Here we go again Brad.
Based on your response, I cannot clearly answer your questions because I require you to answer a few key questions and take a few key actions in order to do so. So don't take offense if I don't answer the questions you have asked. But never mind I doubt you will anyway.
Brad wrote: I learnt the definition via you and other chasers initially and I subscribe to it.
Then why don't you accept my judgement of, based on your weak evidence here, use of the terms possible or probable at the least if you were able to accept what I suggested back then. Quite frankly, I don't think based on photographs posted there were any supercells but I have to give you benefit of the doubt because you were there. But you have written and argued a strong statement that requires some clarification. That is the whole crux of the argument here. I personally and neither does Michael Bath like incorrect titles on threads.
If you do not show more evidence of supercell as claimed I have to change the name of the title of this thread to possible supercells at the least. I hope you don't mind just for future readers' sake. It seems you are unwilling to show video that you have. It is so easy these days to download the video, shove it on a timeline, speed it up, render it, place it on Youtube and post the link. I have gone to great lengths and research to be possibly the first one to place a plugin on any of the weather forum that plays a wide range of videos from within the forum.
Brad wrote: Perhaps you cant confirm a persistent rotating updraft in your cell yesterday?
And probably never will. I will post what video I have and pictures of the hail size and people can make their own judgements. I don't think with the word probable, people are going to come at me for any form of inaccuracy or misreporting. They are welcome to do so including yourself! Will it take away from the excitement or beauty of the storm - not in my opinion.
Brad wrote: Of course the words possible or probable have an important place in storm description but I am sorry, if a storm has a rotating updraft that persists for a long period of time and I observe that entire period of storm behaviour, I will call it a supercell.
Yes you can call it be a supercell and you definitely have and it must make you feel better, but obviously to those for whom you have posted, they seem as I browse through posts, once again, unconvinced. Do you think we take lightly to spend a lot of our precious time to write posts on this or any other forum for that matter to try and educate you (Jeff has a family, David runs a business and I also have a growing family) to sit down and post these 'hard to convince you guys' posts? You know I do believe you guys 'know' it is a supercell and it must be hard to come back, post your fantastic pictures and then have a thread like this arise. This was not my intention even if you do not agree. Notice I commented on the supercell in Central Victoria and congratulated you. That was a supercell - in my opinion - I would put my money on it. But I was forced to intervene this time for obvious reasons - I am a moderator.
Brad Wrote: I'll take that advice from him and respect it for what it is.
What? You take his advice and not from any of us? Not even consider our experience in the field? Remember, we have to go with visual clues here. You have decided to omit radar as usless this time round.
Brad wrote: We have video, it was running most of the time. When I have time I will watch it for my own interest but I have no intention of posting any clips here or on any other forum.
Why not? I thought you learned this from me by now having chased that video on tripod is a great tool. I learned this when I stuffed up tornado footage in 1992! I promise you - Pintang, David, myself and other chasers who take video post it more often than not. They receive a far better response because you can see the dynamics in play better than in photographs don't you agree? You don't even need sound. We promise we will not comment on the quality of the video itself unless it becomes difficult to use it for evidence. Please provide more evidence such as video if you have any and we can comment on that. If you do not have timelapse on tripod, just say so! We will accept that.
Brad: These have either been ignored, dismissed or misunderstood but we've been down this track before so Im not surprised.
Don't use this line of attack once again. You are also ignoring ours - we stick to the point of asking for the evidence which you have ignored. So it is on par here.
Brad Wrote: I understand enough to know that storms can transition or sit somewhere along that continuum at a given time.
and
Your image/video doesnt add to my understanding of supercell structure Jimmy please, give me some credit, although I did enjoy seeing that video again!
Of course you do and who taught you that first? I am telling you that the accepted classic supercell definition visually is similar to what I have posted. I can ssure you US chasers did not doubt that from a visual perspective. Note there is no shelf cloud but clean organised structure! You have chased Tornado Alley with me at least 4 times now and you cannot see from the image I posted that it indicates classic supercell structure by definition? There has been nobody around that has required to question it including a forum of US chasers! From the images you have posted, I do not see a classic supercell. We agree to disagree.
Classic supercells are generally rare from what I have seen in the literature in Australia. So are supercells may I add. Classic supercells do tend to have remarkable clean and organised structure. If you are no closer to the definition from a visually perspective and from what I have tried to portray in this image, then you should not be advocating yours as a classic supercell Brad.
Brad: During the chase I discussed the nature of the storm with John and he was adamant that it was a classic and he noted the structure and separation of the updraft/downdraft regions at the time. So in my post I called it a classic.
Yes I also get excited on the chase and sometimes call something a supercell or has supercell characteristics whatever, it is in the excitement heat of the chase and often in our forecasts, we do tend to try and formulate what may occur on the day. This is one of the reasons I look for video clues on top of the photographic evidence as well radar and other pieces of evidence on the day as well as adivce from others who may or may not have been there but still can offer there insight. I often ask David Croan (his scientific skills are second to none amongst the weather community) and Jeff as well as others for their opinions given they look for the signs that will convince them or not. It is ok to debate these points. Then further down I look for the typical types of behaviour, storm splits, deviant motion visually and on radar, distinct wall clouds, evidence of hailstones either from within or after the storm has passed. Once you have hail greater than 5cm, the odds increase dramatically!
Brad suggested: If you note our pics and consider the conditions on the day incl the surface dews, low cloud mostly obscured our view of structure above what is shown in the pics so the comparison doesnt help, not to mention we were much much closer to the base than your example so its not relevant IMO. We are not totally convinced you say?
The conditions on the day don't always provide evidence of what happened. For instance, there have been many predicted tornado outbreaks and conditions that indicate there would be a tornado outbreak but they congeal into a squall line.
Brad suggested:...not to mention we were much much closer to the base than your example so its not relevant IMO. We are not totally convinced you say?
Wrong here!
http://www.australiasevereweather.com/photography/photos/2007/0207jd48.jpghttp://www.australiasevereweather.com/photography/photos/2007/0207jd53.jpgAnd how about from under it!
http://www.australiasevereweather.com/photography/photos/2007/0207jd56.jpgNote the circular base - this was spinning overhead. 1100 metres above sea level, I think we were closer!
Brad Wrote: By extension it seems reasonable to assume they think we are liars or fools.
Now now - let's not go that far - you seemed to indicate similar again last year but certainly ask them directly if you wish. Because on the evidence provided by most other chasers, there is a certain level of trust, judgement and confidence you have in a chaser. Consider chasers such as Pintang, David Croan, Jeff Brislane, Michael Bath, Michael Thompson to name a few who always post what they see and are careful to describe what they see. If they are unsure, they will say that. They are also willing to accept constructive criticicm if need be - that's part of the learning process. We are all learning here! There are others I lack trust in based on what they report. They come post on here and I do not agree, I will challenge them. But that is simply my right to post an opinion. That is why we are here debating this long pain-staking and probably pointless thread. All because you have posted classic supercell and supercell on the thread! We strongly disagree.
Brad Wrote: Add to that (as has been mentioned) several reknowned US chasers have commented on the images (and perhaps radar but Im not sure) that this was a left moving supercell so its type has to be classified and I feel comfortable despite your query/comment which you are entitled to make.
If you are unwilling to share what someone wrote, then I cannot comment on it nor even consider it unfortunately!
Finally,
Brad Wrote: If you note our pics and consider the conditions on the day incl the surface dews, low cloud mostly obscured our view of structure above what is shown in the pics so the comparison doesnt help,
and
Of course the words possible or probable have an important place in storm description but I am sorry, if a storm has a rotating updraft that persists for a long period of time and I observe that entire period of storm behaviour, I will call it a supercell.
Brad, you seem to indicate ... "low cloud mostly obscured our view of structure above"
and then suggest you were able to confirm without doubt "...a rotating updraft that persists for a long period of time and I observe that entire period of storm behaviour".
In my opinion, these two are strong and almost certainly contradictory statements. Perhaps late night/early morning jitters.
I can assure using the Dorrigo example, since you make reference to it, probable supercell, I was in the cloud and could not see the structure at all, so I can assure you I will not be using timelapse to suggest I saw a deep rotating updraft. We will just have to rely on radar behaviour, deviant left motion, the 5.5cm hail (measured with calipers), the video footage of the rounded base which although shaky, will be evident, that it could provide clues to indicate probable supercell. The Bureau of Meteorology occasionally make statements about a storm being a supercell but I would not think this will be the case as relatively few people would have been affected. Conditions on the day if you would like to include them were deep layer shear, sufficient instability (model and soundings CAPE in the vicinity of about near 2000J/kg.
Another important attribute I have noted with a few supercells developing with low cloud obscuring view is that the supercell environment cleans the air locally because it tends to at least partially based on current understanding of supercell dynamics is able to drawn in its own inflow rather than being totally force fed. This was evident in this Dorrigo case as the low cloud suddenly is drawn in and the fact I could clearly see the base with low cloud surrounding it. Mesocyclone perhaps?
Regardless of the fact what I have tried to portray in this post, I doubt you will ever be convinced. Quite frankly I am not really interested whether you will accept what I say. But as I said I will have to change the title of the thread if all you will be showing us are these photographs. I asked for video if you don't mind and we will go from there if you wish. Do you have timelapse video of one or both of these events - yes or no?
Otherwise, I will likely not be responding from here.
Regards,
Jimmy Deguara
