-
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 -
April 2024 Weather Video of the Month Post your nominations now!
Significant Tornado Events
- Thread starter locomusic01
- Start date
J-Rab
Member
Yeah, I have tried repeatedly but it won’t let me see it for some reason.
It takes a long time to load and the this is all I see:
- Thread starter
- #2,263
locomusic01
Member
There's a ton of Fujita's work online, and as you read through it, you get a better sense of his approach and how he thought about things. He was incredibly meticulous and he deserves every bit of the praise and recognition he receives - if not more - but my impression is that he also was given to making a lot of assumptions. That led to lots of brilliant insights but probably also some questionable decisions at times.
Anyway, the scale itself didn't change much after it was first introduced, but the way it was applied definitely did. Honestly, any rating sort of has to be considered in the context of its time, especially compared to the more rigorous process and standards that are applied today (although clearly there are still some issues). Fujita understood pretty early on, for example, that the construction quality of a structure was an important variable, but it's not clear exactly how he accounted for it or whether he even did in a systematic way.
In the early 90s he produced a paper that broke the scale down into a "Damage f-scale" and a "Windspeed F-scale," the idea being that the lowercase f-scale denoted how severely damaged a structure was, which then correlated to an official uppercase F-scale rating based on the sturdiness of the structure. Sort of a primitive version of the modern DI/DOD approach. But again, it's not really clear when he started taking this approach, and the categories are still pretty open to interpretation. You can see the chart here:
Yes, they're from the Texas Tech Wind Science archives. They have (had?) some stuff posted online, but unfortunately, most of their archives are only available for purchase according to their fairly specific guidelines. I believe I also have some stuff from Xenia and a handful of photos from Madison County (taken around Hazel Green IIRC), but from what I remember there's not much that's really new. I'll have to check again later when I have time.
The debris granulation definitely sticks out in a number of places, and there's some pronounced wind rowing in some areas as well. Debarking/denuding is kind of tricky because there are so many variables. There have been a few interesting studies on this that suggest our view of vegetation damage is probably too simplistic. One thing that's noteworthy in a few photos is the damage done to shrubs/hedges and other low-lying vegetation, which is indicative of pretty intense winds very near the surface.
Color photos really make the swath of damage running roughly parallel with the little ravine leading to Main St. pop out. It really is reminiscent of portions of the Smithville track. I've played around with a few different tools to colorize B&W damage photos with varying degrees of success. I'll see if I can find the ones that've yielded decent results. I've also contacted a couple of professional colorization artists/services about some Tupelo damage photos out of curiosity, but I'm not sure the results are really worth it. Might turn out better with newer, higher-res photos though.
Short of paying for professional colorization, something like this is probably about the best you can realistically expect:
If we can have a full understanding of the performence of different tree species under different wind level, it can be even better damage indicator than houses beacuse most of low standard houses will fail at relatively low level winds, sometimes even before the arrival of the main circulation of violent tornados. While some trees can endue the most violent winds on earth and remain upright.(also proved in lab) so they can reflect some features left behind by the core of very intense tornados.
Last edited:
J-Rab
Member
I did, and that’s all I get.
I‘m on an iPad and not on a desktop (it died and I have yet to get another), so perhaps that is the issue?
I‘m not sure but it is a shame because I’ve been wanting to read that for a while now.
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
Yeah the 5/31/85 outbreak there was hardly any tree debarking. Niles/Wheatland didn't do it, and that monster that went through the Moshannon State Forest didn't do it (at least not completely, but it did snap off/uproot 90,000 or so trees). It must be a tree species thing, we'd have to get an arborist in here to have further insight into this.Yes, tree damages can varied a lot in terms of different tree species and their age.Those trees suffered the most intense debarking inside Brandenburg seems to be some types of platanus acerifolia? Not very sure about this. Violent tornados around this area(OH Valley) didn't debark a lot. The debarking of Dayton tornado 2019 was already quite intense around this area and Brandenburg was among some of the most intense debarking around this area I've seen. It's hard to figure out whether trees in these place were less prone to debark or there was something else reason.
If we can have a full understanding of the performence of different tree species under different wind level, it can be even better damage iindicator than houses beacuse most of low standard houses will fail at relatively low level winds, sometimes even before the arrival of the main circulation of violent tornados. While some trees can endue the most violent winds on earth and remain upright.(also proved in lab) so they can reflect some features left behind by the core of the intense tornado.
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
Yeah I'd get a laptop or desktop (I have a laptop). I could try and email you the PDF if you'd like.
J-Rab
Member
That would be great! I’ll try to DM you and give you my email.
- Thread starter
- #2,269
locomusic01
Member
My understanding is that expanding the DIs/DODs for vegetation (particularly trees) and other non-conventional indicators is on the to-do list for future EF-scale updates. At least, it was the last time I'd heard about it. Of course, the obvious issue there is that debarking/denuding is at least partially a function of debris loading, but there's never going to be a perfect approach.
The unique feature of indicator of debarking compared to DIs like house damages and vehicle damages was that it was an DI only or mainly about horizontal winds of tornados which defined by EF scale, while house damage can be a combination of the rapid change of pressure, the rapid change of wind direction, vertical winds, horizontal winds, debris hit etc. It was almost impossible to figure out which one plays a more important role for a certain house damage.
Tress in rural areas lack of debris loading seldom debark or trees stand in the upwind direction of houses, namely, upwind of debris flying direction, are also hard to debark. This is the limitation of this DI. Like you said, never going to be a perfect approach.
- Thread starter
- #2,271
locomusic01
Member
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
Awesome, keep this up here so I don't have to email everyone (that would take forever)!
speedbump305
Member
I thought it would be cool to mention all the tornadoes that he “ Considered “ giving an F6 rating on. I think it would be pretty coolThere's a ton of Fujita's work online, and as you read through it, you get a better sense of his approach and how he thought about things. He was incredibly meticulous and he deserves every bit of the praise and recognition he receives - if not more - but my impression is that he also was given to making a lot of assumptions. That led to lots of brilliant insights but probably also some questionable decisions at times.
Anyway, the scale itself didn't change much after it was first introduced, but the way it was applied definitely did. Honestly, any rating sort of has to be considered in the context of its time, especially compared to the more rigorous process and standards that are applied today (although clearly there are still some issues). Fujita understood pretty early on, for example, that the construction quality of a structure was an important variable, but it's not clear exactly how he accounted for it or whether he even did in a systematic way.
In the early 90s he produced a paper that broke the scale down into a "Damage f-scale" and a "Windspeed F-scale," the idea being that the lowercase f-scale denoted how severely damaged a structure was, which then correlated to an official uppercase F-scale rating based on the sturdiness of the structure. Sort of a primitive version of the modern DI/DOD approach. But again, it's not really clear when he started taking this approach, and the categories are still pretty open to interpretation. You can see the chart here:
Xenia Ohio: Everyone knows this is the main one. This tornado really shows little F5 damage, but it did produce F5 damage. But minimal F5. I still have yet to see extreme tree debarking, ground scouring, and intense car damage. The xenia high school was intensely damaged. For whatever reason. Fujita really was impressed by this tornado
Guin: This one is so mysterious. Guin has a reputation so well known, it’s quite famous. J.B elliot apparently was the person who knew Ted Fujita considered an F6 rating. But we all know the foundation rumor is super close to being fully debunked if not debunked.
Jordan Iowa: I’ve heard this was one of the most intense he ever surveyed. But i haven’t seen many damage pictures and the ones i’ve seen show typical F5 damage.
Smithfield: “ Many people do not know that ted fujita, the famous creator of the fujita scale, followed this massive tornado from an airplane and after surveying the damage, he toyed with rating it an F6 “ The damage it produced did seem severe, like sweeping away cinder block basement walls. But probably just as violent as an F5 could get.
Goessel: I know it isn’t official, but i do want to mention this one. This Tornado in my opinion was OVERRATED: It really seemed to have gotten an F5 rating on... Spirl markings! it’s easy for even an F1 to make spiral markings. Apparently it caused “ extreme F5 “ damage according to wikipedia from the NWS. and tornado talk mentions it being the strongest of the outbreak.
All these tornadoes have no reason to be rated F6, ted fujita was obviously way ahead of his fine and some of his ratings were in depth for his time. we do have to respect them tho because of how well respected and talented he was back then
J-Rab
Member
Great thread. Great posters.
- Thread starter
- #2,275
locomusic01
Member
Yeah, I figured it'd be a little easier for you lol. Apparently you can't download it directly from this thread, but if you click the pop-out you should be able to get it from my Google Drive.
- Thread starter
- #2,276
locomusic01
Member
Huh. I dunno how I've never heard of this before, but this is pretty damn impressive:
From this study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167610516304032
From this study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167610516304032
speedbump305
Member
Woah. that’s extremely impressive. and only rated F3. that tornado probably had more potential.Huh. I dunno how I've never heard of this before, but this is pretty damn impressive:
From this study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167610516304032
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
Wow that is impressive. I know there was a tornado in 2011 that threw a combine weighing in excess of 30,000 for about 100 yards (it was the Pocahontas, Iowa EF4) but never heard of something like that in Canada. I'm beginning to think Canada gets a lot more violent tornadoes then we realize but due to how sparsely populated it is many are never recorded or their intensity is forever underestimated due to the lack of reliable DIs.Huh. I dunno how I've never heard of this before, but this is pretty damn impressive:
From this study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167610516304032
speedbump305
Member
Juliett what’s the heaviest object being thrown or moved by an F5 tornado?
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
If I had to guess the 2-million pound oil derrick that was rolled by El Reno 2011 EF5. It wasn't picked up and thrown, just slid and rolled. Extremely impressive nonetheless.
For heaviest airborne objects I know that Pampa, TX 1995 picked up a 35,000 lathe and threw it about 60 feet or so and it was actually caught on video. Not sure about any other contenders (there's another topic, heaviest objects moved by tornadoes).
