01-28-06 Kansas First January Tornado: Links to some sites

[mikegeukes]

Couple of news links about the Kansas tornado 1-28-06
http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/2248271.html
http://www.kwch.com/servlet/Satellite?page...d=1137833716780

Local Storm Report: NWS Wichita
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/productview.php?pi...ersion=0&max=51

By the way for Kansas, for January from 1950-2005 there was no tornadoes
ever reported. Kansas 1st January tornado using 1950-2006 data.

Mike

 

[Andy Wehrle]

If the sky was clear, it was a dust devil, not a landspout.

 

[Pat Lawrence]

Originally posted by Andy Wehrle
If the sky was clear, it was a dust devil, not a landspout.

Yes, the report from that second link does sound a bit odd!

Pat

 

[Gabe Garfield]

Originally posted by Andy Wehrle
If the sky was clear, it was a dust devil, not a landspout.

Many, many tornadoes have occurred with blue skies all around except for the funnel aloft. Personally, I'm inclined to believe the report of this being a landspout.

Gabe

 

[Pat Lawrence]

I still have a hard time with the term "clear" being used. Nothing that major I don't suppose..

Pat

 

[nickgrillo]

By the way, for all who don't know.... Those possible tornadoes reported in Harvey county (near Newton) weren't from Scott Curren's supercell... Which was well north of these storms (and before)... I was briefly confusing myself, earlier. Bigtime congrats to Scott for the catch -- I'll do a sfc analysis later tonight.

EDIT: I just did a sfc analysis of 21z... The surface low sits just south of Hastings, with the warm front extending southeast from the low through KTOP (and a cold front arching southwest through central KS with a dryline trailing ahead of the cold front)... Scott's tornado occured just about right on the triple point (with the other possible tornadoes occuring well southward along the dryline). Your typical cold core setting... This also marks (as Mike G already mentioned above) the first Janurary tornado day in KS in recorded history..

 

[rdale]

"Many, many tornadoes have occurred with blue skies all around except for the funnel aloft."

I don't follow... You are saying there's a tornado on the ground with that being the only cloud in the sky?

 

[Bill Tabor]

Originally posted by nickgrillo
By the way, for all who don't know.... Those possible tornadoes reported in Harvey county (near Newton) weren't from Scott Curren's supercell... Which was well north of these storms (and before)... I was briefly confusing myself, earlier. Bigtime congrats to Scott for the catch -- I'll do a sfc analysis later tonight.

I find it impossible to tell from Scott's photos that what he saw was a tornado. I'm not saying he wasn't able to visually tell, but I can't make out even a transparent tube to ground or debris underneath. I even tried zooming in and am using a high definition screen. It is definitely a lowering and probable funnel, but is very distant. Maybe it is easier to see the 'tornado' by actual video in motion as I think these are only grabs

Note also that SPC has no logged tornadoes for Scotts area which is many counties north of Newton.

 

[Andy Wehrle]

Originally posted by rdale
"Many, many tornadoes have occurred with blue skies all around except for the funnel aloft."

I don't follow... You are saying there's a tornado on the ground with that being the only cloud in the sky?

I don't believe Gabe was saying that, Rob. I think he meant like in a case where the funnel extends out behind the parent updraft and the tornado touches ground in a clear area, or where the RFD cuts away the clouds around the top of the funnel. That could have been the case here, but I think the news article could have explained it a little better-their description makes it seem like there was no thunderstorm/convection in the area, which would make a true tornado (landspout or otherwise) impossible.

 

[mikegeukes]

First January tornado since 1950 strikes forecast area
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ict/scripts/viewst...MBER=2006012900

Source: NWS Wichita

Mike

 

[Bill Tabor]

I just watched the Newton video clip and read the news excerpts. This 'tornado' was definitely not a tornado or a landspout. They make a point to say that there was no storm and it was clear, blue skies all around. Here is the most widely accepted definition of what a tornado is:

"Glossary (Glickman 2000):

Tornado -- 1. A violently rotating column of air, in contact with the ground, either pendant from a cumuliform cloud or underneath a cumuliform cloud, and often (but not always) visible as a funnel cloud."

Obviously we as chasers should all know this definition, but some of the posts above apparently do not. Note that there has to be a storm and cloud present and overhead, and preferably connected to the cloud (pendant).

Here is the way I see the Newton event.

1) If there was no storm anywhere nearby it is simply a Dust Devil - a strong one at that, but they can get strong sometimes to do this type of damage.

2) If there was a storm nearby (5 miles or so) and the 'tornado' was associated with the shear interface / turbulence of the storm then it was a Gustnado.

3) If there was a storm (including dark clouds, wind, probably wind/hail) but the tornado was not associated on radar or visually with the rotating inflow of the storm then it was a Landspout.

4) If there was a storm with rotating inflow area (either verified radar or visually) then the storm was a Supercell. The tornado was a supercellular tornado or what we usually and traditionally refer to as a tornado and see most often as chasers.

In my opinion and from what I have read only #3 & #4 definitions are true tornadoes. However there is much debate about #2 Gustnado, and to some degree since it is caused by a storm and can be strong I can see how some call it a true tornado.

#1 Dust Devil is definitely not a tornado of any type; therefore the Newton tornado barring any further evidence was not a tornado at all and should not be logged as such by NWS/SPC IMO.

I think a number of us should email these stations with the proper definitions of tornadoes also so that they can explain to their viewers that this was not a tornado, and educate them as to what is required for a tornado.

 

[Bill Tabor]

Hmm...as soon as I make the statement above, Mike provides a radar showing there was a storm nearby to support the tornado claim. I thought I remembered a storm being in this area yesterday, but I wonder why the media keeps saying no storm was around and it was clear? Quite a contradiction.

Watch the actual video clip (I believe from Mikes first link) (can't use Firefox) and listen to how the media describes the situation and tornado.

Here is a paper I always like that discusses and defines the different types of "tornadoes"
http://www.cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/a_tornado...o/atornado.html

 

[Bill Tabor]

Here's a few excerpts from the KAKE 10 news broadcast to show why it sounded to me like there was no storm:

"tornado comes out of nowhere"

"looked like perfectly good day"

"today there was no thunderstorm at all"


Based on Mike's radar above it appears there was a shower nearby afterall and it could have been any of #1 thru #3 of my definitions above, but I'd say most likely landspout, or gustnado. Probably not a dust devil because it was probably related in some way to storm / precip turbulence - in this case likely outflow boundaries or intersecting / interacting boundaries. Not sure about the landspout. I usually associate landspouts with the FFD (Forward Flank Downdraft) and full connection to a storm. Gustnado fits because it's mechanism isn't directly connected to a storm or the deep moisture convection within. Instead it is a by product of storm inflow / outflow and boundaries.

So, most probable IMO: Gustnado
Possible: Landspout

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Bill,

I do think much of the public would say "out of nowhere" if it isn't rainy or overcast where they are. We all know that supercell tornadoes are associated with the updraft and thus often occur away from the precipitation core. If it's an isolated supercell, and the funnel is tilted, you could be hit by a tornado, look up, and see mostly blue (since the precip and clouds are downwind for your location). I usually don't put a whole lot of stock in public reports since I'm not sure how observant and objective they are when put in a stressful or exciting situation (i.e. reporting an event which most people never see -- a tornado).

 

[Glen Romine]

Certainly the radar showed there was some convection in the area - despite whether folks noticed it or not. The sun probably was shining - it was late in the afternoon, with a low sun angle to the southwest (and there were no clouds that direction). Had they looked toward the northeast - they would have noticed the cloud. Anyhow - hard to convince myself the 'boundary' is evident from the reflectivity image only given by the NWS - but I'll give them the benefit of doubt that they checked velocity data as well. Certainly a dryline was advancing - and there was a dying shower on the southeast flank of another developing shower that could have sent an outflow boundary to intersect with the dryline and become caught up in the updraft - which would likely have been tilted sharply given the strong low-level shear and weak instability. Improbable, yes, but clearly not impossible it was a landspout as advertised.

As for Scott's report - agree there isn't clear photographic evidence it was a tornado in what he showed us, and there wasn't a report in the SPC log - but maybe we should wait for his full story before assuming it wasn't genuine.

Glen

[edit]
Thinking about this event reminds me of a storm I saw near Roswell, NM back in 1999, where the surface tornado contact was well seperated (by several miles) from the parent storm. Here are some pics:

My vid capture from the east looking west:
http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/~romine/gallery/...ather/rosw1.gif

Thom Trimble's much more dramatic view of the same tornado from the southwest looking northeast:
http://tornado.sfsu.edu/geosciences/StormC...dissipation.JPG

Yesterday's tornado may have looked much the same, with a funnel sticking out the side of the convection, not continuous to the ground, and a surface vortex well seperated from the parent storm.

[/edit]