Severe WX April 4th-6th, 2022 Severe Weather Threat

[buckeye05]

Can't stop thinking about that video of the couple getting hit by the Ulmer tornado in their car. They're insanely lucky that it hit them after weakening, because otherwise I'm sure their vehicle would have left the road and gone flying. It's clear this was quite the violent tornado at its peak.

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

Can't stop thinking about that video of the couple getting hit by the Ulmer tornado in their car. They're insanely lucky that it hit them after weakening, because otherwise I'm sure their vehicle would have left the road and gone flying. It's clear this was quite the violent tornado at its peak.

It probably was capable of causing high-end EF4 or EF5 damage.

 

[ARCC]

The vegetation damage along the edge of this pond near Ulmer is absolutely vicious. Total debarking of shrubbery, scouring, and what looks to be intense granulation of tree debris into basically mulch/wood splinters. Can't say I've ever seen that before.

Honestly, some of that looks like burned cutover land with some standing dead trees.

Edit: You can also see some of the cut stumps in the images along with the cleared cutover on the left side image.

 

[Equus]

Rapidly becoming very impressed with Ulmer etc. after hearing virtually nothing about the damage until today, extremely impressive.

I wish people would stop harassing CHS on social media, they've made it quite clear things are under review and not entirely their call, and have given plenty of info in the meantime on where things stand. They rated very well on 4/13/20 but wouldn't be shocked if the QRT review suggested 165 even if it's obvious they believe it was stronger; strong case for EF4 seeing as it was apparently bolted down but any other number of construction discrepancies could hold it at 165. Yeah I know that shouldn't be how EF3 is applied but here we are. With bushes standing in the foreground it'd not be the most egregious violent damage snub ever but 170-180 looks good imo

 

[buckeye05]

Honestly, some of that looks like burned cutover land with some standing dead trees.

Edit: You can also see some of the cut stumps in the images.

Ah good observation. I was wondering why some of the pieces of lumber appear to be charred. Would this theoretically make the vegetation more dry and brittle, and potentially more susceptible to being shredded and debarked?

With that said, the shrubbery along the immediate edge of the pond area itself does not appear to be unhealthy, dead, or burned from what I can see.

 

[MNTornadoGuy]

Satellite imagery of Ulmer.

 

[ARCC]

Ah good observation. I was wondering why some of the pieces of lumber appear to be charred. Would this theoretically make the vegetation more dry and brittle, and potentially more susceptible to being shredded and debarked?

With that said, the shrubbery along the immediate edge of the pond area itself does not appear to be unhealthy, dead, or burned from what I can see.

I agree there, that is impressive.

 

[buckeye05]

Rapidly becoming very impressed with Ulmer etc. after hearing virtually nothing about the damage until today, extremely impressive.

I wish people would stop harassing CHS on social media, they've made it quite clear things are under review and not entirely their call, and have given plenty of info in the meantime on where things stand. They rated very well on 4/13/20 but wouldn't be shocked if the QRT review suggested 165 even if it's obvious they believe it was stronger; strong case for EF4 seeing as it was apparently bolted down but any other number of construction discrepancies could hold it at 165. Yeah I know that shouldn't be how EF3 is applied but here we are. With bushes standing in the foreground it'd not be the most egregious violent damage snub ever but 170-180 looks good imo

I really wish people wouldn't immediately freak out every time the preliminary rating is lower than expected. Yeah, sometimes WFOs don't upgrade from the preliminary wind speed estimate when they should, but in this case it is very clear that they are still analyzing for a potential upgrade. I get the frustration with the state of EF scale application in this country, but people who always immediately jump to the conclusion that the survey team has screwed up won't be able to tell when the survey team does get it right, because they immediately default to a position of "Oh look another survey team butchering a survey", and they make up their mind right then and there without all the facts and data.

That's why I get annoyed with immediate survey team bashing. When it's justified, I'm right there with you, but this time it's definitely premature. If people keep harassing NWS damage surveyors, they are going to get cynical and not take any external input seriously, and may cut off contact regardless of if that person has a good point/important information or not.

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

I really wish people wouldn't immediately freak out every time the preliminary rating is lower than expected. Yeah, sometimes WFOs don't upgrade from the preliminary wind speed estimate when they should, but in this case it is very clear that they are still analyzing for a potential upgrade. I get the frustration with the state of EF scale application in this country, but people who always immediately jump to the conclusion that the survey team has screwed up won't be able to tell when the survey team does get it right, because they immediately default to a position of "Oh look another survey team butchering a survey", and they make up their mind right then and there without all the facts and data.

That's why I get annoyed with immediate survey team bashing. When it's justified, I'm right there with you, but this time it's definitely premature.

I am not trying to sound like a jerk or anything but why is this usually the case? For instance the Greensburg tornado was never given a preliminary rating of EF3 or EF4. It was rated an EF5 not even a couple days after it happened. However, the Parkersburg tornado was listed as an EF3 or greater the following day after until it was rated an EF5 the day after at. I am certain the Parkersburg tornado was stronger than the Greensburg tornado even though over the past year more impressive damage photos have surfaced from the Greensburg tornado damage.

 

[buckeye05]

I am not trying to sound like a jerk or anything but why is this usually the case? For instance the Greensburg tornado was never given a preliminary rating of EF3 or EF4. It was rated an EF5 not even a couple days after it happened. However, the Parkersburg tornado was listed as an EF3 or greater the following day after until it was rated an EF5 the day after at. I am certain the Parkersburg tornado was stronger than the Greensburg tornado even though over the past year more impressive damage photos have surfaced from the Greensburg tornado damage.

I don't really care what the initial preliminary rating is or how long it takes them to upgrade to the correct rating, as long as they eventually make the right call. What you're describing isn't the core of the issue, and I actually prefer a more cautious approach that takes a while. The issue is when they don't upgrade at all (like Round Rock/Granger, TX from last month).

 

[Equus]

CHS has done very well in most recent events so it definitely looks like they're going about it thoroughly and properly. The fact they went 165+ AND called in experts gives me great faith they're trying hard to stick to the proper use of the scale. One thing that does tend to cause some issues is when a WFOs announces a preliminary wind speed a lot of media takes that and runs with it even when it has preliminary and + attached; few outlets come back and correct it if they bump it later lol.

 

[OHWX97]

I thought that was all in the past. Now I can see getting a second opinion before rating a tornado an EF5 but I thought they could make the call for an EF4 themselves. Some years ago back in the mid 2000s they had to call a QRT to rate a tornado F4+ on the F-SCALE but that was in the past. I do not think they are required today but it seems like NWS offices use them.

It would appear that it's still required.

 

[UK_EF4]

Update from NWS Charleston. I feel sorry for them, they have had a barrage of questions asking about rating etc. I'm glad they are taking the necessary time.

 

[OHWX97]

Update from NWS Charleston. I feel sorry for them, they have had a barrage of questions asking about rating etc. I'm glad they are taking the necessary time.

Is it really too much to ask of these kids on twitter to be patient and let them do their job? Every single event with a potential high-end tornado, the offices always get bombarded with questions and complaints about the rating. It’s getting ridiculous.

 

[warneagle]

Bonaire, GA rated 160 - that is rather high end for what's essentially a brief QLCS segment tornado. High tension transmission towers downed and multiple homes completely destroyed. FFC says 20+ tornadoes to survey in their CWA, and then we got the three EF3+s in CHS. What an event

IEM :: PNS from NWS FFC

PNS issued by NWS FFC at 08 Apr 2022 15:49 UTC

mesonet.agron.iastate.edu

Like I mentioned earlier, that makes it the strongest tornado in Houston County since the F4 that hit Robins AFB in 1953.

 

[eric11]

Update from NWS Charleston. I feel sorry for them, they have had a barrage of questions asking about rating etc. I'm glad they are taking the necessary time.

I assume they're maybe calling in a QRT?

 

[TH2002]

Is it really too much to ask of these kids on twitter to be patient and let them do their job? Every single event with a potential high-end tornado, the offices always get bombarded with questions and complaints about the rating. It’s getting ridiculous.

Don't want to get too off-topic here but there IS a reason many of us don't post on twatter...

 

[MNTornadoGuy]

Looks like Taylor County got EF1.

 

[buckeye05]

I’m going to have to reconsider by stance on deep, trench type ground scouring. This establishes that a less than violent tornado can do it, albeit more like as a result of loose sod and wet saturated ground.

 

[eric11]

I’m going to have to reconsider by stance on deep, trench type ground scouring. This establishes that a less than violent tornado can do it, albeit more like as a result of loose sod and wet saturated ground.

I think these type of scouring is the result of vortex breakdown?