OUN ratings from 5/4-5/5?

[Glen Romine]

I have to differ you here. Take a look at this distribution of tornado strength between discrete vs. linear modes from Elaine Godfrey's work here. I remember the sampling of tornadoes documented by the DOWs to be skewed toward high end relative to other climatologies.
Jim

As Jeff specified, the DOW climatology is based on supercell tornadoes (largely from the Great Plains region) - I don't think they included any QLCS type tornadoes in the study, and they were suggesting that tornadoes with a parent supercell storm appeared to have a preferred intensity in the EF2 range. Whether lumping in all tornadic vortices returns the overall distribution back toward log-linear is not answerable. Still, it seems plausible there is possible under-rating of QLCS tornado damage as well given the likelihood of the tornado at max intensity not interacting with appropriate structures for a 'proper' rating. Finally, could also be some bias from the tendency for QLCS type tornadoes to be more common in more 'developed' land areas, whereas supercell tornadoes are more common in the Great Plains where land improvements are more sparse.

As for Ilya's observations, you should probably share whatever you have with the NWS. There were several SPC folks on the storm, and I gather none of them saw the stovepipe either - though they would likely have approached the storm from the east. Surely some Texas Panhandle chasers would have been in better position to have seen this earlier tornado.

 

[Rob Satkus]

Regarding the NW Oklahoma tornado of 5/4 it's a little known fact that the now famous video of the violently rotating slender tube near the town of Arnett was actually the SECOND tornado from that storm. We were coming up on the storm from the ESE that evening and observed a cone-stovepipe type tornado out of a well-defined wall cloud while about 25-30 or so miles out. I reported this as a (visually) large tornado to KOCO at the time and we watched it as it was on the ground for quite some time, with my best estimate for about 10+ minutes or so after we got into view of it (already on the ground when we first spotted it). The tornado then reconfigured its shape becoming angled and more narrow as we paralleled the storm on Hwy 34 toward Vici. When we pulled into Vici the second, and famously viewed tornado was on the ground to our west crossing Hwy 60. This tornado was evident as a slender/tall tube extending from a relatively higher cloud base, with no visible wall cloud, thus very different from its predecessor earlier.

I've talked to a number of chasers out that day including Reed and Joel and so far have not personally come across anyone else that saw the first and larger tornado. Reed and Joel punched in from the northeast as they explained it and the rain core obstructed their view to the south until they got into close position for their footage.

If anyone else saw that first tornado(s) feel free to post here!

Tom Pastrano and I were on that storm from first tower until it slowly shriveled up and weakened northeast of Mooreland. We had a clear view of the base the entire time and never saw a tornado before the Arnett tube/stovepipe. When the initial wall cloud formed a rather bulky funnel developed with it and persisted for several minutes before gradually evolving into more of a classic cone shape, with the funnel slowly lowering, but not making contact. Finally after about 5 minutes or so, debris was visible and the condensation funnel made occasional ground contact, before developing into the slender tube...briefly taking on the slender/angled look before becoming the narrow drill press until it roped out. Total time from first observed debris until the tornado lifted was about 22 minutes. We were on Hwy 283 south of Arnett for the entire tornadic event and had an unobstructed view to the west, actually looking down into a valley..it may have looked like a large tornado from a distance, but I can assure you that it was a single tornado.

Rob

 

[Brandon Goforth]

Regarding the NW Oklahoma tornado of 5/4 it's a little known fact that the now famous video of the violently rotating slender tube near the town of Arnett was actually the SECOND tornado from that storm. We were coming up on the storm from the ESE that evening and observed a cone-stovepipe type tornado out of a well-defined wall cloud while about 25-30 or so miles out. I reported this as a (visually) large tornado to KOCO at the time and we watched it as it was on the ground for quite some time, with my best estimate for about 10+ minutes or so after we got into view of it (already on the ground when we first spotted it). The tornado then reconfigured its shape becoming angled and more narrow as we paralleled the storm on Hwy 34 toward Vici. When we pulled into Vici the second, and famously viewed tornado was on the ground to our west crossing Hwy 60. This tornado was evident as a slender/tall tube extending from a relatively higher cloud base, with no visible wall cloud, thus very different from its predecessor earlier.

I've talked to a number of chasers out that day including Reed and Joel and so far have not personally come across anyone else that saw the first and larger tornado. Reed and Joel punched in from the northeast as they explained it and the rain core obstructed their view to the south until they got into close position for their footage.

If anyone else saw that first tornado(s) feel free to post here!

Well, I set up that day near Cheyenne, OK, and as soon as the tower started going up just across the state line I was all over it. I saw the whole thing unfold from the ESE side of the storm and the first tornado was the "famous" one. It touched down briefly, then lifted and quickly touched back down again to stay on the ground for quite some time. Some people counted this as 2 tornadoes, but I count it as the same one, as it was the same funnel and lifted only briefly. In its very early stages it appeared that it might become a very large tornado, but instead developed into the tall/skinny tornado that we all know it for. It roped out just on the SW side of Arnett and a new wall cloud with strong rotation developed back to the east. There were reports that a brief tornado was produced once again from the old wall cloud on the northern side of Arnett, but I did not see this happen and I was just on the east side of Arnett at this time at the highway 283 and 60 junction. I observed several funnels from the 2nd wall cloud as it moved off to the NE, but as far as I could tell none of them ever came into contact with the ground. Here are a couple of pics taken right before the 1st tornado looking to the west from highway 283. I'd say that it was roughly 6-8 miles to my west as it was developing over the Canadian River.

 

[Ilya Neyman]

Thank you Rob and Brandon!

It's great to know that someone else was on this storm closer than we were. From our perspective as soon as the base was visible we saw the wide(r) tornado below its wall cloud...(reviewing video again now)...wider cone narrowing slightly toward the ground. Per Rob and Brandon's discussions/photos it is *possible* that our very first observation of the funnel could have been during its descending toward the ground stage as there were some rolling hills between our vantage point and the developing tornado, but later on it looked to be squarely on the ground. There was a period of time that lasted for several minutes where we lost visual of most of the base of the storm entirely as we were pulling into Vici. Before that time the tornado was visually thinning and looked to be in the process of roping/lifting. Coming out of a gas station in Vici is when we saw the tube to our west (this time obviously closer than earlier). This is part of the reason I assumed it was a second tornado as visually it was much different than before and also operating under the assumption that the previous one had lifted but since the other chasers were already in closer position to the situation I trust their observations without further scrutiny.

Either way it was a very impressive show for NW Oklahoma with the storm becoming a beast of an LP after tornadogenesis had concluded! Phenomenal structure was the second round that made the trip worthwile for those chasers who had missed the tornado coming back south out of Kansas. I too saw the several funnel attempts following the tornado but as previously alluded this didn't amount to much.

Great discussion!

 

[beaudodson]

I guess I am fortunate to live in the KPAH Region. They survey almost every tornadic event and even have gone as far to investigate areas they thought there might have been a tornado because of radar indications!

 

[Kiel Ortega]

I guess I am fortunate to live in the KPAH Region. They survey EVERY tornadic event and even have gone as far to investigate areas they thought there might have been a tornado because of radar indications! Great office!

I seriously doubt they survey EVERY tornadic event...because some tornadic events don't look tornadic! For reference, the Union City- and Minco-area tornadoes didn't look really tornadic on most of the radars (it did look interesting/slightly baffling on all radars--CASA, TDWR, 88D, PAR-- though)...especially on the TLX 88D. If damaged hadn't occured, I doubt it would have peaked any interest even though there were tornadoes. So while I think it's nice that PAH goes and does this (not criticizing that at all), I think the comment is a bit of slap to the face of other offices that do good work, but don't necessarily go out and survey "EVERY" tornadic event.

 

[beaudodson]

I seriously doubt they survey EVERY tornadic event...because some tornadic events don't look tornadic! For reference, the Union City- and Minco-area tornadoes didn't look really tornadic on most of the radars (it did look interesting/slightly baffling on all radars--CASA, TDWR, 88D, PAR-- though)...especially on the TLX 88D. If damaged hadn't occured, I doubt it would have peaked any interest even though there were tornadoes. So while I think it's nice that PAH goes and does this (not criticizing that at all), I think the comment is a bit of slap to the face of other offices that do good work, but don't necessarily go out and survey "EVERY" tornadic event.

Take it as you like - it is nothing against other offices. Like I said I feel fortunate to live in the KPAH Region because they do take it seriously. They do everything they can to go out and investigate tornado paths. Obviously (not sure what you mean by your example) if the tornado isn't reported then they can't investigate. During the big November Outbreak last year or the year before (can't remember right off hand) Paducah even investigated areas where radar mesos tracked. They take it seriously. I can assure you that if a tornado has caused damage then they do a survey. Period. Is that a slap to other offices? I don't know...nor do I really care. Offices can do surveys if they feel like it. Each office has a staff. Paducah isn't over-staffed and find themselves bored with too much time on their hands. lol They simply believe that it is important to be as thorough as possible with their storm reports. Does every office feel that way? Apparently not. Is that bad? I don't know...guess that is opinion. Like I said - I am just happy the KPAH conducts their surveys in that manner.

Am I proud of this local office for the way they conduct storm surveys (among other things)? Extremely!!!!!!! Can't say enough good things about them. Nothing against any other office...

 

[Brandon Goforth]

Take it as you like - it is nothing against other offices. Like I said I feel fortunate to live in the KPAH Region because they do take it seriously. They do everything they can to go out and investigate tornado paths. Obviously (not sure what you mean by your example) if the tornado isn't reported then they can't investigate. During the big November Outbreak last year or the year before (can't remember right off hand) Paducah even investigated areas where radar mesos tracked. They take it seriously. I can assure you that if a tornado has caused damage then they do a survey. Period. Is that a slap to other offices? I don't know...nor do I really care. Offices can do surveys if they feel like it. Each office has a staff. Paducah isn't over-staffed and find themselves bored with too much time on their hands. lol They simply believe that it is important to be as thorough as possible with their storm reports. Does every office feel that way? Apparently not. Is that bad? I don't know...guess that is opinion. Like I said - I am just happy the KPAH conducts their surveys in that manner.

Am I proud of this local office for the way they conduct storm surveys (among other things)? Extremely!!!!!!! Can't say enough good things about them. Nothing against any other office...

Well, I don't know if this has anything to do with it or not, but you are comparing storm reports from Kentucky with Oklahoma. With the number of supercell and tornadic occurrences around here I couldn't imagine anyone having to go out and survey paths from every storm that blows through OK with a meso indication on radar! That would be quite time consuming and really just pointless. I can understand not surveying tornadoes that did no damage (other than trees ), however, if the Arnett tornado did some structural damage to a home, barn, or whatever, then I'd think it should be surveyed, and probably has been.

 

[Shane Adams]

Just my opinion, but I'd think any tornado that was visually significant (as Arnette was) would be of interest for a survey team. I know there are costs and scheduling beyond my knowledge involved, but seems the worst-case scenario would be a nice drive to the country. Hell, if it were possible to get "licensed" to do surveys, I'd go along and do it, as long as it didn't conflict with a chase. And it would save money because all I'd want was my travel paid for, my time would be free. If we can train spotters who have virtually no experience to watch out for lives and property, I don't see how we can't train people to simply survey the damage.

Training citizens to do free damage surveys.....hmmm....there's a concept that would eliminate both time & cost issues.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

Hey, I've got an idea...if the WFOs are too short-staffed to survey each every tornado and suspected tornado event in their CWA (which is the case, even for PAH, believe me), then perhaps....

...some of you can volunteer to help out. If it really means that much to you to know the whole truth, then lend a hand, please.

The May 3 1999 survey would not have been possible without the gracious effort of many volunteers. Even with all those folks helping, it took many days (weeks) to determine the truth (as best we could determine). Also, not every one of the 68 tornadoes was surveyed with the same detail as "Storm A", even with all those folks volunteering.

 

[Brian Stertz]

I would be up for doing damage surveys if this was needed. I have already done the EF rating online training module, and know what damage would correspond to significant tornadoes. Now if we could just get some action around here in the KC Metro area. Put my name on the list !!

 

[Brandon Goforth]

Hey, I've got an idea...if the WFOs are too short-staffed to survey each every tornado and suspected tornado event in their CWA (which is the case, even for PAH, believe me), then perhaps....

...some of you can volunteer to help out. If it really means that much to you to know the whole truth, then lend a hand, please.

The May 3 1999 survey would not have been possible without the gracious effort of many volunteers. Even with all those folks helping, it took many days (weeks) to determine the truth (as best we could determine). Also, not every one of the 68 tornadoes was surveyed with the same detail as "Storm A", even with all those folks volunteering.

Heck, I might be interested in volunteering some time down the road, how does this work and who should we contact?

 

[beaudodson]

.

...some of you can volunteer to help out. If it really means that much to you to know the whole truth, then lend a hand, please.

It has been suggested before and is still a good idea. ANYONE can be trained to do this - especially with the new EF Scale and the computer program. Not a big deal. I am sure there are PLENTY of volunteers. You almost make it sound like there wouldn't be any volunteers. There are plenty.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

Heck, I might be interested in volunteering some time down the road, how does this work and who should we contact?

Contact your local WFO's Warning Coordination Meteorologist.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

You almost make it sound like there wouldn't be any volunteers. There are plenty.

If so, where were they on May 4, 5? Certainly none from the group ST subscribers b&c'ing about lack of surveys.