When did the "wedge" definition change?

[Von Castor]

Dustin,
When reporting for the media shape does matter. We are the eyes in the field so we are instructed to give facts and nothing else. We can't say f-2, f-3, etc.... ( I'm old school) because we don't know exactly what the strength is but we can tell what it looks like, cone, multi vortex,rope etc.... and approx how wide it is and what damage it has caused. This is all very important information that needs to be as accurate as possible. It's easy to get caught up in the moment in this kind of situation as we all know but bottom line, there are lives at stake and that is what is important.

 

[Paul Knightley]

I think I was guilty of calling the tornado to the north of Hoxie on the 22nd a "wedge" on another forum when I suppose it wasn't...however, that was probably over-excitement on my part, having never personally witnessed something like that! However, the 2nd Quinter tornado the next day really was a "wedge".

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

Dustin,
This is all very important information that needs to be as accurate as possible.

Agreed that it is indeed super important to be accurate, however I still don't see how reporting a large cone tornado, or a large barrel tornado that might not quite be as wide as they are tall as a so called "Wedge" is going to affect anything, not saying be inaccurate, try to give the best description you can... I'm just trying to downplay the whole debate over what exactly is a wedge tornado, as I don't think it's really all that important. No doubt reporting a rope, small cone, or small stovepipe tornado, ext... as a wedge is a horrible idea, but I can't imagine to many experienced chasers would do that anyway; I was under the impression that the discussion was over people reporting tornadoes as wedges even though they might not have been quite as wide as they are tall, in which case, I'm not so sure that it's that significant, massive cone tornado, massive barrel tornado or wedge tornado I would hope how you report those in the media would have no impact or alter the outcome of the events....

 

[Kem Poyner]

wedges

Most wedge tornados are muli-vortex aren't they? Since they are very destructive and more long tracked, that would be an important bit of information. But not all multi-vortex tornados are wedges. I have seen large muli-vortex tornados that were in heavily vegitated areas like eastern oklahoma that were not wedges. If they were in a more dusty area they would have been more wedge looking Im sure.

 

[Dave Gallaher]

Interesting thread....but can anyone tell me why fat tornadoes were called wedges in the first place? A standard "wedge" shaped object, in any other application, is tapered at one end.

I don't know how this got started, Shane, but it always made me think of those woodsplitting wedges that are tapered at the side, but not all the way down to a point. I think they have a specific name other than 'wedge,' however.

One issue I've seen in some videos where the tornado is viewed from a half mile or more away is describing a wide funnel as a wedge, due to the terrain cutting off visibility of the actual bottom of the funnel. Once it comes closer, the cone shape reveals itself.

 

[Rob Hedrick]

Dustin,
When reporting for the media... We can't say f-2, f-3, etc.... ( I'm old school) because we don't know exactly what the strength is but we can tell what it looks like, cone, multi vortex,rope etc....

Von, I completely agree! It drives me nuts, when I hear someone saying "It's going to be an EF..." There is no way that size of a tornado has anything to do with the EF rating.

...If an EF5 happens in a dirt field is it an EF0?... but I digress...

 

[Rich Thompson]

As Greg mentioned, the descriptions in the reports matter to warning decisions, and to later warning/forecast decisions. The WSR-88D, satellite, mesoanalysis graphics can only tell us so much, thus we still rely on ground truth.

I'd prefer that people take a deep breath, try their best to determine their distance to a tornado, then estimate the size of the tornado. The size esimate can be accompanied by some sort of shape descriptor. Also, you need to let folks know *what* you're describing - the condensation at ground level, the width of the debris fan, etc. The shape isn't what matters, it's the size, intensity and longevity of the tornado that matters. Estimate what you can to the best of your ability, and try to describe the situation in a way that you think will hold up to at least some scrutiny.

Rich T.

p.s. Tornado width relative to cloud base height means little to me as a meteorologist.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

Not sure exactly what you are asking Greg, but the first picture where you drew the cloud base line is accurate. I was moving North when I took that picture and I parked directly east of the tornado as it moved towards me and became rain wrapped. I got pretty close to it and I know the base was very low to the ground.

Actually, I was asking rhetorical questions pertinent to both of us. It appears we were in nearly the same location on that storm. What I was pondering while observing the tornado was whether or not it was attached to the back edge of the cloud base, or if it was more centered within the precip ball. If the latter, then the tornado was narrower than we thought and closer to us - perhaps ~1/2 the perceived width and ~1/2 the perceived distance, estimated based on radar data and subsequent damage survey. This difference could be important when relaying information to the NWS. Nevertheless, like I said before, it was a significant and very dynamic tornado. Thanks for the pictures and discussion!

 

[Eric Flescher]

new definition "wallcloudwedge"

Re: wedges etc
Last night on WTC, they showed nice short video from Oklahoma severe weather.
First the announcer said in the video this is a wallcloud (which is very white grey).
Then the announcer said it was a "wedge" (the picture did not show a "funnel"t reaching the ground but sitting above touching a hill).
I played it over and over again to try to understand what was actually being said but could not figure it out (so I thought I would post to see if someone else saw it)

 

[Mikey Gribble]

It's also important to remember that there isn't a consistent correlation between size and strength of a tornado. I've seen a lot of large tornadoes that are weak and lots of smaller ones that were strong. I know the seasoned chasers know that, but the public doesn't. When reporting I think the intensity of the tornado is just as important as its size (if not more important). The Garfield County storm was a good example of this IMO. Some of the tornadoes looked good from a distance, but up close the circulation was pretty weak at the ground. Nobody get pissed and attack that please. I'm not trying to take away from the chase at all. It was an awesome storm and they were certainly decent tornadoes, but none of them were strong. I was extremely close to 3 our of the first 4 tornadoes, so got an excellent view of the circulation at the ground. Obviously the one tornado was strong enough to rip a pig farm apart, but even the damage there was somewhat minimal. There were grain bins still standing and lots of metal sheets that were still attached to the building. The tornadoes were respectable, but nothing that is going to down walls on a home anything. That being said, I don't think it is neccessarily important to emphasize that a tornado isn't strong, especially when you consider that it can strengthen rapidly, but I do think it is extremely important to recognize and report when a tornado IS strong. As everybody knows strong tornadoes are pretty rare and IMO it is very important for the public to take those cases seriously and one of the best ways to convey the seriousness of the situation is for chasers to report it as a "strong" or "violent" tornado. When we start reporting weak tornadoes as strong on a regular basis, it will slowly start to take away from the sensationalism that wording brings to a warning and it starts to loose its effect. That is the biggest problem with exagerated reports right now and it happens all the time. Just my two cents.

 

[Dann Cianca]

I've always thought when hearing the word "wedge" to describe a tornado that it was indicative of its shape.

This was the shape I associated with such a tornado:

Was this just an assumption on my part or do others think the same when they hear "wedge"?

... I've heard the mile-wide town erasers referred to as wedges as well ... and it seems this year almost every tornado is a wedge (haha).

 

[Mikey Gribble]

A wedge it typically understood as being any tornado that is wider than it is tall.

 

[Michael Towers]

Perhaps my last report (2008-05-23) may have been the impetus for starting this thread as it began not long after I my report was posted. I did report seeing a wedge, here’s a video still image:

http://s287.photobucket.com/albums/...as/?action=view&current=2008-05-23_Tor_14.jpg

It is wider at the midsection than it is tall but since it is not wider at the base I stand corrected. I guess “Barrelâ€, “Near Wedge†or “Wedge Wanna Be†would be more accurate. I do think the term wedge is a misnomer, terms such as “Stovepipe†& “Elephant Trunk†makes sense since they have visual characteristics reflective of their names. But when I visualize a wedge and how it would correlate in the form of a tornado, I see something more like this:

http://s287.photobucket.com/albums/...s/?action=view&current=2008-05-23_Tor_16a.jpg

But since that tornado does not come to a fine point at the base to be consistent in the visually correlative way I’d call that a “Truncated Wedgeâ€. But of course it is not, but what then would it be? A fat truncated cone?

Regardless, I apologize for contributing to the misclassification of the wedge. It was close but not quite there and compared to many true wedges it pales in comparison. Like Shane Adams, I’m curious; does anyone know the etymology of wedge as a classification?

 

[Gerard Jebaily]

Other than misunderstanding the definition of a wedge tornado, remember that some chasers are going to report what they want it to be, not what it actually is. Things can be reported much bigger than what they actually were. Tornadoes can be reported as "large, violent, and destructive" when they havent even damaged anything yet and the reporter was just close to it all and his adrenalin was kicking in. Hail can be over estimated as well unless you physically pick it up and measure or compare it to something next to it.
All in all, this is jus a classic case of over-hype mostly due to over excitement by the spotter. I think experience can really help out with this but with so many chasers out there, many of them young and less than 10 years experience, "over reports" are going to happen. I like to use the "over report" as an excuse when I hear or see a report of a large tornado so that I can blow it off when I missed seeing it

 

[David Drummond]

Other than misunderstanding the definition of a wedge tornado, remember that some chasers are going to report what they want it to be, not what it actually is.

Indeed, it's been a proven fact throughout history that us men tend to do that.