calvinkaskey
Guest
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2014
- Messages
- 384
" target="Alpha">Watch video >
I have this picture in my mind when I was a kid of seeing a fire hydrant ripped out etc in Andover.
" target="Alpha">Watch video >
It's certainly unusual, but it's not entirely unprecedented, at least in terms of the basic evolution of the event. I was doing some research when I wrote my blog and came across a handful of events that featured similar basic pieces (extreme instability in the presence of modest shear, gravity waves and a tornadic supercell sorta back-building along a boundary like a zipper). Except, you know, those events didn't happen to feature one of the most intense tornadoes ever recorded.
I don't think I have any of that info on hand, but I can try to find it if you'd like.
Concerning the parking stops, the NWS survey said they weighed "approximately" 300 pounds. I don't know where they got that figure from, but it's possible. It seems most of them weigh between 200 and 275 lbs from what I've seen. Another thing I noticed is that the rebar "anchoring" appears to literally be pieces of rebar. Most of the time, at least with modern parking stops, they use a pin with a head on it that looks sorta like a really big nail. I don't know how much difference the head would make in practice, but it seems like it'd provide a little more anchoring and resistance than just a straight piece of rebar.
Anyhow, this is what I was talking about. Note how the stops seem to have been twisted more so than torn away.
Location of photos in 1-2-3 order:
The movement of anchored concrete parking stops is by far the most impressive tornado damage I think I've ever seen. I always envisioned surface friction would temper tornadic wind speeds that close to the ground. Normally a parking stop wouldn't need bracing against vertical movement, hence the lack of the 'nail head' on the rebar. It's interesting that all of the stops look like they twisted off as they moved, as each stop's rebar is bent in opposite directions. I think Shane's theory is probable - could this have been a subvortex that traveled right along the line of stops, plucking each one as it went?
And is it certain that those are concrete stops? They make them out of plastic and rubber in the same colors.
Maybe in terms of energy because it seemed like ef-3 damage made up half or more of the total area covered.
I think the upward forces in tornadoes aren't well appreciated. Even an ef-2 can pull a tree out of the ground and loft it hundreds of feet in the air.
You have already done so much, but if you have info on setups similar to Jarrell - AND you don't have to do too much digging.....
I am super curious about these setups where you get basically one big giant violent storm, and pretty much nothing else.
"Hecke said Tuesday night's tornado likely was an 'F-5' grade - the severest category, marked by winds of more than 260 miles an hour. 'The two homes that were destroyed, the foundations were gone. Trees were stripped of their bark, and 150 to 175 feet of pavement was stripped away' - which occurs only when windspeeds reach F-5 level."
"'I hadn't seen anything like that. I couldn't believe what it did to animals,' said Flores, who also witnessed the destruction at Jarrell. 'The subdivision in Jarrell that was hit by the tornado was wiped clean. This was wiped clean, too, but the cattle - their hides had been ripped right off of them. Some of them were missing heads, and some were caught up and entwined in barbed wire.'
'There was absolutely nothing left of it [the new pickup truck]. It looked like it had been blown up by a bomb or something. Two dead cows were lying at the foot of it ... their skin was gone. They were pink and purplish. No skin. It took the skin right off.'"
" target="Alpha">Watch video >
edit: Seriously though, this is a tough question because you're comparing what are essentially poorly documented tornado myths (Tri state/Xenia/etc) with poor visibility (Greensburg, Bridge Creek, etc.). Do you take the largest amount of damage in the smallest physical area to infer intensity - letting Elie and Pampa win?
Although "only" an EF-4, Tuscaloosa is one of the most evil looking tornadoes to me, and reminded me a lot of Andover. Any time you get those rolling horizontal waves and appendages, that's nature's way of saying "back off". Manchester and Bowdle looked pretty wicked too, and might have gone higher than 4s if they actually hit anything.
Anyone have any video or images of the ef-4s in pa in May 85? ie the one that was 64 miles long and very wide and showed the first debris ball?
Just asking, but if Tuscaloosa and El Reno are on par and Tipton and Woodford are on par then why are Tuscaloosa and Tipton rated above El Reno and Woodford?Construction practices, survey practices, vegetation, population density, etc., all influence tornado damage ratings, and they've all (likely) varied quite a bit from time-to-time and place-to-place. The mobile radars and WSR-88D give us some chance to compare the larger-scale tornado circulations, but frequent radar upgrades leave us with a moving target. For what it's worth, here are the 10 strongest rotational velocities we've found with US tornadoes since 2009:
1. Tuscaloosa, AL, EF4 4/27/11 124 kt
2. El Reno, OK, EF3 5/31/11 124 kt
3. Calhoun Co., AL, EF4 4/27/11 123 kt
4. Tipton, OK, EF3 5/16/15 116 kt
5. Woodford Co., IL, EF3 11/17/13 116 kt
6. Cedar Co., NE, EF3 6/17/14 111 kt
7. El Reno, OK, EF5 5/24/11 110 kt
8. Yazoo City, MS, EF4 4/24/10 109 kt
9. Menifee Co., KY, EF3 3/2/12 108 kt
10. Jackson Co., AL, EF4 4/27/11 105 kt
For comparison's sake, Joplin was 99 kt, and the latest Moore tornado was 92 kt. The biggest question with radar data is sampling compared to ground level and the size of the tornado, which are obviously not equal in all cases. There are clear relationships between rotational velocity and EF-scale damage ratings, but it's still far from perfect given all of the different ways things can vary.
Just asking, but if Tuscaloosa and El Reno are on par and Tipton and Woodford are on par then why are Tuscaloosa and Tipton rated above El Reno and Woodford?
The Philadelphia, Ms tornado not only dug into the ground 2 feet but also tore up pavement, bent steel girders, and totally debarked trees. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jan/?n=2011_04_25_27_neshoba_kemper_winston_noxubee
This is slightly off-topic, but does anyone know what tornado was on the ground for the longest period of time? There seem to have been some very long-winded ones (pun not intended) that have been on the ground for several hours - the Tri-state tornado and Candlestick Park come to mind.
Construction practices, survey practices, vegetation, population density, etc., all influence tornado damage ratings, and they've all (likely) varied quite a bit from time-to-time and place-to-place. The mobile radars and WSR-88D give us some chance to compare the larger-scale tornado circulations, but frequent radar upgrades leave us with a moving target. For what it's worth, here are the 10 strongest rotational velocities we've found with US tornadoes since 2009:
1. Tuscaloosa, AL, EF4 4/27/11 124 kt
2. El Reno, OK, EF3 5/31/11 124 kt
3. Calhoun Co., AL, EF4 4/27/11 123 kt
4. Tipton, OK, EF3 5/16/15 116 kt
5. Woodford Co., IL, EF3 11/17/13 116 kt
6. Cedar Co., NE, EF3 6/17/14 111 kt
7. El Reno, OK, EF5 5/24/11 110 kt
8. Yazoo City, MS, EF4 4/24/10 109 kt
9. Menifee Co., KY, EF3 3/2/12 108 kt
10. Jackson Co., AL, EF4 4/27/11 105 kt
For comparison's sake, Joplin was 99 kt, and the latest Moore tornado was 92 kt. The biggest question with radar data is sampling compared to ground level and the size of the tornado, which are obviously not equal in all cases. There are clear relationships between rotational velocity and EF-scale damage ratings, but it's still far from perfect given all of the different ways things can vary.