Paris, TX tornadoes 3/21/05

[Mike Mezeul II]

Hey guys,
I just wanted to let you know that we have a full chase log up with pics from our chase on March 21, 2005. We intercepted 2 tornadoes just south of Paris, TX. Hope you all enjoy. You can get to the account by going to the following link.

http://www.stormphoto.net/march_21_05.htm

 

[Travis Livengood]

It was great meeting you guys down there, if you want any of the pics I have, let me know. They're iffy at best aince my camera decided on some sort of odd focus method.

Oh, we got home at about 4:10am...lol

 

[Scott Blair]

Nice photos Mike!

You mentioned you observed two tornadoes from this supercell. I only observed one tornado south of Paris, TX and I only see one from your account. The tornado I observed touched down around 6:01pm and was intermittently on the ground for another seven minutes. Did you see another tornado after 6:07pm?

Also, has anyone noticed if NWS FWD conducted a storm survey of this tornado? I’ve heard the tornado destroyed a barn, but I haven’t heard any further details. Does anyone know of any damage photos?

Scott Blair
http://www.targetarea.net/

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Scott,
I too counted the tornadoes as 2 tornadoes since the second one, while from the same meso as the first, appeared to come from a completely different funnel cloud. The first tornado was intermittenly on the ground, as was the second one I suppose. I examined my video, and it appeared that the two were seperate enough to count them as independent. I don't have my video prepped, otherwise I'd give you a time span for the 1st and 2nd.

As for a damage assessment -- I have not seen one. For that matter, haven't seen one for OUN, though there was little damage with these tornadoes as well.

 

[Karen Politte]

Well done Mike & Scott!!! Congratulations guys - I'm really glad you got rewarded for your efforts......and it looks like Scott's making good use of his new camera!

Look us up when you're in OUN next....

Karen

 

[Scott Blair]

Ok, I see what Mike and Jeff are considering two tornadoes.

I consider this one tornado simply because the two condensed tubes were from the same mesocyclone, originated from the same region in the mesocyclone, and were within one minute from the condensation dissipating and reappearing. This would have put both damage paths within one mile of each other and its plausible weak circulation was still on the ground during the minute lull of condensation between the two condensed tubes.

Perhaps the NWS FWD survey will shed some light.

Scott Blair
http://www.targetarea.net/

 

[Morgan Palmer]

Hi there... just a note that threads like this belong in Target Area.

I understand some folks have still not e-mailed Tim V. to gain access to TA. Please do so now.

Thanks!

 

[Darin Brunin]

Note :: I am not sure of whether to post this here or in the target area since the thread has already been started here. If it needs to be deleted or moved I am sorry about the inconvenience.

Mike,

Your photos are almost exactly like mine. We had to of been really close together when the tornado touched down. Actually we couldn't have met each other at a better time. It was good to meet you guys.

I too only counted the Paris storm as producing one tornado. I have discussed this with some other chasers and it seems that it would be better to only consider it one tornado for many of the same reasons that Scott mention above. I also figured that its March and I consider it lucky that the storm even produced a tornado with how it looked for the longest time before it got its act together. I can see where the people who are counting two tornadoes are coming from but after watching my video it seems quite possible that there still might have been circulation on the ground in between the two touchdowns. Its one of those things that people could argue for hours but 1 seems like the right answer to me.

Darin

 

[Morgan Palmer]

What I meant was that reports need to go in Target Area, not general discussion. Sorry for the confusion.

Nothing will be done with this thread. It's no big deal.
mp

 

[Gabe Garfield]

I too only counted the Paris storm as producing one tornado. I have discussed this with some other chasers and it seems that it would be better to only consider it one tornado for many of the same reasons that Scott mention above.

This is a really tough definitional issue, because if the same logic as above was applied to other storms, several historical tornadoes would have had much longer path lengths.

Take for instance, the Bridge Creek/Moore tornado of May 3, 1999. The same tornado cyclone that produced the Verden/Laverty F3 and the Chickasha F3 also produced the Bridge Creek/Moore F5 tornado. If these had been counted as one (the break between tornadoes was < 5 min), the path length would have been over 70 miles.

It is my opinion that the Paris event was comprised of two separate tornadoes, separated by only a short amount of time. My reason is that the visible funnel associated with the first tornado completely dissipated for ~ 1 minute. If I had been closer, I might think differently, but from my vantage point, that's what I think.

Gabe

 

[Scott Blair]

Obviously if a tornado has lifted and another one touches down 5 minutes later with the loss of condensation that would constitute as two separate tornadoes. However we are discussing an event within a 1 minute timeframe. I know of at least one NWS office during surveys that defines a tornado path break at or greater than 2 miles to be classified as two separate tornadoes (based on storm motion ~25-40mph and from the same mesocyclone). Otherwise, the tornado is listed as one path length with occasional, brief intermittent breaks noted in the description.

In the case of Paris, TX, the two condensed tubes dissipated and reformed within ~1 minute from each other. Considering the Paris storm motion, this would place both features within ~0.6 mile from each other. Both these tubes originated from the same mesocyclone and in the same general lowered region in the mesocyclone.

Just because one tube looses visible condensation and another visible tube condenses, that is not enough evidence or logic alone to justify this event as two separate entities with the aforementioned evidence listed above. If it was, then several historical events would have a significantly larger number of tornadoes. Lastly, how confident would your assessment be that no weak circulation was present at ground level during that 0.6 mile break lasting one minute?

However, it should be stated that there is no perfect interpretation method in classifying such an event. Human interpretation will always lead to differences and these differences will likely contain some degree of error and subjectiveness. Perhaps that’s the beauty in it all.

Scott Blair
http://www.targetarea.net/

 

[Gabe Garfield]

Lastly, how confident would your assessment be that no weak circulation was present at ground level during that 0.6 mile break lasting one minute?

Can't be that confident...but given the fact that no condensation funnel (which forms due to pressure drops which increase the pressure gradient force) was present during the interim period, the winds present within the surface circulation were substantially weaker than when either tornado was in progress. How much weaker? Really can't say for sure.

However, it should be stated that there is no perfect interpretation method in classifying such an event. Human interpretation will always lead to differences and these differences will likely contain some degree of error and subjectiveness. Perhaps that’s the beauty in it all.

True...Chuck Doswell has some really good essays on the issue of tornado definitions. Any definition of a tornado is somewhat arbitrary...so really, the definition of a tornado is as unique as the person who came up with the classification criteria (at least to some extent).

Gabe

 

[Travis Livengood]

After watching it, I would consider it to be once tornado, based simply off the fact that during the times when there was no damage cloud to be seen, or any other sign of touchdown, there was almost always one single funnel in sight.