10/22/10 DISC: KS

[Scott Hammel]

Hello all, I chased October 22nd in W KS with Dann Cianca and we jumped on a cell that formed right near Garden City. Though it was never warned, we did notice a few interesting features on the cell. It eventually had a lowering on it that appeared to have some rotation in it. Contrast wasn't great, but we did report it as a wall cloud on SN. We took a few pictures and eventually chased it back N to WaKeeney before letting it go. Anyway, below is a picture I took of the aforementioned wall cloud with what looks like a funnel in it. I did an enhancement of the photo and noticed what looks like a ground circulation below it.

Original:

larger view here

Enhanced:

larger view here

Anyway, just thought I'd seek some other opinions. Fun chase day even though it didn't produce much!

 

[Steve Worthington]

That is not a tornado. We were under it till it crossed the road then followed it all the way past I-70. It did have weak anticyclonic rotation as it crossed Hwy 23 but nothing to jump around about.

This is what it looked like a few hours later north of I-70 right before it went SRV.

 

[Kelly Sugden]

I followed the storm from Garden City to Dighton. Saw a lowering at one point but I won't call it a wall cloud. Radar just showed some 2D shear.

 

[Dann Cianca]

That is not a tornado. We were under it till it crossed the road then followed it all the way past I-70. It did have weak anticyclonic rotation as it crossed Hwy 23 but nothing to jump around about.

Dear Steve:
1) You were not under the storm when this photo was taken as your Spotter Network icon was along the highway, at least ten miles to our north at the time. We were much closer to this feature than you were and at the time, it was 6-7 miles to our west.

2) This entire storm was rotating cyclonically and exhibited at least two cyclonic wall clouds before it crossed 23. In fact, it had another wall cloud on it right after it passed 23 and we were only a mile away from you as you were parked along the side of the road with Randall F. Cooper. (sorry you missed that too, apparently) The picture above is from the first wall cloud of the storm. We reported the wall cloud on Spotter Network before it crossed 156 and watched it rotating and rapidly pulling in scud. We repositioned a few miles north (just north of 156) and this photo was snapped at about 2102Z.

3) If perhaps your spotter network icon was not reporting the correct position and you did see/were "right under" this feature, I would love to see your photos/video. With that said, it's hard to blatantly say that something is "not a tornado" and assert that the storm at the very most exhibited some sort of anticyclonic rotation when there is clearly a wall cloud with a big cone funnel in the picture. So before you embarrass yourself any further, please understand that the reason for the thread was to gain outside perspective as to whether the brown splotch in the picture could be a ground circulation associated with the funnel cloud.


Here's an enhanced zoom of Scott's photo:

 

[Steve Worthington]

Dear Dann
Being how you want to do it this way, Yes, we were right under it many times and we were only 1 road north of you all when Scott made the report. Apparently you dont have video but yes I do and pictures. If you want to call me out because of your bad report lets see your video first. And apparently I do have pictures of it as it crossed 23 because like you said I was setting under it along with Randall F. Cooper. When you made your report we were south of that location and laughing about the SN report. And NO my SN Icon was not reporting my locations all the time as I do turn it off every now and then...lol
BTW Randall F. Cooper`s Icon had him in Dighton when he was parked right beside me....rotflmao So with that all said, show me what you got!
One more thing, I do have video to show anticyclonic rotation from my location on Hwy 23 where you saw us parked.
Have a nice day now, Bro

One last thing and I`ll shut up.....
THATS NOT A TORNADO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Scott Hammel]

First of all, I'm certainly not claiming this to be a tornado. I just thought it was an interesting photo and was seeking some other opinions. When this feature did emerge, albeit brief, there was cyclonic rotation occurring and we did see scud being pulled up into it, so I made the report on SN which I'm not quite sure why that's laughable? Radar did show a small couplet at that moment too, so again, I was just reporting what I was physically seeing and the radar corroborated it too. Anyway, that wall cloud dissipated and we moved N with the storm where it became very outflow-ish and yes, did exhibit anticlyclonic rotation at times. I think the point was that, at the moment the pic was taken other chasers on the storm were well N and might not have had a good perspective of it so I was hoping for some outside opinions, not just "since I didn't see it, it didn't happen." I do have video but the contrast isn't great much like in the original un-enhanced photo. Regardless, it's really not that big of a deal to me either way. Sorry for the trouble.

 

[Mark Blue]

Since you asked for an opinion I'll give you mine Scott. There definitely appears to be a funnel cloud in the photo IMO. I also see what you are saying about the swirl at the ground, but it's really hard to tell for sure whether that's actually occurring in the photo.

As far as other chasers sitting along the countryside and laughing at reports that another chaser made via SN, that's just not cool in my opinion no matter how you slice it. Living in the same city as you and Dann I've heard through the grapevine that you guys are serious about your storm chasing, so that's all that matters. I hope to meet you guys out in the field some day.

 

[Steve Worthington]

Dear Steve:

3) If perhaps your spotter network icon was not reporting the correct position and you did see/were "right under" this feature, I would love to see your photos/video. With that said, it's hard to blatantly say that something is "not a tornado" and assert that the storm at the very most exhibited some sort of anticyclonic rotation when there is clearly a wall cloud with a big cone funnel in the picture. So before you embarrass yourself any further

Scott you asked, guess you should have ask for opinions from people who weren't there. We were north on a dirt road looking in to the scud/lowing/wall or what ever and it was in an M shape from the north east. From your picture you couldn't see what was going on behind the lowering/wall cloud or what ever you want to call it. We had a clear view of the "wall cloud with fingers" that was reported. No we were not 10 miles north of it. We have moved south to get a better look before returning to hwy23 and parking. I made a trip around the south side of the storm on 156 then north on 23 to the east side of it, then back south because the cloud caught my eye. Then we went back north to where we followed the storm on a east dirt/mud road.
I didn't post to pick crap with you or Dann, just to point out that it is and was not a tornado with debris. Your buddy Dann was the one wanting to fling poo (for a lack of a better word) calling me "Home Boy" was the strike of the match. If you have ground circulation/debris you have a tornado. You don't need a condensation funnel to call it a tornado. Sometimes you have to move to another position to make sure you see what you think you see thus why we did just that. Getting a side view is not always the best position, sometimes you have to be in the path to get a clear view of what your seeing.

But hey, what do I know, I`m not from CO. J/K

 

[Randall Cooper]

In fact, it had another wall cloud on it right after it passed 23 and we were only a mile away from you as you were parked along the side of the road with Randall F. Cooper. (sorry you missed that too, apparently)

Not sure why you felt it necessary to take a punch at me Dann, but apparently you did. And I wasnt gonna get involved in this, but now I have no other choice. Like Steve has already pointed out. We were closer to it than you were. In fact, we were right under it at the time of your report. No it was not a tornado, in fact there was no ground circulation whatsoever. Im not even sure it was a wall cloud. It was a very interesting feature, but thats all it was. Thats the bottom line.

 

[Scott Hammel]

Steve I'm glad you chimed in and voiced your opinion because you are right, that's what I asked for. Next time however, I'd suggest a less condescending, sarcastic tone. It's kind of a respect thing that adults like to practice. Great, now I'm being sarcastic. Look what you did to me! Alright, I'm going to let this thread die now. It's not a wall cloud, it never was a wall cloud, it couldn't possibly have been a wall cloud, and people from CO are dumb. Okay, I got it.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

Moderator Note​

We temporarily locked this thread as the tone of recent posts led us to believe this thread is teetering on the edge of becoming a flame war. After discussion we have decided to reopen the thread but would like to remind everyone that it is an automatic 2-day suspension for participating in a flame war. We encourage healthy and spirited debates, but it must remain civil at all times. Please keep the tone of all future posts civil and refrain from personal attacks. Moderators will be monitoring this thread closely and will have a low threshold of what rises to the level of snark, attack, and/or flaming with all future posts.

 

[Dann Cianca]

Dear Dann
Being how you want to do it this way, Yes, we were right under it many times and we were only 1 road north of you all when Scott made the report. Apparently you dont have video but yes I do and pictures. If you want to call me out because of your bad report lets see your video first. And apparently I do have pictures of it as it crossed 23 because like you said I was setting under it along with Randall F. Cooper. When you made your report we were south of that location and laughing about the SN report. And NO my SN Icon was not reporting my locations all the time as I do turn it off every now and then...lol
BTW Randall F. Cooper`s Icon had him in Dighton when he was parked right beside me....rotflmao So with that all said, show me what you got!
One more thing, I do have video to show anticyclonic rotation from my location on Hwy 23 where you saw us parked.
Have a nice day now, Bro

One last thing and I`ll shut up.....
THATS NOT A TORNADO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scott you asked, guess you should have ask for opinions from people who weren't there. We were north on a dirt road looking in to the scud/lowing/wall or what ever and it was in an M shape from the north east. From your picture you couldn't see what was going on behind the lowering/wall cloud or what ever you want to call it. We had a clear view of the "wall cloud with fingers" that was reported. No we were not 10 miles north of it. We have moved south to get a better look before returning to hwy23 and parking. I made a trip around the south side of the storm on 156 then north on 23 to the east side of it, then back south because the cloud caught my eye. Then we went back north to where we followed the storm on a east dirt/mud road.
I didn't post to pick crap with you or Dann, just to point out that it is and was not a tornado with debris. Your buddy Dann was the one wanting to fling poo (for a lack of a better word) calling me "Home Boy" was the strike of the match. If you have ground circulation/debris you have a tornado. You don't need a condensation funnel to call it a tornado. Sometimes you have to move to another position to make sure you see what you think you see thus why we did just that. Getting a side view is not always the best position, sometimes you have to be in the path to get a clear view of what your seeing.

But hey, what do I know, I`m not from CO. J/K

All right, Steve! Sorry about the "homeboy" comment earlier, I was just trying to be funny. I'll try to be civil here to not arouse the ire of the moderation team.

Please don't act victimized here as your original post was an uninformed and unsupported denial and not in context to the original purpose of the post. My choice to do things "that way" was based on that.

After reading your replies, it is obvious that you did not bother to read what I originally wrote as your facts are still not straight. I will try and help you here by responding to what you said and clarifying things such that there is no more confusion.

First, and most importantly: The video you posted and anticyclonic circulation you spoke of occurred a full thirty minutes AFTER (or approximately 2130Z) the image that Scott posted (which was at 2100Z), so please do not confuse the two events. I will comment on your video and that time period later.

Secondly, we were quite a way behind you when the first strong cell formed, which you and other chasers followed up 23. By the time we passed through Garden City, we elected to stay on a new cell which was just popping up south of Garden City and which would pass 156 about 10 miles west of GC. We passed through its weak core and stopped at the 23/156 junction. At the time, you were still quite a bit north of us. We watched as the cell weakly organized and a lowering began to form. (2041Z). By 2053Z, the wall cloud began to form. Though it was low-contrast, we observed cyclonic rotation and rapidly rising scud with hangy-downies. We packed up and began to head north, which is when I posted the SN report (Scott was driving). The wall cloud was still visible at the time, though the location and timing of the initial report should have been from our location south of the highway (I remember that it showed up a mile or so north as we were on the move at the time). We stopped a few miles north and Scott snapped the picture in question right as we got out of the car. (2100Z) That is where we saw the funnel. We watched as this slowly dissipated and was completely gone by 2110Z.

At this point, the storm was in outflow mode for about fifteen more minutes. We stopped a few miles south of the county line at 2120Z and watched the RFD kick around significantly. There was a good deal of shelving at the time. Considering the wind profile, the inflow wind ran perpendicular to the RFD winds and the shelf suddenly stalled over the highway. We noted cyclonic circulation on the north side of the shelf as it began to wrap back into the skinny, N-S oriented base. At this point, another wall cloud began to form at that location, so we got back in the car and headed north.

Queue your video! This is where it begins!

As we headed north, we passed you and Randall (you were parked less than a mile south of the county line) at 0:18 in your video or at 2128Z. In the video, I can see the anti-cyclonic circulation on the south end of the RFD front (which for some reason, you think that I disputed and if you reread what I wrote, you will realize that I did not). It also shows the wall on the north side, which you claim wasn't there (you even zoomed in on it). We were past you at this point and almost under the feature and I can assure you, it was rotating cyclonically. (which you dispute)

Thus far, you have offered no photo or video evidence (and your locational evidence was "SN Icon was not reporting my locations all the time as I do turn it off every now and then...lol " at the time of the photo in question. Your descriptions and arguments do not have any relevance to the time in question either, so I find your comments on the photo invalid and unsupported. You stated that you do have photos and video of the event (which was not produced in your replies), so I am eager to see them. We have already shown the picture of the time in question, which I will reiterate was taken at 2100Z.

If you would like to argue points on features later on in the storm's life cycle, then let me know as I do have more pictures. (which I will include in my full report which should appear on my blog in the next few days). But again, the entire purpose of the post was the event that occurred at 2100Z and not the events that occurred a half hour later.

"If you have ground circulation/debris you have a tornado. You don't need a condensation funnel to call it a tornado. Sometimes you have to move to another position to make sure you see what you think you see thus why we did just that. Getting a side view is not always the best position, sometimes you have to be in the path to get a clear view of what your [sic] seeing. "

The first two lines of that passage are out of context and I don't know what you are trying to say, if you wouldn't mind clarifying. As for the rest, I appreciate your storm chasing tips. As a degreed meteorologist and 13-year chaser, I still consider myself a student of the weather, so I'll keep them in mind. And the truth is, we had a low-contrast view of that first feature! It wasn't until we looked at the photo that we saw the "brown splotch". I remain unconvinced. I mean, I know what it *looks* like, but I don't think with only one photo (which was taken about 30 seconds before we set up our video cameras) that it can definitively prove that there was a tornado present. I know I sound like a broken record here, but Scott posted the picture to get objective opinions on what was in the photo. Note: The funnel cloud in the photo should be good enough proof that there was cyclonic rotation, n'est-ce pas?

Your initial response "That is not a tornado" was not supported at all by any of the arguments or video that you provided and thus should be deemed invalid unless you have more to share.

Not sure why you felt it necessary to take a punch at me Dann, but apparently you did. And I wasnt gonna get involved in this, but now I have no other choice. Like Steve has already pointed out. We were closer to it than you were. In fact, we were right under it at the time of your report. No it was not a tornado, in fact there was no ground circulation whatsoever. Im not even sure it was a wall cloud. It was a very interesting feature, but thats all it was. Thats the bottom line.

Randy, sorry for the poor wording there... it was not aimed at you. I was pointing out that Steve also missed the wall cloud we were watching while he was parked alongside the road with you. I was wondering why that post disappeared on FB. Thought it was all messed up!

I still must dispute your claim that you were right under the feature when the photo was taken. You would have either had to pass us on the highway (which you did not) or drive 80mph on wet, dirt roads to circumvent us to be where you were when we passed you on the highway. You and Steve were north of us throughout the early lifecycle of the storm. Just wanted to clear that up.



Phew! ... and to think, I could have been spending this time processing my photos and writing up my report! Lol.

 

[Steve Worthington]

Dann
For the last time, Randy and I were SOUTH of my Icon location on a East/West dirt road when you made the report. I really dont think I missed anything and I dont care that you are a degreed meteorologist and 13-year chaser. I`m not a meteorologist but I have been chasing storms for more then 13 years. Like I said "we were south of my Icon location on a dirt road in the path of your tornado looking at it cause it caught our eye. We were closer to it than you think and or you were. You call it a tornado and I`m gonna call it ummmm scud nado and we`ll just leave it at that. My initial response was Show me your video first and I`ll show you mine" I have video of our complete chase day as that was just a short clip of the anticyclonic rotation we saw when we returned to hwy 23. I`m going to say we were parked there maybe 15 minutes and then went north 1 mile and then east. Your claims should be deemed invalid unless you have a video to prove your claim of this tornado. Like I posted before "the lowering looked like a BIG M when in the path of it". If you were not in the path you only got a side view. Scott is not even claiming it to be a tornado but you are?

 

[Scott Hammel]

I doubt this will really clear any of the confusion up in this thread, but here is my video time lapsed of the feature. Also, it's pretty low contrast and as Dann noted in his previous response, we didn't even notice the "brown splotch" until the next day when we were going through photo's. Anyway, here it is.

This was shot at 2109Z. I still think the confusion here is an issue of time. The video Steve posted was NOT of the feature we were looking at and made a report on. Steve's video shows us driving by which was probably a good 10-15 minutes after we observed whatever it was that we saw. Dann's post does an excellent job laying out the timeframe of everything. So anyway, I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree even though Dann and I aren't necessarily in disagreement with Steve to begin with. Steve, I kind of get the feeling you think we are at home marking up our 'tornado statistic counter' which isn't the case at all. In fact both of us have stated multiple times in this thread that what we saw was an interesting feature but not conclusively a tornado. I would love to see your video at the same time of the same feature if you have a different perspective. That could really help with some clarity.

 

[Jesse Risley]

This thread is being locked, as the discussion is progressing into a circuitous argument that, at times, doesn't even pertain to the original nature of the event and/or contains what appear to be thinly obfuscated snarks.

Those parties that wish to continue discussion about what the "brown splotch" might have been are encouraged to do so either via PM or another off-site venue, as future posts on Stormtrack remain servile to our rules regarding disruptive, abrasive or otherwise off-topic elucidations.

As a reminder for future threads:

(3) Prohibited content. Users may NOT post the following:
* Noise: posts containing only exclamations, salutations, witticisms, or personal anecdote (e.g. "I sure hope we get a storm. Bye!");
* Content containing no information relevant to the topic.
* Non-weather content, including complaints about others posts. Use the "Report this post" feature at the top of a post to complain about improper content. We welcome suggestions but these should be made elsewhere (namely at Information Desk).