Storm Australian Severe Weather Forum
Severe Weather Discussion => General Weather - all topics not current severe weather. => Topic started by: Gambit on 29 October 2007, 06:28:03 AM
-
Hi all,
Sorry for the newbie question but I have seen a few posts mention that it was incorrectly called a "Mini Tornado"
Is this term incorrect because it either is a tornado, or its not, there's no definition between mini, large, et cetera? and the measurement of size of a tornado is on the F scale.
thanks in advance
Mat.
-
Yes - it is incorrect to those with a weather interest because it is either a tornado or it isn't.
I don't mind extra words used to describe whether it was a small or large tornado in terms of its funnel structure or an indication of its wind speed and destructive power. But who in the media or general public is able to determine how small, large or mini a tornado is when they have little idea about these events in the first place.
The Fujita scale should not be applied to a tornado until damage assessment is done.
Regards, Michael
-
OK thanks for the clarification Michael :)
Regards.
Mat
(i need 10 words at least to post message)
-
I have two questions resulting from this event which should be posed to the BoM but probably won't.
Firstly doesn't the tornadic supercell which produced this tornado at Dunoon strengthen the case for a Doppler Radar at Grafton seeing as the North East of NSW has more recorded incidents of Tornadoes than SE Qld?
Secondly, why hasn't the BoM issued a media release describing the events around this storm using proper terminology and explaining in even basic detail as to how and why this storm developed and produced a tornado? At least then the Media outlets would be getting the correct info and terminology. The silence of the BoM over this storm is deafening. If they were in the habit of doing such debriefs for the media and public for that matter immediately after severe storm events like this than the misconceptions and poor terminology would dissapear.
Jeff.
-
I have two questions resulting from this event which should be posed to the BoM but probably won't.
Why not? If they aren't aware they may very well not know. It wouldn't hurt to maybe subtly suggest?
Firstly doesn't the tornadic supercell which produced this tornado at Dunoon strengthen the case for a Doppler Radar at Grafton seeing as the North East of NSW has more recorded incidents of Tornadoes than SE Qld?
What information would a Doppler Radar give us? Is there anyway that we could influence the BoM to get one? Letters, Lobbying?
Secondly, why hasn't the BoM issued a media release describing the events around this storm using proper terminology and explaining in even basic detail as to how and why this storm developed and produced a tornado? At least then the Media outlets would be getting the correct info and terminology. The silence of the BoM over this storm is deafening. If they were in the habit of doing such debriefs for the media and public for that matter immediately after severe storm events like this than the misconceptions and poor terminology would dissapear.
I agree entirely. Our BoM has a very low profile in the Australian media and in the public eye in general. It would most certainly not hurt them to increase their profile and educate people on basics when it comes to severe events as I believe they are going to become far more frequent.
The more educated people are the more accurate information can be collected and passed back resulting in further development/education. and then the cycle continues.
Also people will be better prepared for severe storms like the one in Dunoon and ultimately be safer.
Regards
Mat
-
I have two questions resulting from this event which should be posed to the BoM but probably won't.
Firstly doesn't the tornadic supercell which produced this tornado at Dunoon strengthen the case for a Doppler Radar at Grafton seeing as the North East of NSW has more recorded incidents of Tornadoes than SE Qld?
Secondly, why hasn't the BoM issued a media release describing the events around this storm using proper terminology and explaining in even basic detail as to how and why this storm developed and produced a tornado? At least then the Media outlets would be getting the correct info and terminology. The silence of the BoM over this storm is deafening. If they were in the habit of doing such debriefs for the media and public for that matter immediately after severe storm events like this than the misconceptions and poor terminology would dissapear.
Jeff.
I totally agree Jeff regarding Doppler radar at Grafton. Even though there is a tendency for these areas to be grouped as "south-east QLD, north-east NSW", when it comes to severe storm frequency they are poles apart. Then again the locations of the radars are basically political not meteorological.
We still have this widespread belief here that tornadoes are a uniquely American phenomena. Sure, that is justified to some extent, however, a long history of tornadoes in Australia, some at the high end of the Fujita scale, indicate that the risk is real. Events such as these really should get the BoM into second gear promoting their 'new' technology (ie Doppler radar), and the tornado hazard in Australia. At the end of the day, and not a criticism of BoM employees, but the public service in this country is steeped in institutional inertia.....and at the upper levels, no one wants to make a decision.
-
I'm no longer convinced of the need for a doppler radar in the Tamworth area. I definately think that they need a conventional radar both at Tamworth and near Dubbo but not a doppler. I think it would make more sense to put three new dopplers along the east coast. One at Grafton and one somewhere around Kempsey and one at Newcastle. They could then relocate the Lemon Tree radar to Tamworth and the old Grafton Radar to Dubbo.
There are far more instances of supercells producing violent wind and damaging hail in the coastal/hunter areas.
Jeff.
-
There's no doubt that storms with large hail and violent winds occur on the NW Slopes and Plains, however I believe the majority of Tornadoes have occured along the Tablelands and coastal reigons including the Hunter Valley. And the hail records show larger sizes have occured along coastal regons than inland. Who could forget the 10cm recently near Muswellbrook? And also the famous hailstorms in Kempsey and Taree?
But also the more important consideration is population density and it's obvious that it's increasing faster along the coast than inland. Towns and small cities like Port Macquarie, Kempsey etc currently only have fragmented radar coverage and the area is prone to supercells.
I think that both the population and historical records both concur that the coast is far more important than the inland for doppler coverage.
John, your reply explains the reason for your opinion to install a doppler radar at Tamworth but not Grafton. What's your explanation for Grafton?
Back to the mini tonado debate and I've now heard people call the dunoon tornado a hurricane, typhoon, willy willy and a mini tornado. It seems like people know every other terminology except the right one!
Jeff.
-
Sorry for the newbie question but I have seen a few posts mention that it was incorrectly called a "Mini Tornado"
Mini-Tornado is slightly better than when the news calls them "Mini-Cyclones",
-
Was listening to multiple storm reports from friday through to now to hear what weather terminology was used and it disgusts me that these news reporters cannot get the terminology right, the BOM or someone needs to inform them of correct terminology, i had a friend say to me did i see the news footage of a 'mini' tornado and i replied you mean the tornado and i got "no, the mini tornado thats what the news person said so thats what it is" so not only do they get it wrong the general public then gets a misconception of terminology due to the news reporters not knowing.
-
no, the mini tornado thats what the news person said so thats what it is" so not only do they get it wrong the general public then gets a misconception of terminology due to the news reporters not knowing.
Yeah, I almost bite peoples heads of when they say things like that. I think the media is STILL under the assumption that this country does not get the almighty and power Tornadoes, which is so untrue.
-
Hi guys,
I am always wandering why people are getting so worked up about the incorrect use of this terminology. Unless Australia suddenly gets bombarded with a series of tornadoes over several years, you may as well head bang the brick wall than expect correct terminology. Even when the upload of my video was occurring, the person on the phone also mentioned "this amateur camera man shot video of a mini-tornado". I was too late!!! I must say though that a few TV stations did use the word tornado so that is encouraging.
It is embedded in the Australian language along the lines of the words willy willy and cock-eyed bobs.... I prefer mini-tornado than these.
Don't get me wrong, sure we should try changing such habbits but I have now seen the same sort of threads and messages so many times on various forums it is now getting monotonous. In fact to an extent it has added more credibility to the search term in google "mini-tornado"
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
Edit: Corrected my mistake.
Hi guys,
I am always wandering why people are getting so worked up about the incorrect use of this terminology.
I agree with you. I'd rather hear Mini-Tornado (least it still has the word in it), than Willy-Willy, dust devil, or.... my favorite.... Mini-Cyclone (I don't know why this bugs me so much, but it always has), which people instantly start thinking of Tracy and Larry.
-
I guess I can draw an analogy or two...
If you had say a V8 and a 4 cylinder Holden commodore car (the VB commodore came in a 4 cyl flavour) no one would call the 4 Cyl a "Mini-Commodore" because it was less powerful. And it would be a preposterous notion to do so.
I can't see, how it is any less acceptable to do the same with something that if not given due care and due respect will kill you stone dead.
The term "Mini" takes the severity out of anything; think for example, of a Miniature Pony, you'd just walk up and pat it not a second thought in the world. However a pony or a horse for that matter you'd be a little more apprehensive maybe not apprehensive, cautious is a better word.
It is better for the for the most part average okker to be aware of the possibility that a tornado could pick up a chunk of house and throw bits of it at you HARD!
What I am trying to say is that the word Mini takes the bite out of it ,softens it a little, not so big and dangerous and scary when in all reality if you had have been in that church or one of the houses out at Dunoon last Friday it would have been every bit "Large as life"
-
John,
I think that the naming issue isnt as concerning as peoples using of a 'mini' prefix to mean they are weaker
I never took the term 'mini' as meaning weaker but I did take as being smaller.
Great you have quoted the Bureau staff informing the public but did she inform the media? It is the media they have to educate and then the public will be informed by the media. Almost a waste of time. We'll see how effective this was until the next tornado episode occurs in Australian in 2000......and....?
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
Sorry Gambit,
What I am trying to say is that the word Mini takes the bite out of it
I have to disagree here. You are forgetting that with misuse of the word comes the vision - whatever it may be damaged houses, felled trees and so forth. I think viewers as well as those witnessing the mini-tornadoes won't be standing around smiling after the ordeal!
Now I wonder what a real tornado will do!
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
I have to disagree here. You are forgetting that with misuse of the word comes the vision - whatever it may be damaged houses, felled trees and so forth. I think viewers as well as those witnessing the mini-tornadoes won't be standing around smiling after the ordeal!
hence why the whole sentence read.
"What I am trying to say is that the word Mini takes the bite out of it ,softens it a little, not so big and dangerous and scary when in all reality if you had have been in that church or one of the houses out at Dunoon last Friday it would have been every bit "Large as life"
I am not really sure what you're saying Jimmy?
-
Gambit,
For those who experience severe weather and for those watching the severe weather footage and associating what they see with the for-mentioned word "mini-tornado" are not going to see it as "weaker" because the word tornado rarely gets used. It is just that the terminology has been re-issued.
For the rest of the forum...
The argument really has been taken out of context. In fact I think excessive discussion of the use of the word mini-tornado has been exhausted to such an extent that people are proably thinking of deeper and more creative reasons why it should be used! The use of proper terminology should aim at being consistent globally. That way the public are not confused. A tornado is a tornado, microburst a microburst and so forth. Mini-tornado according to the media tends to relate to phenomenom from tornadoes to microburst and possibly even strong straight line winds not associated with thunderstorms!
I am almost falling asleep here! Can we shift to possible solutions rather than the blame game here. For instance, if you really are psychologically damaged bv the misuse of terminology, perhaps it is time to be proactive and begin educating the public yourself. What ideas can we realistically put in place that will turn the tide so to speak. I am all ears - I just don't want to hear the same argument I have been hearing for more than 20 years!
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
Jimmy, it seems you may not have understood the point I was making.
I was trying to say that people should avoid using the word "mini" before tornado as it is not correct.
It creates the illusion that it is less dangerous.
Please remain on track and discuss the issue rather than misinterpretting posts.
-
John I could not agree more.
It would be fantastic for people who have the knowledge and experience to use their media profile to educate the media and the general population. I can think of no one better.
I have been telling everyone around Lismore that I speak with who mentions the tornado that that's what it was a tornado. when you explain to people that there is no such thing as a mini tornado they understand.
Questions and statements I have received are things like, "It wasn't a real tornado like the ones they get in America, cause it was only a mini one." to which I promptly respond with "A tornado is a tornado is a tornado" it may not have been a 3/4 of a mile wide F4 but it was still a tornado.
When you take the time to explain to people what has occurred they understand. It just takes a little patience and time.
Regards
Mat
-
John,
Jimmy, sorry if you misinterpreted what I said above, I wasn't accusing yourself of anything of the sort: to do so would be foolish.
I didn't misinterpret at all. I took your quote as is and stated what I thought the word "mini" represented over the years. You guys have added a new dimension that had not come to mind.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
My little suggestion as to what can be done to get the media journalists to actually use correct terminology.
How about offering a meteorology tafe/uni course say a 18month diploma or something where they can choose to do 18months parttime or say 9months fulltime maybe just maybe having them learn all about the weather phenomenon that not only australia has uniquely but also weather phenonmenon that we share with other countries such as tornadoes.I don't know if doing a tafe/uni course would help but it is a start as thats where you would learn all the terminology and it would make them better educated all round.
look fowards to hearing other peoples input!
I edited to cut out comments putting yourself down. All constructive comments are welcome - JD
Cheers,
Karina
-
Karina,
That is a good suggestion and I guess it provides an opportunity for someone to do so as well. I guess it should be part of an overall weather course for the media giveing them some insight into forecasting because on its own really a one day seminar can do it I guess.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
Well this has certainly been an interesting bunch of posts!
Education and awareness I believe are the keys here. It must be remembered that the general public don't know diddly squat about severe weather and are influenced by media and movies (one in particular!). With BoM forecasting what we know as supercells, but to the general public it's severe storms - there's a world of difference to the general public's interpretation and BoMs and ours and journalists are guilty of not doing their homework during or after the event.
Even here in Darwin a vast majority of people who have been through cyclones still call CAT1-2 storms 'mini' cyclones or 'small' cyclones, which really is ignorant to the fact that they have not educated themselves as there is a graft of material to read available from Govt departments and online - it's hammered into them but they resile to their own opinions and stick with it. I'm constantly correcting workmates who say all sorts of things and really it's just plain not knowing on their part. They know what the term severe storm is - lots of rain and lighting and strong winds - to us it's much more which they have no concept of.
Anyway it's something we as chasers, enthusiasts of severe weather can work on with the media and word of mouth. Severe weather interests with the public is a small, almost insignificant part of peoples lives as to them what we do is a 'hobby' - to us it is not!
I've spoken to media re my photos in the paper and storm chasing and they still don't print what i said - it's too technical and perhaps they think the public don't need educating or would not really care - the average reader may want to know what all the fuss is about, but unfortunately they'd have to get off their own backsides and go on the web and search for the answers such as on this forum.
As for a TAFE course - if they got the numbers it would be viable, TAFE would want to see numbers to see if it's worthwhile longterm and money is always the issue with teaching, resources, space etc - Jimmy and other experienced chasers, would you offer your services for a fee at the local TAFE to teach if the numbers added up?
I think Jimmy is correct in saying the issue has been flogged to death. Severe weather enthusiasts are small fish in a very large lake!
Mike
-
Gambit,
It creates the illusion that it is less dangerous.
It may create an illusion or maybe it doesn't. Read my post carefully as I believe that people just associate the damage they see with an incorrect term - that's it. How then does it make it less dangerous? It simply is a misuse of the term.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
Just to clarify a point of view from what was discussed last night (have only just read through it now). To my reading Jimmy is saying that the incorrect use of the term 'mini' or other descriptive terms to describe a tornado in this country, does not mean the public or media think the storm is any less damaging or significant. It is simply the terminology is wrong. So we should not get too upset if they do use the wrong words.
We can educate friends, relatives and colleagues when the subject is mentioned. I have done so with the local newspaper (and SES) here. So long as you have a couple of journalists in the know, they will use the right words. But, weather articles are usually written by the juniors so you will get new people all the time writing about severe storm events... meaning the need to educate is ongoing.
MB
-
Realistically, to get nearly complete coverage i'd say you'd need doppler at Grafton, Tamworth and Newcastle(together with Syd which is already getting). If you look at the positioning of this you would have coverage over most of the coastal region, with sufficient resolution to improve supercellular identification significantly. Grafton I suggest as the facility is already setup and only a systems upgrade would be required. If you consider the 256km extent of radar coverage(or even 128), you can see that good radar coverage for all the localities you mention is given by such a network. Unfortunately the Bureau is currently under the dollar squeeze, and not able to afford to hire people betterlone by dopplers(together with a nationwide automated forecasting service).
John you didn't really answer my question. You say Tamworth deserves a Doppler on the basis of metorological conditions being favourable in that region for destructive storms so on that basis why do you think Grafton and now also Newcastle?
We know grafton allready has a radar setup but the fact is that it is an old radar and a new doppler would likely mean a replacement on the entire facility such as has occured elsewhere.
Lastly you say that between Grafton and Newwcastle radars there is good radar coverage but in fact neither radar can see in any detail the entire area between Port Macquarrie and Coffs Harbour. The coverage in the area is woefull to say the least.
Jeff.
-
Indeedy, John.
Perhaps yourself or other members with vast experience could on day come up here and teach the uneducated a thing or two. Lot's of walkers, but no talkers, which makes it harder to get a handle on just about everything storm related without getting into arguments!
Mike
-
Just to clarify a point of view from what was discussed last night (have only just read through it now). To my reading Jimmy is saying that the incorrect use of the term 'mini' or other descriptive terms to describe a tornado in this country, does not mean the public or media think the storm is any less damaging or significant.
MB
Hi Michael,
If that is in fact was Jimmy is saying i could not disagree more.
That was the point that I was trying to make last night!
From my experiences in life dealing with people in my day to day work. that is that way that the large majority of average Joe Punters out there will think.
I work in a call centre in Lismore, I am nearly tempted to ask the customers I speak with tomorrow,
"what do you think would be more damaging or significant, a Mini tornado or a full blown tornado" I can almost guarantee the outcome.
Michael I'm not having a go at you at all so please dont think I am, I am just getting quite frustrated with the fact that I am trying to make a point and I can't seem the get the essence of what I am saying through.
Best regards :)
Mathew
-
Hopefully one of your callers will answer 'What's the difference, they're all in the same category aren't they?' :)
It's all good people, all good.
-
No probs Mathew.
On the 'where to place a doppler' subject, I disagree having one in the same location as the existing Grafton radar. I would suggest one halfway between Grafton and Casino - probably Whiporie so that this northern half of the region (and Tenterfield) gets better coverage. At the moment, the Casino - Lismore - Ballina area is at the limit of good coverage from all existing radars, despite having most of the population, and the doppler doesn't seem to produce useful velocity scans beyond 100km. It could then service the Lismore and Ballina airports too.
MB
-
Hopefully one of your callers will answer 'What's the difference, they're all in the same category aren't they?' :)
It's all good people, all good.
LOL very funny :D however about as likely as snow in Lismore tomorrow...
-
Not sure if Whiporie would give good coverage to Tenterfield - wouldn't the ranges get in the way?
-
what about any sort of unit at mount seaview im sure ralph would be delighted to have a radar there, would help out visuals for that part of the mid north coast (having been born and bred in port macquarie i know the severity those storms can reach in that area- walcha,mount seaview,waughope,long flat{in fact mount seaview had the bridge washed away by quite a severe hailstorm a fair few yrs back})
-
Not sure if Whiporie would give good coverage to Tenterfield - wouldn't the ranges get in the way?
It would be similar to the Grafton radar was regard to that. From the BoM radar FAQ (http://www.bom.gov.au/reguser/by_prod/radar/about/radar_image_faq.shtml):
"The radar beam becomes further from the ground with distance (partly because of the Earth's curvature, and partly because the beam is angled upwards by a fraction of a degree), thereby missing the lower parts of the rain. A horizontal radar beam detects raindrops at a height of 1 kilometre above the Earth's surface from rain that is 100 kilometres away from the radar. It detects raindrops at a height of 3 kilometres from rain that is 200 kilometres away."
So a radar in that sort of position would be looking at storm bases along the Divide which Grafton does now. Of course if the old Grafton radar was shifted elsewhere (rather than having two in the region), then having a doppler at Grafton would be the only choice given the infrastructure already in place.
-
(http://www.steveaddison.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/flogging%20dead%20horse.jpg)
Well, at least this topic has afforded some interesting discussions over the years :)
-
Good one David, laughing my rear end off here at work...:))
Mike
-
John, you still haven't fully replied to my question. Oringinally you argued in favour of a doppler radar at Tamworth because of the high requency of destructive storms. Now on the basis of meterological conditions why should there be a doppler radar at Grafton or Nerwcastle?
What I am trying to get you to see is that if you argue on the basis of meteorological conditions or say the frequency and power of destructive storms than you will see that the Northern rivers experiences far more than the Tamworth region and yet Grafton is not slated for a doppler upgrade. Also you would find that the frequency of severe destructive storms in the Hunter both upper and lower is higher than the Tamworth region and yet Newcastle is not slated for a doppler upgrade. And last the coastal areas north and south of Kempsey have experienced some devestating severe storms with giant hail over the years and there is no radar there at all.
Now if we aruge on the basis of population growth and density then the coast wins again hands down. Port Macquarrie is one of the fastest growing towns in New South Wales and it has insuficent radar coverage. Even the other day another hailstorm hit the Taree area. Only a year or two ago a hailstorm hit Taree collapsing roofs of major shopping centers and causing widespread damage.
Tamworth's doppler radar is not in my opinion a necessity as it is along the coast and represents to me a waste of money. Tamworth deserves a radar but not a doppler an in my opinion it should get one at the same time as Dubbo.
Also
I did answer your query: until I realised the topography in the way(the radar coverage would improve with a tamworth system over that area, check the 128km/256km cover). The radar coverage possible if you place a doppler at Tamworth would cover the grafton/newcastle gap over port mac and coffs somewhat better if not for the mountains(dumbo here forgot about them).
You are saying here that it's the mountains that would get in the way of radar coverage reaching the coast from a radar at Tamworth and that is one problem but what about the fact that Tamworth is 200+km inland from the coast? Isn't that a serious problem too? And what if they mount the Tamworth radar 50km west of town to get better coverage, than it wouldn't even see below 4km along the coast.
Jeff.
-
Personally I'm thrilled about Tamworth's doppler RADAR going in.
Much of the weather that hits the coast originates on and west of the tablelands. Tamworth will fill an important gap between Moree/Grafton/Newcastle even if the coverage doesn't extend all the way to the coast.
Statistical arguments could be made for any site but at the end of the day this area has the same order of magnitude of severe weather as anywhere else in the state and it must be much cheaper to install a doppler rather than swap it with an existing RADAR.
Hopefully it will be online around the end of March..
Regards,
Dave
-
In that case, would not a compromise be to place it on the ranges itself say on the 1400 metre range east of Tamworth - is it Black Mountain? This would cover a fair bit of the coastline and further inland from Tamworth.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
There would be a whole bunch of issues surrounding a radar installation including proximity to basic services to drive the thing, environmental issues, accessibility, local representation / DA etc etc etc. It's not simply a case of which site would provide the best coverage.
-
Well we're not sure exactly whereabouts the Tamworth RADAR will be installed. Somewhere on the BOM site I once saw it referred to as Tamworth/Gunnedah, which would suggest that it is not going on the range, but I'm not sure..
Presumably BOM already have a site purchased and awaiting installation. Presumably they also have good reasons for putting it there and not somewhere else, even if we don't fully understand what those reasons are. As David C says, coverage is not the only factor.
Cheers,
Dave
-
Would any input as far as radar location from experienced chasers have any effect? Would for example those that have been around for a while and know BoM staff on a personal basis have any influence as to where the most logical area would be? Surely with the amount of experience displayed in this forum at least the BoM would have an open ear to what they have to say?
If they put it in the wrong location which is not desirable why not give them some advice as to where to put it? Just a thought as it seems to be going around in circles !
Mike