Well, that's a shame. It seems like this episode deserves a real meteorological analysis.I think that'll be a long waitTR's died years ago. They are "Service Assessments" now... http://www.weather.gov/os/assessments/index.shtml
Well, that's a shame. It seems like this episode deserves a real meteorological analysis.I think that'll be a long waitTR's died years ago. They are "Service Assessments" now... http://www.weather.gov/os/assessments/index.shtml
I'm absolutely sure it will get one. This was way too big of an event not to be studied. You will see many academic and non-academic articles published on this event in the next few years.Well, that's a shame. It seems like this episode deserves a real meteorological analysis.
The Super Outbreak also featured 6 F5 tornadoes and 24 F4 tornadoes. As best as I can determine, using the preliminary data that is available, the recent April 26-28 event produced 2 EF5 and 11 EF4 tornadoes. Both are quite obviously extreme outbreaks, both in terms of total tornadoes and percentage of all tornadoes that were violent. But considering the Super Outbreak produced a considerably higher number of violent tornadoes in a much shorter time frame, I don't see how it is "unreasonable" when others argue that it is still the most intense tornado outbreak on record. They certainly have valid reasons and a valid argument.The NOAA's current clearinghouse page for the event at this time shows 197 tornadoes surveyed.
I'm not sure it's above board to insist the Super Outbreak was worse even if there were a larger number of tornadoes within a 24 hour period, just for that reason alone. I don't believe the Super Outbreak produced tornadoes continuously over a three-day period. As a total event, April 25-27, 2011 outbreak is unquestionably worse. I don't see how there's a reasonable debate. "Within 24 hours" is arbitrary and meaningless.
The number of tornadoes should not be used to define the impacts of the outbreak, but rather the total area covered by tornado damage. Although we have yet to see those numbers, it is possible that the area covered by damage on 27 April 2011 may exceed that covered in 3-4 April 1974. In addition, the area covered by strong and violent damage is important, along with the population densities, land use, and demographic data affected by the tornadoes.The Super Outbreak also featured 6 F5 tornadoes and 24 F4 tornadoes. As best as I can determine, using the preliminary data that is available, the recent April 26-28 event produced 2 EF5 and 11 EF4 tornadoes. Both are quite obviously extreme outbreaks, both in terms of total tornadoes and percentage of all tornadoes that were violent. But considering the Super Outbreak produced a considerably higher number of violent tornadoes in a much shorter time frame, I don't see how it is "unreasonable" when others argue that it is still the most intense tornado outbreak on record.
Given the forward speed of the storms, it could only have been on the ground for three minutes at that path length. That brief of an EF5 tornado just does not compute, especially given the number of much longer-track EF4s and EF3s.PATH LENGTH: 2.82 MILES
That makes much more sense. They should update the top news link on their homepage.PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MEMPHIS TN
755 AM CDT MON MAY 2 2011
...UPDATE TO PRELIMINARY EF-5 DAMAGE TORNADO IN MONROE COUNTY
MISSISSIPPI...
BASED UPON FURTHER EXAMINATION OF SATELLITE IMAGERY WHICH
DEPICTED TREE SCARS /KNOCKED DOWN BY THE TORNADO/ AND OTHER
GROUND SURVEY EVIDENCE...THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OFFICE IN
MEMPHIS IN COORDINATION WITH THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OFFICE
IN BIRMINGHAM HAS CONNECTED THE SMITHVILLE MS AND SHOTTSVILLE AL
TORNADO DAMAGE SEGMENTS. THIS PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
PROVIDES UPDATED INFORMATION ON THE SECTION OF THE SEGMENT FROM
SMITHVILLE MS TO NEAR SHOTTSVILLE AL.
* COUNTY/COUNTIES: MONROE
* LOCATION/TIME OF EVENT: SMITHVILLE AT 344 PM CDT ON APRIL 27 2011
* BEGINNING POINT: 34.0517/-88.4236
* ENDING POINT: 34.1579/-88.1847
* RATING: EF-5
* ESTIMATED PEAK WIND: 205 MPH
* PATH LENGTH: 15.24 MILES /CONTINUES INTO SHOTTSVILLE ALABAMA SEGMENT/
* MAXIMUM WIDTH: 3/4 MILE /WIDENED TO MATCH SHOTTSVILLE TORNADO SEGMENT/
This was the same supercell that produced what is referred to as the "Shottsville" tornado. I believe it actually lifted prior to touching down again just southwest of Hwy78/I-22 near exit 3. This was my first tornado of the day and was rated EF-3 by BMX.Has the Smithville tornado been "connected" to any other paths, yet? I find it hard to believe that such a violent tornado had such a short path length:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/news/display_cmsstory.php?wfo=meg&storyid=67427&source=0
Given the forward speed of the storms, it could only have been on the ground for three minutes at that path length. That brief of an EF5 tornado just does not compute, especially given the number of much longer-track EF4s and EF3s.
In the "Note:", I guess BMX does indicate that it was one continuous tornado, yet when you read their summary, they suggest the tornado started with coordinates that are almost a mile across the state line. I know I am splitting hairs with them, but it can be very confusing. I have spent a week reading between the lines trying to connect it all as I am sure they have been too. I have been very overwhelmed by the whole event, so I cannot imagine how they must feel.As per the updated PNS I found, they were found to be one tornado.
I think there is some truth to this - namely, if the super outbreak were to occur today, the number of tornadoes surveyed as violent may end up being less; however, this is pure speculation.One question that comes to mind when comparing the Super Outbreak with 4/27/11 is the consistency of the ratings. It's probably been debated many times before and I'm not criticizing the surveyors in any way, but I have a hard time believing that on the old rating system we would have just the two EF5/F5 tornadoes from 4/27 and just 11 EF4/F4 tornadoes. It seems some damage indicators that were once F5 are now EF4. Damage from Ringgold and the Tuscaloosa/Birmingham tornadoes certainly seems on par with damage photos of Xenia, Brandenburg or other F5's (even quoted as so by Dr. Forbes on the flyover Tuscaloosa damage). I know they say the difference between F4 and F5 is the most difficult to differentiate, but it's hard to imagine these were not quite as strong as say other F5's which did so much less high end damage, often to a minimal number of structures (Broken Bow, Goessel, Chandler, Oakfield).
Irregardless, like most, I never thought I'd see an outbreak even rival the Super Outbreak.
Wow those were some big trenches. I wonder what caused those. I would imagine some large piece of debris dug along the ground did it, but it would've had to have been a huge piece of something to dig a trench the size it did. If it was due to the tornadic winds themselves, then that's the first I've ever heard of a tornado doing that, and is a testament to how strong that tornado was.Third tornado upgraded to EF-5 http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/p.php?pid=201105051837-KJAN-NOUS44-PNSJAN This one dug some trenches feet deep along it's path
Impressive... for anyone who hasn't seen it, the NWS Jackson page has some great photographs of the damage done by this tornado.Third tornado upgraded to EF-5 http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/p.php?pid=201105051837-KJAN-NOUS44-PNSJAN This one dug some trenches feet deep along it's path
you're right, this one was one was WORSE.Comparisons to '74 should really stop, they really weren't that similar systems at all.
Nice. You agree with him, and then make a comparison.you're right, this one was one was WORSE.