Most violent tornado in history?

Smithville and Jarrell each did some of the most extreme damage ever surveyed. Here's an excellent in-depth writeup on Smithville:


Interesting to note that they were at opposite extremes of the forward speed spectrum (60-70 MPH vs ~5 MPH). I believe they each would still have been exceptionally violent had they moved at a more "average" speed, though.
 
Does anybody know what happened to the links below? It appears the website is no longer available. Have this articles been re-posted to another site? They were very informative and I would like to save the content.


Thanks!

It's back up at a different link:

 
Smithville and Jarrell each did some of the most extreme damage ever surveyed. Here's an excellent in-depth writeup on Smithville:


Interesting to note that they were at opposite extremes of the forward speed spectrum (60-70 MPH vs ~5 MPH). I believe they each would still have been exceptionally violent had they moved at a more "average" speed, though.

I just finished reading that Smithville write up. I had heard of the SUV that got bounced off the water tower, but the rest of it...just wow. And adding in the stories of people on the ground really made it hit home. It wasn't just a write up or a damage survey, it was a tragic story of lives shattered. Thank you for sharing that @Andy Wehrle.
 
I also heard about the Guin F5 of April 3rd, 1974, which apparently cleared off a house foundation, and proceeded to scatter it, while still moving at a decent pace. That's easily one of the worst pieces of damage evidence I have ever heard of. Unfortunately, there are no pics for me to share here so you guys can see, but that is what the damage survey team reported.
 
This topic is one of those that will always be open to interpretation. The Tri-State Tornado caused major damage while having an incredible forward speed while a tornado such as Jarrell caused complete destruction while moving very slowly. I've always wondered how much that has to be taken into account.
Regarding your thoughts on Jarrell…granted I’m not an expert so take my comments in the spirit of “seeking education” here. I’ve heard folks mention Jarrell could have been F3-ish (1997 before EF of course) but it’s slow forward speed….etc…. My first (uneducated) thought is , well sure it contributed. But a high end Cat5 hurricane has upper F-EF5 winds. In a hurricane, any particular structure might also be subject to F/EF3 type winds for 30 minutes or more and you don’t see damage like what Jarrell did afterwards. I know the wind dynamics are different. But similar to a high end tornado event survey. Where the rating is between a 4 and a 5, the rating will be in the conservative side because of building construction etc…. valid points by the way. It doesn’t mean the tornado “didn’t” have F/EF5 winds. Just means the structures impacted couldn’t possibly warrant a higher rating.
Im curious what you more experienced folks think about the Jarrell storm and whether or not the damage could have been done by a non F/EF5 storm due to wind duration. Certain videos of the Jarrell tornado show absolutely incredible upward movement and horizontal vortices. Traits usually associated with violent tornadoes. Thoughts?
 
Regarding your thoughts on Jarrell…granted I’m not an expert so take my comments in the spirit of “seeking education” here. I’ve heard folks mention Jarrell could have been F3-ish (1997 before EF of course) but it’s slow forward speed….etc…. My first (uneducated) thought is , well sure it contributed. But a high end Cat5 hurricane has upper F-EF5 winds. In a hurricane, any particular structure might also be subject to F/EF3 type winds for 30 minutes or more and you don’t see damage like what Jarrell did afterwards. I know the wind dynamics are different. But similar to a high end tornado event survey. Where the rating is between a 4 and a 5, the rating will be in the conservative side because of building construction etc…. valid points by the way. It doesn’t mean the tornado “didn’t” have F/EF5 winds. Just means the structures impacted couldn’t possibly warrant a higher rating.
Im curious what you more experienced folks think about the Jarrell storm and whether or not the damage could have been done by a non F/EF5 storm due to wind duration. Certain videos of the Jarrell tornado show absolutely incredible upward movement and horizontal vortices. Traits usually associated with violent tornadoes. Thoughts?

the main reason why is a lot of wind-sheer (change in wind direction.) the house should stay put for a good long while in say, 90-120 mph winds going in a straight line. while it is 100% true that the wind speed played a role, a change in wind direction with winds that strong is like a dummy in a high speed car crash: the impact destroys it.
think of it like a man breaking down a door, if you gently put pressure on it, it wont budge no matter how hard you press on it. BUT if you use a sudden force, (like kicking it) it should break within a couple of hits. What jarrell did is that it kicked the door CONSTANTLY with the force of a superman punch.
 
Regarding your thoughts on Jarrell…granted I’m not an expert so take my comments in the spirit of “seeking education” here. I’ve heard folks mention Jarrell could have been F3-ish (1997 before EF of course) but it’s slow forward speed….etc…. My first (uneducated) thought is , well sure it contributed. But a high end Cat5 hurricane has upper F-EF5 winds. In a hurricane, any particular structure might also be subject to F/EF3 type winds for 30 minutes or more and you don’t see damage like what Jarrell did afterwards. I know the wind dynamics are different. But similar to a high end tornado event survey. Where the rating is between a 4 and a 5, the rating will be in the conservative side because of building construction etc…. valid points by the way. It doesn’t mean the tornado “didn’t” have F/EF5 winds. Just means the structures impacted couldn’t possibly warrant a higher rating.
Im curious what you more experienced folks think about the Jarrell storm and whether or not the damage could have been done by a non F/EF5 storm due to wind duration. Certain videos of the Jarrell tornado show absolutely incredible upward movement and horizontal vortices. Traits usually associated with violent tornadoes. Thoughts?

There is a critique of the rating in a paper here: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/TN/nbstechnicalnote1426.pdf

I haven't read it myself so can't vouch for it, but it may be interesting.
 
There is a critique of the rating in a paper here: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/TN/nbstechnicalnote1426.pdf

I haven't read it myself so can't vouch for it, but it may be interesting.
It really doesn’t tell us much more than we know currently. But at the time I’m sure it was groundbreaking. The last few pages do she’s light on (at least to me) why we haven’t seen many tornadoes rated EF5 and haven’t seen one in 9 years. There’s a reason why the ratings tend to lean more conservative in high end events and I believe this explains why.
 
I'll have to break this into a few posts because apparently there's a limit to the number of photos per post.

It's an interesting question, even though we'll never be able to do more than speculate. The most likely candidate for most violent tornado ever recorded is likely one we'd never suspect. Consider how many large, potentially violent tornadoes form every year and simply don't strike anything of note during their lifespan, and then consider how many other potentially violent tornadoes just don't happen to hit anything substantial while they're at their most violent. It's extremely unlikely that the most violent tornado to ever form would have actually crossed paths with a structure that could record such violent damage, much less done so at peak intensity.

But, moving past that, I think there are basically two ways to look at candidates for "most violent." Both of them obviously involve evaluating damage in some way since, except in rare cases where we have mobile radar obs, the resulting damage (with all the problems and inconsistencies that entails) is the only useful proxy we really have for intensity. So, the first category to consider is tornadoes that caused the most intense individual instance(s) of damage. There are many, many tornadoes that could fall under this criteria, but there are several that immediately come to mind for me (not necessarily in order).

May 27, 1997 - Jarrell, TX
The poster boy for truly complete devastation; damage simply does not get more intense than what the Jarrell tornado produced in and around Double Creek Estates. Every home in the core of the tornado's path was swept completely away, the debris ground up into woodchip-sized pieces and scattered for hundreds of yards. The survival rate in the core of the tornado was zero. The ground scouring was probably the most intense ever documented, with the soil scoured out to a depth of more than one foot in some places. Grassy fields and front lawns were reduced to nothing more than mud. I won't recount the full aftermath of this tornado, but I wrote an article (including lots of photos) if anyone is unfamiliar.

There's an argument that the slow forward speed may have played a significant role in the damage caused, and that may be the case. However, I think there are almost always other factors beyond pure wind speed that contribute to the amount of damage a tornado causes, so I'm not sure forward speed is relevant. Also, we've seen plenty of tornadoes with similarly slow forward speed, and yet none of them has caused the same level of damage as Jarrell. One thing that I think did play a big role was the tremendous amount of dirt, sand and rocks scoured from the ground, which likely produced the "sandblasting" effect noted in Jarrell.

June 1, 1990 - Bakersfield Valley, TX
Almost always overlooked due to the very remote, rural area in which it occurred, I think the Bakersfield Valley tornado belongs on any list of most intense tornadoes. This tornado averaged nearly 3/4 mile wide, reaching a max width of 1.3 miles. It's officially rated F4 because it only impacted a few structures. Two people were killed when they separately drove into the heavily rain-wrapped multivortex tornado and their vehicles were thrown from the road. This tornado produced tremendous ground scouring, leaving nothing left but dirt, rocks and a few stripped and mangled mesquite stumps. Three hundred feet of asphalt was stripped from a nearby road. Three oil tanks, full of oil and weighing between 70 and 90 tons, were torn from their battery and tossed/rolled/tumbled three miles. Two of the tanks came to rest 600 feet up the side of a hill with a 40º incline, and the other tank was actually rolled up and over the other side of the hill. Before the tornado became heavily rain-wrapped, witnesses described it as looking very similar to the 1979 Wichita Falls tornado.

View attachment 10881

At left is an aerial view of the tornado's path, which is clearly visible as a streak through the center of the image due to the extraordinary scouring. At right is a ground-level photo showing virtually nothing left but dirt and rocks. This was previously a field. The photos are poor quality but you get the idea.

View attachment 10882

Also hard to see, but this is the road from which 300+ feet of asphalt was scoured.

View attachment 10883

A heavy steel anhydrous ammonia tank which was torn from its anchoring and rolled some distance by the tornado.

Incidentally, another potentially extremely violent but little-known tornado struck just two weeks later. On June 15, 1990, a monster tornado (up to 1.5 miles wide) struck largely rural areas of Hitchcock and Red Willow Counties in Nebraska. It leveled a handful of homes, but it also did incredible damage to a number of vehicles and farm equipment. In many cases these vehicles literally disappeared, with only pieces and parts remaining scattered for many miles. Dean Cosgrove has some incredible photos and more of the story on this tornado, and the June 1990 issue of Storm Data has info on both of these tornadoes

Windsweptchasetours Blog

May 15, 1896 - Sherman, TX
Given that it took place well over 100 years ago, reliable details are somewhat scarce. What we do know, however, is extremely impressive. The Sherman tornado was very narrow - the worst of the damage often only 50-100 yards wide - but the damage was very intense. There was pronounced ground scouring, with one reporter stating "not one tree, shrub or blade of grass was left." The Houston Street bridge, an iron bridge weighing "hundreds of thousands of tons," was said to have been torn from its anchoring and twisted into unusable scraps. Railroad tracks on the edge of town were reportedly torn up and twisted. Virtually every home in the path was completely swept away, and in some cases whole families were killed. Victims were badly mangled and dismembered.

View attachment 10884
I’ve never understood why the Bakersfield Valley TX photos are all black and white and grainy. 1990 wasn’t THAT long ago geeze
 
A section of this foundation (looks like a shed) was said to have been dislodged and scoured away. It's hard to make out what's going on there though. Check out the fence posts in front as well.



Another home swept away.



And another, with the brick veneer torn away well below the foundation level.



I have a number of others, but I don't wanna spam the thread too badly.
Dude!!’ Spam away!!! I’ve always been fascinated with this particular tornado and too much info and photo is never enough.
 
In my opinion the Jarrel Tx tornado back in 1997 could be the most violent. The tornado of course was rated an F-5, but what made it so violent was the fact that it was moving so slow. Pretty much everything that was above ground was completely swept clean. (See pic below) Virtually everyone who was in shelter above ground didn't survive. Very sad. The tornado (like many other violent tornadoes) contained very violent updrafts that sucked away grass in fields. (Here is a pic below) Other notible tornadoes that have done that type of damage in fields include the EF-5 Philadelphia Ms tornado back on April 27, 2011. But we have to remember that large tornadoes are not the only ones that can be very violent. The small suction vortices can be just as strong if not stronger as the bigger tornadoes. Here is a video of a tornado from Australia.


It was very small in width but when it interacts with friction you increase surface inflow and at the corner flow you can have 200+ mph winds. Dr. Lewellen and Dr. Fiedler stated that in some cases in that region some tornadoes that have the structure of cyclostrophic balance aloft and a cyclostrophic imbalance at the ground can have winds close if not exceeding the speed of sound. View attachment 10872 View attachment 10873
Has some eerie similarities to Andover Kansas April 29, 2022 with those helical vortices.
 
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.
Can you elaborate a little on exactly what “rotational velocity” is referring to? I know it seems like it should be obvious but I figure I can’t be the only one with this question. Thanks.
 
Can you elaborate a little on exactly what “rotational velocity” is referring to? I know it seems like it should be obvious but I figure I can’t be the only one with this question. Thanks.

My understanding here is differentiating between the velocity recorded by radar (rotational velocity), against damage ratings on the ground. While a radar might record 200 mph winds rotationally, there may only be evidence of 160 mph winds when you assess the ground level damage.

I could be wrong of course!
 
My understanding here is differentiating between the velocity recorded by radar (rotational velocity), against damage ratings on the ground. While a radar might record 200 mph winds rotationally, there may only be evidence of 160 mph winds when you assess the ground level damage.

I could be wrong of course!
I don’t think I asked my question correctly. What I want to know is “what does rotational velocity” actually mean? It’s not the same as “wind speed” I assume. For example, Tuscaloosa 2011 is listed here with a RV of 124kt which is about 143mph. We know that the wind speeds in that tornado were well above that, so if RV doesn’t mean wind speed, what does it mean?
 
Re: Joplin, while the construction really doesn't support an EF5 rating, I think there are several other factors that do. In particular, the extraordinary debris granulation, extremely severe debarking/denuding of very large, healthy trees, very severe vehicle damage and extensive ground scouring. The debris granulation was probably as impressive as I've ever seen outside of possibly Jarrell and Parkersburg, as was the debarking/denuding of both large trees and low-lying shrubs. It may not be the most violent tornado on record, but I think it's a no-doubt EF5.

With respect to the parking stops, while I think the "anchored with rebar" bit is slightly misleading, it still seems to be a pretty impressive feat. I have several photos (ground level and aerial) of the parking stops, and it seems they may have been more twisted off than torn away from the rebar pins. I'm not sure what to make of the manhole covers being sucked away, but it's also pretty impressive.

Also I'm interested in where you heard this "sandblasting of rocks" and Jarrell being considered for an F6 rating. The original scale did extend all the way to 12 (in order to connect the Beaufort and Mach scales), but anything over F5 wasn't really intended to be used in practice. The infamous "____ tornado almost received an F6 rating" seems more of an urban legend than anything, as I've heard it connected with any number of tornadoes (Guin, Xenia, Bridge Creek, Jordan, Plainfield, etc).

I mostly agree with you about Joplin -- Again, I was not part of the survey.
But agreed it is a "No Doubt F5". And again, I am only addressing intensity - not violence.
I don't think Joplin is a candidate for "most intense".
I also think you are right about the parking stops.
As a kid, I used to do landscaping, and sometimes have to move parking stops around by hand to move equipment, etc.
I am a fairly strong guy, but you might be surprised how easy (ok not really easy) they are to move.
They are not really "anchored", I have seen a small car bump one and knock it off the off the rebar "pins".
They usually only weigh about 180 lbs, and can be rocked and twisted easy if they are not on flat ground.
A car being pushed forward (or backward for that matter) could easily scoot one of these things, and once
they get moving they are much easier to keep moving (static vs kinetic friction). Enough said.

Jarrell happened on Day 3 of an outbreak in KS, OK, and TX.

Shane -- You are right -- there was an unusual kind of gravity wave trigger in play at Jarrell.
I remember the day well. Part of our team moved south on Day 3, but did not go as far south as Jarrell.

The next day or so - at dinner, Matt Biddle and some others were discussing Jarrell and said that there
had been some speculation about F6, but I did not mean to imply that it was considered seriously.
There WAS apparently some amazing scouring of rocks.

The slow motion factor was a major part.

I saw a video by Al Pietrycha that showed an F0/F1 landspout that caused F3 damage.
It didn't move for 10-15 minutes, if I remember correctly.

-Truman
I’m confused by something you wrote regarding Joplin. You rank it high on intensity but not violence. I guess I look at intensity as meaning the same thing as violence. To me they both mean the same thing. Would you mind explaining your thinking on the difference between intensity and violence?
 
Back
Top