I Saw A Tornado*

[Dann Cianca]

Maybe I'm out of place ... and if so, feel free to put me there, but there's something I need to get off my chest...

Before I moved to Colorado in 2004, I was completely unaware of the "social" aspect of storm chasing. Any chasing that I had done previously in southwestern Montana consisted of me driving outside of the city to intercept an incoming storm and by doing so, having a good view. Following a storm through the mountains is pretty much impossible. Though I spent a lot of time on the internet, all I really knew of the world of storm chasing came from watching television. The only chaser's name that I knew was Warren Faidley ... from his videos I saw on The Weather Channel.

So, over the last few years, I've slowly expanded my chase territory from the areas adjacent Denver to further out into Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. I've spent a lot of time online meeting other chasers (especially here on Storm Track for the last two years). Many of you I've come to respect for your passion and expertise. This goes the same for many chasers I've met locally in Colorado and whom I have befriended.

I can't help but feel a little disheartened this year, though. I know it hasn't been the most ideal year for tornadoes. Sure, there have been a lot of reports and some towns damaged, but it seems like most of the tornado reports here on Storm Track this year (including one which I made on the March 7th day) are of brief spin-ups or gustnadoes or I saw the funnel cloud but couldn't see the ground and I'm relying on someone else's report to of a "spin-up".

I let myself be convinced that what I saw on March 7th was "technically" a tornado, but I wasn't ever really comfortable with that. I've since retracted on this. It listened to others telling me what I saw was a tornado when I knew damn well it was just circumstantial evidence.

Then came March 23rd. We were on that same great supercell that everyone else was. It was like the storm was teasing us all day. We saw a gustnado while it was in Oklahoma and then that amazing wall cloud before it moved past Arkansas City, KS. There were many tornado reports on that storm ... all of them "brief spin-ups" ... well, and one photoshopped tornado later, but that's another pathetic story I'm not going to get into right now.

Thinking back, this year has not been good for photogenic tornadoes. I think the best I've seen is the Saint Jo, Texas one. Correct me if I'm wrong ... I'd love to see some nice, fully condensed ones from this year!

... it just seems like we're counting anything to get our numbers up. The way I look at it, if you see the funnel but can't see the ground (or any debris), YOU CAN'T SEE THE TORNADO. Maybe I'm wrong. If you were to just have your own eyes to go on, would you call in the feature as a funnel or a tornado? But where draw the line? What if you're just looking at the storm from afar ... and there's a tornado reported. Can you see the tornado? Is any dust swirl near the updraft a tornado?

I mean, I know it's tough with the lack of moisture this year ... "fully condensed" is hard to achieve. It's just hard when I see veteran chasers ...people that I really respect, counting anything and everything. I'm not making any specific accusations here and I'm not going to call the chaser police on anyone or tell anyone what they saw or didn't see is or is not a tornado (unless it is shamefully photoshopped) My point is, I think we should personally hold ourselves to higher standards. Arguably, the tornado is the biggest goal of *most* storm chasers. It should mean something. I've only seen one ... and it meant a lot to me. ... and I've been chasing since 1997 ... 53 storm chases, not a record many would be proud of. I just know that if I'm going to tell someone I've seen a tornado, I want to be able to show them documented proof. I'm not trying to sound elitist. I'll be the first to admit that I have a lot to learn about being out, chasing storms. Every time out, it seems like something surprises me and leaves me scratching my head.

There are a lot of new chasers out there this year and they're looking up to some of you as examples of how to do things right. Just keep that in mind.


Next week: Multiple vortex tornadoes and multiple touchdowns from the same tornado cyclone ... count them one or twenty? haha

 

[Derek Weston]

Yeah, people do that.

You didn't see a tornado if you saw a funnel cloud -- that's a funnel with no ground circulation.

And if you saw a gustnado, you saw a gustnado, not a tornado.

It's pretty simple.

 

[Connor McCrorey]

I agree with almost everything you have said here. It irritates me when I see people calling any dust that gets kicked up a tornado. You're also right, in that this has not been a good year for photogenic tornadoes. Possibly the only fully condensed funnel this year was Lone Grove, and that was after dark! The part i disagree with you on, at least to an extent, is where you say, "if you see the funnel but can't see the ground (or any debris), YOU CAN'T SEE THE TORNADO." You have seen my video of the St. Jo tornado I believe. As you can see, I couldn't see the ground. In fact, I didn't even realize that it had been on the ground until a few hours later. But I could see just about the entire condensation funnel, and I counted that as my first tornado.

 

[Jason Boggs]

I agree with what you're saying here Dann. I think storm chasing is unfortunately becoming more of a competition sport than a true hobby. Some will call any kind of spinup a tornado just to say they saw one. Some chasers are not educated enough and truly think that every spinup they see is a tornado. I'll be the first to admit that I have done it in my early days, but education and experience has taught be better.

I may be going a bit overboard when I say this, but I think at least 50% of the chasers nowdays don't have a true passion for weather. They see the shows on tv and want to be recognized and get "famous". These are the types that will call a spinup a tornado just to say they saw a tornado.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

This seems like a bit of semantics. If you see a funnel but not the ground circulation, but it's later shown that the "funnel" was tearing up a subdivision at the time, then you saw a tornado. If you see a large ground circulation directly beneath a spinning meso and it's picking up barns and smashing them over its knee, you're looking at a tornado, even if you don't see a condensation funnel.

Counting tornadoes may or may not be silly. Personally, I don't think it's silly -- most people who play golf keep track of their score, mostly for fun. Caring about how other people count their own tornadoes is definately silly; it's not like there's a competition going on here. The only time that tornadic criteria needs to have increased scrutiny is when the tornado is reported to the weather service or to law enforcement -- or when the data is being used in research. But if you want to personally count a little spinup you saw back on March 7 as a tornado, more power to you. If you don't, then don't.

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

Counting tornadoes may or may not be silly. Personally, I don't think it's silly -- most people who play golf keep track of their score, mostly for fun. Caring about how other people count their own tornadoes is definately silly; it's not like there's a competition going on here. The only time that tornadic criteria needs to have increased scrutiny is when the tornado is reported to the weather service or to law enforcement -- or when the data is being used in research. But if you want to personally count a little spinup you saw back on March 7 as a tornado, more power to you. If you don't, then don't.

Does Photoshopping Tornadoes into pictures count towards your total?

 

[Michael O'Keeffe]

Personally, I don't think it's silly -- most people who play golf keep track of their score, mostly for fun. Caring about how other people count their own tornadoes is definately silly; it's not like there's a competition going on here. The only time that tornadic criteria needs to have increased scrutiny is when the tornado is reported to the weather service or to law enforcement -- or when the data is being used in research. But if you want to personally count a little spinup you saw back on March 7 as a tornado, more power to you. If you don't, then don't.

I agree with Ryan, I count tornadoes for the fun of it. I'm not looking at how many tornadoes Joe Sixpack saw and comparing that on how I'm a better or worse chaser than he is. It is INCREDIBLY difficult to get in the perfect spot everytime. You may be able to see the cone of a tornado, but the debris cloud is blocked by trees, but another chaser was on the other side of the trees and could see the debris swirling underneath, you are looking at the same thing, just because you can't see the bottom doesn't mean it isn't a tornado. It is up to you how you do it, but it isn't worth caring what everyone else is doing, if they want to count all vortices under a massive bowl, who cares, if they count it as a gustnado who cares. I mean I am guilty of this, by counting yesterday's possible tornado as a tornado. That funnel had more rapid rotation than some of the fully condensed legit tornadoes I have seen and I would of have been shocked had it not touched down for at least a few seconds.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Does Photoshopping Tornadoes into pictures count towards your total?

It actually counts double. Triple if you borrow a tornado from someone else's picture.

 

[Laura Duchesne]

IMO, it's still too early to make any criticism about this year's lack of photogenic tornadoes. It's only early April and we are still getting some blasts of cold air and snow. Hopefully the pattern shifts to more seasonal norms in a few weeks! Remember, the peak time is yet to come.

If I see a funnel cloud, I call it a funnel cloud not a tornado. If I see a long funnel but cannot verify if it's on the ground, I say funnel/possible tornado because it's unconfirmed whether it was on the ground or not. If I see a spin up in outflow areas of the storm, I call it a gustnado. If I see a spin up with no visible funnel under a meso/wall cloud it's a tornado. Sure I like to keep stats on my tornado sightings, but do I brag about it? Naw... it's just for fun and personal history more than anything.

I agree with you guys to a point... some may just want to brag and will do anything to up their tornado count, but there are also the ones who will go out chasing just because they saw it on tv or wherever, with a lack of knowledge, but those are the ones that usually will only do it for so long before becoming bored with it.

 

[Connor McCrorey]

I may be going a bit overboard when I say this, but I think at least 50% of the chasers nowdays don't have a true passion for weather. They see the shows on tv and want to be recognized and get "famous". These are the types that will call a spinup a tornado just to say they saw a tornado.

They're out there, but I don't think that it's 50%. Most chasers would probably still do it even if there wasn't any money in it (not that there's that much in the first place). I just think you have to really care about the weather to get involved in chasing in the first place.

Probably a lot less than %50 have a true "passion" for weather. That's a pretty strong word. I know I have a passion for weather/storms/tornadoes, and many chasers do, but there's probably a lot more of us that just do it as a hobby. To me, a hobby isn't something that's important to you and who you are, which is why I don't like it when people call my chasing a hobby. I've gotten to the point where I don't really like to bring up chasing in conversation, just because people won't understand what it means to me.

 

[Kiel Ortega]

It is up to you how you do it, but it isn't worth caring what everyone else is doing, if they want to count all vortices under a massive bowl, who cares, if they count it as a gustnado who cares. I mean I am guilty of this, by counting yesterday's possible tornado as a tornado. That funnel had more rapid rotation than some of the fully condensed legit tornadoes I have seen and I would of have been shocked had it not touched down for at least a few seconds.

Actually, I care what people are considering a tornado and whether or not they are reporting some these faux-nadoes or tornadoes* to the NWS. If people are counting every dust whirl and then reporting every one as a single tornado, then it's a big problem. It's a problem for NWS trying to filter through what's BS and what's not, and also it's a problem if the NWS ends up putting these into the climatology.

 

[Scott Weberpal]

Actually, I care what people are considering a tornado and whether or not they are reporting some these faux-nadoes or tornadoes* to the NWS. If people are counting every dust whirl and then reporting every one as a single tornado, then it's a big problem. It's a problem for NWS trying to filter through what's BS and what's not, and also it's a problem if the NWS ends up putting these into the climatology.

I agree 100%. The NCDC database is probably filled with EF-0 type "tornadoes" that probably have no reason being there. Unfortunately (I believe) many of these EF-0 "tornadoes" are probably not tornadoes at all and can throw off climatology.

I don't count tornadoes. I stopped many years ago when I found myself trying to debate whether or not something was a tornado, whether or not a caught a distant glimpse of a tornado etc. I'm out there to watch and document a tornado as its happening, and once it's gone I have no need to remember it by anything more than the pictures or videos I took of it. I have no problem with people who do keep count - I'm just not that organized and don't have a reason to keep count.

 

[Laura Duchesne]

I am not sure about that... I've seen a couple that were rated ef-0 simply because there was nothing they could damage to give any sort of clue on their strength. One example was the Ector/Winkler county, TX tornado on June 3, 2007... it was 3 quarters of a mile wide and had multiple vorticies which showed up in my friend's HD camcorder, but it occured over open country. Remember, most tornadoes are weak and will do little if any damage, especially in areas with just plenty of fields.

 

[Robert Dewey]

This is a non-issue to me. People should spend half (or more?) as much time worrying about themselves as they do others. I only read the first few sentences of the OP, and already knew where it was headed...

 

[Andrew Pritchard]

Dann - SO glad you posted this, as I was having a hard time holding back. I had no idea that you were posting this, and created my own blog post regarding the issue.

I mean come on... when someone is going out there and posting "I did not have a clear view of the ground, but I'm going to count it as a tornado anyway!" ... it is an issue, whether than person thinks so or not.

The Tornado Identification Guide!

Personally, I don't understand the huge desire for people to keep counts, or call things how they want them to be. The same people who keep a count, are 99% of the time the ones counting every bull **** dust whirl that they (or someone near them) saw, and are 99% of the time the people starting the "How many tornadoes have you seen so far" thread in mid-May, and keeping a count in their ST signature.

If you see a funnel cloud (which by the way, lasted for about 3 seconds and was VERY elevated... not necessarily what I'd call a "it had to have been down" sure thing), why not call it as it is... a funnel cloud. Same goes for a dust whirl, that may or may not have been caused by a tornado circulation but was more often than not caused by any number of the other strong wind currents located under a strong supercell. Does calling it a tornado make it any cooler than it was? I can call any cloud I wanted to a tornado, but that's not going to make it any cooler than any other cloud.

Why? Because you wanted to see one, that's why. And because you think it's important and cool to raise your number.