[John Mason]

See http://www.bbc.co.uk...-wales-17100048



It's possible but not that well defined. An unstable NWerly airflow prevailed on the 19th with trains of moderately heavy wintry showers.

Cheers - John

[ChaserUK]

Mmm not convinced but difficult to tell is there was any signs of rotation.

[John Mason]

Have given it a good shove in Photoshop.....

Cheers - John

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

[Uskys]

The picture just doesn't seem right somehow, maybe its the light or the pixelating cloud or just an odd form that doesn't seem natural... but I may well be wrong.

[StephenS]

Not for me. I think the apparent 'funnel' is a patch of relatively clear sky with clouds on either side.

[Nigel Bolton]

Thats a deffo funnel. They are almost certainly much more frequent than we realise in mountainous terrain as winds will eddy around peaks, buttresses, spurs, through saddles and over aretes. Just that we often cannot see them as visibility is often very poor due to cloud and/or precipitation.

That is a topographically induced eddy that has been picked up by a passing cumulus. Not sure what the background wind speeds would have been on this day, but the eddy would have been relatively weak. Had the funnel passed over the observer, it may have done nothing more than sucked off his bobble hat.

N.

[Lightning Hunter]

StephenS, on 25 February 2012 - 14:54, said:

Not for me. I think the apparent 'funnel' is a patch of relatively clear sky with clouds on either side.

I must admit, that was my first thought too - some lighter stratus/stratocu breaking up, with a gap between.

[Howard Kirby]

Scudsucker...

[John Mason]

Nigel Bolton, on 25 February 2012 - 15:42, said:

Thats a deffo funnel. They are almost certainly much more frequent than we realise in mountainous terrain as winds will eddy around peaks, buttresses, spurs, through saddles and over aretes. Just that we often cannot see them as visibility is often very poor due to cloud and/or precipitation.

That is a topographically induced eddy that has been picked up by a passing cumulus. Not sure what the background wind speeds would have been on this day, but the eddy would have been relatively weak. Had the funnel passed over the observer, it may have done nothing more than sucked off his bobble hat.

N.

I suspect this to be the case. You do not need monstrous all-layer instability for funnels if the low-level directional (=topographic/convergence-related) shear coincides with strong shallow-depth boundary-layer updraughts. Witness that ridiculous multi-vortex experience I had on the coast in early September 2011. I think this is genuine, and I'd like to see the original, non-compressed to buggery, image. I did check on the UK climbing forums, but nothing there. If I get chance I'll contact the BBC and see if they can point me back to the guy who took the shot.

Cheers - John

[Tony Gilbert]

TBH hard to be sure either way on this one. Statistically probably the most unlikely month of the whole year for funnel development. Though this is not to say that very localised conditions may become conducive very briefly for such occurrences. Sadly though the clarity of this picture is not quite enough on this occasion.

If this were a vortex of some description then I would suggest that it is recorded within the definition of an 'eddy whirlwind' and not a funnel cloud. The current classification for isolating tornado events to 'eddy', to 'dust devil', to 'gustnado' etc, are much too blurred at the edges and will consistently overlap by way of definition. Any elevated vortex will systematically condense and possible merge with or produce a small cumulus atop. This doesn't automatically make it a tornado! Though sadly the current inflexible 'official' definition would have us believe that in fact it was??

This post has been edited by Tony Gilbert: 26 February 2012 - 01:35

[StephenS]

Nigel's explanation makes perfect sense to me as well - except that I cannot for the life of me see a funnel cloud, eddy whirlwind, scudsucker or any other potentially rotating feature in that image. I see low cloud coming over the ridge (and partly obscuring it) on both sides of the image: in the centre, a discontinuity which opens up to what I earlier described as 'relatively clear sky' but appears, on second look, to be cloud at a higher level. I imagine that what I'm seeing is in effect a 'negative' image - that is, what others are seeing as an FC, I'm seeing as a gap in the clouds. Or am I missing something?

[Paul Domaille]

Hmm, it does look a little odd, although I can see how it may look like an FC from the image. The lighter cloud,especially on the LH side would appear to reach down to the mountain top and slightly below, if you take this as the foreground, as Stephen points out, the darker patch is background. The lighter clouds may well be of orographic nature. I am doubtful on this one.
Cheers,
Paul D

[Lightning Hunter]

StephenS, on 26 February 2012 - 05:08, said:

Nigel's explanation makes perfect sense to me as well - except that I cannot for the life of me see a funnel cloud, eddy whirlwind, scudsucker or any other potentially rotating feature in that image. I see low cloud coming over the ridge (and partly obscuring it) on both sides of the image: in the centre, a discontinuity which opens up to what I earlier described as 'relatively clear sky' but appears, on second look, to be cloud at a higher level. I imagine that what I'm seeing is in effect a 'negative' image - that is, what others are seeing as an FC, I'm seeing as a gap in the clouds. Or am I missing something?

No, this is exactly what I'm seeing - no sign of anything that even looks like a funnel, just som low cloud with a gap between.

[Nigel Bolton]

Can see where the confusuin is creeping in, and to be fair is now foxing me.

Either what I am seeing is a patch of cumulus, avec funnel hanging just below the arete in the back ground, or what I am seeing is a break in a layer of low cloud as air decends between two ridges.

I am now suitably undecided.....

N.

[John Mason]

But the lower part above the ground surface is remarkably straight-sided!

Cheers - John

[John Robert Mellor]

I personally don't see a funnel here. It would help if we had a better quality image.

[Chris Alder]

This is never a funnel, to rugged an I,age and little other evidence.

[PaulKn]

Looks like fairly standard mountain scud to me - funnels look like funnels - they almost always have smooth sides, etc etc.