Significant Tornado Events

[Central Ohio Wx]

Also still hoping we can get a calculation on the Vilonia fertilizer tank so it can be maybe be given to NWS Little Rock.

Unfortunately my only way of directly contacting Moriarty (over Discord on my main PC) is currently severed as my computer decided to go into a boot loop and basically end itself as a result. I’ll check back in with him once I can get it replaced, which may be a few weeks.

 

[buckeye05]

Unfortunately my only way of directly contacting Moriarty (over Discord on my main PC) is currently severed as my computer decided to go into a boot loop and basically end itself as a result. I’ll check back in with him once I can get it replaced, which may be a few weeks.

Dang, that sucks. Hope you get it worked out!

 

[SweptSlab5]

I hate being “that guy” who reaches out the NWS with potential pathways for EF5 upgrades, but I’ve been thinking, if we really want to see changes, the public may have to be proactive and provide real compelling evidence for reanalysis for Tuscaloosa, Vilonia, and Mayfield. Those are the only three I can see in terms of there being enough evidence for the NWS actually considering them for an upgrade. The problem is I don’t know if just sending basic emails to WFOs saying “hey look at this” would work, or even result in a reply. I am so passionate about this that I’d be willing to work with other users and more knowledgeable people than myself to build a compelling case and find a way to get in touch with the right people. It may take a collaborative effort to really put something together that gets the attention of people at the NWS without coming off as annoying amateur EF scale dweebs, but I’m serious about this. Maybe someone like Jim LaDue would take interest? Does anyone think this is viable? If it is, I’d love to discuss further.

Two questions,
1. What about Chickasaw and Goldsby? There is some pretty obvious damage, and the EF4 rating seemed like penny pinching for a tornado.

2. You seem to be the most experienced commenter who frequents this forum, so you are probably the obvious "That guy". There are others on here that have connections, though, so maybe ask them?

 

[buckeye05]

Two questions,
1. What about Chickasaw and Goldsby? There is some pretty obvious damage, and the EF4 rating seemed like penny pinching for a tornado.

2. You seem to be the most experienced commenter who frequents this forum, so you are probably the obvious "That guy". There are others on here that have connections, though, so maybe ask them?

1.) Chickasha and Goldsby are definitely strong EF5 candidates. The problem is with those is there’s nothing that they did damage wise that can be re-analyzed using a new approach. I can’t just say “look at those slabbed homes again” and expect anything to happen. The difference with Vilonia and Tuscaloosa comes down to the fertilizer tank and the railroad bridge. Enderlin established a math based approach to assigning EF5 ratings. Vilonia and Tuscaloosa are prime candidates for this new approach, and one of those two non-conventional DI’s has already has been calculated in the EF5 range (the bridge). For Mayfield, we have the ESSL implementing a newly refined engineering based method to prove IF5 intensity using brick masonry structures. If it can be used to confirm IF5 intensity from an event in the 1800s, I’m sure it can be used to confirm EF5 intensity from a tornado in 2021. This got long winded but what I’m saying is that these three specific tornadoes I mentioned are unique since they involve promising stones left unturned thanks to newly refined intensity estimation methods.

2.) While I appreciate the endorsement, the truth is, there are people who know more than me and have more credibility than me, both here on this forum and elsewhere. I do not have any real first person links to the meteorological community, academically or professionally. I’m also not going to have more merit in the eyes of the NWS just because people like what I have to say on a forum. The best I can do is talk to the people I know who are more directly involved.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

I hate being “that guy” who reaches out the NWS with potential pathways for EF5 upgrades, but I’ve been thinking, if we really want to see changes, the public may have to be proactive and provide real compelling evidence for reanalysis for Tuscaloosa, Vilonia, and Mayfield. Those are the only three I can see in terms of there being enough evidence for the NWS actually considering them for an upgrade. The problem is I don’t know if just sending basic emails to WFOs saying “hey look at this” would work, or even result in a reply. I am so passionate about this that I’d be willing to work with other users and more knowledgeable people than myself to build a compelling case and find a way to get in touch with the right people. It may take a collaborative effort to really put something together that gets the attention of people at the NWS without coming off as annoying amateur EF scale dweebs, but I’m serious about this. Maybe someone like Jim LaDue would take interest? Does anyone think this is viable? If it is, I’d love to discuss further.

I think it's a good idea! I have a list of reply-friendly offices that usually give a response when emailed, based off personal experience and screenshots from others:

• HUN (Huntsville, AL)
• BMX (Birmingham, AL)
• FGF (Grand Forks, ND)
• ILN (Wilmington, OH)
• ILX (Lincoln, IL)
• JAN (Jackson, MS)
• FSD (Sioux Falls, SD)
• ABQ (Albequerque, NM)

The offices I've historically had issues contacting are OUN (Norman, OK) and EWX (Austin/San Antonio, TX); they are unlikely to reply to anything. For the specific tornadoes you want to look into, you'd email BMX, PAH and LZK; the latter one historically doesn't do re-analyses as far as I'm aware. No idea about PAH. Offices that aren't listed I just don't have enough info on.

LaDue is so high-profile that I'm not sure he'd have the time to be involved; there are a few lower-down engineers who might want to help out, though. I have connections with quite a few people so I could reach out if needed. I'm also open to emailing WFOs; for some reason there's a bit of a stigma against emailing the NWS.

As for the feasibility I think it's possible; it'd just need to be honed in on a few specific events because if a million emails are sent to NWS offices at once about a ton of tornadoes that might overwhelm the process - remember, FGF surveyors had to go through god-knows-how-many hurdles just to rate Enderlin EF5. I'd suggest focusing on the Mayfield church and Tuscaloosa bridge, as I don't think LZK will actually look into the tanks because it's, y'know, LZK.

One thing I've found is that sending a polite followup email to NWS offices (like "Hello, has this been looked into at all?") usually gives back a reply, as sometimes replies from them either fail to properly send (BMX had this issue with me a few days ago; they replied and I never got it) or the email just tumbles down their inbox.

 

[buckeye05]

I think it's a good idea! I have a list of reply-friendly offices that usually give a response when emailed, based off personal experience and screenshots from others:

• HUN (Huntsville, AL)
• BMX (Birmingham, AL)
• FGF (Grand Forks, ND)
• ILN (Wilmington, OH)
• ILX (Lincoln, IL)
• JAN (Jackson, MS)
• FSD (Sioux Falls, SD)
• ABQ (Albequerque, NM)

The offices I've historically had issues contacting are OUN (Norman, OK) and EWX (Austin/San Antonio, TX); they are unlikely to reply to anything. For the specific tornadoes you want to look into, you'd email BMX, PAH and LZK; the latter one historically doesn't do re-analyses as far as I'm aware. No idea about PAH. Offices that aren't listed I just don't have enough info on.

LaDue is so high-profile that I'm not sure he'd have the time to be involved; there are a few lower-down engineers who might want to help out, though. I have connections with quite a few people so I could reach out if needed. I'm also open to emailing WFOs; for some reason there's a bit of a stigma against emailing the NWS.

As for the feasibility I think it's possible; it'd just need to be honed in on a few specific events because if a million emails are sent to NWS offices at once about a ton of tornadoes that might overwhelm the process - remember, FGF surveyors had to go through god-knows-how-many hurdles just to rate Enderlin EF5. I'd suggest focusing on the Mayfield church and Tuscaloosa bridge, as I don't think LZK will actually look into the tanks because it's, y'know, LZK.

One thing I've found is that sending a polite followup email to NWS offices (like "Hello, has this been looked into at all?") usually gives back a reply, as sometimes replies from them either fail to properly send (BMX had this issue with me a few days ago; they replied and I never got it) or the email just tumbles down their inbox.

Awesome advice. This combined with some other guidance I’ve received gives me a pretty good strategy and approach. I’m not getting my hopes up, but I am going to give this a try here soon.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

@Central Ohio Wx alright so what other info did you find on that paper?
also side note newspapers.com really does have whatever you wanna find

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

I’m not sure if this has been shared yet so apologies if it has, but Rainsville from Spann’s book on 4/27:

Never seen this angle before. Apparently taken 10 miles to the SW of Sylvania; was probably at EF3-EF4 intensity here.

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

1.) Chickasha and Goldsby are definitely strong EF5 candidates. The problem is with those is there’s nothing that they did damage wise that can be re-analyzed using a new approach. I can’t just say “look at those slabbed homes again” and expect anything to happen. The difference with Vilonia and Tuscaloosa comes down to the fertilizer tank and the railroad bridge. Enderlin established a math based approach to assigning EF5 ratings. Vilonia and Tuscaloosa are prime candidates for this new approach, and one of those two non-conventional DI’s has already has been calculated in the EF5 range (the bridge). For Mayfield, we have the ESSL implementing a newly refined engineering based method to prove IF5 intensity using brick masonry structures. If it can be used to confirm IF5 intensity from an event in the 1800s, I’m sure it can be used to confirm EF5 intensity from a tornado in 2021. This got long winded but what I’m saying is that these three specific tornadoes I mentioned are unique since they involve promising stones left unturned thanks to newly refined intensity estimation methods.

2.) While I appreciate the endorsement, the truth is, there are people who know more than me and have more credibility than me, both here on this forum and elsewhere. I do not have any real first person links to the meteorological community, academically or professionally. I’m also not going to have more merit in the eyes of the NWS just because people like what I have to say on a forum. The best I can do is talk to the people I know who are more directly involved.

What about Chapman 2016?

 

[CheeselandSkies]

Which was more violent: Stoughton or Boscobel?

And yeah, Newnan was very questionable.

Replying over here to avoid cluttering up the yearly thread with excessive discussion of past tornadoes.

I haven't seen too much on Boscobel, but based on the photos on the NWS write-up page and assuming it shows the worst-damaged houses, I'd say they were pretty similar. IIRC Boscobel was not at peak strength for very long and its overall path length was about half that of Stoughton, but I do agree it was likely the strongest tornado in southern Wisconsin *since* Stoughton.

I attempted to chase that day, but due to prior commitments I couldn't leave early enough. I got to the storm right around the time the Highland tornado was ending, and then naturally it immediately died in a bomb of outflow and rain.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Replying over here to avoid cluttering up the yearly thread with excessive discussion of past tornadoes.

I haven't seen too much on Boscobel, but based on the photos on the NWS write-up page and assuming it shows the worst-damaged houses, I'd say they were pretty similar. IIRC Boscobel was not at peak strength for very long and its overall path length was about half that of Stoughton, but I do agree it was likely the strongest tornado in southern Wisconsin *since* Stoughton.

I attempted to chase that day, but due to prior commitments I couldn't leave early enough. I got to the storm right around the time the Highland tornado was ending, and then naturally it immediately died in a bomb of outflow and rain.

I’m honestly not convinced Boscobel was violent. The biggest supporting indicator for an EF4 rating (the one they said was “pushing EF4”) was, if DAT is to be trusted, not fully destroyed. It’s weird - half the house was almost cut in half in a way. Contextuals aren’t great either.

Edit: TIL that you can reply to messages in different threads!

 

[Ivanthetornadoenthusiast]

Brownsville (now Sweet Springs), Missouri F3 tornado of April 18th, 1882

 

[WeathermanLeprechaun]

Replying over here to avoid cluttering up the yearly thread with excessive discussion of past tornadoes.

I haven't seen too much on Boscobel, but based on the photos on the NWS write-up page and assuming it shows the worst-damaged houses, I'd say they were pretty similar. IIRC Boscobel was not at peak strength for very long and its overall path length was about half that of Stoughton, but I do agree it was likely the strongest tornado in southern Wisconsin *since* Stoughton.

I attempted to chase that day, but due to prior commitments I couldn't leave early enough. I got to the storm right around the time the Highland tornado was ending, and then naturally it immediately died in a bomb of outflow and rain.

Pretty sure Boscobel was a unexpected tornado in a svr tstm watch and it just happened to latch onto some warm front/boundary. Seems to be how the upper Midwest typically gets their major tornadoes around the summer

 

[CheeselandSkies]

Pretty sure Boscobel was a unexpected tornado in a svr tstm watch and it just happened to latch onto some warm front/boundary. Seems to be how the upper Midwest typically gets their major tornadoes around the summer

Yup. Stoughton was similar, not quite as much of a surprise but nothing that long-tracked and intense was really expected that day.

 

[A Guy]

A pseudonymous amateur researcher claim to have documented 106 tornadoes for the 19/02/1884 outbreak (compared to the 60 recorded by Finley) with 75 significant (compared to Grazulis' 37). They've put them in a Google book which can be previewed for free. It seems they have used newspaper reports as their sources.





Must say, not sure about the tracks that are in rather different directions to the others.

Two years ago I found a report in the obscure American Meteorological Journal a report, though a not very detailed one, of a tornado that passed north of Stateburg (spelt 'Stateburgh' by the author) South Carolina, a locality west of where Shaw AFB now is. Finley's map isn't precise enough, but if Grazulis knew of it he didn't consider it significant, it isn't on the map on Shawn's (locomusic01) article, and it doesn't appear to be on the above person's map either.

 

[eep]

Saw it earlier but didn't actually give much thought about it. How would a random researcher find a bunch of low end, short tracked tornadoes from an outbreak that old? I'm 90% sure that would be completely impossible... Any way I could imagine it being possible would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

[A Guy]

Saw it earlier but didn't actually give much thought about it. How would a random researcher find a bunch of low end, short tracked tornadoes from an outbreak that old? I'm 90% sure that would be completely impossible... Any way I could imagine it being possible would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

They give newspapers as their sources. If they've got access to a good newspaper database and enough of the local papers are in it, then it's simply a matter of finding ones around the right area and date and searching 'tornado' (or 'cyclone'). Newspapers can be vague in their details (possibly misattributing damage from straight line winds), often make damage sound worse than it is, or give only brief mentions. On the other hand old newspapers sometimes provide detail far in excess of what modern media does.

It's not like when Grazulis was doing it in the eighties, when you'd have needed to go to libraries and archives and riffle through any number of old pages.

That doesn't mean this person is right in any of their interpretations, but it's not as difficult as you make out.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

A pseudonymous amateur researcher claim to have documented 106 tornadoes for the 19/02/1884 outbreak (compared to the 60 recorded by Finley) with 75 significant (compared to Grazulis' 37). They've put them in a Google book which can be previewed for free. It seems they have used newspaper reports as their sources.





Must say, not sure about the tracks that are in rather different directions to the others.

Two years ago I found a report in the obscure American Meteorological Journal a report, though a not very detailed one, of a tornado that passed north of Stateburg (spelt 'Stateburgh' by the author) South Carolina, a locality west of where Shaw AFB now is. Finley's map isn't precise enough, but if Grazulis knew of it he didn't consider it significant, it isn't on the map on Shawn's (locomusic01) article, and it doesn't appear to be on the above person's map either.

I know both people in these tweets; Blue’s research is solid (Newspapers.com) but I’m not convinced that the sources they take from are actually giving the truth. I tried to point out to them that old newspapers have a long history of exaggerating tornado damage descriptions (sometimes outright fabricating information as well) and was iirc brushed off. Not in a bad way though.

I honestly kinda like the rise of amateur research in the field of tornadoes. It opens the door to so many new possible research methods and ideas, and I’m all here for it.

 

[NorthGaWeather]

A pseudonymous amateur researcher claim to have documented 106 tornadoes for the 19/02/1884 outbreak (compared to the 60 recorded by Finley) with 75 significant (compared to Grazulis' 37). They've put them in a Google book which can be previewed for free. It seems they have used newspaper reports as their sources.





Must say, not sure about the tracks that are in rather different directions to the others.

Two years ago I found a report in the obscure American Meteorological Journal a report, though a not very detailed one, of a tornado that passed north of Stateburg (spelt 'Stateburgh' by the author) South Carolina, a locality west of where Shaw AFB now is. Finley's map isn't precise enough, but if Grazulis knew of it he didn't consider it significant, it isn't on the map on Shawn's (locomusic01) article, and it doesn't appear to be on the above person's map either.

Very interesting. The Bartow, Cherokee, Pickens, Dawson (Georgia) tornado from that outbreak was assuredly an F-5 and likely killed a dozen more than is currently attributed by historians.

 

[iujkiaweatherman]

Here's my top 10 strongest ef4s list:
1- goldsby
reason- slabbed many well built homes, mangled and mudblasted vehicles, caused significant ground scouring and cycloidal markings.
2- mayfield
reason- obliterated an extremely well built church, cycloidal markings estimated by Saltical_WX showed evidence of at least 203 MPH
3- vilonia
reason- hurled a 15 ton steel fertilizer tanks 0.7 miles, swept multiple homes from their foundations, knocked concrete barriers over, and flattened forests
4- chapman
reason- bent around 265 (could be wrong on that) feet of railroad, next to a demolished home with a cracked rebar-enforced foundation. Trees were severely debarked
5- Bassfield
reason- swept a well-built cabin off its foundation, debarked large swaths of hardwood trees, threw a truck around 300 yards
6- chickasha
reason- debarked and splintered swaths of hardwood trees. multiple well built homes were slabbed, including a concrete dome that was heavily damaged. inches of topsoil was scoured and vehicles were mangled and launched hundreds of yards
7-tuscaloosa
reason- treefall analysis suggested winds of 221 MPH, probably instantaneous. swept clean apartment buildings
8- picher
reason- caused extreme ground scouring and tree debarking
9- washington
reason- extreme cycloidals calculated by Saltical_WX suggested winds of 212 MPH
10- Ringgold
reason- Windrowed debris hundreds of yards, flattened forests


keep in mind... this was made back in december/january. im sure my mind has changed on the rankings of strength but im too lazy to make a new list. if you wanna debate, go easy on me, im not the best at it.

does this belong in another thread? apologies if so.