OK. I understand the purpose of the Vortex team. I understand that they are government funded and therefore need to be serious about their research. But come on, does the "leader" need to be [like this]? I like Reed and I like Sean....they're fun and they show us what we want. This other guy is much better suited for research than TV. Arrogance and "Superiority Complexes" are annoying and unproductive.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mod_ivy,
This has been debated alot in other threads, but I generally agree with you allie77cat. This is TV. It should be entertaining.
Josh Wurman has lofty goals to study storms in hopes we can have better warning systems, save lives, yadda yadda... I'm glad he's out there doing noble work. However, that just doesn't really translate to interesting TV. When we watched him "holding court" at his meeting, I reached for the remote. I mean really, whats the different between watching Josh in his radar truck and flipping over the the Weather Channel? Not much.
allie77cat & ttat i think you poeple are for getting that josh wurman is a pain to see out there not working on ideas on getting a storm. I also think the goverment people need to cut the fat ! i would neve belive him if he said a storm was coming at all. he so rude to every one like reed and the others tiv2 i think there called should be goverment backed if the could mount lights and a radar on the tiv2 and go inside the storm'. and get 10x the data like in the movie twister.. agin what i think of josh wurman is hes slowing down the learning of storms he really needs to grow up and stop useing hes goverment word's and grow some guts and get out and work ! did you see when ever one laugh in the show where the tiv2 found a stray dog alone becase of the twister what a lot of crule poeple! any how what you gone do the goverment wont hire but a rich guy that has no team work in minde..
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mod_ivy,
Dude, What exactly was the point of your post?? You might also want to Google Mr. Wurman and read about his accomplishments over the past decade and not rely only on the information that you've seen on TeeVee!
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mod_ivy,
I agree However, a 20 million dollar grant is a serious thing and he needs to put his research well ahead of a television program. If he does not he should not have that grant money. The science must come first.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mod_ivy,
Vortex is 12 million. Money well spent, and Josh can multi task. He's been doing this for years and can deal with TV crews in his face and still do science.
To ilovetv1 Not trying to be rude but since vortex has not made as be as a ding as the smaller people like reed and hes radar i think my taxe money should go to him for hes studys not josh the TIV sure becase you dont know what a imax came can see in the twister. hey dont get me wrong i like the TIV but not with josh the TIV needs to join reed that would help them a lot..
Wurman is a bit of a whiner, but with a 12 million dollar grant on your back you have to show results.
Wurman is a scientist and scientists tend not to make overly entertaining tv, thats why the show needs people like Sean and Reed, Wurman provides the science, and Reed and Sean provide the entertainment, there is definitely room on the show for all of them.
In regards to komottodragon. I think we all saw the episode where Josh clashed with the TIV crew, and upon reflection it was much ado about nothing. Vortex2 is a government funded program and TIV isn't officially part of that program, I don't think Josh was having a go at the TIV crew, he was simply stating how it is to avoid any confusion. If this is the incident you are refering to, then I wouldn't bother extracting it from your video computer box, as we've all seen it.
Vortex 2 provided the government with 10 times the info Reed has.
"The VORTEX2 fleet made tornado science history a couple days ago. We intercepted a tornadic supercell for nearly an hour, deploying mobile radars, sticknets, disdrometers, mobile mesonets, photogrammetry teams, and in situ tornado pods in an amazing integrated array. Integrated data were collected from about 20 minutes before the tornado formed, through its birth, and almost until it died. Never before has a tornado been studied in nearly as much detail."
Seocnd off, it doesn't take a degree to be knowledgeable about the weather and to know whats going on. If I recall correctly, Tim Samaras doesn't have a meteorology degree.
I love the I have proof I just can't show it to you excuse...works really well ...
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mod_ivy,
Originally posted by skywrnchsr509: Vortex 2 provided the government with 10 times the info Reed has.
"The VORTEX2 fleet made tornado science history a couple days ago. We intercepted a tornadic supercell for nearly an hour, deploying mobile radars, sticknets, disdrometers, mobile mesonets, photogrammetry teams, and in situ tornado pods in an amazing integrated array. Integrated data were collected from about 20 minutes before the tornado formed, through its birth, and almost until it died. Never before has a tornado been studied in nearly as much detail."
Seocnd off, it doesn't take a degree to be knowledgeable about the weather and to know whats going on. If I recall correctly, Tim Samaras doesn't have a meteorology degree.
I love the I have proof I just can't show it to you excuse...works really well ...
Vortex 2 also cost more than 10 times as much as Reed's setup, whats your point? do you even have a point as frankly most of your posts seem to be whining about Reed, and to be honest your starting to sound like a whiny 13 year old girl who didn't get the My Little Pony that she wanted.
I think storm chasing is perfectly exemplified by this show... it is about both Adreneline rush junkies (Sean, Reed) and science (Josh)... that is not to say Reed doen't have science behind him... my two cents: Josh doesn't need to be pretentious ... Sean has stuck with him thru 5 seasons of bad decisions... if you don't want to do the show... don't.... It's not entertainment to be rude, your not a Kardashian...
PS... saving puppies is a nice thing I will take that cute puppy from you Sean
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mod_ivy,
Originally posted by skywrnchsr509: @impulse one would in fact think that.
@wingman your kidding me right? lets face facts, you can't defned the post you made in this thread because quite frankly, its indefensible. You called me out as only whining about Reed and went on to tell me that I'm sounding like a whiny 13 year old girl, and yet, when I turn that right around on you and point out that you whine about Josh and Sean, you expect me to refute every point you've made on this board? Nice attempt at a subject change there.
If I sound like a whiny 13 year old girl because I criticize Reed and most of your posts whine about Sean and Josh, guess that makes you a whiny 13 year old girl defending her crush on Reed doesn't it?
By facing facts do you mean accepting your version of events, or actual facts? Nice attempt at body swerving my last post, but it isn't going to work.
Also at what point did I attempt to change the subject? I offered counter points to everything that you said, and I then challenged you to refute the points that I had made at which point you completely failed, so you see its you that is trying to change the subject and avoid the questions.
Also can you possibly point out where you "turned that right around on me" as I'm just not seeing it, at all. Now either make some attempt to refute the points that I've made here, or your simply just whining for the sake of it, which is it going to be?
I don't know why I'm bothering but here we go anyway.
I agree that Josh and Sean were immature to call Reed names, one should be able to make a point without doing so, its just as immature as telling someone they sound like a whiny 13 year old girl who didn't get the my little pony they wanted so your right, I agree that they were wrong to do so, but your logic is faulty, they weren't being petty because Reed achieves his goals, they were being patty because Reed acts very dangerously and gives chasers a bad rep and steals ideas (TIV/radar anyone?)
I never did claim Josh was above criticism. He has messed up on occasion and he does have his troubles. I think anyone on here knows that storm chasing in very dangerous and that anyone, no matter how cautious could get killed. People get killed in tornadoes all the time. However, thats an awful counterpoint to try and claim that Reed's dangerous ways aren't dangerous. Just because an activity is dangerous in and of itself and even cautious people could get killed doing it doesn't justify the need to act rashly and foolishly to make a dangerous situation even more dangerous than it has to be.
how's that for point refuatation??
Now, to answer the rest of your questions, you changed the subject...Your first post in this thread asked me if I had a point and that frankly, most of my posts seemed to be whining about Reed and you then called me a 13 year old girl, since you remember what you post, I'm sure you remember that one too.
I then responded, telling you exactly what my point was, and then when I looked at what you post, you do little more than complain about how Sean and Josh act. In other words, frankly, most of your posts seem like your whining about Josh and Sean. Instead of addressing your whining, you ranted about the validity of your points and demanded I refute them. If you don't see them change of subject in there...I can't help you with that.
Thats also the same place I turned that right around on you. If I'm whining about Reed because of his actions, then your whining about Sean and Josh when you post about their actions. What makes me a whiny 13 year old girl makes you one too.
The only difference is that I'm not the one who thinks Reed's hot
Now try taking your own advice....refute my points Reed.
The reason you bothered to reply is actually quite simple, I pushed your buttons and you responded, its basic psychology 101.
I would argue that Sean and Josh's reasons for the petty swipes at Reed are actually very telling, had they made their point in a more mature fashion I would be inclined to agree with your argument about my logic being faulty, but alas I feel my logic is very much sound here. The evidence suggests that Sean and Josh's issue with Reed is actually more selfish than you would expect, Sean feels that Reed has stolen his idea, and to make matters worse Reed is succeeding in the face of Sean's TIV2 nightmare. Josh on the other hand I think is suffering from some kinda student v master issue, Reed was/is one of his students, and is managing to score a better hit rate than Josh using only a laptop and an iPhone, for a guy with a fairly large ego sitting in a half million dollars worth of DOW truck, that has to hurt at least a little. I would thus argue that your logic is faulty here, as you are failing to recognise fairly basic psychology at play, Sean and Josh are saying one thing, but their actions and the way they carry them out say something very different.
Again I don't really agree with you here, I think when you count the number of times Reed has actually been in genuine danger of dying, then count up the number of times Josh or Tim Samaras have been in similar positions I think you'll be surprised by the numbers. Don't be fooled by Reeds tendency to over exaggerate, put that aside and view the actual evidence and your argument probably doesn't hold up that well. I would even argue that had Tim Samaras or the like done some of the things you criticise Reed for, then you might even have praised them.
As far as point refutation goes it was fairly average to be honest, taking into account I've pushed a lot of peoples buttons over the years, and no offence but some of them had pretty sharp responses.
You'll note that where I've criticised someone I've generally given a valid explanation as to why, I base that criticism on the facts at hand, if people wish to challenge my criticism then I'd welcome that.
At this point I'm guessing people don't often compliment you on your sense of humour, unless they are trying to be sarcastic. The "My Little Pony" comment and likewise the one about Reed being hot, are meant to be humourous, I refuse to believe that you didn't realise this.
In closing I have refuted all of your points and more, a word of advice though you should probably work on your name calling, as calling me Reed is the work of a 13 year old girl with My Little Pony issues...also Reed is hot.
PS. Please don't be offended by my posts, although often serious at times, I'm mostly just passing the time between episodes of Storm Chasers and Star Trek, and for me pushing peoples buttons and engaging in lively debate is a nice way to fill that time, I always type with a smile as these exchanges are for me quite enjoyable. With that in mind don't take my posts so seriously, see them for what they are, button pushing, humour and an avenue for debate.....not always in that order.
Psychology...the science of the mind and human behavior. Psychology can be such a tricky thing. For example, in another thread, a poster said I was angry. They thought from my posts that anger was my state of mind. They were wrong. Thats the downside of internet communications. Your talking to people you don't know a thing about and you put whatever type of emotion behind the voice you wish to see there.
Similar things can be said about TV. Only instead of not being able to hear their voice, you don't get to hear the question or their whole response because of the editting. As has been said on here before, due to the editting, we have no idea if their comments directed at Reed was the entire answer they gave or even what question they were asked. Your trying to make a psychological analysis of both Sean and Josh based off the one-liners that the editting team allowed you to see. Thus, since your basing your data off of incomplete information and are unable to fill in most of the variables, your conclusions, while possibly correct, come with huge margins for error. When attempting to assess one's state of mind and draw a conclusion from it, it is essential to have all the pieces of info, you don't. You can assume your logic is sound all you want, and based off what little data you have, it is sound, but since the data you have is so incomplete its not funny, the odds that your conclusions are correct are slim to none and slim has packed his bags to leave town.
If one were to add up the number of times Josh and Tim purposefully put themselves in a situation like the one's Reed gets into your going to come up with 0. Neither Josh nor Tim wants to be in the life threatening situations that they do get themselves in....Reed is trying to get into those situations. I am not trying to claim that what Tim and Josh do isn't dangerous, the very essence of storm chasing is danger whether its from lightning or the tornado itself....Reed is purposefully trying to be extreme. Thats my point here.
You claim to make criticism based on the facts at hand and offer valid explanations, but what you offer is often times based on many assumptions that you make and that is clearly evidenced here. Your assuming that there is nothing more to what you've heard and happily bounce off to make psychological concusions of people. You may have the facts that are available to us, but we all know that none of us here has all the facts, so any conclusions drawn from those facts are guesses at best.
In conclusion, I'm glad to see that you think that the same points I'm making here are great points and that you agree with a lot of them over in the reed ruins the show thread. I must have explained them better over there or something.
As for my name calling, I fail to see where I called you Reed. I also fail to see where I called you anything directly. I do see where you called me something and, basing your posts on your logic, that you would qualify to be the same thing. You've also called a poster sad, told another poster they needed to get a hobby, and called a bunch of posters whiners...pushing buttons or not, your the one that needs to work on your name calling.
Psychology can indeed be a tricky thing, I have several friends with a range of psychology degrees, but none of them actually has a very good grasp of the subject. Personally even as a young child psychology was something I understood pretty well, and as a result used it quite effectively. I agree that internet communication does lack the ability to accurately convey or perceive an emotional state, but even without a lot of this information their are many other ways to get the same results, you just have to know how. For example I already have a fairly accurate idea of your emotional state in your reply, as I provoked that state, its simple cause and effect with a little deduction thrown in. I find you can learn a lot about someone real fast if you provoke a negative response, people mask emotions easier when being positive, but tend to reveal more when reacting negatively. Likewise a lie often says far more than the truth ever could.
I would agree to an extent about TV and editing often skewing things, as it definitely does. But I don't require anywhere near as much information as you might think to draw an accurate conclusion, most of the variables you speak of are irrelevant, the important factor is how well you can read the information that you do have, it maybe a cliche but there really is a lot of reading to be done between the lines. Based on the data we have my logic is very much sound, and the odds of my conclusions being right are extremely high, the last time I was badly wrong was back in the early 80's and that was simply an error of judgement and I was 5 years old.
One could argue that Reed is trying to get extreme footage, after all that is what funds his storm chasing, while the others aren't, yet still manage to get themselves into just as much danger. With that in mind does it really matter how you go about it if the end result is much the same? For the record I'm not arguing that Reed isn't at the more extreme end of the scale, but I don't see that as automatically being a bad thing, if it wasn't for people pushing the boundaries then tornado knowledge would be pretty thin. For people like Sean and Reed they have been close to tornadoes, the next logical step is to get inside one, the dangers are great, but the avenues for collecting new data are equally great. Sure neither of them might have that as their primary motivation, but it doesn't matter how we get the data just so long as we do.
Props on the psycho analysis there, unfortunately it was wide of the mark by a fair distance. You are assuming that I was assuming and in that regard your assumptions were false. Agreed none of us have all of the facts, but I've already debunked the need for that so wont retread old ground.
To be fair the points I agreed with were and I quote "Obviously Reed is serious about chasing" and "Storm Chasing itself can be fun " those are indeed great points, I probably exaggerated a little by saying a lot, but you posted links and stuff and I got caught up in the moment.
I apologise if I got the wrong end of the stick in regards to you calling me Reed, but you ended your last post which was directed at me with and I again quote "Now try taking your own advice....refute my points Reed." As you can see you do appear to be calling me Reed there. Are you still not getting the humour thing? Really? I also stand by the hobby comment, I don't care what anyone else thinks I thought it was funny, and to be fair quite true. Again with the humour thing, its hard to even consider any of my antics as name calling, unless your extremely thin skinned that is, the subtle distinction between humorous button pushing and name calling is obviously lost here.
Wall of text wars FTW, petty name calling is much quicker, but lacks the sheer boredom factor of a good wall of text.
TO Wingman s How can i belive you about the Vortex2 team do you work for them? And 2nd why is it pure nonsense that that a little group like reed or TIV can make a bigger ding then your beloved vortex team ?????
and there it is...I hate typos....that should have been refute my point ON Reed.
I think Kommoto probably wants to point his questions at me and not wingman seeing as I was the one that answered him.
That answer is simple, go look them up. There are youtube clips and explanations and a whole variety of other info on what they accomplished and what they hope to accomplish next year (project was so sucessful it got extended)
No, I don't work with them, wish I did.
As for why a small group will never contribute as much as a vortex, its a simple matter of numbers. A small group would literally need a huge breakthrough in some aspect of tornado research in order to compete with the huge quantities of data a group the size of vortex brings in. Its 1 against 45 and if you assume that both groups are doing the same research (probes radar et al) then a group like ?Vortex will out radar, out probe, out sticknet, and just out equipment any small group to death.
Research is all about information, the more of it you have, the better off you are. Vortex can get 11 DOWs and a whole host of other instruments on any one storm, while a small group has a few probes and in some cases their own radar. Its just a matter of numbers and Vortex wins that hands down.
Originally posted by skywrnchsr509: and there it is...I hate typos....that should have been refute my point ON Reed.
I think Kommoto probably wants to point his questions at me and not wingman seeing as I was the one that answered him.
That answer is simple, go look them up. There are youtube clips and explanations and a whole variety of other info on what they accomplished and what they hope to accomplish next year (project was so sucessful it got extended)
No, I don't work with them, wish I did.
As for why a small group will never contribute as much as a vortex, its a simple matter of numbers. A small group would literally need a huge breakthrough in some aspect of tornado research in order to compete with the huge quantities of data a group the size of vortex brings in. Its 1 against 45 and if you assume that both groups are doing the same research (probes radar et al) then a group like ?Vortex will out radar, out probe, out sticknet, and just out equipment any small group to death.
Research is all about information, the more of it you have, the better off you are. Vortex can get 11 DOWs and a whole host of other instruments on any one storm, while a small group has a few probes and in some cases their own radar. Its just a matter of numbers and Vortex wins that hands down.
Ah that makes much more sense, to be fair I probably should have spotted the typo, but no harm done. Thanks also for ending the wall of text war, it was getting a little silly, most of the silly being me....ok maybe all of it but who's counting.
As to the other points, I would agree. The sheer amount of hardware that Votex2 can bring to bear is impressive, and should yield a substantial amount of data. The little guy still makes a difference though, and can often fill in some of the smaller gaps, I hasten to use Reed as an example here, but his radar data could be quite interesting. Obviously a single radar isn't going to build as big a picture as 11 and a whole host of other stuff, but it might add something to the bigger picture as it were.
Originally posted by komottodragon: TO Wingman s How can i belive you about the Vortex2 team do you work for them? And 2nd why is it pure nonsense that that a little group like reed or TIV can make a bigger ding then your beloved vortex team ?????
A little group cannot compete with a large group like Vortex2 based on the scope of operations.
It's just impossible for one entity to be in 40 places at once.
Vortex2 got some VERY valuable data this past season. They did an in depth scan from several angles of 2 similar storms. One did not produce a tornado, the other did. What was the difference? Perhaps an in depth analysis of their data may give a hint. A hint they can test this coming season when the program continues. A hint that may give the people living in the path of a storm a way to know if they are about to face a tornado or not. It is good solid science like this that will prevent the death toll from being what it was back in the Big Outbreak of the 70's. The radar of that era did not allow a good enough look into a storm to predict tornado activity, or the knowledge to tell people to take shelter in time. Twice I have had multiple tornadoes in my CITY. Twice we NEEDED the warnings. In '08 we lost 8 people when 3 tornadoes hit. This past year 2 were In Town!! Nobody died. Nobody was hurt. Thanks to early warning.
As for the chasers like Reed- Early storm chasers provided the first recordings of tornadoes (right after the first Super8 movie cameras were available to the public)which gave weather scientists their first objective views of the twisters. Before that, they had had to rely on the verbal accounts of the survivors. Individual chasers like Reed won't be able to cover their storms in the detail that a huge Vortex2 crew can, but they can still come up with vital pieces of the puzzle, pieces the large teams may decide to try to duplicate in more depth. In astronomy, knowledgeable amateurs find things that the professionals then track and verify. I would expect the same to be true with storm chasing.
