andyhb
Member
Also re: Warren AR, yeah that tornado was a borderline F5, if not one. One of the more intense damage paths I've seen good photos of prior to 1950 (and the high casualty count backs it up).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I highly agree with you.Scouring and debarking/denuding are (at least partially) functions of debris loading. Outside of crop fields and such, you'll notice that most severe vegetation damage tends to occur in proximity to or downstream from significant debris sources. It wouldn't necessarily be surprising to see a strong or violent tornado in an open area not produce the kind of high-end vegetation damage we might otherwise expect. You'd normally see uprooted (and occasionally lofted) trees at least, but even that isn't 100% guaranteed.
Vehicle damage is kinda weird, too. For instance, this study found that significant lofting/rolling of vehicles should be common at EF4+ intensity, yet field observations show only about 15% of vehicles in the paths of such tornadoes are actually flipped or thrown. In fact, around 36% of vehicles didn't move at all. Conversely, even EF1-EF2 tornadoes can very occasionally (~4% of the time) roll or loft vehicles.
In both cases, there are probably a ton of factors at work. The structure of a tornado is incredibly complex and ever-changing, so things like vertical velocity, gust factor, pressure forces, etc. can vary enormously even over incredibly short distances and timespans.
Also, re: winds in violent tornadoes being underestimated, there are a bunch of papers out there on different approaches to simulating tornadoes. It's a fascinating subject, and several of the simulations have exceeded anything we've actually observed. For instance, depending on the swirl ratio, some of the tornadoes in this simulation produced absolutely insane velocities. In one instance, both horizontal and vertical max gusts exceeded 400 mph.
Of course, it's important to remember these are idealized simulations and they don't take into account debris loading and other important factors. They almost certainly don't reflect anything you'd actually see in reality. Still, I think it lends some credence to the idea that we may be underestimating the maximum intensity of the most violent tornadoes.
This is really violent tornado damage of at least high-end F4 damage. It is even possible this tornado did F5 damage or reached that intensity. I like the way you guys are mentioning all the variables that may cause violent tornado damage. Like I have said before I have wondered what the velocities were on the Sherman, Texas tornado of 1896. It was quite narrow and produced some of the most extraordinary damage ever documented.Here's another one for you guys. This was probably one of the strongest January tornadoes ever recorded, striking and ripping a slash of death directly through the city of Warren, Arkansas on January 3, 1949, killing 55 people. Eyewitnesses described a multiple-vortex structure as the town was leveled. The tornado had a very long track that was documented from the air.
View attachment 7196View attachment 7197View attachment 7198View attachment 7199View attachment 7200View attachment 7201View attachment 7202
Sherman reminds me a bit of Pampa, TX of 1995; a "drillbit" type, real narrow but EXTREMELY intense damage. The thing about these tornadoes is that they pretty much have to hit something dead on to do any damage but when they do it's more or less total annihilation.This is really violent tornado damage of at least high-end F4 damage. It is even possible this tornado did F5 damage or reached that intensity. I like the way you guys are mentioning all the variables that may cause violent tornado damage. Like I have said before I have wondered what the velocities were on the Sherman, Texas tornado of 1896. It was quite narrow and produced some of the most extraordinary damage ever documented.
I usually watch a bunch of EAS scenarios of tornadoes on YouTube and of course they are hypothetical. It is usually like what if a 3 mile-wide EF5 tornado with winds around 350 mph hit say a city like Chicago dead on? I tend to also ask what if you had a small drill bit EF5 tornado (50-100 yards wide)with inner winds of 375 mph and outer winds of 325 mph hit a major metropolitan dead on? Of course I think the much larger tornado would cause more damage and casualties but of course the small drill bit would still not be any less pleasant than even the huge wedge tornado.Sherman reminds me a bit of Pampa, TX of 1995; a "drillbit" type, real narrow but EXTREMELY intense damage. The thing about these tornadoes is that they pretty much have to hit something dead on to do any damage but when they do it's more or less total annihilation.
Well with a wedge the narrow suction vortices and core would do most of the damage, not the main outer circulation. So damage would probably be wildly selective but overall perhaps a bit more (financially at least). In terms of death toll it would depend if it went through the downtown area, suburbs, followed a freeway corridor, etc. So many variables to think about.I usually watch a bunch of EAS scenarios of tornadoes on YouTube and of course they are hypothetical. It is usually like what if a 3 mile-wide EF5 tornado with winds around 350 mph hit say a city like Chicago dead on? I tend to also ask what if you had a small drill bit EF5 tornado (50-100 yards wide)with inner winds of 375 mph and outer winds of 325 mph hit a major metropolitan dead on? Of course I think the much larger tornado would cause more damage and casualties but of course the small drill bit would still not be any less pleasant than ever the huge wedge tornado.
I agree. To think what 2 tornadoes like the ones I described hitting a major metropolitan area dead on. Both of them being long lived and long tracked. The debris ball signature and radar presentation would be absolutely terrifying.Well with a wedge the narrow suction vortices and core would do most of the damage, not the main outer circulation. So damage would probably be wildly selective but overall perhaps a bit more (financially at least). In terms of death toll it would depend if it went through the downtown area, suburbs, followed a freeway corridor, etc. So many variables to think about.
I wonder what the Tri-State tornado's debris ball and radar signature would have looked like. It'd probably be unprecedented (at least the debris ball would be).I agree. To think what 2 tornadoes like the ones I described hitting a major metropolitan area dead on. Both of them being long lived and long tracked. The debris ball signature and radar presentation would be absolutely terrifying.
Very likely as it is also amongst some of the few most violent tornadoes ever documented.I wonder what the Tri-State tornado's debris ball and radar signature would have looked like. It'd probably be unprecedented (at least the debris ball would be).
Belmond being rated F5 is ridiculous. I'd even say it doesn't look as violent as some top-tier EF3 tornadoes in the 21st century (e.g. Sulphur, OK 2016).Regarding rating consistency, this is one reason it's so incensing to hear claims that modern EF ratings should be treated 1:1 like historical F scale ratings
View attachment 11009
The Belmond tornado is on official record still as an F5 for smearing a very small poorly anchored house into large, generally not shredded debris; either a section of roof or floor is clearly still intact back there. This remains an F5 while modern tornadoes that slab thousands of better built homes remain EF4 because construction is only average not superior.
(For what it's worth Grazulis lists Belmond as F4 which seems fair since many other homes were also destroyed and Belmond itself was devastated, just apparently to only minimal F4 level; F5 rating is apparently based on that house)
Yeah, I haven't done a ton of research on it, but I don't think I've seen or read anything that leads me to believe Belmond would be anything more than high-end EF3 or low-end EF4 were it to happen today. There was a lot of damage throughout town, but very little of it looked particularly violent.Belmond being rated F5 is ridiculous. I'd even say it doesn't look as violent as some top-tier EF3 tornadoes in the 21st century (e.g. Sulphur, OK 2016).
I just don't know what they're looking at to say this was a high end EF4if the western kentucky tornado remains rated EF-4 and not get the upgrade it deserves the nws officially loses all respect from me. i will never ever listen to a rating they give out ever again.
its a preliminary rating....but people are saying it could remain that way. and if it does....we'll probably pester them into upgrading it to an EF-5. we all know it was an EF-5 with strength to rival smithville 2011. their rating is irrelevent if they keep it as an EF-4. cause its just objectively false. idc what they say at this point. the EF-scale is broken and they're crap at their jobs.I just don't know what they're looking at to say this was a high end EF4