Storm Australian Severe Weather Forum
Severe Weather Discussion => General Weather - all topics not current severe weather. => Topic started by: Jimmy Deguara on 28 January 2007, 07:09:16 AM
-
Hi,
A Tornado Warning was issued in SE Qld 26th January 2007. Here is the detailed warning as it stood on this day:
-------------------
Bureau of Meteorology
Queensland Regional Office
The Standard Emergency Warning Signal should NOT be used with this message.
TOP PRIORITY FOR IMMEDIATE BROADCAST
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WARNING - SOUTHEAST QUEENSLAND
for LARGE HAILSTONES, DESTRUCTIVE WIND and VERY HEAVY RAINFALL and a possible TORNADO
For people in parts of the
Southeast Coast,
Eastern Darling Downs & Granite Belt and
Wide Bay & Burnett Forecast Districts.
Issued at 5:25 PM Friday, 26 January 2007.
THIS INCLUDES A TORNADO WARNING.
At 5:25 PM , Bureau of Meteorology weather radar detected severe thunderstorms near the area northeast of Dalby and Bunya Mountains. These thunderstorms are moving towards the north to northeast. Severe thunderstorms are forecast to affect the area west of Kingaroy, the area southwest of Kingaroy and the area south of Kingaroy by 6:25 PM .
Very dangerous thunderstorms were located near Laidley. They are forecast to affect the area south of Esk by 5:55 PM and southern Lake Wivenhoe, Esk and northern Lake Wivenhoe by 6:25 PM .
Tornadoes, large hailstones, destructive winds and very heavy rainfall are possible.
A more general severe thunderstorm warning is also current for the Central Highlands & Coalfields and parts of the Central West, Wide Bay & Burnett, Darling Downs & Granite Belt and Southeast Coast Forecast Districts.
NOTE A TORNADO HAS BEEN SIGHTED IN THE LAIDLEY AREA. PEOPLE IN THE PATH OF THIS STORM BETWEEN LAIDLEY AND ESK INCLUDING THE COMINYA AND LOWOOD AREAS SHOULD SEEK SHELTER INDOORS.
The Emergency Management Queensland advises that people should:
* Move your car under cover or away from trees.
* Secure loose outdoor items.
* Avoid driving, walking or riding through flood waters.
* Seek shelter, preferably indoors and never under trees.
* Avoid using the telephone during a thunderstorm.
* Beware of fallen trees and powerlines.
* For emergency assistance contact the SES in your local government area, listed in the White Pages under either State Emergency Service or your local council.
The next warning is due to be issued by 6:20 PM.
This warning is also available through TV and Radio broadcasts, the Bureau's website at www.bom.gov.au or call 1300 659 219. The Bureau and Emergency Management Queensland would appreciate this warning being broadcast regularly.
------------------
What are your thoughts about the validity of this warning given that very little evidence has been supplied to support it? Or have you found evidence - pictures, reliable reports, etc? Obviously the Bureau did feel compelled to issue the warnign based on an experienced observers' report.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
Here is what WZ forecast climate summary had to say:
The warnings covered much of southeast QLD and shortly after 5pm EST tornadoes were being mentioned in these warnings based on observer accounts. Soon afterwards the towns of Dalby and Laidley were hit by tornadic winds, causing serious damage to property.
Were Laidely hit by the same storm? The description and behaviour of the weather at Dalby was one of very low rainfall and powerful winds unroofing homes and other buildings.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
I agree that the BoM should add it to the warning if they feel they have a report from a reliable spotter. Though I would hope they follow it up requesting photos or do a damage assessment.
The Brisbane radar for this Laidley event, and also the Dalby storm can be seen in these loops.
http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/radar/20070126/brisbane128.htm
http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/radar/20070126/brisbane256.htm
You didn't have to wait long for these, John :)
MB
-
Hi Jimmy,
As I mentioned in a post many months ago, I suspected we would see a 'special' type of warning come out of Brisbane this season - only to learn that the Doppler was down due to a lightning strike. Anyway,,,,,let's just say, and I have not been following severe weather all that closely this year, that yesterday was NOT what I envisaged as the inaugural tornado warning day. Overall, I have mixed feelings regarding this warning.
It is a difficult situation over here for the BoM. Firstly, tornadoes are rare (and by extension, strong/violent tornadoes are even rarer)'. Second, the (Doppler) radar network is insufficient for the most part. Third, 'ground truth' observations are unreliable since the vast majority of people are not adequately experienced or trained to know what they are looking at (including 'chasers' as evidenced on TWZ). This all works against the BoM they are hard pressed to provide 'systematic' tornado warnings as opposed to the ad hoc one we saw yesterday. To illustrate this, myself and Paul Graham saw rapid cloud base rotation and a debris over North Ryde a few years back. Paul called in the warning but it was not noted at all in the warning, despite the storm being a very intense supercell (and luckily a weak tornado). So the whole process is very subjective and destined to fail eg is a warning based purely on the spotters description (consider the 'tornado' that Otley photographed a few weeks back - a description of that would indicate a large tornado with boiling clouds to the ground. Yet it most probably was not a tornado).
Going back to the first point. Tornadoes are rare in Australia - are they(BoM)/ we prepared? If they did issue a warning how effective would it be? Would people take it seriously? How would the media react to a tornado warning? Getting a tornado warning service to 'work', in the absence of a tornado disaster in the meantime, is like bringing about a cultural change. There would clearly be a requirement for the BoM to educate people on tornadoes in Australia, the new technology (radars) and the new warning service that will be used if required......and, of course, what to do. Not just throw them on the web and hope for the best.
Regarding two, we might have a decent Doppler Radar Network over the next 5-10 years and this will pave the way for serious progress (not to mention by that time every man and his dog will have a high quality videocam in their mobile phone and the capability to upload in real-time for instant verification which will take care of three!). In all seriousness though, the BoM spotter network is in need of an overhaul....things have moved on since the introduction of the spotter card in 1989/1990.
So, summarising my view, I can understand why a warning was issued and I'd say whoever issued it is a visionary, and this is progress!!!!! (you can bet this 'willy willy' will be logged as a tornado to help with the accuracy ratio). In truth though I think such a warning serves to illustrate how far things are to go before such a 'warning' is truly a useful warning (well, far more often than not!).
-
I too think it is fair to say the warning yesterday was validated from the BoM's perspective given it was issued based on an 'experienced spotter's' observation. But what is an experienced spotter in this country particularly in regards to tornado verification. How many tornadoes could this person have observed in real life? I would require to know more about the basis underlying the warning being issued before I can comment further on this issue.
The handling of its (the warning) release to the public and media require constant review. Tornado warnings although rare have been issued on more than a few occasions - two from my immediate memory in Victoria and two in Queensland. Why one was not issued with Paul Graham's and David Croan's observation with a clear and dangerous supercell in early 2006 defies belief.
Suffice to say, there was some confusion in the warning itself. First, the length of the warning and the combinations within the warning left so much room for misinterpretation - and that we found amongst the various media reporting on the event - 'mini-tornado' as compared to 'tornado'. Second, were there one or more tornadoes? And one or more thunderstorms striking a township in question? I don't think the Bureau seemed prepared really to issue such a warning to the public given various scenarios deserve different levels of warnings. I guess in the heat of the moment, the decision was to just issue the warning and hope for the best. Even though one township was mentioned in the warning Laidley, the tornadoes or tornadic style winds were associated with Dalby which being a larger township sustained more media reportable damage and became the highlight of the media - well at least here in Sydney (train derailment, houses destroyed). And you cannot blame the media here given the length and combination of the warning. I think a separate warning should have been issued for the tornado warning to ease any confusion.
I take on board David's discussion of how the public will perceive this warning and so to the media. I was contacted by channel 10 news desk and asked about any information or contacts of anyone who may have observed the tornado. So the media were odds on to the fact that this warning was not the so called mini-tornado - well definitely in terms of this news person anyway. So surprisingly, the issue of this warning seemed to bring out more tornado terms within the media. So it seems the media were trying to relate to what they report in the United States news coverage for a change. let's at least give them credit for that rather than bicker the use of the word - mini-tornado as it seems to be happening once again on WZ.
From a media, public education and the Bureau's perspective, this would have been far more positive if the confirmation was validated. This is where I draw the line. Was it really confirmed? Where is the traditional damage survey by the BoM or are they relying on SES photographs? Will this be put down as a 'tornado' within the severe weather database or will the word 'possible' be more appropriate? I wish someone can verify this point rather than having to wait 2 months.
Nevertheless, the outcome of this is now clear from a TWZ perspective - there seems to be no doubt amongst individuals that this is an exciting tornadic event coming from a 'definite supercell'. We have a new breed of chasers with the incorrect perspective of what supercell verification requires let alone tornado verification. Further, it seems that the so called rare unexplained events are tending to become tornadoes including twisting of trees and obliteration of homes. Well it is more exciting than microbursts I guess and it feeds the most damaging statement ever - "Australia's lack of population and tornado density argument".
Deviating slightly from this topic relating to the post analysis of this event and how it is received and reported, it is extremely important that organisations and senior chasers educate and lead the way in accurate reporting of this event and others for that matter. As mentioned above, the use of the words 'possible' and perhaps 'probable' and to promote discussions/questions are far more effective scientifically to uncover the clues as to what really occurred. I believe much of this has come about based on several years of exaggeration and misconceptions arising from some chasers. But we won't go there.
I do believe that improvements in technologies as suggested by David cameras on mobile phones, digital cameras, video cameras, webcams, satellite remote sensing imagery and an expansive network of doppler radars will help draw us closer to the truth. Until then, one cannot look in despair at the ever increasing contaminated records particularly in regards to supercells and tornadoes. Time will tell.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
I was quite suprised to see the mention of a tornado in BoM warning. The conditions on the day were far from what I'd expect from a typical tornadic setup (ie. relatively high LCL, weak low level shear, CAPE < 2000 j/kg). That is not to say a tornado wasn't possible as I have read of many examples of tornadoes forming in seemingly benign conditions. I agree that the storm was probably a supercell based on radar and photos I have seen though this doesn't mean that the storm was therefore capable of producing a tornado. Personally, I would have to have a lot of trust in the spotter to issue a tornado warning.
I actually would like to see a more detailed severe storm warning system in place in Australia. Also, I think convective outlooks would be nice as well similar to what are released by the SPC in the US. I say this because just saying 'thunderstorms likely' or even 'severe thunderstorms' really doesn't really give an indication on severe storm potential. The truth is some days tennis ball size hail is a real possiblity and others it simply isn't even though storms may be classed as severe.
Michael
-
Consider this photograph which was the alleged 'tornadic supercell'
(http://downunderchase.com/friends/dave/2007/0126ds04.jpg) photo courtesy Dave Sercombe
I am not totally convinced it as a supercell. The storm was low topped from a distance and has multiple towers when it was alleged to have a tornado so I am not sure how anyone can suggest supercell structure. Multiple towers to me are indicative of multicellular behaviour. From a radar perspective with no other storms shadowing it from radar, the storm was only in brief periods intense - once again more of a sign of multicellular behaviour. The latter 'enhanced' photographs show outflow and not much in the way of inflow characteristics. Although the storm deviated it was merely because of it developing along a boundary and the deviation was not very pronounced. The radar shows disorganised cell reproduction particularly as it headed further north. Strange how the chaser only chased the cell when hearing of it producing a tornado? All of a sudden it became the storm of the day and an 'obvious supercell'. I would have liked to have observed even a minute's timelapse and you would see outflow pushing out. A supercell in this situation would have controlled its own inflow. No reports of inflow from the chaser.
Take for instance this cell that was intercepted in 2000
(http://www.australiasevereweather.com/photography/photos/2000/1119jd12.jpg)
and compare the alleged funnels of this cell
(http://downunderchase.com/friends/dave/2007/0126ds05.jpg) photo courtesy Dave Sercombe
That is a mighty base too - but not a mesocyclone base - but developing cloud under new multicell towers.
This is a high based mesocyclone on a similar sized storm and observed by several chasers to have visible rotation on a day with more favourable shear, lapse rates and CIN.
(http://www.australiasevereweather.com/photography/photos/2007/0112jd25.jpg)
Moving onto the storm that occurred near Dalby seemed to have interacted with the other line of cells and perhaps briefly intensified and then collapsed. It also produced powerful straight line winds to remove the freight train from the railway tracks rather than scatter one or two carriages in the field.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
Good points above, maybe I was jumping the gun in saying it was probably a supercell. I was basing what said on how the storm moved left of the steering winds and the close up photo of the storm's base, not so much the photo of the storm from a distance. The storm never really looked that intense on radar so I was under the impression that if it was a supercell that it would be towards the lower precipitation end of the spectrum.
-
Hi Michael Thomas,
I guess you gave in to easy:) Seriously if you have reasoning to believe it has supercell structure beyond the scope of radar imagery feel free to suggest. To really get an indication of what it is, we would require 3D radar scans. My only reaction here was to draw one's attention to the evidence given it was not very well explained and to react with caution. It is too easy to fall into the trap that others create. Perhaps using the term 'possible supercell' in this case perhaps is validated pending further investigation.
John, you suggest definitely there is a meso. What reasoning can you suggest to arrive at such conclusions?
I guess tornado observations be it landspout, gustnado variety, etc we can only speculate with limited information.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
Brisbane soundings for 26th January 2007
00z (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/soundings/2007012600brisbane.png) / 12z (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/soundings/2007012612brisbane.png)
Links to GFS Analysis: Friday 26/01/2007 06z
Instability: CAPE (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606cape.png) / Lifted Index (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606li.png)
Relative Humidity: 0300 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606rh0300.png) / 0500 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606rh0500.png) / 0600 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606rh0600.png) / 0700 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606rh0700.png) / 0850 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606rh0850.png) / 1000 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606rh1000.png)
Temperature: 0300 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606tmp0300.png) / 0500 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606tmp0500.png) / 0700 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606tmp0700.png) / 0850 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606tmp0850.png) / 1000 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606tmp1000.png)
Winds (knots): 0200 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606wind0200.png) / 0300 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606wind0300.png) / 0500 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606wind0500.png) / 0600 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606wind0600.png) / 0700 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606wind0700.png) / 0850 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606wind0850.png) / 0925 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606wind0925.png) / 1000 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012606wind1000.png)
Links to GFS Analysis: Friday 26/01/2007 12z
Instability: CAPE (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612cape.png) / Lifted Index (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612li.png)
Relative Humidity: 0300 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612rh0300.png) / 0500 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612rh0500.png) / 0600 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612rh0600.png) / 0700 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612rh0700.png) / 0850 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612rh0850.png) / 1000 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612rh1000.png)
Temperature: 0300 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612tmp0300.png) / 0500 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612tmp0500.png) / 0700 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612tmp0700.png) / 0850 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612tmp0850.png) / 1000 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612tmp1000.png)
Winds (knots): 0200 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612wind0200.png) / 0300 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612wind0300.png) / 0500 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612wind0500.png) / 0600 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612wind0600.png) / 0700 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612wind0700.png) / 0850 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612wind0850.png) / 0925 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612wind0925.png) / 1000 (http://australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2007/maps/2007012612wind1000.png)
-
Chasers need to be self critical and avoid the chinese whispers such was taking place on wz
I was talking to Jimmy on the past couple of chases about the idea of us developing a set storm report which will contain set parameters and information to make a chase report instead a general round up and a few pix which we do now. perhaps this is too restrictive but maybe it will make comparing different chasers reports of a single storm more useful as data.
personally , though with my limited knowledge , i suspect a nasty micrburst and some swirly scud got a chaser or spotter excited then they called the BOM
The BOM got hammered after the Sydney Hail storm so i wonder if it was a bit of arse covering releasing the Tornado warning
-
John,
Hopefully your changes do not affect the validity of my questions - that is against the rules really:)
Otherwise, I would not mind gathering some reasoning to support your thoughts? We certainly have statements - but not much reasoning.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
This report from the ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1834541.htm) quotes a BOM forecaster who said they had reports of hail to 20cm in size (yikes!). If that is true then surely is says something about the storm being highly organised and probably super-cellular?
Regards,
Dave
-
Yes, 20 cm hail would require a special set of conditions indeed and, while probably not without precedent (largest I am aware of is around 19cm which fell in/around Aurora NE a few years back), would not occur with any of the storms in the environment we are talking about.
The hail report might have been logged by the same person as the tornado report (XXXX might have been the root cause), but more likely was just a misquote (ie 20mm).
-
David, your post above talks about some interesting scenarios and problems with warnings but little is said in regards to what you think about the validity of the tornado warning itself and reasoning.
I would not mind gathering your thoughts about whether you feel this is a supercell and also providing some reasoning be it radar or from a visual perspective.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
I saw this 20cm report too on wz , more chinese whispers i suspect , can you imagine the damage of 20cm hail on anything? dead cows etc and the hail would probably last to the next day , chasers would have shots of at least 10cm hail surely ,,
sorry to interrupt ,
go for it dave
-
Hi Jimmy,
The validity of a tornado warning comes down to the reasoning behind it being issued and to some extent whether it was verified, especially since this was based on a spotter report only. Remember tornado warnings are issued for 'landspouts' in the USA, so it is a separate issue to the storm being a supercells.
Regarding supercell:
I have no idea on what grounds these Queenslanders claim this storm to be such an obvious example of a supercell -- but it's not the first time and it wont be the last! Yes the storm tracked north but you will note other storms develop in this manner near Clifton at 8:30UTC and again near Glenelg following a storm split at 8:50UTC.
Looking at the radar loop the storm looks 'most' interesting from 6:30 through to 7:00UTC, although the visually unimpressive structure was apparently around this time too, ie according to the photo. Well the echo seems rather discrete but that is only a 40 minute timeframe. There really is nothing to suggest that the storm is a supercell and this is only strengthened when you look at the photograph at the time. That is all we have to go on! Later on when the supposed 'meso' occurred (see photos) near Esk, the storm is a mess on radar and is clearly multicellular.
So, no I dont think the storm was a supercell based on available evidence and hence any 'tornado' was almost certainly not spawned by a mesocyclone.
Tornado:
One cannot rule out a 'landspout' and i would not be surprised at all if this is what was seen by the local spotter. Quite often when you have some boundary lurking favourably in the vicinity of updrafts/storms you will see landspouts in numbers (most recently in Orange a year or so back). Dalby is some distance way from Laidley (and looking at that storm might weel have been straightline winds) but this must be considered. I also found it funny how some of the storms developed in little arcs tracking NE, N and then NW over a few frames. There may have been something interesting going on, but we'll have to await the BoM analysis (if it is to exist) and also hope that a photo will come out of the woodwork.
-
Just reading the replies to this interesting event. I was just wondering that even though the spotter reported 'seeing' a tornado, my query is this; with all the technical data and instruments etc that the BoM have at their disposal wouldn't the radar and sat pics indicate to them of such a pending storm?
It seems from the postings that BoM was a little hasty in their issuing of a possible tornado? Surely they just wouldn't post a warning like that if they weren't sure of its severity? Or is it that there 'was a possibility' and they posted the warning anyway - which would seem okay by me as if i was a member of the public and there was the chance of something very severe, i would like to know about it beforehand.
I think it far better for the BoM to cover their butts - not for insurance reasons and not a knee jerk reaction to a spotters sighting (albeit true perhaps) - but for a public responsibility to do so. The bureau uses information that spotters give them as well as their own information, they're the experts aren't they?
If they got it 'wrong' well then many would be relieved - especially those people living in the affected area. It's a two sided argument - better to err on the side of caution than have the storm pound some poor area and everone up in arms and sue the BoM for negligence for not issuing a warning of any sort at all!
I can't comment on it too much due to lack of experience of such storms, but it just seemed to me odd that the BoM would issue this type of warning without some facts to back it up?
Mike :\
-
Hi Mike,
I concur to your that the Bureau had to act on the information and provide a warning. There are at least two factors to consider here: public liability and repsonsibility as compared to public confidence. The outcome thus far is that we, and I assume the rest of the public, did not see evidence of the tornado. So what has been done to public confidence? the warning was too general given we rarely get to observe tornadoes, forget about knowing the various types that could occur.
For instance, in a warning in the US a couple of years ago, the warning was put out for tornadoes. As the information unfolded, the warnings provided further desciptions about the short lived nature and the fact they were weaker as well as not necessarily occurring as normally anticipated with supercells. The warnings were eventually removed.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
Hi David,
Definitely one cannot rule out a landspout but my belief is that although there was a boundary in this case, it seemed that the boundary was not so tight. Also, I would have thought that landspouts tend to favour steep lapse rates - not sure what the case was here. I also think that boundaries become important in producing multiple instances of landspouts as you and I observed here:
(http://www.australiasevereweather.com/photography/photos/2004/0524jd01.jpg)
(http://www.australiasevereweather.com/video/stills/2004/0524jd018.jpg)
For more check here 7 landspouts and 3 mesocyclonic tornadoes:
http://www.australiasevereweather.com/video/stills/2004/20040524.html
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
Hi guys,
I quote Andrew MacDonald who wrote this on StormTrack
I've just been shown a picture taken from about 3km (2mi) from where one of the tornadoes was supposedly reported (Laidley) and unfortunately, I think the spotter may need to attend some training. The photo shows what looks like a very outflow dominated storm with an area of lower scud. The person who was photographing is a chaser and was in a reasonable position to see a tornado IF there was one there (which it appears there was not). Perhaps the spotter saw a gustnado although the reports of a funnel cloud would suggest otherwise? Anyway - I think we can write this one off as a false report.
On another note, the damage in the area was apparently not serious (a friend of mine asked if we could add a -1 (minus 1) to the Fujita scale that the damage was so slight).
Say no more! Just another example of wishful thinking. Chasers or spotters that are hoping they were the ones to see the illusive tornadoes given our sparse population density!
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
Can you follow up with Macca as to where this photo is located so we can all have a look ?
MB
-
Hi Michael,
You may have more luck tracking this down as I would say this person may be guarding it given the anticipated conversy that followed. David suggested that it may have been a chaser who made the report and would curl up afterwards.
Oh well, it is documented to have at the end of the all of the type of warnings that if a tornado is sighted, that a tornado warning will be issued - well this was in the days when I attended my last spotter training session which was quite a few years ago. Hell, I have been a storm spotter since February 1989!
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
Storm Track thread
http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10801
I have spoken to Macca about this and the photo in question is by Chrissy. I have the whole sequence of photos by Chrissy that she emailed, and at the time I thought scudy hailstorm look. She has not claimed any sighting of a tornado.
Some comments sent to me by Macca: "The only thing in the image I sent you that *could* be something is there is a lowering in behind a rain curtain. There is a very small chance this could be a rain-wrapped wall cloud which could've been where the tornado was and that would've prevented Chrissy et al. from seeing it. But as you mentioned, conditions were not favourable for tornadoes really so I have doubts about the above. "
The pic Macca saw had been enhanced to make it look meaner:
-
I feel it is time for BOM to start to take responsibility. We are constantly bombarded with many people in the public thinking "we don't get tornadoes in Australia", TV reports are "it was like a Mini Tornado", etc etc. Never admitting it was a tornado, even when someone has captured the funnel and a touch down on video and it is played on the news only to disappear from further viewing. I strongly feel the problem lies with the fact that they will have to admit they needed to take the responsibility for the lack of education and communication between the public and the authorities involved as to the severity and intensity of the storms and the fact that we are frequently hit with tornadoes.
There is the issue of our building code and standards as regard to homes and buildings to withstand these storms, and more importantly the fact that our homes are not constructed with storm shelters. I am a builder, and the relevant costs to bomb or storm proof your laundry area (enough room for a family) is minimal in comparison with the other changes taking place with our energy efficient/ sustainable housing programme. Interesting though after the Nov 16th storm, The CYCLONE TESTING STATION School of Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville did an Investigation of performance of housing, in Brisbane, following the storms of 16 and 19 November 2008. There is rumoured that changes have to, and will take place.
(I found it amazing that approx. 1990 our cyclonic wind rating was changed from North of King ST. Caboolture QLd to around the Rockhampton QLD area.
Someone has the power to tell a cyclone it is no longer allowed to pass Rockhampton. Therefore this led to our tie down method being downgraded. What a mistake.)
Then you have the argument that it was not a tornado but a Micro burst, It was amazing that no one lost there lives in that storm of Nov 16th 2008. Honestly sit down and look at the many hundreds of pictures and see how many houses were severely or completely destroyed by a micro burst.
Whether it be a Microburst or tornado is relevant, when in fact, either has the potential to take many lives. A warning system needs to be put in place, maybe even a siren system similiar to USA. Most people take the storms here in Brisbane so casually, thinking nothing will happen to me. Then they are horrified after it hit, and how lucky they were to survive.
An education on the part of BOM and the public has to start, there has to be an education that there will be false alarms, an education that mistake will be made, an education that storms are unpredictable but take the precautions necessary and an education of what people need to do to protect themselves where ever they may be at the time of the storm.
Storms are gaining strength, but an attitude of "she will be right mate" may just costs many lives.
It is a serious Question and important one. Someone has to start the ball rolling. I am trying my bit, but with the information and pictures people associated with this forum have, and their knowledge of storms, could it start here, whether it is a microburst, a tornado or severe weather pattern etc.
Saving lives is important. Our climate is changing or shifting, who really knows what we are in for. The movie "The day after tomorrow" , 2 disc version has some very important documentaries to the movie, intersting viewing.
Cheers.
-
All I've read thus far on this subject certainly makes sense to me and regrettably we have many, many people out there who don't take the technical or scientific attitude to chasing to gather information so that we, as chasers, can relay the information back to BoM so they can correlate all this info.
Do BoM simply take it as a given that when they receive a report of something severe or tornadic from someone 'out taking photos and claiming to be a storm chaser' thus giving them very bad information that leads to knee-jerk advisories? The liability subject has been covered and BoM has that responsibility naturally for all our safety in mind, but what really angers me are those that repeatedly call up BoM during their 'localized chase' and having no experience / knowledge of storm structure during its lifecycle and blurting to all and sundry that storms are this or that when in fact they are not. Indeed, with supercells - there's no way I would attempt to report anything supercellular here or interstate because I just have not seen them regularly enough to determine what makes a supercell! People up here always report severe storms as 'rotating and appearing supercellular in structure' and that's just a blatant, outright lie!
I agree with Nick that perhaps there should be some type of educational tool available that gets to the 'essence' of what is deemed tornadic with supercells here in this country. But whilst there are those of us that take chasing seriously (whilst enjoying the ride) and gathering data for feedback to BoM and actually taking photos of the severe indices of a thunderstorm, the number of rednecks screaming around claiming to be chasers may impact on who BoM takes seriously! Just because a person is a BoM storm spotter says nothing about their experience - perhaps they should give an online test to anyone wishing to become a serious spotter so it eliminates or weeds out the radar chasers, at least that way they would have a pool of names which they can confidently rely on as giving correct information and adjust their advisories accordingly.
We see it all the time on other forums - continually giving misinterpretations and bad observations to BoM and others and this has a domino effect though the ranks and makes it extremely difficult for seasoned, experienced chasers to argue their point across. The numbers are against us but all we can do is try and formulate something with the bureau to co-join forces when relying on accurate observations whilst out in the field - how do we do this - well, meeting with BoM senior forecasters for a start i suspect and brain storming issues?
With all these storm chasing docos on the television it's no wonder there's so many out there destroying all the previous good work that serious chasers have accomplished and we're continually having to argue and correct misinformation to others because 'they heard this and that and well, I 'chased' a storm and it showed blah, blah, blah'
I shake my head in frustration continually - it's an epidemic I see every day up here also.
On BoM's time management for damage assessment issues: I agree that they should take the time to go out to these reported sighting locations and check for themselves to confirm that phoned in report of a tornado. It's no use waiting weeks later when it's all been cleaned up because you need the 'signature' from the tornado or microburst - it's forensics people! And I pooh, pooh those that claim to be chasers yet don't provide any photographic or video evidence so that at least it can be dissected by BoM for analysis - we can't always get to the exact location, but we certainly can take multiple shots to at least show progression of a severe storm. Don't BoM view images people send them (from credible chasers) and then assess the obs and soundings to determine what went on?
Even with my tornado here - BoM have not even bothered to send out an observer or part time officer to check the area. If I had a GPS I would at least get the coordinates from the radar loop of that storm in Humpty Doo and trudge through the bush with it until I found the area - at least I'd find any damage or nothing to confirm what I photographed and reported!!! I can see the checklist of severe storms in this year's spotters newsletter...'Tornado sighted Humpty Doo' and that would be it.
I think I'll go out and borrow a GPS, at least I'll get something before it all gets burnt away from fires or another gusty storm which would obliterate my tornado signature....
A bit long winded but I hope my thoughts are agreed to in some way. Cheers all.
-
Hi Coltan and Mike,
I read your sentiments and feel the anguish as well. Many years ago, I had the same concept in my mind to try ensuring that I can make the difference to policy so to speak. However, my energies now are more to educate the public using this forum rather than trying to make a difference in policy through this forum. I will support the former - not the latter.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
I agree fully Jimmy. You get to a point where the bricks don't break against one's head anymore, so it's time to about face and go pro-active. I've already found that educating through a forum works, I think that was on the day I myself became a member.
But it still has to be voiced to the latter because credibility through a forum with commonsense discussion also has it's merits to those that may have some influence with the powers that be. You may not get what you ask for, but forums get noticed that contain intelligent input.
-
Mike,
I am speaking from experience in the past in regards trying to get messages across about severe warnings and tornado warnings with the authorities and mini-tornado debate with the media as a foregone conclusion. It lingers on and on. What I am saying is that I now find it a rather boring and overused topic and I personally don't want it on this forum. Reasons, well until you get multiple casualties, you will not get action. The same debate occurred apparently in the 1960's when a string of tornadoes caused hundreds of casualties. That is what got the US into action. There was a 'need' to spend millions or billions of dollars on upgrading a warning network. I guess expanding cities and the reality threat that exists there far supercedes what exists here. Why is it that we are so 'lucky' to have very few casualties here? I am pretty sure that the authorities will react to the needs due to media and 'major' public pressure.
Furthermore, we do not even have the right to issue 'advice' on what to do in regards to storm safety. We can link to authorities and let them deal with it. There are legal implications when trying to go beyond this point.
I agree that forums are being read by the authorities. And we already have had silent influence. No longer can professional meteorologists stand alone as authorities in forecasting - this has now been matched by some professional amateurs in storm chasing and the results prove it. This is despite the fact that storm chaisng is not condoned by the Commonwealth authorities! One example of a 'breakthrough' so to speak is the discovery and documentation of the Low Precipitation Supercell in Australia. I challenge any authority to come forward and produce a document about the LP supercell. Suffice to say - let the evidence to the talking.
Education is another matter. Just report the storms accurately and report specific events as we see them with evidence - be it photographic and video or simply descriptive. Let the authorities take care of their job. We want this forum to remain an educational tool in the public eye - this is why I want the forum to concentrate on the former not the latter. If people read and get educated about severe storms, they may take precautions next time they see a storm. When Michael Bath and I as well as others for that matter appear in the media, we try to be very careful as to what we say for the same reason.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
I will learn from this forum and support you in the venture to educate the public. A picture paints a thousand words.
I understand, I have the same situation within the building industry, even though you have support, you cannot rock the boat with the higher sources. You are banging your head against a brick wall.
People are gobsmacked when you present the facts of severe weather in QLD alone. I point them to different sites and material to search for themselves, they come back astounded.
So you are right, maybe this can and will flow through, and people can make an educated decision on there own.
I will take your approach. A point well taken.
Cheers.
-
This has been a truly great read guys. Nice to see that we feel the same way in regards to this subject that we are all pretty passionate about.
As for that photo of the "tornado producing" storm, I totally agree that there aren't really any visual signs of it being supercellular, other than it looking large? Certainly no signs of a single powerful updraft or a decent shearing anvil? There are the obvious exceptions but obs. (when accessible) will usually give a decent indication as we all pretty well know. How I wish for a decent doppler install sometime in the near future also. Some of the supercells that have been sighted of late would no doubt have spectacular radar/doppler imagery to study, not to mention the aid of soon debunking any non supercellular storms such as the current one here which may gain the limelight for a particular reason.
I guess we can easily get caught up in the moment from time to time but sharing the resulting pictures/video of anything suspicious and asking a LOT of questions will soon get to the bottom of it and the answers that are needed :D
Kindest regards and take care,
Shauno
-
I don't agree entirely with this last report.I have seen many or cloce to many tornadoes pictures on the commp,and they are NOT repeat not rare events in any form of the word,however there have been many here in SE queenland and Northern rivers.I believe the weather derives also from the jetsream which is not given much tallk on,if the jet stream is overhead,you can be sure WE are in for severe weather of all kinds,AND faverable for TORNADOES also RE peter fergusson.
-
Peter,
The origin of this topic from memory cetred around a report of a funnel cloud/tornado which may have been a false report. It is not about a history of violent storms in SE Qld and NE NSW that could indicate potential tornadic events. Yes I agree there is a jet in the mid-latitudes and I believe SE Qld and NE NSW is on the wrong side of the jet and tends to favour high precipitation supercell events. Yes violent storms and if you are lucky hidden tornadoes. But history has it that most tornadoes form in favourable environments with classic supercells and often in the presence of well aligned boundaries. Just because you have violent supercells and with powerful outflow winds and incredible structures does not constitute potential tornadic events.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
-
Thanks for the info Jimmmy.thought this page was just a one off,due to what i read the first time,and then to my surprise you could imagine that,when i noticed my post,then thought opps what have i done or said ha ha.Do appreciate any comment made,respect them for that,up here on the Sunshine Coast,can get some weird weather here in storm season,good photography which is what like too.