• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER
  • Current Tropical Systems
    Erin

Severe WX Severe Weather Threat 3/14-3/16

ColdFront said:
This may be controversial, but I believe this is the closest we will get to a Super Tuesday style outbreak under the current ratings regime (5 EF4s).

In my opinion this was also the outbreak of the decade so far. You had a full on supercell outbreak in Arkansas and Missouri on Friday with an attendant QLCS north of it. Then on Saturday, while storm mode was more messy, you still had multiple, training supercell families that tracked all through Mississippi and embedded circulations later in Alabama.

Just the wide geography impacted, along with the significant and cyclical supercell production of tornados, leads me to that opinion.

Edit: to add on to this, I absolutely believe we were 2 or 3 flies in the ointment away from discussing how Saturday was the most violent outbreak since 4/27.
Click to expand...
In terms of overall sig tornado length(a fairy consistent caliber for measuring tornado outbreak's intensity), 3/14-3/15 combined had more than 1000 miles, which is more than double of Super Tuesday and even higher than 11/21-11/22/1992. 3/14 alone had more than 728 miles sig tornado length now, which makes it the fourth intense one single day outbreak since 1950(sig tornado length wise), only behind two Super Outbreak and Palm Sunday 1965.
image-2312.png
 
pohnpei said:
In terms of overall sig tornado length(a fairy consistent caliber for measuring tornado outbreak's intensity), 3/14-3/15 combined had more than 1000 miles, which is more than double of Super Tuesday and even higher than 11/21-11/22/1992. 3/14 alone had more than 728 miles sig tornado length now, which makes it the fourth intense one single day outbreak since 1950(sig tornado length wise), only behind two Super Outbreak and Palm Sunday 1965.
View attachment 36922
Click to expand...
Dang what!!
 
pohnpei said:
In terms of overall sig tornado length(a fairy consistent caliber for measuring tornado outbreak's intensity), 3/14-3/15 combined had more than 1000 miles, which is more than double of Super Tuesday and even higher than 11/21-11/22/1992. 3/14 alone had more than 728 miles sig tornado length now, which makes it the fourth intense one single day outbreak since 1950(sig tornado length wise), only behind two Super Outbreak and Palm Sunday 1965.
View attachment 36922
Click to expand...
That’s incredible. Thanks for posting this. Really shows what kind scale this outbreak was on.
 
Shakespeare 2016 said:
I thought it was 11 EF3'S and 3 EF4S.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Stewart has information to more up-to-date DAT information?

The Bakersfield tornado still has the contradictory description and comment regarding the slabbed house.

And it wouldn’t surprise me if two more ef3s were added since a few ef2s from this outbreak were high end.
 
jiharris0220 said:
Perhaps Stewart has information to more up-to-date DAT information?

The Bakersfield tornado still has the contradictory description and comment regarding the slabbed house.

And it wouldn’t surprise me if two more ef3s were added since a few ef2s from this outbreak were high end.
Click to expand...
Wow.. i guess I should prepare myself
 
At @buckeye05's request, here is some footage from this outbreak.

I don't think anything I've found beats Robin Strickland's incredible video of the Hot Coffee-Taylorsville, MS EF2 (posted here for those who may have missed it) but here's some other stuff worth sharing:

Chase video of the Villa Ridge, MO EF2:


Chase video of the Diaz, AR EF4:


Near direct hit by the Rolla, MO EF2:


@tornadotrx, is this your video?
 
ColdFront said:
Man… that Bakersfield storm really had the “look” to it. Apparently had an extremely loud roar too.
Click to expand...
The rating of this thing is disgraceful to be honest.

To this day, the DI still has this nonsensical contradiction of “except small interior rooms” still standing despite the comment and actual photos showing otherwise
1742774519643.png
Its amazing really, looking at the 140mph designation and then looking at this photo from the survey itself, showing blatant ef4 contextual damage and a slabbed house, with no interior walls standing.
1742774709307.jpeg1742774834631.png
 
jiharris0220 said:
The rating of this thing is disgraceful to be honest.

To this day, the DI still has this nonsensical contradiction of “except small interior rooms” still standing despite the comment and actual photos showing otherwise
View attachment 37110
Its amazing really, looking at the 140mph designation and then looking at this photo from the survey itself, showing blatant ef4 contextual damage and a slabbed house, with no interior walls standing.
View attachment 37111View attachment 37112
Click to expand...
What a crock of BS. What a bunch of liars. This damage is easily EF4.
 
jiharris0220 said:
The rating of this thing is disgraceful to be honest.

To this day, the DI still has this nonsensical contradiction of “except small interior rooms” still standing despite the comment and actual photos showing otherwise
View attachment 37110
Its amazing really, looking at the 140mph designation and then looking at this photo from the survey itself, showing blatant ef4 contextual damage and a slabbed house, with no interior walls standing.
View attachment 37111View attachment 37112
Click to expand...
To be fair this house has been removed from its subfloor, which is not the same thing as “slabbed”. Regardless, the contextual evidence is not consistent with a low-end EF3, and the wind speed estimate should be higher. Remember when I said I was concerned about the fact that NWS Springfield was surveying this one? This is exactly what I was talking about. When it comes to the topic of “good” and “bad” forecast offices for surveys, they unfortunately fall into the second category. They just don’t “get it”.

I really shouldn’t be able to look at the WFO responsible for an upcoming survey, and accurately predict a bad rating before it even happens. The EF scale should be applied the same way office to office, but that just isn’t what happens unfortunately.
 
jiharris0220 said:
The rating of this thing is disgraceful to be honest.

To this day, the DI still has this nonsensical contradiction of “except small interior rooms” still standing despite the comment and actual photos showing otherwise
View attachment 37110
Its amazing really, looking at the 140mph designation and then looking at this photo from the survey itself, showing blatant ef4 contextual damage and a slabbed house, with no interior walls standing.
View attachment 37111View attachment 37112
Click to expand...
Prolly gonna be one of my last posts for a while, but I think the EF scale should be replaced (obviously)

I personally think that it should be divided into 6 categories (like the EF scale), but not in the way you expect: Harmless, Slight Damage, Moderate, Extreme, Devastating, and Apocalyptic.

For harmless, its just for random EF0 tornadoes in the middle of Kansas or other stuff. Examples are on tornado archive.

For slight damage, has to remove a few shingles and flip a few tree there and here.
Examples are usually EF1.

For moderate, roofs get removed, vehicles get rolled a few yards, and more. Examples are usually EF2.

For extreme, the houses have their exterior walls removed, vehicles actually get thrown a few yards, and more. Examples usually include some random EF3 tornadoes.

For devastating, house are leveled, but not swept. Tree are slightly debarked, Cars are starting to get mangled, and more. Examples usually include EF4 tornadoes.

For apocalyptic, houses are swept, vehicles are completely mangled, trees completely debarked, major damage to structures like churches, etc. Examples include the Moore E/F5s, Joplin, Tuscaloosa-Birmingham, and a few more.

Not only will this be an improvement, but I think it will help the rescue mission go quicker because they will understand the scope of the damage.
 
tornadowatch211 said:
Prolly gonna be one of my last posts for a while, but I think the EF scale should be replaced (obviously)

I personally think that it should be divided into 6 categories (like the EF scale), but not in the way you expect: Harmless, Slight Damage, Moderate, Extreme, Devastating, and Apocalyptic.

For harmless, its just for random EF0 tornadoes in the middle of Kansas or other stuff. Examples are on tornado archive.

For slight damage, has to remove a few shingles and flip a few tree there and here.
Examples are usually EF1.

For moderate, roofs get removed, vehicles get rolled a few yards, and more. Examples are usually EF2.

For extreme, the houses have their exterior walls removed, vehicles actually get thrown a few yards, and more. Examples usually include some random EF3 tornadoes.

For devastating, house are leveled, but not swept. Tree are slightly debarked, Cars are starting to get mangled, and more. Examples usually include EF4 tornadoes.

For apocalyptic, houses are swept, vehicles are completely mangled, trees completely debarked, major damage to structures like churches, etc. Examples include the Moore E/F5s, Joplin, Tuscaloosa-Birmingham, and a few more.

Not only will this be an improvement, but I think it will help the rescue mission go quicker because they will understand the scope of the damage.
Click to expand...
I agree that most non DI'S should be able to get an EF-RATING.
 
buckeye05 said:
To be fair this house has been removed from its subfloor, which is not the same thing as “slabbed”. Regardless, the contextual evidence is not consistent with a low-end EF3, and the wind speed estimate should be higher. Remember when I said I was concerned about the fact that NWS Springfield was surveying this one? This is exactly what I was talking about. When it comes to the topic of “good” and “bad” forecast offices for surveys, they unfortunately fall into the second category. They just don’t “get it”.

I really shouldn’t be able to look at the WFO responsible for an upcoming survey, and accurately predict a bad rating before it even happens. The EF scale should be applied the same way office to office, but that just isn’t what happens unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Being removed from a subfloor has to be considered the same as a slab. I'd settle for a different DI list entirely for houses with basements and subfloors, but to just give it a 140 mph "some walls left standing" designation is completely inaccurate and inconsistent. This house looks better built with a subfloor than most I've seen with concrete slabs. What good is a scale that doesn't work properly for half the country (houses with basements)?

Also the way it snapped the faceplate on top of the basement walls is incredibly impressive.

All that being said, you were completely spot on with your predictions about the Springfield NWS. And the points you made in some of our other conversations about inconsistency across WFOs have been completely verified. I now agree it's one of the biggest issues with tornado ratings, other than an overall culture of underrating them across most offices.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
Being removed from a subfloor has to be considered the same as a slab. I'd settle for a different DI list entirely for houses with basements and subfloors, but to just give it a 140 mph "some walls left standing" designation is completely inaccurate and inconsistent. This house looks better built with a subfloor than most I've seen with concrete slabs. What good is a scale that doesn't work properly for half the country (houses with basements)?

Also the way it snapped the faceplate on top of the basement walls is incredibly impressive.

All that being said, you were completely spot on with your predictions about the Springfield NWS. And the points you made in some of our other conversations about inconsistency across WFOs have been completely verified. I now agree it's one of the biggest issues with tornado ratings, other than an overall culture of underrating them across most offices.
Click to expand...
Well yeah in terms of the DOD it’s considered the same thing, but physically it’s very different because the failure happens at the floor to wall junction, above the actual foundation and anchor bolts, which essentially renders them useless. The bolts end up anchoring the floor, but not the walls, which just pull right out of the wood.

But yeah regarding the second point, once you start paying attention to how differently various WFOs use the EF scale, the lack of consistency becomes undeniable. It’s to the point where I can basically see a bad rating coming down the tubes ahead of time, or conversely, breathe a sigh of relief when a more reasonable WFO is doing the survey. Neither of those two scenarios should be happening at all though. It should be applied the same way at every office, but it isn’t unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top