I Saw A Tornado*

[Mikey Gribble]

Whoa, whoa, whoa..... back the train up there Dann. It's April 5th. We already have another thread on here talking about this being a slow year. There is nothing slow about it. Tornado season JUST started.

Here is the National Weather Service Definition of a tornado...

A violently rotating column of air, usually pendant to a cumulonimbus, with circulation reaching the ground. It nearly always starts as a funnel cloud and may be accompanied by a loud roaring noise. On a local scale, it is the most destructive of all atmospheric phenomena.

It doesn't seem very ambigous to me. Pretty straight forward. It specifically says NEARLY always starts with a funnel. That clause right there basically locks spinups, even without a funnel into the tornado category If you have a rotating lowering and good vertical motion under the updraft base and you start to get an organzied whirl/column of dust at the ground, that's a tornado. Like it or not, that is going by the definition. If people don't like it, then petition the NWS or anybody else who cares and propose a new one.

I saw 1 tornado on that storm by Ark City and I have the whole thing on video. I'm sitting there on the phone with a guy at the station telling him that there was rapid vertical motion, but no area of organized rotation (like you'd typically see before a decent funnel or tornado would form) and that they should probably issue a tornado warning. Literally like thirty seconds after I get off the phone dust starts getting picked up in a rotating column directly underneath the lowering that has both rapid vertical motion and rotation (only a couple hundred yards from us). What are people supposed to call it? It's a weak tornado, plain and simple. The next tornado report I'm aware of (and didn't see) was three miles northeast of there and then the third and final report I'm aware of was by Strother Field, which I saw the lowering on that one and was damn near touching the ground, but it was rapidly occluding and the rain from the RFD wrapped around to block our view (we were coming up on it from the south). I can't doubt at all that there was circulation at the ground on that one because I saw the lowering on a rapidly occluding mesocyclone. I never counted that last incident as a tornado, even though somebody else reported it, because I never saw anything. I damn sure counted the first tornado earlier by highway 166 because it was a tornado. I stated in my report it was a "pathetic" dust whirl, but a tornado none the less.

Don't hate the player hate the game. If you don't like the current definition of tornado then get it changed or create your own definition that you live by.

Dann said....
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.

I agree. I'm not going to report something I can't personally confirm, but there are limits to that. If I see the upper part of a rope tornado where hills and trees are blocking my view of the ground and later find out it was a serious tornado, then I'm going to count it. I saw half the thing and I know damn well it was a tornado.

People need to use common sense and exercise good judgement on making calls like that (and stop caring so much about other people too). If you are one of the people that report to authorities responsible for getting the warning out on these storms then you explain to them what's going on. I didn't tell the station "we have a tornado!!!!!". I told them there was a weak spinup. If people are keeping things in perspective and the official definition calls it a tornado, what is there to complain about? I don't see the point of this thread.
Instead of wasting all this time and energy on talking about "setting a good example for the younger chasers" and what is or is not a tornado, why don't we redirect that effort towards figuring out the synoptic scale pattern beyond day 5. That would be a worthy discussion and one I'd be quite interested in because I suck at synoptic/global scale meteorology and I want a chase opportunity to look forward to. And although I haven't forecasted today, the last time I did there wasn't much coming up that got me excited.
Let's quit the bickering and get back to focusing on chasing.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

What I don't get is the concept of thinking it makes no sense to keep count of tornadoes, but that it does make sense to keep count of what everyone else is counting. Again, who cares? It's not even SDS season any more. Go chase a tornado or something.

I think one should at least operate on the "if you weren't there" principle. "If you weren't there", then it's probably not a good idea to lecture someone about what they did and didn't see and what their motivations might've been for telling the story they way they do. If you were there, then it's a great idea to tell your own story about what you saw -- but you're still probably better off not trying to figure out what was going on in the other guy's head that made his story disagree with yours.

 

[Derek Weston]

Of course, my first posting was a bit simple.

I saw the Grainsfield Tornado 5/22/08 from a distance, and could not see its ground contact. Was it putting down at the time? I think? I mean, I knew that was a tornado, if not at the point when I saw it, then very soon after.

So what do I call it?

A kinda-sorta tornado. Same with the Dighton meso and wall 5/23/08, about as damned close as you could get to putting down. Kind of sort of.

I didn't get that it-is-on-the-ground sort of satisfaction -- even though it might've been doing that.

A tornado, perhaps. For me? Kind of sort of tornado.

Or how about the danged tornado a half a block away that I was basically in in Iowa City at night -- I never did get a nice ground look at that. Tornado, for sure, seeing it, though? Kind of sort of.

Same thing with Parkersburg storm (near Hazelton when I caught it) -- it's in there, looking at it, can't see it.

Kind of sort of.

We even had a little junker last summer in Iowa that *seemed* to be producin a tube long in the distance -- it was torn warned.

Kind of sort of.

That's the story of my chasing career thus far.

Being optimistic... probably at least a half dozen tornadoes. But I've never gotten the ground truth I've desired -- THE tornado plowing across the country side with no doubt. THE tornado. I still need that. That's what I want in 09 -- clear, concise, ground truth.

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

LOL at this whole thread. This debate/disscussion has been going on for years, though there has been a substantial increase recently in what I like to call "WTF Tornadoes". I've always been conservative when it comes to calling something a tornado. For me to count something as a tornado, there has to be NO doubt in my mind, and I have to be close enough and or have a clear visual, IMO if your photo/video isn't clearly obvious and you have to try and explain and or prove why it's a tornado, then you are best off just saying you saw a good storm. Sure you might have seen some dust spinning with a funnel above it, or a cone half way down 5 miles away, and want to call it a tornado, and if that makes you feel good and sends you home a happy chaser, great for you; but if your goal is to "compete" and or impress, you don't have me fooled. I've never really been a fan of "counting" tornadoes anyway, I lost count of how many I've seen sometime last May, ask some of the best veterans out there how many they've seen, and a good deal of them will tell you they have no idea.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Page 10.....thread gets locked on page 10. (Ok....page 11 since now there will be a page of guessers)

 

[Adam Lucio]

Just because you cant see the whole tornado doesnt mean you werent looking at it. If that were the case then why would anyone chase in Missouri or even SErn Oklahoma. What the hell else was it then? Its not something else just because you cant see the whole thing. I agree you shouldnt call it in unless your 100% sure, and I know I never would... but if it gets later confirmed as a tornado than I dont see why its even a debate.

Who cares what other people do, if you dont count breif dustwhirl type tornadoes then good for you, go buy yourself a cookie.

For those who want to light up their flame throwers over March 23rd. I never went around screaming AAAAAAAAAHhhhhhhhhhh I saw a tornado. In fact, i was extremely skeptical about it until other chasers contacted me and said it was a tornado and theyve got video proof... which was then confirmed on ICTs website. Just because it wasnt a Quinter wedge doesnt mean it wasnt a tornado. Most serious chasers of all people should know that MOST tornadoes are short lived and weak.

Some of the dust whirl claims about a tornado are indeed skeptical, and they should be debated and talked about to see what really went on. If it does get confirmed its a tornado then thats the end of the story. It is what it is, by definition.

Photoshopping a tornado is just pathetic, anyone who does that should be ashamed of themselves...and those are the people who are not serious. I agree that allot of chasers probably arent passionate about the weather, theyre the ones that wont last. Let em come and go.

 

[John O'Keeffe]

This type of thread is the very reason I don't participate in any discussions on stormtrack. It is a useless waste of time because everyone has there own opinion and there is no concrete right or wrong answer.

Let me set the record straight for Mr. Ortega and Werberpal, as Michael's chase partner I am the one who calls in any type of activity to the NWS. In all my years chasing, I have only called in to the NWS once. I take that responsibility very seriously. In most cases someone has called it in prior to me making the call.

As long as we are setting the record straight, we certainly don't chase for the money because I pay the bills and I have not come close to making any sort of profit. The only reason we chase is because Michael and I both have a passion for the weather. Anyone who really knows us will tell you that.

To avoid upseting Mr. Pritchard and others in the future with this very important issue, Michael and I will no longer be participating in any type of Stormtrack activity.
That is really a shame since we have made so many friends through stormtrack. We are not going to get caught up in these ridiculous threads.

At the end of the day who cares, does it really matter, and you people need to get a life.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Who cares what other people do, if you dont count breif dustwhirl type tornadoes then good for you, go buy yourself a cookie.

Mmmmmmmm.

Great, now I want to buy one of these stupid tornado shaped cookie cutters.

 

[Shane Adams]

I think the problem is these days everyone has such a hard-on for photography, if it's not photogenic then it's not "good enough" for most chasers. A tornado is a process, period. It doesn't care if it makes a good picture or is easily, universally identifiable as such with a quick glance of a capture or image. I have said for years that I find it ridiculous that any tornado that doesn't have a condensation funnel is scoffed at. And the scientist types you'd think, of all people, would want as accurate a record of tornado climo as possible...which includes all tornadoes, whether they're "pretty" or not.

If it's connected to a rotating base it's a tornado, period. It's a real simple definition. If some of you don't want to count "ugly" tornadoes that's your choice...but please don't scrutinize those of us who count tornadoes for documentation's sake, not photography. The tornado I saw on March 23 wasn't by any standards "photogenic", and because nobody else saw it but us, I assume it's been disregarded (no mention of it whatsoever in the ICT write-up of that event, despite the fact I not only called it in, but called a second time to pinpoint the exact location). Hey whatever, I just call them in...once I hang up my part's over. I've got a full summary with details and images of this tornado online. No, it's not spectacular but it's a tornado. The video is quite conclusive...but you'll need to buy the DVD later this year for that, as I don't put video online to be ripped by anyone.

Everybody counts their own way...my way is to simply count tornadoes. That means ground rotation connected to cloud base rotation, even if it's weak, short-lived, and merely a dustwhirl. I'd love the explanation from science as to why weak tornadoes aren't considered important enough to record as such. I certainly won't waste my time and hurt my video calling them in anymore if a full condensation funnel is required to validate my effort.

 

[Adam Lucio]

Mmmmmmmm.

Great, now I want to buy one of these stupid tornado shaped cookie cutters.

haha me too.

What I meant by that statement was that just because you dont count that type of tornado doesnt mean you should blast someone who does. IMO its not even a great catch anyways...its like going to the bar and bringing home a really fat chick...

 

[Chris Allington]

I think I am going to have to side with the... "This argument is stupid just chase because you want too and have fun" crowd on this one.

I dont really care what some people call a tornado and some don't at this point. I just want to see some interesting weather and have fun doing it. Sure I like photographing storms but I've been on enough chases by myself, too busy to take photos to care anymore.

Cant we all just have fun and get along? haha...

 

[Mikey Gribble]

haha me too.
IMO its not even a great catch anyways...its like going to the bar and bringing home a really fat chick...

Obviously we're not dealing with a team player here. Somebody's got to dive on the grenade Adam. I don't want to roll around in the sack with some chick that weights a deuce any more than the next guy, but you just gotta man up some times if it means your friends are going to pull some tail. It's called loyaltly buddy lol.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

Why is 3/23 even involved in this debate? Those were well confirmed tornadoes by numerous people.

And this fear/concern that somebody is going to have an inflated tornado count because we all aren't following the same rules makes absolutely no sense to me. Do you judge a chaser by his tornado count? No. That number means nothing to me. I got a pretty good idea who the good chasers are. I've been on here for several years and when you consistenly see the same names posting good forecasts and the same names consistently getting the good storms on chase days then you start to build a mental record of who is good and who isn't. It's got nothing to do with what tornado count they claim.

As far as the fears of false claims being recorded in the records, that's not a big deal either IMO. The NWS has more tools available to them than just your called in reports. They can see if your report matches what they're seeing. They can consider whether or not you're a reputable source if they've heard of your name. It's not like every jackass that reports a tornado is getting it in the end of year storm reports.

Hollingshead, I thought you were banned from this place. I haven't seen you on here in forever. Normally you're the one stirring up the trouble.

This discussion is trivial. Again let's move this over to the long range forecast area. Somebody has got to tell me what we have to look forward to.

 

[Chris Allington]

Obviously we're not dealing with a team player here. Somebody's got to dive on the grenade Adam. I don't want to roll around in the sack with some chick that weights a deuce any more than the next guy, but you just gotta man up some times if it means your friends are going to pull some tail. It's called loyaltly buddy lol.

HAHAHA! Oh man... so we have no gone from discussing tornadoes, to the finer points of wingman-ism. Nice work Mikey.

 

[Scott Weberpal]

Let me set the record straight for Mr. Ortega and Werberpal, as Michael's chase partner I am the one who calls in any type of activity to the NWS. In all my years chasing, I have only called in to the NWS once. I take that responsibility very seriously. In most cases someone has called it in prior to me making the call.

???? What I said wasn't directed at you or anyone else. It was a general statement about a large amount of EF-0 tornadoes in the final database that were never verified or quantified. I'm not talking about large tornadoes that don't hit anything, I'm taking about sheriffnadoes and little swirlies that people call in as a tornado that perhaps shouldn't be classified as a tornado (gustnadoes, RFD dust, etc.). Take it easy.