Tornado or not?

[John Wetter]

Someone once told me that if you can take the picture somewhere and the first thing someone says is "cool tornado," then it's a tornado. Other than that, and it's just a 'something'.

-John

 

[Chris Nuttall]

Thank you for that valuable information, Beau! Unfortunately, my problems with LOT did not stop with this storm. As I mentioned in a previous post, my chase team and I embarked on a very short chase after this bad storm. We went to the south suburbs of Chicago, where we observed several areas where the roadways were covered with up to 8" of water. I called in the report, making sure to identify myself as a storm spotter. I gave my observation, the town, even the actual streets where the flooding was taking place. Still, an LSR was never written on that report. So, I understand what you are saying, but that still doesn't lessen my feelings toward LOT in this incident.[/b]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe LSRs are issued for flooding.

 

[Tony Lyza]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe LSRs are issued for flooding.
[/b]

LOT does issue LSRs for flooding, especially street flooding.

 

[nickgrillo]

Tony,

Sorry for the wait... I have been busy:

Note the velocity scan (lowest 0.5deg tilt) -- no rotation visible from any of the storms.

 

[Tony Lyza]

Tony,

Sorry for the wait... I have been busy:

Note the velocity scan (lowest 0.5deg tilt) -- no rotation visible from any of the storms.
[/b]

Sorry to be such a pest Nick , but do you have an earlier image (say 10-20 min prior to this image). The storm had already passed my location by the time of that image.

 

[Joe Nield]

Tony,

Sorry for the wait... I have been busy:

Note the velocity scan (lowest 0.5deg tilt) -- no rotation visible from any of the storms.
[/b]

You'd want to look at storm relative motion to get a better handle on rotation than you can with base velocity.

 

[Tony Lyza]

You'd want to look at storm relative motion to get a better handle on rotation than you can with base velocity.
[/b]

Thanks Joe! I knew that, but I didn't even notice! Sheesh.

 

[Marc Austin]

I really must agree with Jeff. I know that some of you may consider yourselves very good at reading all the data and making your decision based solely on the data, but you have to understand that there are so many things taking place in the atmosphere. There is no way that data alone can represent every single thing that is occuring in the atmosphere at a specific location and time, especially within such a small area. Even data is estimated and is often delayed and sometimes inaccurate. Tony was the one on the ground witnessing the storm, it's motion, and it's structure. It is fine to have an opinion about what he says, and it's fine to disagree with him and tell him that you disagree with his arguments in a sensible manner. Comments such as this:

I would not take Tom Skilling's "confirmation" of the above pic being a wall cloud as a real confirmation. There are PLENTY of chasers with MUCH MORE experience than Tom[/b]

are completely disrespectful and unnecessary. Our chase team has also made reports of severe weather, some of which have been obvious tornadoes with power flashes and debris clouds, that no one has paid attention to. So what happens? Well people don't get warned and for all we know, people's lives are put into danger because egotistical NWS employees sit behind a desk and say "naaa... there's no way there's a tornado there, look that this radial velocity scan.. look at the shear... look at the hodographs... it's not possible, these people are just imagining it." We are certified storm spotters and we know darn well what we are seeing on the ground. I'm not saying that because we're storm spotters they should listen to everything we say, but when we report a torando and give them a spotter number and tell them our location and where we believe the tornado is.. you would think someone would do something! It's just really frustrating because it's not only taking our observations and throwing them in the trash, it's putting people's lives at risk, and that's a game that nobody should be playing. Sitting at a desk with all the data you could possibly imagine and ignoring someone's observations on the ground based on your observations of the data is like reading Cliff's notes for some famous work of literature and saying "I know every detail of that book. Right down to each word on each page" It's time to listen up and quit assuming that just because you know how to read scew-T's and hodographs and you can estimate the MLCape values on a given day at a given time that you can choose tell someone what they are or aren't seeing.

 

[rdale]

Where was the disrespect? 1) We already concluded that you cannot make a detemination of that being a wall cloud based on one picture alone. 2) Tom is _not_ a chaser, so why would we give his opinion more merit than all the chasers here who indicated that likely is not a wall cloud?

Put yourself in Tom's shoes - any idea how many pictures he gets from people who want to know if that's a tornado? Based on the number I get from a small market, I'd bet he can hire someone full time just to analyze them ;> Or he can just agree with people's interp and move on. No disrespect to him. I don't think he cares that people know he's not a chaser, nor was that a personal attack or anything related. He's not a chaser, so it seems to be a valid argument to include that in the discussion.

Regarding the picture - I feel completely confident given my knowledge of radar and Skew-T's and the atmosphere, that Tony was not looking at a tornado.

 

[nickgrillo]

As for the base velocity and SRM: I didn't think it was a big deal, since the storms were moving so slow (generally ~15kts or less)... And neither products featured rotation.

Originally posted by Marc Austin
I really must agree with Jeff. I know that some of you may consider yourselves very good at reading all the data and making your decision based solely on the data, but you have to understand that there are so many things taking place in the atmosphere. There is no way that data alone can represent every single thing that is occuring in the atmosphere at a specific location and time, especially within such a small area. Even data is estimated and is often delayed and sometimes inaccurate. Tony was the one on the ground witnessing the storm, it's motion, and it's structure. It is fine to have an opinion about what he says, and it's fine to disagree with him and tell him that you disagree with his arguments in a sensible manner.

LOL I'm not making my decision based soley on the data... I have seen well over a thousand storms in the past few years of chasing, and from what I can see from the picture(s) is a high-based, outflow dominant thunderstorm (with a linear lowering). Of course there are many things going on in the atmosphere... However, every one must remember that tornadoes are extremely rare iin any storm at any given location at any time. This storm was a pulse-type multicellular band -- and while it's certainly possible that this storm could have stretched some type of near-ground vorticity and produced a tornadic circulation -- it's unlikely by the pics given (since I can see nothing).

For that matter, there were several tornadoes reported (and confirmed) last week from the same type of storms -- but there was photographic evidence as well (these WERE tornadoes) -- and the WSR-88D DID exhibit low-level rotation on the most of those storms (including one of them all the way in central MI -- although, that one did not produce to my knowledge).

 

[Paul Austin]

The picture doesn't prove or disprove anything. The presence of a wall cloud is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for the presence of a tornado. The snapshot is of one instant in time before or after which a tornado could have actually been observed, even in an outflow-dominated storm, however brief or unlikely. Nothing can be verified from this particular photo (or practically any single photo, for that matter.)

The frustration with reports is shared, however. Since when does a trained spotter have to provide proof of an observation when lead time is ticking away? I realize accuracy of reports is important, especially with post-event surveys, and I know estimations can be suspect, and the "crying wolf" response should be avoided. But when a report is made by a trained spotter with the well-being of nearby residents a primary concern, shouldn't the matter at least be investigated without a cynical viewpoint? I guess I can't speak of Tony's account - I wasn't there, but on three separate occasions, I have reported a tornado on the ground with no warning ever issued. The LSR is another issue, but my concern is for the residents. If my report is going to be ignored, why should I take the time. I could simply keep my attention on the spectacle before me and on my camera, etc. But the responsible thing to do is to report the observation. We are trained to make the observation, report it, and leave the decisions to the NWSO. I accept this, I just wish the NWS employee I report to could observe exactly what I am reporting. I don't waste mine or anyone else's time reporting events I am not thoroughly convinced of. I know that numerous non-tornado thingies are reported as tornados or funnels every year, even by storm spotters, but if a storm is capable of producing or has already produced, one would think an observation would be taken more seriously - just my experience and two cents.

 

[MatthewCarman]

Weather is very unpredictable and is something we do not know much about. It is hard to tell what was occuring with the pictures given as they dont appear to show anything in the form of a funnel/tornado and the radar shows no rotation that I can see. Having that said we were not there and tony was and since weather is so unprediactable it is possible tony did see a funnel/tornado and a wall cloud. You must remember weather is very wierd and hard to understand so one can never know what realy happens with a storm unless he is there and watching it. The movie night of the twisters everyone thought it was to cold if I am correct and none believed there would be tornadoes and look what happend? that movie is based on a true story is it not? Just an example of how weather can do the unexpected. I wasint there so i cant say there was or wasint a tornado. I would say no because of the picture and the radar but tony was watching the storm and says he saw a wallcloud and a tornado so I am going to take his word for it. I am curious who is Tom Skilling? is he a NWS Met? And I was curious how much you have chased rdale as I dont remember hearing of you chasing storms in the past so I was wondering? Do you have a weather site? No offence to anyone or disrespect just my point of view. -MatthewCarman.

 

[Danny Neal]

hmmm LOT must not like you too much tony haha ive reported a severe weather event whenever i have witnessed it around my neck of the woods on the southside of chi town and they have included it in the LSR, but another reason is because i am in constant radio contact, using skywarn, you relay it to net-control and the gentleman running the severe weather net will then relay it to the weather service, maybe that could be a route for you in joining ham radio and going that route?? just a thought

 

[Tony Lyza]

Let me type the whole series of events here to hopefully clear up what appears to be some confusion due to my fractured presentation of what happened.

I do now know that this was not a tornado. However, I am very sure that there was rotation; as I have mentioned NUMEROUS times, it was very weak (it took over a minute of intense observation in order to verify it. I NEVER reported a tornado; I did report a "wall cloud rotating very weakly" because when a spotter sees rotation, they are supposed to call it in. After the wall cloud passed completely over, the downburst hit, and hit with avengence. I called in a report of 60-70 MPH winds with flying debris. Shortly thereafter, the wind picked up even more. Some of the smaller trees were bent to between 45-60°. Large lawn furniture was blowing around, as was that tent seen in the picture. After discussion with the other trained spotter in my house (my mom), we concurred that the winds had approached 75 MPH; I proceeded to call in the report. The person who recorded the report (who, if he also typed the LSRs, appears to be new to the LOT office at the very least) thanked me for the report. I then proceeded to contact my chase team to try to get some decent pics of the MCS congealing in NE IL (I'm easily pleased when it comes to storms). We left soon after the storm; however, I did check to see if my report was recorded; it wasn't. My mom called in the report to verify it; only then was an LSR written on it. The chase team and I left to catch up to the MCS moving through the south suburbs. We didn't catch it in time. By the time we got there, it was pouring rain, with near zero visibility. We ran into several areas of standing water of up to 8" (urban flooding). We called in the report. Even though LOT does record flood LSRs, our's was never recorded.

That was the series of events from that day. I hope that helps.

Weather is very unpredictable and is something we do not know much about. It is hard to tell what was occuring with the pictures given as they dont appear to show anything in the form of a funnel/tornado and the radar shows no rotation that I can see. Having that said we were not there and tony was and since weather is so unprediactable it is possible tony did see a funnel/tornado and a wall cloud. You must remember weather is very wierd and hard to understand so one can never know what realy happens with a storm unless he is there and watching it. The movie night of the twisters everyone thought it was to cold if I am correct and none believed there would be tornadoes and look what happend? that movie is based on a true story is it not? Just an example of how weather can do the unexpected. I wasint there so i cant say there was or wasint a tornado. I would say no because of the picture and the radar but tony was watching the storm and says he saw a wallcloud and a tornado so I am going to take his word for it. I am curious who is Tom Skilling? is he a NWS Met? And I was curious how much you have chased rdale as I dont remember hearing of you chasing storms in the past so I was wondering? Do you have a weather site? No offence to anyone or disrespect just my point of view. -MatthewCarman.
[/b]

Skilling is a very intelligent, very reputable, and very well-respected broadcast meteorologist on WGN-TV in Chicago.

Also, that "The Night of the Twisters" movie is just terrible. It is loosely based off of a book that is based off 6/3/80 (with fictional characters and plot); the movie, however, is terrible. The day itself was nothing like in the movie.

 

[rdale]

I'm not sure how that movie got thrown into the mix ;> This marks my 20th year chasing, 90% of which has been in MI/OH/IN/IL.

My specialty is radar interpretation - I speak at conferences nationwide (primarily to broadcast mets) and even hop into Canada every few years!