A story in the “Wichita Eagle” contradicts part of the Eric Holthaus “Slate” story about which I wrote earlier.

Holthaus writes:

A recent nationwide upgrade to the National Weather Service’s Doppler radar network has probably rendered storm chasers obsolete anyway. The new technology, called “dual polarization,” can help meteorologists confirm that a tornado is indeed causing damage. NOAA calls the upgrade “as good if not better than a spotter report of a tornado.”

On the other hand, “Eagle” reporter Stan Finger writes:

Storm spotters and well-educated chasers have an important role even before a tornado develops, officials say.

“The benefit of the spotter is not just to report the tornado,” said Bill Bunting, chief of the operations branch at the Storm Prediction Center in Norman. “The benefit is also to accurately describe the precursor conditions.”

via Weather officials: Radar technology can’t replace storm spotters | Wichita Eagle.

Storm chasing has become more controversial lately, as I indicated in a recent post. Here’s a link to another article on the topic:

Why This Former Storm Chaser Now Thinks Stalking Tornadoes Is Unethical.

Here’s one of the points the author makes:

1) Storm chasers are not saving lives. In fact, storm chasers sometimes put themselves at risk and further burden local emergency managers should they require assistance. Chasers call this phenomenon “chaser convergence,” and it sometimes crowds rural and remote roadways to the point that emergency vehicles can no longer pass.

I think “Slate” author Eric Holthaus over generalizes a bit when he writes, “Storm chasers are not saving lives.”

Some chasers are true scientists who conduct research that might someday save lives by enabling improved forecasts, for example. And some chasers act as both chasers and SKYWARN storm spotters when in the field — in other words, these chasers report the severe weather they see to the nearest National Weather Service office.

Chasers who do bona fide research and those who make reports to the NWS might be saving lives, either in the long term or short term. On the other hand, Holthaus might be correct, if he refers to the remainder of chasers, who neither do true research nor call in reports.

What do you think? Add your comments to this post.

The volunteers who risk their lives to provide storm warning information argue that the “bastardizing” of chasing is not only destroying the image and creditability of chasing, but most disturbing, the character of “storm spotting.”

Above is a quote from an excellent article on Examiner.com by journalist and storm chaser Warren Faidely. Faidely takes an objective, well-sourced look at problems created by individuals who chase storms for personal glory, publicity and money (from selling dangerously obtained video clips to the news media).

Below are a couple more of my favorite excerpts.

(Oklahoma City volunteer storm spotter Stan) Johnson and other spotters say that when people hear they are storm spotters, the reaction is much different than before. “People use to say things like, ‘Thank you so much, Stan, for your volunteer work.’ Now days, I hear more of ‘Man you guys are nuts, but I love the crazy footage clips.’ We are loosing many good spotters because they don’t want to become involved in the chasing circus.”

 Some storm chasers argue that image problems originate from news outlets that continue to give a “stamp of approval to imprudent behavior and fail to address the questionable antics, claims and ethics.”

(Dallas-based storm spotter Mike) Powers suggests, “Some chasers have become so popular and protected by the media and their fan bases, they’ve developed a kind of storm chasing immunity, free of any scrutiny or investigative reporting.”

This article is important for spotters, chasers and representatives of news outlets to read. Give it a look!