The fact that the Greensburg tornado likely wasn't even at peak strength and still managed to level almost the entire town stands out to me.
-
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
Significant Tornado Events
- Thread starter locomusic01
- Start date
AJS
Member
One thing to this day that i’m dying to see is the ground scar and damage photos from the 2.2 mile wide Trousdale wedge that occurred right after the Greensburg monster that’s rumored to have been even more intense.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Holy crap man, unbelievable work altogether. Greensburg was a very large tornado, yet consolidated its core which is rather rare for extremely large wedges like itself. It explains why it was so violent...
Western_KS_Wx
Member
Greensburg was pretty much steady-state EF5 intensity from Highway 183 to just past the lake north of town. There are 3 likely peaks however where damage appeared most intense, with that being just past 183, as it first entered town, and the northern part of town.
I’ve got several photos I can DM to you if you’d like. Apparently the scouring was severe enough that Tim Marshall believed it to be an EF5-strength tornado. He said it was visible for miles and it pretty much ‘mowed the grass,’ however he didn’t take any photos unfortunately.
Saltical Wx
Member
Hi everyone,
I saw a lot of discussion on this forum regarding my Cycloidal Coefficient Method a couple weeks ago, and I intended to clarify some aspects of my formula and methodology. I meant to find the time to share some more about my equations sooner, but unfortunately my schedule was very heavy as I am currently taking multiple math classes simultaneously.
If anyone has questions they would like answered, I'd be glad to help to the best of my abilities and current situation. I'll try to answer some questions about my research that have already been asked on this thread, as well as some other questions you all may have.
For those of you who do not know who I am. My name is Aidan, and I am an engineering student who has researched cycloidal marks for nearly a year and a half. I have developed a set of equations to calculate the wind speeds inside tornadoes based on cycloidal marks in what I call the "Cycloidal Coefficient Method." I won't go into full detail here, but if you like to read more about my work I suggest reading my twitter thread here.
As a short summary, my formula involves using the geometry of the cycloidal marks and the forward speed of the tornado to determine different velocities inside the tornado. I call it the Cycloidal Coefficient Method because my formulas introduce something I call the cycloidal coefficient. This constant represents the unique shape of a cycloid and can be used to reconstruct any circular cycloidal mark. I have derived multiple equations, but the two major ones I've derived are a tangential velocity equation which calculates the maximum velocity of the cycloid producing region of the tornado. This number is concrete and as exact as a direct measurement assuming the inputs are correct (correct forward speed, correct cycloid shape). This formula applies to both tornado models introduced by Fujita (suction vortices) or Lewellen & Zimmerman (Corner flow region), as there is debate as to what exactly produces cycloidal marks. The second major formula I have derived is an equation to determine a 3 second horizontal wind gust. This number relies on parameters such as the core diameter, swirl ratio, forward speed, and cycloidal coefficient. While this number is much more of an estimate compared to the tangential velocity equation, it has shown to correlate extremely well with the EF scale. While I understand the curiosity to know what the equations are, I have elected to keep them private until I have my paper published under my name. I have taken my research very seriously and I am taking every step towards publishing it. Over the past few months, I have been writing a paper on my equations as I have began to share my work to larger audiences. I understand the skepticism of trusting an anonymous online user who claims to have numbers pulled out of seemingly nowhere. However, I am serious in my work and the academic integrity of publishing it. I have presented my work to knowledgeable individuals and I am in the process of getting it presented to those highly educated in the field.
I also noted many people were curious as to why people are so trusting of my work. I do completely agree with not trusting someone so heavily that you use their words without understanding everything it means or verifying what they said. Recently, I have started to share less of everything I think or work on as I noticed many people used my words in online discussions without understanding my primary argument. A few times, people shared messages I sent a while back that were simply notes rather than a full analysis. These were presented in the light as an official statement by me, but these were rather brief observations by me not intended to be spread around as a concrete fact. However, the reason people trust me is due to my insightful analysis and understanding of damage analysis and cycloidal marks that I have discussed with people over the past two years in niche chatrooms.
To briefly answer some questions people have asked on this thread, I am publishing my work to AMS and I hope to present in person at an AMS conference. I have indeed seen Roegner's work on cycloidal marks at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and I may contact them in the future about my analysis. No, I do not believe Robinson is a stronger tornado than Smithville. My intent is to look at things as objectively as I can, and cycloid analysis introduces that as a possibility. While my tangential velocity formula shows Robison had higher tangential velocities than Smithville, it does not mean Robinson is a stronger tornado. I analyzed over a dozen cycloidal marks in the path of Robinson and Sullivan. Yes, Robinson and Sullivan are two different tornadoes. While Robinson's highest cycloidal calculation in its path clocked in at 241 mph for the tangential velocity, this is a case of sampling bias. Smithville only produced one partial cycloid while it was not at maximum intensity. I reconstructed this partial cycloid to get a large range for the tangential velocity that was a bit lower than Robinson. This is a drastic difference as Robison and Sullivan both produced rather consistent cycloidal marks for a large portion of their paths. Vilonia is obviously an EF5. However, from a structural standpoint first stated in Tim Marshall's 2013 analysis of slab-on-grade residences, the home on Wicker Street does not meet the EF5 criteria. This is not a problem with my analysis, as my analysis is using a definition set my Marshall himself, not my own. While the residence may or may not have required EF5 winds to sweep, this residence was not exactly along the right edge of the RMW. This means higher velocities occurred to the northwest of this residence. Yes, Smithville seems to be two tornadoes when comparing the observed split in the track with radar data. The tornado appeared to cycle rapidly over the state line. This is evident when comparing the track with radar data including other tilts. In-depth analysis reveals the rapidly dissipating Smithville circulation would have had to accelerated to 140 mph to cross the 0.41mi gap in tree damage before the couplet matched the new track. I can explain this more in-depth later if you all would like, but my methodology to prove this was verified by other well educated people; I do understand and agree with the skepticism though.
Overall, I understand the skepticism about my work especially when many of you had not heard of me before. I hope my answer was able to clear up some questions and I do intend to reply to any questions you all have. Though it may take me a bit to reply since I will have a busy next few days. For anyone wondering when my paper is likely to be published, it will be a while. I am a full-time college student who will be working a job over the summer and I unfortunately do not have the time to dedicate towards publishing my research at this instant. However, a long term plan is already in place and I have already begun to work towards building connections and presenting my work to qualified individuals.
Thank you all,
-Saltical
I saw a lot of discussion on this forum regarding my Cycloidal Coefficient Method a couple weeks ago, and I intended to clarify some aspects of my formula and methodology. I meant to find the time to share some more about my equations sooner, but unfortunately my schedule was very heavy as I am currently taking multiple math classes simultaneously.
If anyone has questions they would like answered, I'd be glad to help to the best of my abilities and current situation. I'll try to answer some questions about my research that have already been asked on this thread, as well as some other questions you all may have.
For those of you who do not know who I am. My name is Aidan, and I am an engineering student who has researched cycloidal marks for nearly a year and a half. I have developed a set of equations to calculate the wind speeds inside tornadoes based on cycloidal marks in what I call the "Cycloidal Coefficient Method." I won't go into full detail here, but if you like to read more about my work I suggest reading my twitter thread here.
As a short summary, my formula involves using the geometry of the cycloidal marks and the forward speed of the tornado to determine different velocities inside the tornado. I call it the Cycloidal Coefficient Method because my formulas introduce something I call the cycloidal coefficient. This constant represents the unique shape of a cycloid and can be used to reconstruct any circular cycloidal mark. I have derived multiple equations, but the two major ones I've derived are a tangential velocity equation which calculates the maximum velocity of the cycloid producing region of the tornado. This number is concrete and as exact as a direct measurement assuming the inputs are correct (correct forward speed, correct cycloid shape). This formula applies to both tornado models introduced by Fujita (suction vortices) or Lewellen & Zimmerman (Corner flow region), as there is debate as to what exactly produces cycloidal marks. The second major formula I have derived is an equation to determine a 3 second horizontal wind gust. This number relies on parameters such as the core diameter, swirl ratio, forward speed, and cycloidal coefficient. While this number is much more of an estimate compared to the tangential velocity equation, it has shown to correlate extremely well with the EF scale. While I understand the curiosity to know what the equations are, I have elected to keep them private until I have my paper published under my name. I have taken my research very seriously and I am taking every step towards publishing it. Over the past few months, I have been writing a paper on my equations as I have began to share my work to larger audiences. I understand the skepticism of trusting an anonymous online user who claims to have numbers pulled out of seemingly nowhere. However, I am serious in my work and the academic integrity of publishing it. I have presented my work to knowledgeable individuals and I am in the process of getting it presented to those highly educated in the field.
I also noted many people were curious as to why people are so trusting of my work. I do completely agree with not trusting someone so heavily that you use their words without understanding everything it means or verifying what they said. Recently, I have started to share less of everything I think or work on as I noticed many people used my words in online discussions without understanding my primary argument. A few times, people shared messages I sent a while back that were simply notes rather than a full analysis. These were presented in the light as an official statement by me, but these were rather brief observations by me not intended to be spread around as a concrete fact. However, the reason people trust me is due to my insightful analysis and understanding of damage analysis and cycloidal marks that I have discussed with people over the past two years in niche chatrooms.
To briefly answer some questions people have asked on this thread, I am publishing my work to AMS and I hope to present in person at an AMS conference. I have indeed seen Roegner's work on cycloidal marks at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and I may contact them in the future about my analysis. No, I do not believe Robinson is a stronger tornado than Smithville. My intent is to look at things as objectively as I can, and cycloid analysis introduces that as a possibility. While my tangential velocity formula shows Robison had higher tangential velocities than Smithville, it does not mean Robinson is a stronger tornado. I analyzed over a dozen cycloidal marks in the path of Robinson and Sullivan. Yes, Robinson and Sullivan are two different tornadoes. While Robinson's highest cycloidal calculation in its path clocked in at 241 mph for the tangential velocity, this is a case of sampling bias. Smithville only produced one partial cycloid while it was not at maximum intensity. I reconstructed this partial cycloid to get a large range for the tangential velocity that was a bit lower than Robinson. This is a drastic difference as Robison and Sullivan both produced rather consistent cycloidal marks for a large portion of their paths. Vilonia is obviously an EF5. However, from a structural standpoint first stated in Tim Marshall's 2013 analysis of slab-on-grade residences, the home on Wicker Street does not meet the EF5 criteria. This is not a problem with my analysis, as my analysis is using a definition set my Marshall himself, not my own. While the residence may or may not have required EF5 winds to sweep, this residence was not exactly along the right edge of the RMW. This means higher velocities occurred to the northwest of this residence. Yes, Smithville seems to be two tornadoes when comparing the observed split in the track with radar data. The tornado appeared to cycle rapidly over the state line. This is evident when comparing the track with radar data including other tilts. In-depth analysis reveals the rapidly dissipating Smithville circulation would have had to accelerated to 140 mph to cross the 0.41mi gap in tree damage before the couplet matched the new track. I can explain this more in-depth later if you all would like, but my methodology to prove this was verified by other well educated people; I do understand and agree with the skepticism though.
Overall, I understand the skepticism about my work especially when many of you had not heard of me before. I hope my answer was able to clear up some questions and I do intend to reply to any questions you all have. Though it may take me a bit to reply since I will have a busy next few days. For anyone wondering when my paper is likely to be published, it will be a while. I am a full-time college student who will be working a job over the summer and I unfortunately do not have the time to dedicate towards publishing my research at this instant. However, a long term plan is already in place and I have already begun to work towards building connections and presenting my work to qualified individuals.
Thank you all,
-Saltical
joshoctober16
Member
gonna release it when your finish?
Western_KS_Wx
Member
Yep and a contour map as well!
Ivanthetornadoenthusiast
Member
I feel like Trousdale might be the most underrated tornadoes of 2007, i think most would be focused on the Greensburg EF5
I appreciate you coming on here, and welcome to the forum!
I definitely owe you an apology. I took some comments from people that weren’t you that took some of your findings out of context and used that to paint with a broad brush. I was wrong to do that and am always willing to learn more. I’m really impressed with the research you’ve put into this.
Really excited to see more, and hope you stick around and contribute here.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Regarding Smithville, i am actually on board with the cycle and admit that my skepticism was wrong. Someone posted a image showing a clear cut between two paths from some imagery in 2011 in TornadoTRX's Discord server, I'll try dig it up soon.
I am glad to see you on here, Saltical and am very excited for any further theories/conclusions you have, your work is brilliant and apologies for those who twisted your words too. You have a bright future!
I am glad to see you on here, Saltical and am very excited for any further theories/conclusions you have, your work is brilliant and apologies for those who twisted your words too. You have a bright future!
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
The Bonesteel, South Dakota tornado from this year on July 29th was potentially EF3+. It appeared as a large, rain-wrapped but tall stovepipe tornado.
I actually stumbled across a tweet of Nick Krasz's while looking for media on this and the drone shows intense-potentially violent contextuals here.
This was a very interesting day to watch unfold additionally
I actually stumbled across a tweet of Nick Krasz's while looking for media on this and the drone shows intense-potentially violent contextuals here.
This was a very interesting day to watch unfold additionally
Attachments
Central Ohio Wx
Member
Honestly, I haven't seen a single piece of visual evidence that indicates that tornado should have been rated above 170, let alone 165. I am very skeptical that it was stronger than Greensburg, and I haven't seen any photos that prove it was.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
I actually agree here, i used to believe this sentiment but there is a lack of proper evidence to confirm if it was stronger then Greensburg and i actually doubt it was honestly. I could eat my words here however
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
@andyhb, just curious, is the 2025 data staying up on Tornado Archive?
Central Ohio Wx
Member
The biggest supporting point for an extreme intensity outside of what Marshall has said in relation to it is radar, which had iirc one of the highest gate-to-gate velocity couplet signatures ever observed on radar. However, radar is never a good measurement of intensity, as just in the last few years we have seen tornadoes like Essex, Hollister and Plevna.
Interestingly, the Trousdale tornado also had satellites that were never documented officially, the only existing video of which appears to have been lost as I can't find it anywhere. From Lemon & Umschied 2008, "Their video documentation will continue to be researched by the authors as it is believed this is the only video captured of the TT (Trousdale Tornado) and its satellite tornadoes". If you're into learning more about the Greensburg cell and it's associated tornadoes I would highly suggest reading Lemon & Umschied's 2008 publication "THE GREENSBURG, KANSAS TORNADIC STORM: A STORM OF EXTREMES", it's very interesting.
AJS
Member
The Trousdale, KS tornado’s radar signature was even more impressive than Greensburg. Absolutely monstrous appearance on radar.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Oh, I've read about the supercell many times, it's was no doubt one of the most impressive tornado producers in Plains history (given every tornado being able to maintain such large width) and i wouldn't doubt Trousdale being violent but not to a incredible extent. The VROT is pretty absurd, and I'm glad that the environment has limits, the mid level intensity of some supercells are extremely high and had those winds translated to the winds in cases like Hollister and Plevna, it would've been no doubt historic. Tornadoes likely have some sort of restriction to their intensity at some point and they just can't breach a certain barrier. If every incredible 70+ kt VROT breaker in the mid levels translated to the ground, we would have many violent tornadoes each year and it's for the better that supercells just aren't amazingly consistent at it most of the time (this is why 4/27/11 is such a incredible day)
The High School is definitely a probable EF5 candidate, three wythes thick masonry, I also note a strong collar joint in the masonry with alternating header and stretcher courses as backing wythes. The second church is very curious to me, definitely reminds me of Mayfield's church which I recently looked at and it 100% deserves EF5, do you happen to have any details on that one. The first church does appear to be a frame structure however.
Western_KS_Wx
Member
That church was a bit of an older structure and was I believe constructed around the same time as the high school was, so it had older construction techniques. Here’s some additional images to gauge off of.
As for the Mennonite church, it did appear to have been anchored and was of newer construction. That combined with some extreme, high-end contextual damage to me could justify an EF5 rating.
Edit: Yeah the high school also is worthy of an EF5 rating. There is some disagreement between Marshall and the initial QRT that included Dan McCarthy. That was actually the first point of damage they used to rate it an EF5 less than 2 days afterwards, but Marshall applied an EF4 rating. He did however call it some of the most extreme damage to a school he’s ever seen, and had it very borderline.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
One thing i found extremely interesting about 5/25/24 was the unusually consistent production of 1.5 mile wide+ tornadoes from a few supercells that night.
Valley View, Claremore and a few tornadoes from that exceptionally long lived Arkansas supercell breached the 1.5 mile wide+ limit. I would love to hear some sort of explanation to why tornadoes this night established such incredible width that easily. A truly fascinating case altogether and probably one that deserves its respect in the 2020s. That Arkansas supercell is actually a candidate for one of the most craziest tornadic supercells so far this decade, had a LONG while of intense tornado production, with record breaking tornadoes in Arkansas standards. Plus highly deviant paths too, which isn't that common in the Ozarks.
Valley View, Claremore and a few tornadoes from that exceptionally long lived Arkansas supercell breached the 1.5 mile wide+ limit. I would love to hear some sort of explanation to why tornadoes this night established such incredible width that easily. A truly fascinating case altogether and probably one that deserves its respect in the 2020s. That Arkansas supercell is actually a candidate for one of the most craziest tornadic supercells so far this decade, had a LONG while of intense tornado production, with record breaking tornadoes in Arkansas standards. Plus highly deviant paths too, which isn't that common in the Ozarks.