May 22 Hill City Supercell

[Shane Adams]

The first storm never produced a tornado, the second more structured storm only produced one tornado from my close vantage point. That tornado may have touched down lifted a little and then touch down again though I consider that as there only being the one weak tornado.

Unless there was a tornado in there (I seen no evidence of one) THe bottom two pics are of the only tornado I saw the storm ever produce

I really don't think there was a tornado in there at this point

THESE TWO ARE THE SAME TORNADO IT TOUCHED DOWN THEN CONTINUED NE CHANGING SHAPE AND LOOSING GROUND CIRCULATION

MY VOTE: 1 TORNADO

That's my opinion as well, though I have sen no concrete evidence to completely discount the possible tornado reported earlier with this storm.

 

[Shane Adams]

FWIW, I also observed a small debris cloud shortly after the infamous cone developed NW of WaKeeney. After less than a minute, we lost sight of it and were unable to see it again for the remainder of the funnel's duration, whether due to terrain or actual lack of contact with the ground. I can see why some chasers may not have seen the debris cloud, because it was apparently so brief (and may not have been visible unless you were within a couple miles), and therefore question whether it was a tornado - but I think enough firsthand accounts have been given to hopefully put this issue to rest.

The debris cloud was only "visible" for the first minute or so of the tornado. However, the HP nature of this supercell lead to a ton of precip ahead of the tornado track. But there was condensation 3/4 down for the majority of the tornado, and brief moments of full condensation during the rope out. There is no doubt this was a tornado the entire ten or so minutes. There isn't always a debris cloud visible with full condensation to the ground, which means it's quite possible to have a circulation on the ground with no visible debris even without full condensation.

 

[Brian Stertz]

Definitely were several ground circulations on my video but certainly not a strong long lived type situation....just felt lucky to get this one down and watch it do it's thing. It was just too bad the tornadic circulation was not back near St.Peter when the structure was more appealing and before the HP look.

 

[Eric Flescher]

good to know

Since I was with Brian that cinches it. Thanks. Sometimes it is difficult to know whether there is actual ground circulation especially if short lived. I will have to look more closely at the tape again the put on DVD. Okay I will put it down as tornado. That is what I wanted more verification.
Many thanks

:::

Definitely were several ground circulations on my video but certainly not a strong long lived type situation....just felt lucky to get this one down and watch it do it's thing. It was just too bad the tornadic circulation was not back near St.Peter when the structure was more appealing and before the HP look.

 

[Rob Herman]

May 22, 2007 Storm Data tornado reports around Wakeeney, Hill City and Hays, KS:

Graham County
Tornado (EF0)
10 WSW Hill City
17:48 CST (18:48 CDT) - 17:54 CST (18:54 CDT)
Path Length: 2 mi. Width: 20 yds
No known damage...over open fields.


Graham County
Tornado (EF0)
8 SW Hill City
18:10 CST (19:10 CDT) - 18:16 CST (19:16 CDT)
Path Length: 2.5 mi. Width: 50 yds
No known damage...over open fields.


Trego County
Tornado (EF0)
6 NE Wakeeney
19:18 CST (20:18 CDT) to 19:20 CST (20:20 CDT)
Path Length: 0.88 mi. Width: 50 yds
Contact with the ground was observed for about 2 minutes. Nothing was impacted to cause any damage.


Ellis County
Tornado (EF0)
6 N Hays to 5 WNW Catharine
20:56 CST (21:56 CDT) to 20:57 CST (21:57 CDT)
Path Length: 0.54 mi. Width: 30 yds
The tornado was visible on the ground for just a short period of time but the funnel was present for longer.

Reports in Storm Data are sorted by State, NWS Office and then by date. You have to check several different places in the publication to make sure you catch everything.

 

[JoelHamburger]

Hello ST members. Long time lurker, I'm happy to be able to make my first post ever in this thread.

I was on the storm fairly early (along with 20 others !) and followed the first meso pretty far north along a gravel road. The photo below is time-stamped (5:48) though I'm not sure if that was DST or not. It was before the truncated cone that everybody saw.

I was fairly close to the wall cloud and felt inflow pick up significantly for about 30-40 seconds as the rotation tightened. I thought it was about to produce but it never did. I never saw anything on the ground from my vantage point. This meso seemed to peeter out in about 10 minutes after this photo was taken.

I dropped south where the southern meso got really cranking and eventually produced.

cheers,

joel

 

[Danny Cheresnick]

Thanks for the feedback. I looked a tmy video several times and I still could not see if there was debris cloud .
This is one of the reasons I've been wondering while many say it was a tornado.
I will look more closely at the thread photos too (again).
I guess I will call it a tornado.

**

Also, from the scientific definition of a tornado (which is what is they try to use in Storm Data), a condensation funnel and/or debris cloud are not necessary.

Having said that, members of our group also witnessed the debris briefly, I was unable to from my location due to a slight hill blocking my view of the surface.

 

[David Wolfson]

And I think the converse is also not necessarily true, that the presence of a condensation funnel some distance AGL or the observation of debris (dust in this case as far as I can tell) definitely indicates a tornado. Given that a vortex must either contact itself or the ground in some fashion per hydrodynamics IMO the only sensible definition is Doswell's. The vortex has to demonstrate winds capable of damage at ground level, either from documented damage or obvious substantial solids circulating in the debris cloud.

Without getting into a cat fight, the Hill City/ St. Peter storm certainly raises the question better than most over what is and is not a tornado IMHO.

 

[Shane Adams]

And I think the converse is also not necessarily true, that the presence of a condensation funnel some distance AGL or the observation of debris (dust in this case as far as I can tell) definitely indicates a tornado. Given that a vortex must either contact itself or the ground in some fashion per hydrodynamics IMO the only sensible definition is Doswell's. The vortex has to demonstrate winds capable of damage at ground level, either from documented damage or obvious substantial solids circulating in the debris cloud.

Without getting into a cat fight, the Hill City/ St. Peter storm certainly raises the question better than most over what is and is not a tornado IMHO.

But you don't have to see anything at the surface for there to be tornadic winds. Condensation appears/disappears quite often in tornado funnels and how many times have we seen full condensation to the ground with no indication of debris? There was visible debris for the first minute, but once the debris was no longer visible, did the winds at the last 1/4 of the funnel just stop? Tornadoes don't lift or dip, they're constant until they dissipate. They don't drop from the cloud, the circulation's already there before you see the tornado. So once debris was seen and the funnel's physical appearance (angular momentum/intensity) remained constant, it was obvious the event was a tornado for the entire duration of the visible condensation funnel. Not to mention the fact there was an extended rope out.

Like you, this is just my opinion. Not trying to start another flame thread LOL

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Whenever I get too concerned about tornado or not, I simply smack myself in the head with some hard object and remember, no matter what the hell you decide to call it, the experience and its appearance will always be the same. Once I remember that, I then remember how dumb it is to worry about it at all. To me it's one of those things I simply don't get why I ever feel I need to know. I will sit there and wonder over it anyway, even if it seems really damn stupid after I think more about it.

This reminds me how much I "love" it when someone sends me a picture and asks if I think it is a tornado, or just what I think of it. Who cares! The experience ain't gonna change.

 

[Craig Maire II]

Shane Adams wrote:

"But you don't have to see anything at the surface for there to be tornadic winds. Condensation appears/disappears quite often in tornado funnels and how many times have we seen full condensation to the ground with no indication of debris? There was visible debris for the first minute, but once the debris was no longer visible, did the winds at the last 1/4 of the funnel just stop? Tornadoes don't lift or dip, they're constant until they dissipate. They don't drop from the cloud, the circulation's already there before you see the tornado. So once debris was seen and the funnel's physical appearance (angular momentum/intensity) remained constant, it was obvious the event was a tornado for the entire duration of the visible condensation funnel. Not to mention the fact there was an extended rope out."

So was this funnel cloud actually a very weak tornado? It was half way to the ground.



The above video grab was from a storm in Kansas on 04/24/07. A second funnel cloud formed right after this one dissipated and a tornado warning was issued for this storm based on my spotter reports and doppler radar.

 

[Shane Adams]

My point wasn't to say all funnels halfway to the ground are tornadoes.

My point was, there was a visible debris cloud with condensation 3/4 to the ground, and after the debris cloud disappeared, the funnel kept its angular momentum/intensity. I find it hard to believe that after one minute, the winds underneath the visible funnel just stopped while the other 3/4 of it held the same intensity for another 8-9 minutes.

Again, this is just my opinion. But I find it hard to believe that six months later, this is still an issue with people.

 

[Danny Cheresnick]

My point wasn't to say all funnels halfway to the ground are tornadoes.

My point was, there was a visible debris cloud with condensation 3/4 to the ground, and after the debris cloud disappeared, the funnel kept its angular momentum/intensity. I find it hard to believe that after one minute, the winds underneath the visible funnel just stopped while the other 3/4 of it held the same intensity for another 8-9 minutes.

Again, this is just my opinion. But I find it hard to believe that six months later, this is still an issue with people.

Yup, that is completely correct most of the time. Almost all tornadoes stay tornadoes until their final dissipation. They dont lose the surface vortex or weaken dramatically at the surface and then ramp back up, even if visually a condesation funnel comes and goes. The strength of the vortex can weaken and strengthen, but almost all of the time its still the same tornado from a scientific definition.

 

[Andrea Griffa]

I add the pictures of the funnel of the first meso near Collyer,taken by a girl (Valentina Abinanti) of my group, the one that someone else posted before. By the way the first one is very close to the ground.