2013-05-31 EVENT: KS, OK, MO, IL

[Zac Flamig]

I sent Skip my data today, so hopefully he can include it in a future video update. We got hit/tossed ~100 yards by the tornado when we were approximately 0.6 miles east of 81 on Reno Road.

I remember looking at the soundings for the day and seeing storm motion just N of E, but I also knew that the storms would be stronger than what the storm motion estimates would account for and that given the SE movement of storms the previous day I shouldn't be surprised if they moved SE this day either. We were directly S of the circulation when it first formed and could visibly see it moving E, everything is going according to plan. We moved positions E along Reno Road to essentially try to stay ahead of and south of it. I was figuring it would eventually move SE and wanted to get to 81 so that I could go S all the way across the river instead of being trapped between the river and the tornado. This was sort of my plan for the chase when I saw the storm develop. We headed E on Reno Road a ways before stopping again to observe the tornado, at this point we had low contrast to the tornado and when we stopped I couldn't tell exactly where it was. After reviewing my video from the day though I can clearly see it, and it is still N of Reno Road. We decide to continue E towards 81 with 81 S being our next option for keeping up with the storm. I'm not alarmed by the storm at all at this point. We encountered heavy slow traffic along Reno Road heading east and by the time we get to 81 it is clear that the tornado is now south of us and appears to be moving SE. Everything is going more or less according to plan even at this point. The tornado has made significant E progress on us though and is uncomfortably close. While waiting for the traffic ahead of us to clear the 81 intersection we watch TWC crew fly by, initially seeing a glimpse of TWC satellite truck and mistaking it for RaxPol I was left to wonder what they knew that I didn't. When it was our turn at 81 we proceeded E through it, it wasn't clear to us at this point that the tornado had actually made a significant left turn. We got about half a mile further down Reno Road when visibility decreased significantly and the winds made staying on the road and making forward progress difficult. We ended up stopping, realizing that the tornado was heading more north at this point but not able to get an exact fix on its path or how big it was. This wasn't really my decision, but I believe the driver and fellow passenger who conferred it to be the right one thought the tornado was just doing a small wobble closer to us and was proceeded it a generally E direction. Being unable to outrun it, letting it pass by us to the south seemed like a superior option.

We have a conservation on video when we crossed 81 about why all the cars were headed S on it, it was clear at that point that they were racing the tornados path and also pretty clear that they weren't going to make it. We picked E thinking we could continue to avoid the hail and the tornado without issue. In hindsight I think even if we had realized that the tornado was making a huge left turn and heading more N we would have gone N on 81 and E on 40. But depending on the visibility we still may have run right smack into the tornado's path.

On the hail thing, I can tell you that immediately after the tornado hit us there were hail stones in the golf ball size range. One or two may have been more towards baseball size. There weren't very many of them though, I know they fell but I can't actually remember seeing any on the ground after leaving the vehicle.

 

[Lee Smith-Whaley]

Random question, but according to Sean Casey's IMAX page he intercepted on the 31st, but nothing has been posted since then abut the intercept? Anyone know what/where he intercepted? Just a curiosity thing as I know with the tragic events some priorities probably got shifted.

 

[Nick Nolte]

I uploaded a timecoded version of my El Reno footage to YouTube a few days ago and forgot to post it here for anyone interested in analysis. It's going to be pretty similar to Skip's timelapse in his analysis as far as locations and times go since I was caravanning with them that day.

Watch video >

 

[Skip Talbot]

NWS Norman updated their track and damage plots for the El Reno EF5:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=events-20130531

The 2.6 mile max width remains unchanged, and the EF5 rating will stick as well. I'm planning on updating the animation I made to incorporate this new track info, and hopefully also use that phased array radar loop as well.

 

[Dave Chapman]

Plotting my location against the NWS Norman graphic shows how quickly the safety buffer disappeared when the circulation jumped to two-and-a-half miles wide (I drove east non-stop beginning at 6:10):

This is part of my revised and expanded chase log:
http://www.stormdude.com/stormchasing/2013Storm/storms136.html

Going north on Highway 81 seems like a good option now, but at the time it was clear sky a little to my east vs. an expectation of baseball size or larger hail to my north.

 

[David Hoadley]

Thanks, Skip, for posting the new NWS Norman tornado track. After opening their web site, I was fascinated with the time-line graphic, which showed the tornado traveling almost 5 miles in 8 minutes from US81 to I-40 --but then almost stationary for another 8 minutes within about 1/2 square mile north of the Interstate. Moreover, the damage path is still broad and extends far to the SE of I-40 but barely to the NW (similar to where it crossed Reformatory Road). I am currently re-plotting the new track/path on my El Reno map study but need to see the small but twisted track north of I-40. Currently, it is covered on that particular graphic by time-line "target" markers. Do you or anyone know how to get a copy of just the track without the markers?

 

[Nick Nolte]

David,

I've uploaded a graphic zoomed into that area with just the track and damage contour here: http://i.imgur.com/voghvUO.jpg

Alternatively, if you use Google Earth you can grab the KML from them here: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=...d=204038211651009837952.0004e1403e7abb6990805

It is crazy to see early in it's life it was trundling along at around 20mph, but between 6:17 and 6:20 when it crossed US 81 forward speed was around 50 mph.

I am currently re-plotting the new track/path on my El Reno map study but need to see the small but twisted track north of I-40. Currently, it is covered on that particular graphic by time-line "target" markers. Do you or anyone know how to get a copy of just the track without the markers?

 

[Winston Wells]

Here's a link to a remarkable recent paper by Josh Wurman, Karen Kosiba, Paul Robinson, and Tim Marshall that provides a very detailed (and at times painful) look at how the sub-vortices in the El Reno tornado likely impacted the Samaras and TWC teams.

http://tiny.cc/y97n3w

Entitled "Preliminary Results from the ROTATE-2013 Season," the paper also discusses data gathered by CSWR's DOWs on the Rozel, Bennington, and Viola/Wichita tornadoes from this past season. Much of it is well beyond my level of expertise, but it's a fascinating read nonetheless. I found this copy on Gabe Garfield's blog (http://gabrielgarfield.wordpress.com).

 

[Jeff Hawkins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDZcjt1VJtU

This is the first video I've seen posted (I'm sure there's others also just haven't seen them) from someone stuck in the traffic jam fleeing south. You get a good sense of the anxiety of such an experience from the cameraperson's comments. I'm posting it here as another 'data point' of the total experience from that day. Video length 1:14

 

[Winston Wells]

The steady stream of articles about storm chasing and the El Reno tornado continues. This one is from Outside Magazine:

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...e-Luck-Ran-Out-in-El-Reno-Tornado.html?page=1

 

[Jeff Snyder]

The steady stream of articles about storm chasing and the El Reno tornado continues. This one is from Outside Magazine:

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...e-Luck-Ran-Out-in-El-Reno-Tornado.html?page=1

That's a pretty darn interesting article. There are errors in it (e.g., the "Severe Storms Laboratory" doesn't rate tornadoes, the NWS doesn't issue watches, etc.), but the tone of the article is quite different than that of the others I've seen recently. It's pretty honest and "raw". It's the first time I've read an article questioning the "all chasers are doing it for the science" bit.

That said, I really don't like the "big-money science" vs. "amateur thrill-seekers" angle on which a few paragraphs are spent. Sure, some scientific observations may have come from "accidents", but much of the development comes from well-funded science. For example, who does the author think have developed the radar technology to the point that we're at today? Someone may have unknowingly seen a hook echo on a radar display years ago, but the development of radar technology between then and now has come from research and experimentation from a myriad of scientists and engineers (at the Radar Operations Center, National Severe Storms Laboratory, University of Oklahoma, University of Massachusetts, etc.). How many non-scientists are doing vorticity budget analyses and examining vortex line evolution with supercells to study how the near-surface rotation within a tornado develops? The problem is that we *do* need observations, and many in severe storms research also enjoy storm chasing on their own/leisure time (certainly myself included!) outside of any "science". I mention this only because this angle in the article bothers me and because I think it's a false distinction.

 

[Skip Talbot]

The National Geographic and Outside articles provide interesting tidbits about the wreck that are telling as to what might have been happening in the chase at the time. The authors of the articles may not realize or care about the implications of these details. The most interesting was in the Outside article which states Young's seat belt was still fastened even though he wasn't found in the car. It suggests that they were indeed still trying to escape in the vehicle. The detail that the seats were reclined also suggests that perhaps they tried to take shelter in the vehicle by getting below the window line, but in a wreck where the engine and three wheels are missing, perhaps that can't be inferred and the seats were pushed back due to an impact.

I am also rather disappointed in both of these articles. Both articles have sloppy technical errors. Dates are wrong, stats that are easy to look up are incorrect. The National Geographic article goes as far as featuring the Manchester F4 with Tim standing in front of it on the November cover, but then the web article claims the only F4 he's seen was Hallam.

In more than two decades of storm chasing Samaras had witnessed only a single F4 tornado—in Hallam, Nebraska, on May 22, 2004. He had yet to lay eyes on an EF5 like the one in Moore.

The writing is well crafted and it reads like an interesting story, but the fact checking is not worthy of a major news publication. I think both articles also missed the mark on interpreting the events and their meanings.

The Outside article in particular missed the big picture, focusing instead on tidbits of chaser drama. It read more like a supermarket tabloid article than the other El Reno articles we've seen recently. It focused heavily on the strife between storm chasing groups, the validity of storm chasers, and the polarized view that it's science vs yahoos. All of these are lesser facets of chasing, but are probably trumpeted just to make this mundane hobby sound more dramatic. I see they also cherry picked from 23 pages of posts in this thread to find the most dramatic quotes.

Several paragraphs were devoted to the dangers of chaser convergence, and how congestion is a growing a problem. It's out of place when the article revolves around a storm on which chaser traffic was almost a non issue and absolutely not a factor in the deaths on which the article is centered. We finally do get a mention that traffic wasn't an issue in these deaths, but it's followed by a dismissive hand wave that Mike Morgan's urging of viewers to head south was not a colossal mistake that resulted in huge traffic jams. Weekend holiday traffic doesn't result in the northbound lanes of I-44 being reversed with gridlock on this interstate, route 4, and US 81.

It would also be nice if an article, which was spurred by a chaser's death, focused more on the man's legacy and accomplishments. Instead we're given the incredibly elitist and selfish opinions of Josh Wurman who chalks up Tim's career to "putting a camera in a hardened box."

The National Geographic article is a better read in that regard, and it should be since Tim was one of their stars. I'm taken aback by the article too, however. While trying to piece together Tim's track, I was put in contact with National Geographic staff to share what we had both found. I was told that some of their sources were unreliable. Their claims could not be verified. They went further to suggest that some chasers were stealing items from the wreck site for souvenirs, while lying about their connections with Tim and Twistex in some sort of attempt to profit in fame from his death. As damning as some of these claims are, I don't know anything about them, who all was involved, or how true they are since I'm simply receiving them from a third party. I'm in no position to start acting on them. However, I see some of the same sources being cited in the National Geographic article, when they went out of their way to tell me these sources were not credible. I'm not sure what to make of that. Combined with some of the sloppy technical errors in the piece, it makes me think that a lot of people had their hands on this article who didn't understand the event or the people, or possibly that it was rushed, thrown together.

I guess I expected more from these publications, but probably got my hopes too high. These are writers and editors, not storm chasers and meteorologists. They work on a project in a short amount of time and then it's off to the next project. Errors are made and some of the deeper meanings are lost. It's unrealistic to expect more from the articles since we all have devoted much of our own time to studying and understanding this event.

 

[Jeff Duda]

One reason I have begun skimming through these articles or not reading them at all is from the following question:

Is there any new information being revealed in these articles, or is the same story being recycled and retold as more magazines see the popularity of the story from other outlets? When I skimmed through the NG article, I saw very little in the way of new details regarding the deaths of Tim et al. Instead I saw the same story that was told in earlier articles that were released back in June. I'm not trying to say that their story isn't worth telling, but I've already read it before, and I don't care to have to skim through 10 pages of recycled rhetoric to see if we learned anything new about it.

 

[Tarmo Tanilsoo]

Well, NG must've had it in the works for quite a while. The paper edition of National Geographic Magazine had the story listed as "Coming up in next issue" in their October edition. At least in the Estonian language version.

 

[Skip Talbot]

Updated video analysis of the May 31 El Reno event, including refined path and rating change of the tornado, and the complete chase route of Tim and Paul Samaras and Carl Young. Detailed studies of video from the storm with overlays of chaser and tornado positions are also used to understand why chasers are being impacted by tornadoes and how they can avoid future impacts using safer chase strategies and escape routes. Many thanks to Gabe Garfield over at the Norman NWS for providing detailed timings and positions for both the updated tornado track and Twistex's chase route.

Watch video >