You get the same tired old shot as a shocking number of other online sites, web and print ads, and assorted publications already have been using for years and years. Consider these examples (all links valid as of March 2012, no guarantees or updates thereafter):
1. You’re a young sales professional seeking a clean and fitting image of a kind-looking handshake offer to decorate your Yellow Pages ad and web page. You crank open a common cheap-image site and see this shot that seems great; it portrays the positive image you’re offering as the trusty maker of the deal. Problem is, somebody else already has thought of that–indeed, several somebodies, such as this somebody (in Canada), this somebody, and this somebody (in Australia). Wow, guess that wasn’t such a great idea after all…eh?
2. You’re the author of a chess site, and you want a small, clear, well-lit thumbnail image of a piece. Good for you! This one seems ideal. Did you also know that the very same photo also appears here, here, here (in Latvia), here, here (Glendale loves overused cheap-site images), here, here, and here (French-Canadian)?
3. You’re an attorney or paralegal in criminal defense, looking for a shot of somebody’s wrists locked in shiny, cold steel. It grabs the sympathetic eye of the accused, and tells them, “I’m here to save you from this awful ordeal!” Not exactly an original thought, you suppose, but…you find and like this one. When your competitor did a search for that photo in Dec. 2011, just for fun, he found 61 matches, many from attorneys, some not. Some of the sites also using that image included this site, this site (in France), this site, this site, this site, this site, this site, this site, this site, this site, this site, this site in Canada, this site, this site, this site, (site look familiar?), this site (shall I go on?), and numerous others. Damn, is it ever ubiquitous! Are you sure now that you want it too?
4. You’re the lowly corporate webmaster. You see today’s 117 new e-mails awaiting, and open the first one red-flagged “URGENT!”. Here it is, diversity–the pop-fad human resources mantra of the age! Image-obsessed bureaucrats in your company are demanding every possible portrayal (reality being another matter altogether), including on the website. Attached you find a cheesy video from the EEO department with the following message blaring forth: “Diversity is great, rah rah rah! Hip hip hooray, for diversity today! Cheer along with me: D-I-V-E-R-S-I-T-Y, DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVERSITY!”
Oh, joy. And now you’re supposed to drop everything you’re doing, including that latest hacker-prevention security fix to stop those suspicious Iranian IPs that have been showing up lately, and instead illustrate “diversity” on your firm’s website–somewhere, everywhere, somehow. The first thing you do? Try to find a shot of people of different races and genders, natch, because that’s how culture has conditioned you to define the term.
Get it fast. Get it cheap. This one from a royalty-free site certainly qualifies…look at the gleefully diverse people! You buy and use it on 23 different pages, satisfied your boss will christen you with the promotion to IT head that’s about to open. Why, then, does the outgoing IT chief get so pissed at you the following week? Because she’s no dummy, and she has seen it before, probably either here, here (UK), here, here, here, here, here, here (France), here, here (UK again…bloody regurgitators!), here, here, here, here (so pixelated, they look as if they’ve contracted measles), here (cropped to show just the ladies…and a British site, of course), here, and here!
The sad thing is: everybody who built each of those websites probably thought they were doing a great thing for their client(s) to grab that shot just for themselves.
Copyright-infringement liability risk: Perhaps worst of all, your business could be held legally liable for copyright infringement from the ultimate rights holder, if your webmaster didn’t obtain a EULA for that image from its rightful agent or photographer. Written EULAs rarely are given from the “dollar sites”. Some “dollar site” and “royalty free” photos are pirated (stolen) from the original owner, and posted to photo sites unscrupulously by third parties. I have found a few of my photos illegally posted to such sites–and yes, succeeded quite well in the resulting piracy claims. Try as they may (or may not), not every site perfectly fact-checks every incoming photo to ensure that it belongs to the person who submitted it. When that happens, it sets up a big legal can of infringement whoop-ass just begging to be opened.
Copyright violation is costly to the bottom line and to a business’ reputation, as the court case will go on the public record. This is true even if the violation is claimed to be inadvertent or passive (negligent or so-called “innocent infringement)!
For all these reasons, I strongly recommend sticking with RMSP to ensure not only quality, but exclusivity (where desired), legal protections, peace of mind, and actual customer service from a photographer or his representative.