F6 Tornadoes-What's the Closest We've Come?

[Shane Adams]

I don't think there is anything great about seeing an F5 tornado.

So you think there's nothing great about seeing any tornado that does damage? Why even chase then? I mean, how can you know sometimes if structures are being affected? I've seen video that would strongly disagree with your above statement.

When I saw the Argonia wedge on May 29th, I was anxious to find out what the damage rating of it was; however, my anxiety was out of fear that what I saw hit something (and my hopes were that it didn't and got a low F-scale rating).

We all feel that way........no true chaser wishes destruction upon anything/anyone.

It was not driven out of any desire to "bag the big one" so that I could proudly tell other chasers "yeah I saw this F5" 30 years from now.

So I'm supposed to turn my passion off like a light because something might be getting hit? I'm not apologizing because I love to see tornadoes. I don't control what they do, I just document them. And I'm not going to pretend that, in 30 years, when I answer the tired question "did you chase the May 3 tornado?" that I'm not a little proud of the fact that I was able to be a part of history.

I'll tell you what, Melissa and all who share her opinion...

Let's make sure none of you ever have to chance seeing an F5 tornado....next time there's a High Risk oubtreak imminent, and violent tornadoes are expected, why don't all of you just stay home?

 

[Melissa Moon]

Shane,

I don't think I will be staying home, thank you very much . There can be beautiful, violent tornados, and while it is inevitable that some will hit something and cause major damage, my preference (if I could choose) would be for the tornado to dance around in a wheat field rather than go through a major populated area.

Tornados will do damage; some will do extensive damage. I was not born yesterday. You are right; it can be hard to discern at times whether or not structure is being affected. But if I were to find out later that something spectacular I saw was ruining somebody else's life (or taking it), I would be upset. Period. One of these days I will see it happen, and I am prepared for it, but it is not exactly the most pleasant idea in my mind. Something about tragedy associated with the storm can sour the good taste of seeing such beauty in nature, at least for me.

Fortunately, most events aren't Moore's or Jarrell's as far as human impact goes.

From my previous post, I did not make any kind of call of action as to what you should or should not do, Shane, so there is no need to give me or anyone else a call of action in return. I was just merely stating how I feel about the situation personally; it doesn't mean that I think you are "wrong" or anything like that. If you feel that small sense of pride 50 years from now when you are telling your grandchildren about the F5 you saw on whichever day, that's great! Good for you. Whatever makes you happy . Just because I wouldn't feel the same way in that situation doesn't mean that you shouldn't either because, well, I am not you. 8)

 

[Scott Currens]

Kiel Ortega wrote:
On a separate note, I don't see why people are always in a fuss to get a rating on the tornado (and try to get the highest rating possible at that). Wake up, the thing destroyed property and possibly injured or killed people...who cares what the rating is then?

Shane wrote:
Because an official F5 tornado is a rare event. It's like a hole-in-one in golf or an unassisted triple play in baseball.

I've never understood why people ask the question you did above. Who WOULDN'T want to witness the rarest tornado of all?

I think I agree with both sides. If there is an F5 on the plains then I sure as heck what to see it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "I can't wait to see the next F5!". That would be like saying " I can't wait for a bunch of people to die!â€￾ That's sick, but if one happens I wouldn't want to miss it.
Is an F5 the ultimate prize? I wouldn't trade the Mulvane tornado for any big fat ugly F5. This tornado is what I call a rare event. http://www.mesoscale.ws/pic2004/040612-15.jpg

The F-scale rating doesn't change what I witnessed on a chase, so in a sense it is unimportant. On the other hand surveys provide clues as to what really happened so I am always interested in seeing the results.

Scott Currens

 

[Glen Romine]

Shane,

I gather that you just don't understand what I and perhaps others here are trying to say. We are equally fascinated with and of course have interest in seeing violent tornadoes - for the same reasoning as you, they are rare and exciting events. However - we don't require them to destroy man-made structures to be able to really enjoy that power. That is what distinguishes my view from yours - you want the extreme damage to occur - and I just want to see the violent winds. I'm sure nearly all who witnessed the May 3 outbreak, including myself, were excited to witness such a rare and amazing event. But, I know that I personally don't keep track of what F-scale the tornadoes I saw that day or any other were - it is not a source of personal pride - and those with violent rotation stick out clearly enough in my mind from the weaker events that I don't need the survey to figure it out. Maybe if I'd only seen a few tornadoes in my life I would have a different perspective - or maybe it is my view of the F-scale as only the crudest of estimates of tornado intensity that makes such ratings less meaningful. The Bridge Creek/Moore tornado, while impressive, is not the most intense tornado that I have ever seen - nor the most aesthetic, and the fact that only the May 3 event was rated F-5 in no way takes away from the other events in my mind.

Glen

 

[Carrie Halliday]

"Then if it measures winds over 318mph maybe the tornado would be classified as an F6."

As posted elsewhere - the Fscale is _not_ determined from the wind speed, but from damage.

- Rob

With DOW out and catching more and more tornadoes, it may come to a time that they do get one over 318. I have heard many reports on 5/3/99 and some do say that readings of 321 were taken. I do realize that rating is based on damage but when the F scale was implemented, there was no way to check windspeed like today. Do we change the rating system now? Not sure on that one, but with all that is changing in our climate, it is feasable to think that tornadoes may be getting stronger and more violent. Or maybe we are just getting more data that shows they are stronger than once thought. It is hard to assign a rating to a tornado if it doesn't hit anything. Does it make it less significant? Not in my opinion, it is just that someone hadn't built anything in that area yet. As science in general advances, so does the science behind studying tornadoes. We may see the day that a new system of rating them comes into play, using windspeed as the benchmark.
I have yet to hear anyone interested in weather be excited about the damage and death that comes with it. But anyone (especially here) that marvels in the beauty, power and awe of a tornado knows that Ma Nature will set them down wherever she pleases. No matter if it is an open plain, small town or metro area. As the midwest grows, it is inevitable that a large tornado will hit and destroy a large populated area. Key to this is planning (Emergency Management), chasers and spotters, advances in radar detection and folks knowing to abide by the sirens and take appropriate shelter. But I also know that those of us who chase do it for many reasons, but most of all it is to see nature's fury in the raw. To see a large, violent tornado is not the norm. Would I be excited and spellbound to pic and vid an F-5? You bet I would! While I would hope that whoever is in the path of the beast are warned in time and have taken shelter. Buildings, property and such are replaceable, that is why we have insurance. Human life is not. Tornadoes are just one hazard of life. Fire, flood and other forces of nature take more toll.

 

[Glen Romine]

You couldn't be more clueless as to what 'm saying. "Who cares about windspeeds" says exactly the opposite of what you just said above; ratings mean zlich, it's the knowledge that we're seeing the most powerful variety of tornado in known existence that's the draw, not the devastation. Who the f### wants to see destroyed homes, lives?

BTW, as I read one of your earlier posts - I think you may just be confused about the difference between a violent tornado that does and does not impact property. A tornado does not need to impact structures in order to be violent. An F-5 is not a variety of tornado - it is a damage classification associated with one. Tornadoes with winds *capable* of causing extreme damage are very rare, but it is far less likely even among these events that the most extreme winds within a tornado during its existance will happen to directly impact a structure of sufficient engineering quality that we can begin to estimate the winds needed to cause such damage. If you want to see an F-5 - then you are in effect saying that you want to see devastation of property - because that is the only way that a tornado can be classified as such. So, that puts your statement above in contradiction, IMO at least.

Glen

 

[Amos Magliocco]

I don't know any chasers personally who want to see destruction, Shane included, and he specifically said that in his post. Glen is the first chaser I've heard of who doesn't track the ratings for tornadoes he's seen. Seems like you would have to overcome great curiosity and go well out of your way to avoid that information.

There's a complex morality involved in this hobby and it's easy to oversimplify. From limited experience, I've seen that, in general, chasers want to see the most powerful storms they can find and are amazed by the damage they can cause. At the same time they show tremendous concern over the impact of those storms on people's lives. I know there are exceptions and we can cite videotape where chasers seem thrilled by damage and potential loss of life. I feel like those are rare exceptions.

So how do most chasers hold these seemingly contradictory values simultaneously? I don't know. I think that capacity is part of what makes human beings so remarkable. It is not hypocrisy--that would be another simplification, for that would mean one of the values was disingenuous.

But from the outside it seems impossible. I can tell from the cutting glances of associates and even some friends that they have reservations about my taking joy in phenomena that kill. And the task of culling out the joy from the destruction from the fascination is such a challenge and so nearly impossible for them to believe that I don't try. We have to live with the knowledge that many outsiders ascribe us dark motives. Chasers know better.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

It's a tough balance ... we are all fascinated by the phenomena - no doubt about it. We spend a great deal of time, money and resources every year just to catch the next big storm. But I honestly believe for most chasers (the ones I've met anyway) that this fascination is academic in nature and in no way involves a desire to see the lives of people impacted negatively by these storms. Most of us frequently temper the language in our reports with information about how the storm affected people that day and express the appropriate concern. I often tell friends/family that there is no bigger or more exhilerating feeling than witnessing a tornado on the plains ... but the moment it goes over someone's home, through a town, or destroys any property - that exhileration turns to a feeling of complete helplessness and sadness for those who were affected.

 

[Bob Hartig]

That is very well stated, Amos. Human responses are complex, and horror, fascination, awe, shock, and amazement may all be just a hair's breadth apart in the face a violent tornado chewing its way through a community. No one wrote the book on how to process something so terrifyingly unreal. We're a mix of emotions, and while some attitudes are clearly just flat-out immature, I think that overall we need to allow for that mix.

 

[Glen Romine]

I don't know any chasers personally who want to see destruction, Shane included, and he specifically said that in his post. Glen is the first chaser I've heard of who doesn't track the ratings for tornadoes he's seen. Seems like you would have to overcome great curiosity and go well out of your way to avoid that information.

First, I appreciate what you are saying - I don't mean to suggest that Shane or (hopefully) any other chaser here is hoping for someone to get hurt or have someone's property destroyed. Much of the problem may stem from misuse of terminology - the media long ago adopting the notion that F-scale = tornado intensity, and this ideal now seems generally accepted in the chaser community and almost absolutely within the general public (I even know some mets who struggle with seeing the distinction). However, this is simply not the case, which at least a half dozen posts have already pointed out - but it seems to still not sink in based on some of the posts.

As for tracking ratings - as I stated much earlier in this thread, I do check storm surveys, it is a common part of post-event case studies, which I often look at for significant events. But no, I do not keep a scorecard of how many F-X tornadoes I've seen this season or any other. Maybe that is part because I have little confidence in tornado ratings as an indication of the true tornado intensity, or maybe because I know that most storm surveys are conducted (if at all) by persons who are not wind engineers but are making assessments of structural integrity, etc.... If that makes me odd man out, I can live with that.

Glen

 

[Shane Adams]

However - we don't require them to destroy man-made structures to be able to really enjoy that power. That is what distinguishes my view from yours - you want the extreme damage to occur - and I just want to see the violent winds.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no........

You are completely wrong about me, I have no desire to see tornadoes do damage, ever. Where are you getting this persistant impression I want damage to occur?? I too just want to see the winds, the extreme winds. What about this is so hard to grasp?

I'm sure nearly all who witnessed the May 3 outbreak, including myself, were excited to witness such a rare and amazing event. But, I know that I personally don't keep track of what F-scale the tornadoes I saw that day or any other were - it is not a source of personal pride - and those with violent rotation stick out clearly enough in my mind from the weaker events that I don't need the survey to figure it out.

It's not a source of pride for me either, it's not something I wear on my sleeve. Yeah, I think it's awesome that I've seen an F5, because it doesn't happen everyday, or ever year for that matter. As far as keeping track of F-scale ratings of tornadoes I see, it's something that interests me. I don't do it to brag or gloat, I do it to keep track of what I've seen; meticulous statistics are a huge part of my chasing. In 2050, if my mind hasn't left me, I'd like to be able to pull out a collection of videos/statistics/records/notes and show a person exactly what I did over my chase career. I've seen too many people say "I wish I'd have kept better records" once they realize they've lost years of information on their chases, besides what year it was. I don't want to lose information about what I did, what I saw, because memories fade with time. You remember, but details erase like chalk over the years.

The Bridge Creek/Moore tornado, while impressive, is not the most intense tornado that I have ever seen - nor the most aesthetic, and the fact that only the May 3 event was rated F-5 in no way takes away from the other events in my mind.

Why would it? May 3, 1999 is one of the most memorable chases of my life, but it doesn't take precedence because of the F5 tornado. I just think it's cool I was able to witness something so rare, but I could've lived without the experience and been just fine. Threads like this one are exactly the reason I never bring this event up in conversation.

 

[Bridget Beddow]

tornadoes

You know, from a non-chaser point-of-view...
Some people are so sensitive, they would have a hard time with seeing a picture of a tornado that destroyed their home, because they have been through a difficult ordeal. They have emotions wrapped up in their homes.

I personally would want to have pictures and information about a tornado that destroyed my home if it ever happened. I would want to know that because I would want to know what I'd have to look for. I'm not that sensitive - I would be terribly upset if it killed my dogs, but that's what gives me the drive to accomplish something.

If a small-scale tornado that was only 10 feet wide (for ex) swiped off the side of my house, what can I do to prevent that from happening? Was it only 10 feet wide? Was it 40 feet across? What does it take to destroy a home?

If we didn't have pic's of the excessively large tornadoes that look like a giant cloud on the ground, how would anyone know what they're looking at in order NOT to drive right into it. How many people would head right for it, thinking it was just an unusual looking cloud? You don't know no better, you can't do no better.

I'm thankful for the fact that there are risk-takers willing to take that chance -
when it is a problem for yourself, take the responsibility and accept the consequences, and don't complain about it (ie-don't complain if you drive into a storm intending on getting close-up footage and then gripe about hail damage to your vehicle)
when it is a problem for someone else, then it is a problem.

The storm that produced a tornado that ripped up the pivot on the farm that I lived close to did not have a tornado warning. It was designated as a tornado that hit the pivot as it merely twisted the last section of the pivot and then hit a grouping of trees close to it. This was only 4 years ago. I know this is nothing compared to what people observe in the midwest, but I WANT to know. I want to see why in some cases we don't receive that tornado warning on storms that produce tornadoes here.

 

[Shane Adams]

BTW, as I read one of your earlier posts - I think you may just be confused about the difference between a violent tornado that does and does not impact property. A tornado does not need to impact structures in order to be violent.

This I know, yes......

An F-5 is not a variety of tornado - it is a damage classification associated with one.

I'm aware of this also.....

Tornadoes with winds *capable* of causing extreme damage are very rare, but it is far less likely even among these events that the most extreme winds within a tornado during its existance will happen to directly impact a structure of sufficient engineering quality that we can begin to estimate the winds needed to cause such damage.

Yes. Perhaps this is why F5s are so rare.....

If you want to see an F-5 - then you are in effect saying that you want to see devastation of property - because that is the only way that a tornado can be classified as such. So, that puts your statement above in contradiction, IMO at least.

And herein lies the confusion: I say "F5" when I think of winds in a tornado being over 260mph, not a neighborhood full of clean slabs. I'm one of the (apparently) few people who are willing to look at the estimated windspeed numbers next to each lil level on the F-scale chart and say "why not?" When I make a guess at F-scale, I'm looking at the tornado's revolution, not the damage it's creating. I don't use the F-scale for the intened purpose, because everything we build is seemingly different in subtle ways such that no two cases can be easily surveyed and given a rating based on damage, because there's always some little factor that changes the scenario: hurricane braces weren't used, it was built before 1950, debris pummeled it as the tornado went by, etc etc. To me, trying to gauge/calibrate the damage a tornado causes is a bigger headache then having a little blind faith in a number.

So no, when I say "I want to see an F5" I do not mean I want to see devastation.....rather, just a good old-fashioned violent tornado like everyone else and their purple pooch :wink:

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Interestingly enough, though - it's amazing how many people after a big event DO want photos/video of a tornado that affected them somehow ... after May 29th I had like three requests from people in Kansas - one of which's father's home was badly damaged by the Jamestown tornado - who wanted more pics and video from the event. It happens that I actually got a shot of this victim's father's place in there. The same thing happened after May 4th last year with some friends of mine who lost their home completely ... they wanted to see what hit them from the other side!

It's actually part of the healing process, I think ... not uncommon at all - -

 

[Glen Romine]

Where are you getting this persistant impression I want damage to occur??

See your post on this thread dated Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:45 pm.

"...Who WOULDN'T want to witness the rarest tornado of all? Who cares what the wind speeds are, a tornado that does damage to that degree to earn that ranking is a rare event, and I know I wanna be there when it happens...."

Maybe if you read this again, you'll see how others can interpret this - but it seems that myself and a few others following the chain of posts here see this statement as you want to see a tornado cause massive destruction, which can easily be interpretted in a negative sense.

Glen