Did I miss my first tornado?

[Cris Schroeder]

How "violently rotating" does a rotating cloud mass have to be to meet the definition of a tornado? Looking at it another way, is it possible to have a very small rotating wall cloud that is nearly in contact with the ground?

I was reviewing my dashcam video from last Saturday's chase and noticed an interesting feature I previously missed. After looking closely at the video I'm wondering if I missed my first tornado. I was parked facing north on US 81 about three miles north of South Haven, KS last Saturday evening (about 6:30 local). While looking east at this:

I caught this on video to the north with the dashcam. Look just to the right of the tree on the right-hand side of the road. You will see a rotating condensation feature appear, and then dissipate. Towards the end of the clip, a similar feature appears. The rotation and upward motion is quite evident, even though the video quality isn't that great (even worse on YouTube).

The clip is sped up significantly (almost 20:1). The rotation isn't nearly as obvious at normal speed. I scanned this area visually at the time and didn't notice anything ominous.

I can't tell if these were brief tornado spin-ups, a very low, ragged wall cloud forming, or just some interesting scud. I am going to feel like a real idiot if it turns out I had my back turned to my first tornado.

 

[Joey Ketcham]

Eh?

It doesn't matter how violent the rotation is, if the circulation is on the ground then it is a tornado. If it's not, then it's not a tornado. Simple as that.

 

[Jeff Richardson]

From what I could tell, it looked like some low scud and perhaps some weak rotation. There have been many times that I've seen tornadoes that would have passed unnoticed if it weren't for a brief spin-up lasting maybe 30 seconds or less. Two of those tornadoes occurred under a near 'ground-level' meso, i.e. the meso/wall cloud was only a few hundred few above ground level. In situations like that, it can be very difficult to spot a brief spin-up, even in flat terrain. You might have something there in your video, but the season is still young. Don't give up yet.

 

[Dave Kaplow]

Eh?

It doesn't matter how violent the rotation is, if the circulation is on the ground then it is a tornado. If it's not, then it's not a tornado. Simple as that.

I think Cris is referring to the usual definition of a tornado which typically uses the phrase "violently rotating column of air". How do you define violent?

Many years ago on a local chase I saw a finger of condensation clearly touching the ground, but it didn't seem to be rotating at all. However, as I watched it, it began to slowly rotate cyclonically, almost imperceptibly at first, but it kept speeding up and quite soon it looked in every respect just like a small tornado, spinning quite fast before I lost it in the rain. So at what point did this feature become a tornado - my first, if tornado it was? You can drive yourself nuts with these kinds of questions. The real solution is to see an absolutely unequivocal unambiguous tube. You'll sleep better at night once you do.

The first feature in the video looks very like a tornado to me, but I would like to see it as it looked in real time before making a judgment, since the time lapse view can be deceiving. The second feature at the end of the video looked more like outflow or RFD kicking up dust and causing some condensation, and I feel more confident saying that it was probably not a tornado. But it's interesting and rather suspicious that both these features occurred in the exact same place.

 

[Shane Adams]

Eh?

It doesn't matter how violent the rotation is, if the circulation is on the ground then it is a tornado. If it's not, then it's not a tornado. Simple as that.

Exactly. It's amazing how many people still don't get it.

It's not if you can take a picture of it, or see full condensation, or if it's violent. It just has to spin. If a ****ty-looking car rolls up that's not visually-pleasing, you can't say "that's not a car". Same thing applies to tornadoes.

This topic just makes me want to slap people sometimes.

 

[John Wetter]

Here's my rule: If you need to point it out, it's not a tornado.

I agree with Shane's last sentence.

 

[Skip Talbot]

I am going to feel like a real idiot if it turns out I had my back turned to my first tornado.

Don't feel like an idiot. Ultimately its your call on what you saw as you were there (or present with your back turned). However, from what I can gather in the video it appears to be ground level scud. I don't see much of a storm base above the feature, as it looks rather outflowish. Low level scud is really common once storms start to go outflow dominant because the environment has been saturated with rain cooled air.

I believe that your first tornado should be a special occasion. Anyone who pours a significant amount of their time and passion into this hobby should be able to look back fondly and definitively on their first catch. Lots of beginning chasers are overly anxious about seeing a tornado, but I think it will be much more memorable and rewarding for you if you wait until you can point while your chasing and say, "that is a definitely a tornado."

 

[Dave Kaplow]

Don't feel like an idiot. Ultimately its your call...

...I believe that your first tornado should be a special occasion. Anyone who pours a significant amount of their time and passion into this hobby should be able to look back fondly and definitively on their first catch. Lots of beginning chasers are overly anxious about seeing a tornado, but I think it will be much more memorable and rewarding for you if you wait until you can point while your chasing and say, "that is a definitely a tornado."

This is very good advice and basically what I was trying to say with my little anecdote about the weird non-rotating then rotating thingy. In the end I never claimed to anyone that the feature I had seen was a tornado. Instead I called it a funnel, which in retrospect was rather stupid because it definitely didn't fit the definition of a funnel cloud, being in contact with the ground from the start... I was pretty ignorant back then, and knew very little about the technical criteria for tornadoes and supercells. But one thing I knew for sure was that I would never get much satisfaction out of claiming to have seen a tornado that I myself still had some small doubts about. You may or may not have a "technically it's a tornado" on that video, but someday soon you will see one that NOBODY can doubt, and that's when the real satisfaction will kick in.

 

[Cris Schroeder]

Exactly. It's amazing how many people still don't get it.

It's not if you can take a picture of it, or see full condensation, or if it's violent. It just has to spin. If a ****ty-looking car rolls up that's not visually-pleasing, you can't say "that's not a car". Same thing applies to tornadoes.

This topic just makes me want to slap people sometimes.

Thanks for the moral support. I'll be sure to pass this along to the folks at the NWS so they can update their glossary definition. It still says "Tornado: A violently rotating column of air in contact with the ground and extending from the base of a thunderstorm."

I'll move my weather discussion to the Bar and Grill section next time. It seemed like a reasonable question to me.

 

[Joey Ketcham]

Thanks for the moral support. I'll be sure to pass this along to the folks at the NWS so they can update their glossary definition. It still says "Tornado: A violently rotating column of air in contact with the ground and extending from the base of a thunderstorm."

I'll move my weather discussion to the Bar and Grill section next time. It seemed like a reasonable question to me.

Any tornadic circulation that touches the ground is going to be violent, even the weakest tornado in the EF0 range will cause some damage. You seem to be focusing on the "violently rotating" part a little too much. Again, if the circulation is on the ground it's a tornado. If you have a funnel and directly below on the ground you see debris, it's a tornado. Forget how violently it is rotating.

 

[Robert Dewey]

Exactly. It's amazing how many people still don't get it.

It's not if you can take a picture of it, or see full condensation, or if it's violent. It just has to spin. If a ****ty-looking car rolls up that's not visually-pleasing, you can't say "that's not a car". Same thing applies to tornadoes.

This topic just makes me want to slap people sometimes.

I don't think it's really all that "amazing" given the semantics involved.

A "violently rotating column of air" is a tornado, but a "violent tornado" is typically EF4 or EF5 (SPC/NWS usage). I understand that the first definition is defining structure, while the second definition is defining damage... but I can also see where people could get confused.

 

[Melissa Jablonski]

Cris, Don't let anything about this discourage you. I saw my first tornado 44 years ago. When you see it there will be no doubt . You will never forget the first touch down ,and all the wondering will be over.
Melissa