[PaulKn]

There are many times each year when imagery appears purportedly showing a tornado or funnel, which after examination proves not to be the case. This website shows several examples of "non-tornadoes" - images which, at a glance, may appear to show something tornadic, but don't.

http://www.stormeyes.org/tornado/faq/notahose.htm

[markh]

Good link that Paul and good idea to post in light of the many so called nado reports we get in.

Perhaps we could all post our own non-nado!

Example of a Snake-nado [hehe]

Mark

[PaulKn]

Ah - I recognise that as 22nd May 2004, in Nebraska!

This one is a non-tornadic lowering from a supercell wall cloud over S Dakota on 20th May 2005.

[John Mason]

Here's a "precipinado" ;)

March 2003, nr Pennal, W of Machynlleth....

Cheers - John 

[Uskys]

I have been 'dissappointed' so many times......but with the help on this forum, over the years, I feel much more confident in observing cloud structures that resemble funnels and identifying them and discounting them.
...An thats a big benefit, and no matter how many members post non-funnels, each one helps me learn more and understand.....and I'm still waiting to see my first tornado, but I'm pretty confident that I've seen 2 funnels.
#I think in most cases rotation must be seen, visible and fast rotation with smoothish sides to the cloud in the funnel which is why a pair of binoculars is almost always vital...as they are ussually viewed from to far away to see such rotation .

[Cliff]

Excellent link and most of those would have fooled me if I am honest.

[John Hill]

Great link Paul....its amazing as to how easy you can be fooled.

[Orange™]

Wow i would of said half of those pictures were Tornados :P

[StephenS]

Very helpful link, duly bookmarked, good pics added too. We really have to be more questioning of funnel reports in future, because I'm sure we've given a thumbs up to some which have looked like the real deal, but probably weren't...

[Nigel Bolton]

A very useful compendium of photo's, some of them do look tornadic, but these are real weather phenomena.

More to the point, it is probably worth turning attention on the fake funnels. Due to the advent of Paintshop Pro and other art packages, meaningful looking funnels are likely to, and have been pasted onto the photographed bases of threatening looking clouds, these doctored pictures then submitted to severe weather enthusiasts, groups and forums. One to be very wary of.

 

Nigel B.

[PaulKn]

That's true, although we have to be careful as to which ones we question! ;)

[Godot]

I took this on the 23rd (ie Wednesday) at 1643hours during the time when a particularly nasty looking cell was passing over. The pointy bit was visibly rotating and I started to panic. It wasn't a tornado or a funnel, but it did a good job of scaring me! Is there a name for rotating 'tubes' like this? (click thumbnails for fullsize)

Detail :

[Jaxs]

Good Link Thanks, would have thought before that they were all Tornado`s, so its the Rotation of the tornado that causes the damage that we see ?,Is there any hazards with low cloud structures? sorry if this sounds really simple question I'm only a weather weakling [dunno]

[Nigel Bolton]

Quote

Nigel Bolton - 14/8/2006 14:59

A very useful compendium of photo's, some of them do look tornadic, but these are real weather phenomena.

More to the point, it is probably worth turning attention on the fake funnels. Due to the advent of Paintshop Pro and other art packages, meaningful looking funnels are likely to, and have been pasted onto the photographed bases of threatening looking clouds, these doctored pictures then submitted to severe weather enthusiasts, groups and forums. One to be very wary of.

 

Nigel B.

As a follow-up, it was good to see that all the funnel clouds reported in the past couple of weeks all had many observers, some of who took photographs from different angles, and thus made confirmation of said phenomena very possible. Be wary of the single funnel of devine beauty that is only reported from one person, it has probably been reproduced by a scudsucker.

Nigel B.

[Cliff]

Quote

Nigel Bolton - 14/8/2006 14:59

A very useful compendium of photo's, some of them do look tornadic, but these are real weather phenomena.

More to the point, it is probably worth turning attention on the fake funnels. Due to the advent of Paintshop Pro and other art packages, meaningful looking funnels are likely to, and have been pasted onto the photographed bases of threatening looking clouds, these doctored pictures then submitted to severe weather enthusiasts, groups and forums. One to be very wary of.

Nigel B.

The thing is though Nigel, what kind of person would be happy taking credit for photographing a funnel or tornado when they had stitched together someone elses work on photoshop?  I don't quite understand the mentality of them or how they could possibly be pleased with themselves.

I guess those that cheat like that are likely to be the same people that gain pleasure from hacking into peoples computers to try to screw someone elses life up.  Strange bunch huh.

[Conor]

Still a question mark

[Mark Stevens]

non rotating cloud that is! Most of those photos on that website do look like tornadoes and a few months ago I would of said that they were all tornadoes, but i'm learning ;)

[Tony Gilbert]

Whilst it is important for the TORRO data base that we are fairly certain that each event bought to our attention is actually tornadic. We must nevertheless take care not to dispute such events outright quite so readily. The latter tends to shift general opinion to the detriment and quells further personal investigations by members!!

I have witnessed two tornadoes, two waterspouts and numerous funnel clouds here in the UK and in the USA. I can categorically say that you will not always be able to make out rotation when you are a long distance from the event. ie, with a moderately elevated cloud base a full tornado/waterspout may be clearly visible for up to 30 miles away. This type of distance will not show you rotation but can nevertheless be confidently established as tornadic by its characteristics and sometimes by the mode of the parent cloud.

Each case should be verified on its own merits and it would be bad science to try to fit all sightings into one category of 'cause and consequence'!

PS. the best aid IMO that a member can use to better know what you are looking for is to either study various good storm footage available on the market or get out and sample the extreme weather in person. There is no substitute for experience and you will not gain that from any text book! ;)

[John Mason]

Quote

Tony Gilbert - 16/11/2006 19:06

PS. the best aid IMO that a member can use to better know what you are looking for is to either study various good storm footage available on the market or get out and sample the extreme weather in person. There is no substitute for experience and you will not gain that from any text book! ;)

I have to echo that wholeheartedly. Seen a few FCs myself, and only spotted one dubious one on a photo months after the event in one case! Experience is the master-key here, and that is only obtained by getting out there and observing :)

Cheers - John

[Nigel Bolton]

Bump this thread to the top.

Classic example of "scudsucking" this week of image of tornado after the London event that was then sold on to the Press. Fooled many people, and I myself have been fooled in the past by these fakes.

All the more reason to be wary of the "Perfect Funnel". The London tornado probably would have been rain-wrapped and therefore impossible to see, as is the case with most UK tornadoes.

The only nadoes that can usually be seen here in the UK are those that form under developing, but as yet non precipitating Cu or Cb. These are generaly weak, and often do not reach the ground.

Thinking about the weather pattern before, during and after a tornado may go some way to determining if an image is real or fake.

Nigel B.