Storm Chasing and Media Coverage Ethics

[Cory]

The accusation of hypocrisy was totally misplaced. There is a valid ethical issue in ultra extreme storm chasing that this situation has demonstrated that no number of chaser cliches is going to stifle.

And let me make it clear-- I think experienced chasers should play an important role, but I think they probably need to be more functional than thrill seekers with met gear and cameras if they're going to fly into a situation like this. Training in disaster triage would have made them a real asset on the ground and not liabilities to the real rescue effort.

 

If people are going to sit here and criticize someone for not helping more, while not helping anyone themselves, they're hypocrites. Josh and the others saved the lives of people in that hotel. The rest of us in this thread saved no one. 

 

Again, look at the picture of the inside of the C-130. They have enough room in there to put on a circus show. We should probably find out from Josh why that's the case before jumping all over them for stealing resources from those in need....AKA getting a ride on a half empty plane. 

[ncforecaster89]

Are we still trying to promote the idea that the strongest motivation for making this chase wasn't fueled by the innate desire to experience the storm itself? I hope not.

Hopefully, we can as a chase Community committ ourselves to participate more helping in the aftermath of the areas where we document the storm. In my own humble opinion, that's the least we can do.

[Ed Lizard]

The chasers didn't make it any worse for the locals, helped where they could, and besides providing additional news footage which might trigger charitable giving, will probably donate themselves.

 

And if they aren't trained relief workers or medics, staying behind means being in the way.

 

They put themselves at some risk, but haven't hurt anybody, best I can tell.

[Cory]

Are we still trying to promote the idea that the strongest motivation for making this chase wasn't fueled by the innate desire to experience the storm itself? I hope not.

Hopefully, we can as a chase Community committ ourselves to participate more helping in the aftermath of the areas where we document the storm. In my own humble opinion, that's the least we can do.

 

Josh has always stated that he chases cyclones for the thrill of it and to get video of them. He has never tried to wrap any of it in glittery bull**** scientific/humanitarian packaging. 

[SmokeEater]

I don't have a dog in this fight one way or another, but can another thread be made so this one isn't full of page after page of arguing over ethics please?

Why, so this discussion can be marginalized and people can persist in their mythology and ignore any actual discussion of chasing outcomes? No thanks, leave it right here. Sorry if they can't handle it.

That's fine, muck up a thread about a historic Super Typhoon with the same ethics argument we hear after every single hurricane, tornado outbreak, etc. By all means, carry on.

[gymengineer]

That's fine, muck up a thread about a historic Super Typhoon with the same ethics argument we hear after every single hurricane, tornado outbreak, etc. By all means, carry on.

I don't think these ethics arguments are the same year-after-year. They evolve in reaction to what actually happens in extreme events. Certainly, the chaser deaths earlier this year expanded/shifted some of the parameters of the discussion about chasing tornadoes. 

[Cory]

I don't think these ethics arguments are the same year-after-year. They evolve in reaction to what actually happens in extreme events. Certainly, the chaser deaths earlier this year expanded/shifted some of the parameters of the discussion about chasing tornadoes. 

 

No, they're the same. It's totally predictable...the only thing we're lacking is the lecturing from people who love blizzards but claim it's okay to "root for them" because they don't kill as many people as tropical cyclones. Hopefully we can get that cerebral topic fired up later on. 

[WNash]

Are we still trying to promote the idea that the strongest motivation for making this chase wasn't fueled by the innate desire to experience the storm itself? I hope not.

Hopefully, we can as a chase Community committ ourselves to participate more helping in the aftermath of the areas where we document the storm. In my own humble opinion, that's the least we can do.

Yeah, I do think we have a weird take in it and no small amount of egoism and thrill seeking. I don't hear cancer researchers describing a tumor as "hawt" and rationalizing their language as saying "it was there anyway, there's nothing I could do about it, I'm just studying it and what I say about it doesn't matter." (A cancer researcher called me out on this actually, so I'm talking from experience.) We get very very defensive about this and we are insensitive about how it looks, but step outside the excitement and it actually does look bad from the outside. Shall we not circle the wagons AGAIN?

And I'm someone who sees incredible value in the work that real chasers like Josh do. But there is a bigger picture here that the usual cliches just don't account for. Do they really offer enough to justify an added burden in extreme cases like this? Can they KNOW in all cases that they will offer more than it will take to rescue them, and if the scale is against them, do they have capacity to opt out?

[ncforecaster89]

Josh has always stated that he chases cyclones for the thrill of it and to get video of them. He has never tried to wrap any of it in glittery bull**** scientific/humanitarian packaging.

That's all I am objectively stating as well, and you are virtually the only one who has acknowledged this reality. As a fellow chaser, and someone who would've chased it myself, I'm not criticizing him for making the trip, obviously. I was simply defending the unfair judgments being directed towards Tulliox, which I felt were unfair.

[Ian]

To me, the ethical question comes down to this: Should you go on a chase where's there a likelihood that you would need to be rescued/evacuated by outside assistance after the storm is over? 

 

I have an opinion. What do the rest of you think?

It's fortunate that hurricane chasing is like 100 fold less popular than tornado chasing.  Or this question would have serious importance.

 

Flip of that coin.. those 4 dudes are now serious legends in the weather community.  Josh might forget about us and never see the back and forth here.

[JoMo]

I'm a little confused on what the 'debate' is about.... If people want to put themselves in front of a hurricane/tornado for thrills, so what? Personally, I'm not going to do such a thing and I think it's a little foolish but I'm in no position to tell others what to do with their lives. 

 

As far as them leaving... They probably made the right choice. I can't imagine being an American right after a natural disaster in another country without some sort of protection. They could have been targeted by a number of groups. I'm also unsure of any search and rescue or medical training they may have had as well.

 

Remembering back to the Joplin tornado. People got mad at all the people who treated the scene like it was an amusement park drive-thru ride. Right after the tornado, many of the roads became clogged due to people coming from outside communities to look at all the damage and to take pictures/video of the area. The people didn't stop to help or stop to check on people, they only wanted to look. It would have been best if those people would have left the area. 

[Mallow]

It's fortunate that hurricane chasing is like 100 fold less popular than tornado chasing.  Or this question would have serious importance.

 

Flip of that coin.. those 4 dudes are now serious legends in the weather community.  Josh might forget about us and never see the back and forth here.

 

I know you said it in jest, but I'd like to make it perfectly clear to others that Josh's aim in chasing is not to become a "legend". He'll be back on here when he can.

[WNash]

I'm a little confused on what the 'debate' is about.... If people want to put themselves in front of a hurricane/tornado for thrills, so what?

Well, one pole of the debate is whether chasers are "disaster tourists" who consume resources needed by those who require them to survive, and needlessly obstruct real rescue and relief efforts. Another pole of the debate is that they are putting themselves at great risk by volunteering to provide unique, valuable scientific data about cyclones that no one else can obtain, and this is worth the public efforts it may take to help them in a contingency.

[RutgersWx92]

Well, one pole of the debate is whether chasers are "disaster tourists" who consume resources needed by those who require them to survive, and needlessly obstruct real rescue and relief efforts. Another pole of the debate is that they are putting themselves at great risk by volunteering to provide unique, valuable scientific data about cyclones that no one else can obtain, and this is worth the public efforts it may take to help them in a contingency.

Not to mention they actually saved people from drowning?  That alone should make any efforts to help them well worth it, forgetting even the valuable scientific data they provide as well (which it sounds like there is a lack of in that area).

[jbcmh81]

I assume all the people who have a problem with chasers don't actually ever watch any of their videos or otherwise support their actions in any way, right? This would include local, state and international news that often directly puts crews in harm's way.  I can't wait for all of you to tell Josh directly what a terrible person he is while you scroll through the latest YouTube video. 

[WNash]

Not to mention they actually saved people from drowning? That alone should make any efforts to help them well worth it, forgetting even the valuable scientific data they provide as well (which it sounds like there is a lack of in that area).

Oh, I agree, I was just trying to establish poles of the debate. I don't think any one here would adhere strictly to one position or the other. For my part, I lean to the "chasers good" side but I think that chasing is one of the ethically most complicated actions that anyone I know actually does-- at least my friends who have to make combat decisions have a command structure, protocol, training and centuries of tradition to fall back upon. I do not envy Josh, and my tornado chasing days ended over two decades ago when I realized I was unprepared to do anything but rubberneck.

[Cold Miser]

Another chasing/weather enthusiast thread being ruined by people missing the bigger picture.

 

Sigh.

What is the "bigger picture"?

Serious questions:

I would like to know what the "scientific data/ research" gathered from this storm, or any other storm while it passes directly overhead  (ground zero) is worth compared to the data gathered from hurricane hunter aircraft or other instruments for hours and days prior to the coming on shore.  Does being at ground zero for a few hours while the storm passes overhead really offer any eye opening revelations?  Does it really matter what the pressure is as the eye passes over a specific urban or other area of land, etc.?  Is this info worth obtaining and for what reasons?

 

 

[Ian]

What is the "bigger picture"?

Serious questions:

I would like to know what the "scientific data/ research" gathered from this storm, or any other storm while it passes directly overhead  (ground zero) is worth compared to the data gathered from hurricane hunter aircraft or other instruments for hours and days prior to the coming on shore.  Does being at ground zero for a few hours while the storm passes overhead really offer any eye opening revelations?  Does it really matter what the pressure is as the eye passes over a specific urban or other area of land, etc.?  Is this info worth obtaining and for what reasons?

 

 

 

I think you're going about it wrong. In a storm like this, given how little sampled it will end up being... anything is better than nothing. There is no option to go back and have hurricane hunter aircraft in there.  It's probably not the best argument that chasing advances science in most cases except on a huge operational project level ... but data is good. I bet very important wx people are already hoping to see it.

[Ed Lizard]

There are almost always a few people in any iCyclone chase thread who claim Josh benefits from the suffering of others.  It comes with the territory.

 

 

Feel bad about the typhoon, donate to a reputable charity, and/or check Tullioz' thread.

 

 

The chasers hurt nobody, and probably didn't divert aid from the locals, and just like those of us who cheered the prospect of, say, the Boxing Day blizzard, we didn't cause the blizzard nor did we add to the suffering of people hard hit.  Ditto the people hoping for action on the tropical threads. 

[Mallow]

What is the "bigger picture"?

Serious questions:

I would like to know what the "scientific data/ research" gathered from this storm, or any other storm while it passes directly overhead  (ground zero) is worth compared to the data gathered from hurricane hunter aircraft or other instruments for hours and days prior to the coming on shore.

 

Generally speaking, ground-based data from a chaser is a lot more valuable because 1. it's generally more accurate and precise, 2. it's a lot less expensive than the hurricane hunter data missions, and 3. hurricane hunters don't always hit a given storm (see this storm, for example).

 

 

Does being at ground zero for a few hours while the storm passes overhead really offer any eye opening revelations?

 

It can, yes. Whether that be re: wind speed, pressure, surge, etc.

 

 

Does it really matter what the pressure is as the eye passes over a specific urban or other area of land, etc.?

 

Yes.

 

 

Is this info worth obtaining and for what reasons?

 

Yes. Model verification, physical insight, and historical record are three that immediately come to mind.

 

[tornadotony]

What is the "bigger picture"?

Serious questions:

I would like to know what the "scientific data/ research" gathered from this storm, or any other storm while it passes directly overhead  (ground zero) is worth compared to the data gathered from hurricane hunter aircraft or other instruments for hours and days prior to the coming on shore.  Does being at ground zero for a few hours while the storm passes overhead really offer any eye opening revelations?  Does it really matter what the pressure is as the eye passes over a specific urban or other area of land, etc.?  Is this info worth obtaining and for what reasons?

 

 

If feasible, the answer is always "yes."

[Cory]

Josh's pressure readings have been used in NHC post storm reports (and he has even been credited), so the claim that he does no science is, on its face, wrong...

 

Correct. Anyone who thinks the measurements are pointless are letting their anus do the talking. The readings he takes are secondary to his main effort, but it is good that he gets them. Some of the storms he has chased ended up landfalling in areas not covered by surface observations, and his Kestrel measurements were the only surface obs available. Luckily the Kestrel 4500 can act sort of like a black box recorder, storing observations regardless of what he's doing. 

[tornadotony]

 

What is the "bigger picture"?

Serious questions:

I would like to know what the "scientific data/ research" gathered from this storm, or any other storm while it passes directly overhead  (ground zero) is worth compared to the data gathered from hurricane hunter aircraft or other instruments for hours and days prior to the coming on shore.

 

Generally speaking, ground-based data from a chaser is a lot more valuable because 1. it's generally more accurate and precise, 2. it's a lot less expensive than the hurricane hunter data missions, and 3. hurricane hunters don't always hit a given storm (see this storm, for example).

 

 

Does being at ground zero for a few hours while the storm passes overhead really offer any eye opening revelations?

 

It can, yes. Whether that be re: wind speed, pressure, surge, etc.

 

 

Does it really matter what the pressure is as the eye passes over a specific urban or other area of land, etc.?

 

Yes.

 

 

Is this info worth obtaining and for what reasons?

 

Yes. Model verification, physical insight, and historical record are three that immediately come to mind.

 

 

Not to mention, especially in the WPac, linking satellite presentation to intensity.

[Cold Miser]

 

What is the "bigger picture"?

Serious questions:

I would like to know what the "scientific data/ research" gathered from this storm, or any other storm while it passes directly overhead  (ground zero) is worth compared to the data gathered from hurricane hunter aircraft or other instruments for hours and days prior to the coming on shore.

 

Generally speaking, ground-based data from a chaser is a lot more valuable because 1. it's generally more accurate and precise, 2. it's a lot less expensive than the hurricane hunter data missions, and 3. hurricane hunters don't always hit a given storm (see this storm, for example).

 

 

Does being at ground zero for a few hours while the storm passes overhead really offer any eye opening revelations?

 

It can, yes. Whether that be re: wind speed, pressure, surge, etc.

 

 

Does it really matter what the pressure is as the eye passes over a specific urban or other area of land, etc.?

 

Yes.

 

 

Is this info worth obtaining and for what reasons?

 

Yes. Model verification, physical insight, and historical record are three that immediately come to mind.

 

 

Makes sense.  I suppose the gathering of information phase in a situation like this is limited in time due to the obvious.  Does the team need to be situated in a certain spot long enough to gather the information needed, or does time in that instance not really matter - meaning any amount of time (short or long) gathering data is worth while, even if the time is cut shorter than expected?

[Mallow]

Makes sense.  I suppose the gathering of information phase in a situation like this is limited in time due to the obvious.  Does the team need to be situated in a certain spot long enough to gather the information needed, or does time in that instance not really matter - meaning any amount of time (short or long) gathering data is worth while, even if the time is cut shorter than expected?

 

Obviously the more data, the better. But the most "important" sector to sample at the surface is probably the core. Getting a cross-section of that is probably the best case scenario.

 

It's quite possible that, even if Josh et al. weren't actively using their instruments, they were still recording data like pressure. So I wouldn't be surprised if we have a full pressure trace when all is said and done.

[WNash]

Can you imagine how much scientists want to see just the surface pressure readings?I don't think that there's any question that the data that Josh collects is important, even if the data collection is a collateral part of his chasing.

[RutgersWx92]

What is the "bigger picture"?

Serious questions:

I would like to know what the "scientific data/ research" gathered from this storm, or any other storm while it passes directly overhead  (ground zero) is worth compared to the data gathered from hurricane hunter aircraft or other instruments for hours and days prior to the coming on shore.  Does being at ground zero for a few hours while the storm passes overhead really offer any eye opening revelations?  Does it really matter what the pressure is as the eye passes over a specific urban or other area of land, etc.?  Is this info worth obtaining and for what reasons?

 

 

You do realize that no hurricane hunter aircraft were flown into this storm, right?  And that the max wind speed and minimum pressure were just estimated by satellite data?

[Cold Miser]

You do realize that no hurricane hunter aircraft were flown into this storm, right?  And that the max wind speed and minimum pressure were just estimated by satellite data?

No.  I did not.  I just assumed it always happened.

[mappy]

Hey, guys--

Not going to delve into this debate-- it bores the daylights out of me. I chase for the thrill first-- because intense cyclones just really excite me in a way I can't describe-- and for data collection second; I'm a serious weather nerd and get excited by sharp pressure dips. When the NHC reassesses a cyclone's intensity because of my data, I get a small thrill from it. It y'all don't like that, I don't know what to tell ya.

This having been said... Yes, I believe we made a difference and saved lives during Haiyan. I didn't go there to help people, but I just instinctively threw my camera down and hugged three absolutely hysterical children to calm them down as the cyclone started really pounding the building. I'm not good with children and I didn't plan to be compassionate-- it was just a human moment. And then when the sh*t really hit the fan and first-floor guests were smashing their windows and screaming for help because their rooms were filling with water and they couldn't open their doors... again, we didn't plan to be helpful or think about it, it was just an instinctual reaction to throw the cameras down and fight like hell through the water to drag them out. I lost that camera-- it floated away in a flower pot as the lobby filled with water, and my fellow chaser, Mark, ripped his leg open-- to the bone-- on a piece of roofing trying to pull a woman out through her window.

I believe our net impact on Tacloban City was positive. The old women, the disabled girl, the mother who we dragged out of windows across the surge on mattresses, the dude in the wheelchair who we dragged up a flight of stairs as windows were blowing out-- they sure seemed appreciative. (The entire next day, victims were treating Mark like a fallen hero-- one even came to our room to give thanks.)

But, again, the ethical discussion is boring to me.

James and I consider this chase the absolute pinnacle of our careers on so many levels and we have no regrets.

Carry on.

Glad you are all ok

[bkviking]

There are almost always a few people in any iCyclone chase thread who claim Josh benefits from the suffering of others. It comes with the territory.

Feel bad about the typhoon, donate to a reputable charity, and/or check Tullioz' thread.

The chasers hurt nobody, and probably didn't divert aid from the locals, and just like those of us who cheered the prospect of, say, the Boxing Day blizzard, we didn't cause the blizzard nor did we add to the suffering of people hard hit. Ditto the people hoping for action on the tropical threads.

Nice summation, especially the often repetitious and tiresome defense weather enthusiasts have to make all the time for chasing or enjoying dangerous weather. As I said earlier, news media is thrown into every dangerous situation all the time but many of the moralists taking shots at Josh have no issue watching 60 Minutes with Lara Logan reporting from Tahir Square. Josh and other top stormchasers are becoming a critical element in storm forecasting and study. Didn't Josh's chase of Jova lead to NWS intensity analysis of that storm? Stormchasers are putting their lives at risk like reporters, and rarely they pay the price like Tim Samaras or Lara Logan. As long as they accept that risk, who are we to judge?