• After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.

    I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.

    For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.

    From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.

    Sincerely, Jeff D.

Top Tornado Wind Speed (in Theory)?

In my master's thesis from 1976, I made the statement: "[In] Hoecker's (1960a) analysis of the Dallas tornado of 2 April 1957...the maximum tangential speed [76 m/sec (170mph)] and upward speed [67 m/sec (150mph)] were derived directly by tracking debris, dust particles, and cloud tags in scaled movies of that tornado, similar to the procedures used in the study reported here." Those velocity figures were taken directly from a published, peer-reviewed paper in the Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 88, pp. 167-180, titled "Wind Speed and Air Flow Patterns in the Dallas Tornado of April 2, 1957."

The statement from the source you reference above is incorrect. It appears to confuse Hoecker's correct information from the MWR with the results of Josh Wurman's Doppler On Wheels (DOW) recorded a "record high" measurement of 295mph as the strongest, most destructive F5 tornado in Oklahoma history up to that time was passing through the Bridge Creek area on its way to Moore, OK, on May 3, 1999. The significance of the "318mph" wind speed reference is due to the fact that in 1999, an F5 tornado had a wind speed estimate range of 261-318mph on the Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale (F-Scale). In several subsequent publications that I have read, the F5 range maximum estimate has been often cited in reference to this tornado rather than the actual Doppler recorded measurement (23mph lower, but certainly within a reasonable range of measurement "error"). I hope this clarification helps.
 
A cop pulls a driver over and says, "Do you know how fast you were going? I'll tell you...sixty miles-per-hour, that's how fast."
The motorist says to the policeman, "Oh yeh, but I wasn't planning on being out that long!"
That joke sort of relates to the fact that we typically look at the quickest quarter-mile and fastest three-second gust.
But on time and space scales where distances & times are way less than I've just mentioned, the speeds arguably go higher.
 
In my master's thesis from 1976, I made the statement: "[In] Hoecker's (1960a) analysis of the Dallas tornado of 2 April 1957...the maximum tangential speed [76 m/sec (170mph)] and upward speed [67 m/sec (150mph)] were derived directly by tracking debris, dust particles, and cloud tags in scaled movies of that tornado, similar to the procedures used in the study reported here." Those velocity figures were taken directly from a published, peer-reviewed paper in the Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 88, pp. 167-180, titled "Wind Speed and Air Flow Patterns in the Dallas Tornado of April 2, 1957."

The statement from the source you reference above is incorrect. It appears to confuse Hoecker's correct information from the MWR with the results of Josh Wurman's Doppler On Wheels (DOW) recording of a "record high" measurement of 295mph as the strongest, most destructive F5 tornado in Oklahoma history up to that time was passing through the Bridge Creek area on its way to Moore, OK, on May 3, 1999. The significance of the "318mph" wind speed reference is due to the fact that in 1999, an F5 tornado had a wind speed estimate range of 261-318mph on the Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale (F-Scale). In several subsequent publications that I have read, the F5 range maximum estimate has been often cited in reference to this tornado rather than the actual Doppler recorded measurement (23mph lower, but certainly within a reasonable range of measurement "error"). I hope this clarification helps.
One other thing I forgot to mention in the post above was recalling reading about a similar maximum Doppler wind speed in the El Reno, OK, tornado on May 31, 2013 (the same tornado that took the lives of the TWISTEX team: Tim and Paul Samaras and Carl Young). Even though that tornado was rated an EF3 and had a maximum width of over 2.5 miles (over open country), two DOW vehicles were sampling, and both DOWs measured wind speeds over 200mph, with one recording winds of at least 295mph near the surface in a satellite-vortex within the larger tornado circulation.

Since the Joplin, MO, EF5 tornado on May 22, 2011, which Mike Smith described as "as bad as it gets," was not sampled by mobile DOWs, we will never know what the maximum wind speeds were near the ground when Joplin was struck, but we can surmise that similar wind speeds to the OK events above were likely, based upon structural damage observed.
 
Back
Top