MSNBC storm chasing show

I dont know if many you have seen this show and if this has been discussed already then im sorry for making another thread

the show has some inaccuracies

one of the storm chasers says i want to see a F5 that does no damage, hmmm a F5 tornado that does no damage

the show stated the Mclean texas wedge was a F5 which unless i havent heard about it yet is false
 
IIRC They played this same show last night around 4:00AM... A lot of the footage appears to be pretty old. During the earlier portion of the program, the camera glanced at an SPC outlook, and it was definitely pre-2003.
 
one of the storm chasers says i want to see a F5 that does no damage

Damage is how they get their Fujita scale rating. A tornado that doesn't do damage is a summer breeze.
I guess he wants to be a professional dust devil chaser! :roll:
 
I think the chaser meant he wants to see a violent tornado that would do F5 damage, but see it away from structures. I fully understand the Fujita scale is a damage scale, but I don't agree with the practice of taking it so literally as to suggest a violent tornado out in the open is an F0. That's fine for the books, but in a chaser conversation, I think it's a bit naive.

IMO the F-scale is more suggestive of overall tornado potential, since all tornadoes are rated overall by their singlemost destructive point along the entire path. Not to say all tornadoes are strong enough to do the type of damage they were rated at along their complete path, but rather to say tornadoes don't go from 70mph winds to 200mph winds over one particular house and then right back to 70mph winds.

I might be alone in that I have completely stopped trying to rate tornado strength by damage. Seems every case has some type of 'structural integrity breach' that only an engineer would notice, so laymen attempting to use this scale seems futile IMO. I'm far more comfortable using video to estimate tornado strength, and even then I only use a "weak/strong/violent" scale.

After all, as long as a tornado is (a) not harming anyone or anything and (B) in front of my video camera, what else really matters?
 
I was unable to watch the show. Did it have video from the Wichita falls are also. No big tornado but some funnels etc... if so then this is the same show that was shot in 2001. I was apart of that show but have lost my copy of it I made.

The McLean tornado was NOT an F-5 even though at times it was 1 & 1/2 mile wide. It is also known as the Kellerville tornado and is the one famous for "scouring" the pavement just a few miles north of McLean. It occured on the big day of June 8th, 95 (Pampa tornado outbreak). the official clasification of this tornado was F-3 as it did alot of damage in Wheeler at a feed lot.
 
I think the chaser meant he wants to see a violent tornado that would do F5 damage, but see it away from structures. I fully understand the Fujita scale is a damage scale, but I don't agree with the practice of taking it so literally as to suggest a violent tornado out in the open is an F0. That's fine for the books, but in a chaser conversation, I think it's a bit naive.

IMO the F-scale is more suggestive of overall tornado potential, since all tornadoes are rated overall by their singlemost destructive point along the entire path. Not to say all tornadoes are strong enough to do the type of damage they were rated at along their complete path, but rather to say tornadoes don't go from 70mph winds to 200mph winds over one particular house and then right back to 70mph winds.

I might be alone in that I have completely stopped trying to rate tornado strength by damage. Seems every case has some type of 'structural integrity breach' that only an engineer would notice, so laymen attempting to use this scale seems futile IMO. I'm far more comfortable using video to estimate tornado strength, and even then I only use a "weak/strong/violent" scale.

After all, as long as a tornado is (a) not harming anyone or anything and (B) in front of my video camera, what else really matters?

Yep, I agree with Shane - And, to further add... I think the guy was trying to put things into "idiot" terms so the general public could understand. Most people think that an F5 is a very large and scary looking tornado, and know little about the fact that you need damage to reach F5 status.
 
I think I saw the whole show, although I was having trouble keeping focused on it. The show's editing was quite confused, playing a mishmash of tornado clips when they were talking about hurricanes and visa versa. I don't remember Wichita Falls specifically in there, or them mentioning it.

There was a lot of rather superficial stuff about the World's First stormchaser from Tucson. And the meteorological explanation for tornadogenesis was pretty bad. And... I don't even remember what points the show was trying to make. Very non-memorable or informative. One-and-a-half stars :) .
 
Sounds a bit like the one the made in 2001 but not sure. they followed us to Wichita Falls that day but we were about 15 minutes too late and missed the tornados. They did buy and use some stock footage I had of other tornados though. They were suppose to Follow Warren F. that day but he was "unavailable" as he didnt think the setup was worth the drive and there was no chance of tornados. I was disappointed at their final product as they jumped around from topic to topic instead of finishing 1 story then going to the next. You never knew what group they were talking about or where they were.They also used tornado footage from different storms and belended them like they were from that day. I use it on my credentials but am not proud of that show but $$ is $$. I am gald I would only let them shoot me and not interview me. I let the rest of the guys do the talking. The BBC/Discovery crew did a much better job in 2002.
 
The McLean tornado was NOT an F-5 even though at times it was 1 & 1/2 mile wide. It is also known as the Kellerville tornado and is the one famous for "scouring" the pavement just a few miles north of McLean. It occured on the big day of June 8th, 95 (Pampa tornado outbreak). the official clasification of this tornado was F-3 as it did alot of damage in Wheeler at a feed lot.
The VORTEX project damage survey teams disagreed with the final NWS assessment, and rated the McLean/Kellerville tornado an F5. Not because of pavement scouring, but because of damage to a few homes and shelterbelts comparable to other F5s.

Gosh, hard to think that was now over 10 years ago!
 
i remember you mentioned that before and I agree Greg and wish the local NWS would amend their rating. According to the NWS as of today there has NEVER been an F-5 in the Texas panhandle. the 1947 Glazier/Higgins (woodward) tri-state tornado probably would have been an F-5 (considering it was 2 miles wide and leveled a number of towns down to dirt) but that was before the F-scale was created.

I also agree that pavement scouring isnta sign of an F-5. The June 2nd, 95 Dimmmit tornado did the same thing but was only an F-3. man we had a violent week that year :)

has it really been a decade????? man I feel old
 
I think the chaser meant he wants to see a violent tornado that would do F5 damage, but see it away from structures. I fully understand the Fujita scale is a damage scale, but I don't agree with the practice of taking it so literally as to suggest a violent tornado out in the open is an F0. That's fine for the books, but in a chaser conversation, I think it's a bit naive.

IMO the F-scale is more suggestive of overall tornado potential, since all tornadoes are rated overall by their singlemost destructive point along the entire path. Not to say all tornadoes are strong enough to do the type of damage they were rated at along their complete path, but rather to say tornadoes don't go from 70mph winds to 200mph winds over one particular house and then right back to 70mph winds.

I might be alone in that I have completely stopped trying to rate tornado strength by damage. Seems every case has some type of 'structural integrity breach' that only an engineer would notice, so laymen attempting to use this scale seems futile IMO. I'm far more comfortable using video to estimate tornado strength, and even then I only use a "weak/strong/violent" scale.

After all, as long as a tornado is (a) not harming anyone or anything and (B) in front of my video camera, what else really matters?

Yep, I agree with Shane - And, to further add... I think the guy was trying to put things into "idiot" terms so the general public could understand. Most people think that an F5 is a very large and scary looking tornado, and know little about the fact that you need damage to reach F5 status.

yah but then we will have idiots out there (not that there isint already) going hey look at that tornada, see how black it is, that means its a F5.
 
Yeah, it does appear that a lot of people don't realize that the F-scale is based upon the damage the tornado does. A tornado with F5 windspeeds can move across grasslands, and be rated as F1. There have been occasions where I myself tried to "estimate" how strong the tornado was by it's motions - for instance, I believed the South Plains tornado on 5/12 this year was at least F3 while chasing it, but it was classified as low-end F2.

Goes to show, that you can't "judge" the intensity by looking at it... :lol:
 
Yeah, it does appear that a lot of people don't realize that the F-scale is based upon the damage the tornado does. A tornado with F5 windspeeds can move across grasslands, and be rated as F1. There have been occasions where I myself tried to "estimate" how strong the tornado was by it's motions - for instance, I believed the South Plains tornado on 5/12 this year was at least F3 while chasing it, but it was classified as low-end F2.

Goes to show, that you can't "judge" the intensity by looking at it... :lol:

along with the F4 which was NW of OKC on 5/3/99 and last months wisconsin tornadoes
 
Back
Top