Severe weather: 5/10-5/12 Plains/Midwest

[OceanStWx]

This "I guess no one learned anything after El Reno" stuff is lol worthy nonsense.

 

What did we learn that day that we didn't already know? Tornadoes kill...knew it. Tornadoes and storms are unpredictable...knew it. Chasing can be risky...knew it. Getting close can be deadly...knew it. There's nothing different that we know now compared to before El Reno occurred.

 

The people that sit behind a computer and post about how others should go about their life are the problem. Each person has a choice to do what they want. Some, such as Reed, like to get right up in it. While you have others that generally like to watch things from a given distance. There's no right and wrong, just a lot of idiotic opinion.

 

For the most part you're right. I do have a problem with it when the argument becomes that they are saving lives by doing that kind of chasing. Just say you're a junkie and I'll understand. But you do not need to be in the funnel to report a tornado to me. So as far as I'm concerned if it's really a public service/public safety deal, be safe yourself when reporting.

[andyhb]

For the most part you're right. I do have a problem with it when the argument becomes that they are saving lives by doing that kind of chasing. Just say you're a junkie and I'll understand. But you do not need to be in the funnel to report a tornado to me. So as far as I'm concerned if it's really a public service/public safety deal, be safe yourself when reporting.

 

And don't endanger other people with your driving.

[brettjrob]

This "I guess no one learned anything after El Reno" stuff is lol worthy nonsense.

 

What did we learn that day that we didn't already know? Tornadoes kill...knew it. Tornadoes and storms are unpredictable...knew it. Chasing can be risky...knew it. Getting close can be deadly...knew it. There's nothing different that we know now compared to before El Reno occurred.

 

The people that sit behind a computer and post about how others should go about their life are the problem. Each person has a choice to do what they want. Some, such as Reed, like to get right up in it. While you have others that generally like to watch things from a given distance. There's no right and wrong, just a lot of idiotic opinion.

 

I'm onboard with this mindset, for the most part. Now, I don't think chasers should have carte blanche to be as insanely reckless as possible without taking justifiable criticism.

 

However, I will say this: the chasing community, and the meteorological community surrounding it, is as full of transparent hypocrisy as any group of people who ever lived. The "who" is almost always a bigger factor than the "what." For that reason alone, I think we all should err on the side of keeping quiet with public criticism unless the actions in question meet a really outrageous threshold. I've seen so many instances of the loudest critical, self-righteous voices taking questionable risks and driving recklessly, that I just can't take any of it seriously anymore. In fact, I saw yet another instance on Sunday from someone even I wouldn't have expected it from. But nothing truly surprises me (and, naturally, I'm sure people have seen me doing things they found questionable, too).

 

Man, if some of you armchair chasers only knew how different the reality is out there in the field than the impression you get from social media -- how little difference there is between the "villains" and many (not all) of the well-known "good guys."

 

On the whole, I think that over the past five years or so, the chasing community has become overly aggressive in these dangerous, low-reward, ground-scraping HP situations. But that's just my opinion, and the most important point is that it applies to the whole community; probably about as many respected veterans and credentialed meteorologists as polarizing thrill-seekers. I understand my bias is to avoid those situations because the potential reward for me as a still photographer is less than for other types of chasers, though.

[brettjrob]

On a more positive note, and getting back to the storms themselves, I finally processed stills from the great structure in SE KS on Saturday.

 

First storm, which tracked from near Atlanta to Severy between 5-7pm:

 

 

 

Second storm, which took almost the same track but ~an hour later (in fact, you can see its base in the distance in the image above):

 

 

[OceanStWx]

On a more positive note, and getting back to the storms themselves, I finally processed stills from the great structure in SE KS on Saturday.

 

Pretty much sign me up for this every time over the HP meat grinder.

[nrgjeff]

Two excellent points are noted below:

... if some of you armchair chasers only knew how different the reality is out there in the field than the impression you get from social media -- how little difference there is between the "villains" and many (not all) of the well-known "good guys."

 

On the whole, I think that over the past five years or so, the chasing community has become overly aggressive in these dangerous, low-reward, ground-scraping HP situations. But that's just my opinion, and the most important point is that it applies to the whole community; probably about as many respected veterans and credentialed meteorologists as polarizing thrill-seekers. I understand my bias is to avoid those situations because the potential reward for me as a still photographer is less than for other types of chasers, though.

 

Everything is more complicated in the field. Sunday we knew only one cell would produce and only for 1-2 cycles as it crossed the boundary. Turns out it formed behind the boundary and rooted itself, rather than crossing the boundary, and cycled 4 times with LNK being the 4th one. Despite nearly nailing the forecast verbatim we saw nothing.

 

Caution is more important to us than booking the tornado. There will be others; not HP, not on a WF, and without the herd convergence. There will be classic sups on a DL with good visibility. We've caught them before and we'll catch them again. Sunday was a debacle but at least I got to spend time with good Plains friends.

 

LOL at the spotter excuse. Now with dual polarization radar there is no need for spotting beyond that which requires minimal risk - initial funnel cloud or even wall cloud. Physics of dual pole confirm without a doubt TOR on the ground. I'm not judging; that is a fact!

[WxKevinM]

LOL at the spotter excuse. Now with dual polarization radar there is no need for spotting beyond that which requires minimal risk - initial funnel cloud or even wall cloud. Physics of dual pole confirm without a doubt TOR on the ground. I'm not judging; that is a fact!

 

I'm no radar expert, but what about a storm that is away from a radar where the beam can only reach as low as say 8,000 or 10,000ft at the storm, how would it confirm a tornado? I've seen incidences where the radar barely sees the storm to begin with (low top) and there is a tornado on the ground.

[JoMo]

Spotters are still needed but you do not need to be 200 yards from a tornado to spot it.

[nrgjeff]

I'm no radar expert, but what about a storm that is away from a radar where the beam can only reach as low as say 8,000 or 10,000ft at the storm, how would it confirm a tornado? I've seen incidences where the radar barely sees the storm to begin with (low top) and there is a tornado on the ground.

What JoMo said

 

Spotters are still needed but you do not need to be 200 yards from a tornado to spot it.

[Chicago Storm]

For the most part you're right. I do have a problem with it when the argument becomes that they are saving lives by doing that kind of chasing. Just say you're a junkie and I'll understand. But you do not need to be in the funnel to report a tornado to me. So as far as I'm concerned if it's really a public service/public safety deal, be safe yourself when reporting.

Oh I agree with that as well. There are very few that chase to "save lives" (In terms of actual spotting/reporting/helping). If someone tells you that, there's a greater than 90% chance they're lying. Just another thing that's nonsense...

[WxKevinM]

Spotters are still needed but you do not need to be 200 yards from a tornado to spot it.

 

Oh absolutely. And video from 200 feet away doesnt even look great if you're doing that, 99% of the time can't really see anything. I personally want to see more structure.... Think it was just the way it was worded that a radar can confirm without a doubt a tornado on the ground, I had to question a bit haha. 

[LocoAko]

Oh I agree with that as well. There are very few that chase to "save lives" (In terms of actual spotting/reporting/helping). If someone tells you that, there's a greater than 90% chance they're lying. Just another thing that's nonsense...

 

Yeah... this is a real pet peeve of mine. I think most would get more respect without the self-righteous stuff they try to peddle... but that's just me. 

[Chicago Storm]

However, I will say this: the chasing community, and the meteorological community surrounding it, is as full of transparent hypocrisy as any group of people who ever lived. 

Yep...Hit it on the head. 

 

Man, if some of you armchair chasers only knew how different the reality is out there in the field than the impression you get from social media -- how little difference there is between the "villains" and many (not all) of the well-known "good guys."

And bingo. Being one that used to follow things online and then transitioned to chasing, the differences in some cases are night and day compared to what you might have thought was the case.

[nrgjeff]

The great thing about science is that you don't have to believe it, but it is still true. - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Oh absolutely. And video from 200 feet away doesnt even look great if you're doing that, 99% of the time can't really see anything. I personally want to see more structure.... Think it was just the way it was worded that a radar can confirm without a doubt a tornado on the ground, I had to question a bit haha. 

 

Learn the physics of dual polarization! If you use all four panels you can differentiate between giant hail and tornado. Dual pole can confirm 100% TOR on the ground. Try to get your hands on an NWS COMET module if you can. Dual pole never suffers from Type I error. Of course any radar can have Type II error for reasons related to distance, sampling error, low-top etc.

 

Still need spotters for the pre-tornado phases, wall cloud and funnels. Also spotters can confirm before debris and/or help avoid Type II error misses. But chasers saying they are spotting from 200 yards away are lying to save their reputation after stupid behavior. Getting caught by accident is OK. Bragging about it deserves a Darwin award.

[brettjrob]

The great thing about science is that you don't have to believe it, but it is still true. - Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

Learn the physics of dual polarization! If you use all four panels you can differentiate between giant hail and tornado. Dual pole can confirm 100% TOR on the ground. Try to get your hands on an NWS COMET module if you can. Dual pole never suffers from Type I error. Of course any radar can have Type II error for reasons related to distance, sampling error, low-top etc.

 

Still need spotters for the pre-tornado phases, wall cloud and funnels. Also spotters can confirm before debris and/or help avoid Type II error misses. But chasers saying they are spotting from 200 yards away are lying to save their reputation after stupid behavior. Getting caught by accident is OK. Bragging about it deserves a Darwin award.

 

A TDS can (essentially) confirm a tornado is present, but the absence of one guarantees nothing. Thus, I'd say ground truth is still very important to the NWS. This has no bearing on whether your average chaser is really on a mission to "save lives," of course; just saying that their reports can still be valuable.

[Ian]

 

 

 

I'm onboard with this mindset, for the most part. Now, I don't think chasers should have carte blanche to be as insanely reckless as possible without taking justifiable criticism.

 

However, I will say this: the chasing community, and the meteorological community surrounding it, is as full of transparent hypocrisy as any group of people who ever lived. The "who" is almost always a bigger factor than the "what." For that reason alone, I think we all should err on the side of keeping quiet with public criticism unless the actions in question meet a really outrageous threshold. I've seen so many instances of the loudest critical, self-righteous voices taking questionable risks and driving recklessly, that I just can't take any of it seriously anymore. In fact, I saw yet another instance on Sunday from someone even I wouldn't have expected it from. But nothing truly surprises me (and, naturally, I'm sure people have seen me doing things they found questionable, too).

 

Man, if some of you armchair chasers only knew how different the reality is out there in the field than the impression you get from social media -- how little difference there is between the "villains" and many (not all) of the well-known "good guys."

 

On the whole, I think that over the past five years or so, the chasing community has become overly aggressive in these dangerous, low-reward, ground-scraping HP situations. But that's just my opinion, and the most important point is that it applies to the whole community; probably about as many respected veterans and credentialed meteorologists as polarizing thrill-seekers. I understand my bias is to avoid those situations because the potential reward for me as a still photographer is less than for other types of chasers, though.

 

There's something to be said about being quiet.. and one reason I will never really associate myself too heavily with the "community."

 

That said, one of the problems with the chaser (and broader weather) community is that few are willing to seriously call out the worst offenders because they are well known, well liked, etc, etc.  Yeah, there's hypocrisy.. lots of it.. but at some pt maybe someone could come out and say a lot of well known chasers are just d-bag egomaniacs.  Same could be said in the online world of well known mets.. many of whom are terrible with science but people just like them.  

 

I personally don't care at all how people chase unless it ends up "ruining" it for everyone else. If someone wants to get killed getting crappy video of a speedy HP that's their business.  And there are plenty of people who know how to do it as safely as possible in that regard including Timmer and co.. The argument (not from you) that this is at all about chasers not knowing their own risks is something a person with no critical thinking skills would come up with.  Chasers who chase regularly probably understand the risk side more than the actual why storms happen side I'd imagine.  

[Chicago Storm]

Chasers who chase regularly probably understand the risk side more than the actual why storms happen side I'd imagine.  

Not really. Generally they have good knowledge on both sides.

[Stebo]

Not really. Generally they have good knowledge on both sides.

 

On this forum yes, however in general no, there are plenty of chasers who don't know a thing about why storms form.

[Chicago Storm]

On this forum yes, however in general no, there are plenty of chasers who don't know a thing about why storms form.

It had nothing to do with this forum. In general chasers that are taking risks know about both sides quite well.

 

Obviously there are random noobs that are chasing that have no knowledge on either.

[Stebo]

It had nothing to do with this forum. In general chasers that are taking risks know about both sides quite well.

 

Obviously there are random noobs that are chasing that have no knowledge on either.

 

That number has been skyrocketing in the last few years though which is creating a problem.

[Ian]

That number has been skyrocketing in the last few years though which is creating a problem.

You sorta need to be able to nowcast to be a decent chaser but I don't think you necessarily need to understand what you're looking at.. after you've seen it a few times hopefully you get the gist. There's a reason some of the most successful chasers have been people who would otherwise be considered bums lol.  Lots of time and lots of SPC bullseye chasing.  

[Chicago Storm]

You sorta need to be able to nowcast to be a decent chaser but I don't think you necessarily need to understand what you're looking at.. after you've seen it a few times hopefully you get the gist. There's a reason some of the most successful chasers have been people who would otherwise be considered bums lol.  Lots of time and lots of SPC bullseye chasing.  

You definitely have to know how to nowcast (Especially on days that are not clear-cut) and know what you're looking at.

[Stebo]

Sunday featured the most convergence I've seen outside of KS/OK.

 

Granted it was a Sun and there was only one decent storm.

That may be the case but compare back to when you started chasing or even 10 years ago, it isn't the same as it was then. There are a lot more people out there now some of which are armed with just a cell phone and chasing other chasers so to speak.

[nwburbschaser]

Sunday featured the most convergence I've seen outside of KS/OK.

 

Granted it was a Sun and there was only one decent storm.

I looked at Spotter Network as the storm was moving towards Omaha and it was just a steady line of chasers from Lincoln to Omaha.  I've never seen something like that before. Although a ton of people were out there it wasn't all that bad except for on US 6 it was a little crowded at times. 

[Chicago Storm]

I looked at Spotter Network as the storm was moving towards Omaha and it was just a steady line of chasers from Lincoln to Omaha.  I've never seen something like that before. Although a ton of people were out there it wasn't all that bad except for on US 6 it was a little crowded at times. 

Yea, other than a time on US 6, we generally were on side roads and stayed away from it.

 

For a while the only other chasers near us were Timmer and Co.

[Chicago Storm]

Finally from Sunday...

 

Chase log: http://www.turbulentstorm.com/blog/may-11th-2014-se-nebraska-chase

 

Ended up with 6 tors total. 

 

Brief clips from myself and Adam...

 

 

 

 

 

[WxKevinM]

The great thing about science is that you don't have to believe it, but it is still true. - Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

Learn the physics of dual polarization! If you use all four panels you can differentiate between giant hail and tornado. Dual pole can confirm 100% TOR on the ground. Try to get your hands on an NWS COMET module if you can. Dual pole never suffers from Type I error. Of course any radar can have Type II error for reasons related to distance, sampling error, low-top etc.

 

Still need spotters for the pre-tornado phases, wall cloud and funnels. Also spotters can confirm before debris and/or help avoid Type II error misses. But chasers saying they are spotting from 200 yards away are lying to save their reputation after stupid behavior. Getting caught by accident is OK. Bragging about it deserves a Darwin award.

 

Dual-pol still wouldn't be able to see a debris signature (if there even is one to begin with) when the storm is too far away unless the debris was lofted high enough to begin with which I believe you stated. However, if there is minimal to no signature even when echo was in optimal distance (e.g. open empty field), then how could dual-pol still 100% confirm a TOR? (yes i understand likely will see a nice couplet, but even then still doesn't confirm without ground truth). I'm not arguing your chasers spotting 200 yards away, or that we still needs spotters... only the assumption that a radar can indicate, 100% that there is a tornado. 

[LocoAko]

Dual-pol still wouldn't be able to see a debris signature (if there even is one to begin with) when the storm is too far away unless the debris was lofted high enough to begin with which I believe you stated. However, if there is minimal to no signature even when echo was in optimal distance (e.g. open empty field), then how could dual-pol still 100% confirm a TOR? (yes i understand likely will see a nice couplet, but even then still doesn't confirm without ground truth). I'm not arguing your chasers spotting 200 yards away, or that we still needs spotters... only the assumption that a radar can indicate, 100% that there is a tornado.

I may be misunderstanding your post/question, but the drops in ρ_hv that occur in a TDS are very distinct and pronounced and will happen if there is any amount of appreciable debris or non-hydrometeorological scatterers in the volume, which will happen fairly readily in a tornado. The couplet will show the rotation but doesn't indicate anything about whether there is any contact with the ground surface, while the TDS results from the lofted debris which clearly happens after touch down. Scan rate and sampling issues aside, when the  ρ_hv drops like that within areas of moderate to large Z there is a very likely chance of a tornadic circulation in contact with the ground. 

[Chinook]

was this tornado actually 1.5 miles wide? Is that what this is saying? That's big!  Was this already covered in this thread?

--------

.BEAVER CROSSING TORNADO...

 

RATING: EF-3

ESTIMATED PEAK WIND: 140 MPH

PATH LENGTH /STATUTE/: 14.1 IN THE OAX CWA

MILES PATH WIDTH /MAXIMUM/: 1.50 MILES

FATALITIES: 0

INJURIES: 1

 

START DATE: MAY 11 2014

START TIME: TBD

START LOCATION: THE TORNADO ENTERED SEWARD COUNTY 1 MILE NORTHWEST

                OF CORDOVA

----------

 

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/news/display_cmsstory.php?wfo=oax&storyid=102229&source=0

[andyhb]

Yes it was covered.