Sadly, I'm not entirely sure building construction would've mattered in many of these areas. That is incredibly massive destruction.
-
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
RF16Gold
Member
So roughly 4,500 Hispanics or more, most likely concentrated together in a small area.
warneagle
Member
Idk about “concentrated in a small area”. The demographics of the major cities and towns in the county suggest that the Hispanic/Latino population is distributed relatively evenly.
Evan
Member
I don't think think they'll find DIs to support anything above EF-4. From what I've seen the damage is difficult to classify because much of the damage is to trees, mobile homes, pre-manufactured homes, and older site built homes, etc.
I believe the fatality rate is high because of the number of mobile homes and pre-manufactured homes in the area. May have been some outdoor deaths as well if people did not hear/receive warning for the 2nd storm.
I'm not trying to be controversial, but I think high-end EF-3 (150+ mph) or a 166-180 mph EF-4 will most likely be what the survey finds. It's always possible there's a pocket of damage that has better DIs and more complete destruction.
Yesterday wasn't a severe weather day that was hyped. This was a rural area with an unfortunate number of structures that simply cannot withstand anything but the most minor tornado damage. So, when you have a strong to violent tornado, the damage appears absolutely catastrophe.
Perhaps I haven't yet seen a video or picture that shows a well-constructed site built home with total destruction. If you know of one please post it.
The death toll from yesterday's tornado makes me absolutely nauseous. Those poor people and their families. The 6 year old boy. The 8 year old girl. 23 lives gone. And more still potentially missing. I definitely feel shades of 4/27 here, and I've shed some tears over the loss of life already.
Seeing the family and friends search for little AJ Hernandez on social media, and then find out an hour or two later that he died has absolutely broken me. I haven't felt this intense and hopeless sadness since 4/27/2011.
I believe the fatality rate is high because of the number of mobile homes and pre-manufactured homes in the area. May have been some outdoor deaths as well if people did not hear/receive warning for the 2nd storm.
I'm not trying to be controversial, but I think high-end EF-3 (150+ mph) or a 166-180 mph EF-4 will most likely be what the survey finds. It's always possible there's a pocket of damage that has better DIs and more complete destruction.
Yesterday wasn't a severe weather day that was hyped. This was a rural area with an unfortunate number of structures that simply cannot withstand anything but the most minor tornado damage. So, when you have a strong to violent tornado, the damage appears absolutely catastrophe.
Perhaps I haven't yet seen a video or picture that shows a well-constructed site built home with total destruction. If you know of one please post it.
The death toll from yesterday's tornado makes me absolutely nauseous. Those poor people and their families. The 6 year old boy. The 8 year old girl. 23 lives gone. And more still potentially missing. I definitely feel shades of 4/27 here, and I've shed some tears over the loss of life already.
Seeing the family and friends search for little AJ Hernandez on social media, and then find out an hour or two later that he died has absolutely broken me. I haven't felt this intense and hopeless sadness since 4/27/2011.
Equus
Member
Richard Scott posted these - if we're going to get an EF4 rating that'd definitely be the thing to do it.
**Admin Edit - Added twitter embed for easy reading - WesL**
**Admin Edit - Added twitter embed for easy reading - WesL**
Last edited by a moderator:
First actual piece of evidence showing potential EF4/EF5 damage that I’ve seen so far.
Equus
Member
Reed Timmer has this story. Not sure if mobile home or frame house, but for what it's worth. I will say, if they do want to go EF4, there's a lot of contextual support scattered here and there across Lee County.
Talbotton damage is looking high end (easily EF3) as well.
Talbotton damage is looking high end (easily EF3) as well.
warneagle
Member
I will say that Talbot County is not a very well-off area economically and I wouldn’t be surprised if the construction quality is low enough to preclude a higher rating. This may end up being the case in Lee Co. as well although the contextual damage we’ve seen so far is pretty clearly indicative of a violent tornado imo.
SilentShadow87
Member
Definitely reminds me of some of the damage from Perryville or Holly Springs. The fact that the anchor bolts were washer-secured suggests EF4-level damage to me.
warneagle
Member
The Plainsman (student newspaper at Auburn) is maintaining a list of places that are accepting donations to help tornado victims: https://www.theplainsman.com/article/2019/03/where-you-can-donate-to-help-tornado-survivors
CheeselandSkies
Member
Maybe better suited for another thread (and I know it comes up in the post-discussion of every potentially-violent tornado), but it bugs me that the complete destruction of a properly anchor-bolted frame house (WITH supporting contextual indicators) is no longer considered slam-dunk EF5. This tells me that the EF-scale is not applied in the same way that the old F-scale was, despite statements to the contrary when the change was made in 2007.
Last edited:
Evan
Member
Agree. I'd like a broader shot, however, to see more context of the damage as a shot that zoomed in can leave out necessary details that an experienced surveyor needs to see in-person.
Could very well end up getting an EF-4 rating based off of 1-2 small pockets of high-end damage. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened.
I trust the NWS in Birmingham to get it right and they are very good about showing DIs and ratings along the entire path so people can see fluctuations in intensity.
Again, I'm not trying to be controversial, but there's just not a lot of DIs in the path of the tornado (that I've been able to find) that are going to support a rating over high-end EF-3 or low/moderate end EF-4. While the fatalities are horrific and stomach-churning, deaths are not always a good indicator of the damage rating of a tornado. Mobile and pre-manufactured homes are easily shredded and turned into missiles, and in aerial views they can appear to be catastrophic damage.
I've been wrong before, but that's my current thinking. I've had the unfortunate luck to have encountered damage from the Oak Grove F-5 less than an hour after it occurred, damage from the Concord/Pleasant Grove/Tuscaloosa EF-4 less than 10 minutes after it occurred, and saw the Earle, AR EF-3 do its damage in person.
There's no doubt this was a strong/violent tornado, but the Enhanced Fujita scale requires specific damage indicators as this forum is well aware of. I don't think there are many such potential EF-3+ DIs available based off of what I've seen outside of this one photograph.
Evan
Member
"Properly" anchor-bolted is the key.
There's a right way and a wrong way to do so, and photos and video of the resolution we normally see are rarely sufficient to determine whether or not the frame is properly anchor-bolted. If the walls are straight-nailed to the frame, the anchor bolts are too far apart, or if the bolts are set too deep or too shallow in the foundation concrete then they provide lesser or no additional protection at all.
Not saying it is happening here, but there's a tendency for people to see a slab and anchor-bolts and think "ah-hah, that's high-end EF-4 or EF-5 damage." Minor details regarding DIs actually can have a very major impact on the final rating of a tornado. The Tuscaloosa tornado absolutely would've been rated F5 under the old scale or even an EF-5 in the first few years of Enhanced Fujita Scale adoption. But, it didn't take long for "proper" anchor-bolting vs. improper anchor-bolting to become a very granular factor that determines if a DI requirement has been actually met.
Equus
Member
I have little doubt that there are very few >EF3 indicators in such a rural area, especially in that part of the state/country. Contextual evidence makes it obvious this was a very violent tornado, but it would be hard to find a case to rate it as such without verifiable EF scale indicators of such. One of the many limitations of the EF scale, but to be objective it's about the best we can do.
warneagle
Member
This is from the Byron (Peach Co.) tornado. Fairly substantial damage although obviously the construction quality is very poor (this looks like a double-wide to me). Having lived in the area I’d be surprised if it hit anything to justify above a low-end EF-3 rating. This is thankfully the only reported injury I’ve heard from that storm.
Kory
Member
This was a violent tornado.
Bamamuscle
Member
warneagle
Member
That looks like some of the mangled cars we saw after Smithville or even Bridge Creek.
Evan
Member
Absolutely agree. Excellent points.
I think that's the overall crux of the issue. They have an objective standard they want to follow, and are trying to do so in a very detailed way so that their results are both accurate and reproducible. It's all supposed to somewhat align with what laboratory wind-testing has shown us. The problem is, tornadoes don't occur in lab settings.
You are absolutely right. We need to take the EF scale for what it is and what it purports to do and not what we want it to be or think it should be. It has a number of limitations and because of that it can be a very frustrating thing to discuss or understand. And, because of human bias/error, there's occasionally missed DIs or subjective conclusions that cause a lot of debate and dissent.
The EF scale can't measure emotional trauma, the value of lives lost, or the economic impact of a tornado. It is a very narrow rating meant to measure some very specific criteria. I realize I'm preaching to the choir on this forum, but sometimes all these things need to said every few years.
I'm all for an additional means of rating and classifying tornadoes outside of damage or wind-speed. People need to understand a much less powerful tornado likely could've caused a similar fatality count if the bulk of the deaths occurred in a mobile home or pre-manufactured structure.