Significant Tornado Events

[MNTornadoGuy]

Do you happen to know where the last two pictures which showed impressive vehicle damage located?
What confused me about Picher was, according to Tim Marshall, only 6 vehicle were rolled or lofted by this tornado inside this town. But It seems to me It was more than that.
View attachment 12196

Those last two photos are from the Missouri section of the path.

 

[pohnpei]

One of the most impressive and horrifying videos of Pilger.

I believe this one was the most upclose footage of Pilger tornado. Maybe just before It entering the town.

 

[buckeye05]

yeah......now i think about it more i see that...

The real telling thing is the 4th photo. You can see a row of trees and power lines that bisect the damage path, yet the power lines appear to be untouched, and the tree damage is minimal. Yet there were homes swept from their foundations on either side of the power lines. This is why I don’t trust tract/cookie cutter homes. Even if they are bolted down, they are structurally weak.

You can bolt down a cardboard box as much as you want, but it’s still going to come apart because it’s flimsy, and that’s what happened to the homes in Hugo, MN.

 

[buckeye05]

I believe this one was the most upclose footage of Pilger tornado. Maybe just before It entering the town.

Lanny Dean AKA the Outlaw Chaser is an idiot, but he sure captures some crazy tornado videos.

 

[SilentShadow87]

yeah i can safely say the frequency of violent tornadoes has drastically decreased....

It really hasn't. Buildings in the US are aging and most are poorly constructed. Also, damage that was considered violent historically usually isn't nowadays. There was a more active pattern of violent tornadoes around the 60s and 70s, but it wasn't nearly as dramatic as it might seem at first. I made a post on this a while ago:

I'm fairly big on using non-structural damage indicators to assess a tornado's strength. It's still a long way from exact but it tends to be a bit more predictable than building damage. Ground and crop scouring, and heavy or sturdy and low-built objects being tossed long distances are some of the best indicators in my humble opinion, even if there are still a number of variables. Let's say a tornado sweeps away a house. There are a lot of reasons why, at least in theory, it could be done by an EF2-EF3 tornado. If that same tornado tosses a freight car a quarter mile, or scours 12 inches of soil...I don't think many people will dispute that it's a violent one. It's the reason why I would personally have upgraded the Vilonia, AR, Chapman, KS, and Washington, OK tornadoes to EF5, but left the Rochelle, IL, Tuscaloosa, AL, and Chickasha, OK tornadoes at high-end EF4.

I also definitely agree that the 1950s to the 1970s were definitely much too liberal in terms of tornado ratings. For instance, the NCDC lists 12 F5 tornadoes in the 1950s, but I've only found evidence of five, maybe six at a stretch, of them causing EF5 damage. 11 F5 tornadoes are listed for the 60s, but again, only about six seem to have caused anything that could be considered EF5 damage. They list a whopping 14 F5 tornadoes in the 1970s, but even then I only see 7, maybe 8 at a fairly big stretch, which caused clear EF5-level damage. By the time of the early 1980s, the standards for F5 ratings seem to have become much more reasonable, although it isn't really until the mid to late 1980s that standards for F4 ratings become more in line with what should be expected by EF scale-standards.

 

[MNTornadoGuy]

Some photos of damage from Rochelle:

 

[tornado examiner]

Some photos of damage from Rochelle:

it looks like a less intense version of jarrell and moore 99....but of course. "muh...muh muh construction flaws"

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

Some photos of damage from Rochelle:

Is that ground scouring or previously plowed armland?

 

[MNTornadoGuy]

Is that ground scouring or previously plowed armland?

It's plowed farmland but it was likely disturbed by the tornado.

 

[pohnpei]

I'm fairly big on using non-structural damage indicators to assess a tornado's strength. It's still a long way from exact but it tends to be a bit more predictable than building damage. Ground and crop scouring, and heavy or sturdy and low-built objects being tossed long distances are some of the best indicators in my humble opinion, even if there are still a number of variables. Let's say a tornado sweeps away a house. There are a lot of reasons why, at least in theory, it could be done by an EF2-EF3 tornado. If that same tornado tosses a freight car a quarter mile, or scours 12 inches of soil...I don't think many people will dispute that it's a violent one. It's the reason why I would personally have upgraded the Vilonia, AR, Chapman, KS, and Washington, OK tornadoes to EF5, but left the Rochelle, IL, Tuscaloosa, AL, and Chickasha, OK tornadoes at high-end EF4.

This was wonderful thinging and I think the kernel of using contextual damage is that the possibility of an EF5 level tornado to encounter EF5 definition's very well built residence directly at its peak intensity is ridiculously low. Grazulis once said houses in plain are too fews and houses in East are too fragile. That makes tornado intensity rating challenging. To overcome this challenge, contextual damage is no doubt the best way.

But like residence damage, contextual also had its weakness or downside. Basically, one only need one EF5 worthy residence to prove the EF5 intensity of a given tornado but It is not enough for only one tree completely debarked or one vehicle is mangled and tossed long distance. There would be uncertainy for every contextual damage indicator like one tree is sick or already have no bark before tornado. One vehicle or large tank is just rolled by tornado which not certainly take EF5 winds to do or suspectible grassfield that more prone to be scoured. Also different places would have very different landscape like different tree species and soil type.

The most reasonable way to use contextual is to compare one tornado's contextual stuff with history tornados in this area. Obviously, large amount of history tornado's pictures/footages is needed for using this method and that is the reason why this thread is important and necessary for anyone who is interested in this field.

Anyway, I would argue that, contextual speaking, Chickasha was as classic as you can get for an EF5 level tornado. It didn't have as many as EF5 candidate slabs as Goldsby but what It did to the whole landscape was Incredible. Large amounts of vehicles were mangled and tossed long distance with some of them crushed into forest being completely unrecoginizable form. Tree damage were described by NWS of "similar to what they saw in Bridge Creek and Andover. Shrubs were annihilated with Smithville's fashion.Several roads with asphalt scoured. Grassfield was scoured up to 10cm at place mentioned by Norman. Tim Marshall once said this was EF5 tornado which imply the fact that he also thought the contextual It did was strong enough to make up for structural dificiency.
Look at shrubs around this house

 

[tornado examiner]

This was wonderful thinging and I think the kernel of using contextual damage is that the possibility of an EF5 level tornado to encounter EF5 definition's very well built residence directly at its peak intensity is ridiculously low. Grazulis once said houses in plain are too fews and houses in East are too fragile. That makes tornado intensity rating challenging. To overcome this challenge, contextual damage is no doubt the best way.

But like residence damage, contextual also had its weakness or downside. Basically, one only need one EF5 worthy residence to prove the EF5 intensity of a given tornado but It is not enough for only one tree completely debarked or one vehicle is mangled and tossed long distance. There would be uncertainy for every contextual damage indicator like one tree is sick or already have no bark before tornado. One vehicle or large tank is just rolled by tornado which not certainly take EF5 winds to do or suspectible grassfield that more prone to be scoured. Also different places would have very different landscape like different tree species and soil type.

The most reasonable way to use contextual is to compare one tornado's contextual stuff with history tornados in this area. Obviously, large amount of history tornado's pictures/footages is needed for using this method and that is the reason why this thread is important and necessary for anyone who is interested in this field.

Anyway, I would argue that, contextual speaking, Chickasha was as classic as you can get for an EF5 level tornado. It didn't have as many as EF5 candidate slabs as Goldsby but what It did to the whole landscape was Incredible. Large amounts of vehicles were mangled and tossed long distance with some of them crushed into forest being completely unrecoginizable form. Tree damage were described by NWS of "similar to what they saw in Bridge Creek and Andover. Shrubs were annihilated with Smithville's fashion.Several roads with asphalt scoured. Grassfield was scoured up to 10cm at place mentioned by Norman. Tim Marshall once said this was EF5 tornado which imply the fact that he also thought the contextual It did was strong enough to make up for structural dificiency.
Look at shrubs around this houseView attachment 12209View attachment 12210View attachment 12211View attachment 12205View attachment 12206View attachment 12207View attachment 12208
View attachment 12212View attachment 12213View attachment 12214

that last photo is crazy

 

[MNTornadoGuy]

It really hasn't. Buildings in the US are aging and most are poorly constructed. Also, damage that was considered violent historically usually isn't nowadays. There was a more active pattern of violent tornadoes around the 60s and 70s, but it wasn't nearly as dramatic as it might seem at first. I made a post on this a while ago:

I personally don't think that Chapman should have been rated EF5, it is not as strong as a contender as Goldsby, Chickasha, or Vilonia. While the damage to that one brick home was very impressive, there was still a lot of debris right next to the home. That said though it was still an extremely violent tornado.

 

[tornado examiner]

I personally don't think that Chapman should have been rated EF5, it is not as strong as a contender as Goldsby, Chickasha, or Vilonia. While the damage to that one brick home was very impressive, there was still a lot of debris right next to the home. That said though it was still an extremely violent tornado.

i think video of the tornado should be used in rating as well...for pretty obvious reasons. if you have a way to directly measure velocity thats a pretty telling sign. i'd rate the wynnewood tornado ef5 simply cause of its insane rotation and violent nature. but thats probably just me ....

 

[pohnpei]

I personally don't think that Chapman should have been rated EF5, it is not as strong as a contender as Goldsby, Chickasha, or Vilonia. While the damage to that one brick home was very impressive, there was still a lot of debris right next to the home. That said though it was still an extremely violent tornado.

I think only Vilonia and Goldsby seemingly meet with EF scale definition of EF5 worthy residence damage for all the candidates. Chickasha, Rochelle etc all had missing washers and Mayfield had no obvious candidate. But It was just"seemingly" because we really don't know other construction feature of these candidates.

Buckeye05 once mentioned that some so-called missing washers were likely due to the shear force of the tornado and washers were too small to find by surveyors. That tell us that residence damages also have ambiguous side.

For Chapman, the debris of that house wasn't completely blown away but most of us here have little doubt that EF5 level wind occurred there and I think It's reasonable. Houses in Hackleburg AL or Piedmont OK or Rainsville Al were seldom really swept clean but even NWS had little doubt that EF5 level winds occurred in these cases. Houses in Moore was even under construction with no furniture and lines of missing bolts were also given EF5 rating with little doubt.

In a nutshell, It literally takes Smithville/Pakersburg's intensity went into a relatively well built town/community to produce EF5 worthy residence damage, which would still have ambiguous part at certain times. The possibility of this for a given tornado may lower than win one million dollar lottery If anyone can caculate.

 

[tornado examiner]

the missing washer excuse is only valid if it can be proven that the washers where there before the tornado and wasnt removed by it.

 

[TH2002]

I personally don't think that Chapman should have been rated EF5, it is not as strong as a contender as Goldsby, Chickasha, or Vilonia. While the damage to that one brick home was very impressive, there was still a lot of debris right next to the home. That said though it was still an extremely violent tornado.

What about this home that NWS Topeka didn't bother to survey?

While I do understand that Tim Marshall did actually survey this home and gave it an EF4 rating, I'd rather not immediately jump to conclusions and say "Yep Chapman was definitely an EF4" just because of that, especially considering all of the incredible contextual damage it did.

 

[SilentShadow87]

I personally don't think that Chapman should have been rated EF5, it is not as strong as a contender as Goldsby, Chickasha, or Vilonia. While the damage to that one brick home was very impressive, there was still a lot of debris right next to the home. That said though it was still an extremely violent tornado.

I wasn't talking about house damage. There was intense grass scouring, a combine harvester and a Freightliner truck were basically shredded and crumpled together like balls of tissue paper, and then there was the bending of continuously welded railroad tracks. While I won't dispute that Vilonia and Washington/Goldsby were more clear-cut examples of structural EF5 damage, I think there's a good case to be made that Chapman was at least as strong. if not stronger. The vehicle damage in particular was nearly on par with El Reno.

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

I wasn't talking about house damage. There was intense grass scouring, a combine harvester and a Freightliner truck were basically shredded and crumpled together like balls of tissue paper, and then there was the bending of continuously welded railroad tracks. While I won't dispute that Vilonia and Washington/Goldsby were more clear-cut examples of structural EF5 damage, I think there's a good case to be made that Chapman was at least as strong. if not stronger. The vehicle damage in particular was nearly on par with El Reno.

Chapman also ripped that brick farmhouse from its foundation with such force that it tore away a small portion of the reinforced concrete basement foundation stemwall.



Chapman deserved an EF5 rating, we all know it. It's also the only tornado I know of that managed to deform Class III railroad tracks, not the puny old-school Class I and II ones.

 

[CheeselandSkies]

Personally I'd like to see all intense tornadoes (it'd be impractical to do it for all tornadoes, but perhaps just those rated at least EF3 based on the initial survey would keep it at a manageable number, except in those years which include extremely anomalous, top-end outbreaks like 2011) go through an end-of-year review process in a similar manner that the NHC does with Atlantic and eastern Pacific tropical cyclones. They take all available data, review it, and make a final determination on intensity estimates throughout each system's track. This often results in a +/- 5kt bump in peak and/or landfall intensity, which can change the final category designation. The same thing could be done for all of these intense tornadoes, using photographs and information that may have come to light after the initial WFO survey was done.

 

[eric11]

This was wonderful thinging and I think the kernel of using contextual damage is that the possibility of an EF5 level tornado to encounter EF5 definition's very well built residence directly at its peak intensity is ridiculously low. Grazulis once said houses in plain are too fews and houses in East are too fragile. That makes tornado intensity rating challenging. To overcome this challenge, contextual damage is no doubt the best way.

But like residence damage, contextual also had its weakness or downside. Basically, one only need one EF5 worthy residence to prove the EF5 intensity of a given tornado but It is not enough for only one tree completely debarked or one vehicle is mangled and tossed long distance. There would be uncertainy for every contextual damage indicator like one tree is sick or already have no bark before tornado. One vehicle or large tank is just rolled by tornado which not certainly take EF5 winds to do or suspectible grassfield that more prone to be scoured. Also different places would have very different landscape like different tree species and soil type.

The most reasonable way to use contextual is to compare one tornado's contextual stuff with history tornados in this area. Obviously, large amount of history tornado's pictures/footages is needed for using this method and that is the reason why this thread is important and necessary for anyone who is interested in this field.

Anyway, I would argue that, contextual speaking, Chickasha was as classic as you can get for an EF5 level tornado. It didn't have as many as EF5 candidate slabs as Goldsby but what It did to the whole landscape was Incredible. Large amounts of vehicles were mangled and tossed long distance with some of them crushed into forest being completely unrecoginizable form. Tree damage were described by NWS of "similar to what they saw in Bridge Creek and Andover. Shrubs were annihilated with Smithville's fashion.Several roads with asphalt scoured. Grassfield was scoured up to 10cm at place mentioned by Norman. Tim Marshall once said this was EF5 tornado which imply the fact that he also thought the contextual It did was strong enough to make up for structural dificiency.
Look at shrubs around this houseView attachment 12209View attachment 12210View attachment 12211View attachment 12205View attachment 12206View attachment 12207View attachment 12208
View attachment 12212View attachment 12213View attachment 12214

More for chickasha