Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
More, mainly from A NIGHT TO REMEMBER but some from other sources:
-
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
Significant Tornado Events
- Thread starter locomusic01
- Start date
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
Last batch:
If the after photo of the church you can see the ground looks wet and torn up:
The audio recording of the tornado was made in this area:
If the after photo of the church you can see the ground looks wet and torn up:
The audio recording of the tornado was made in this area:
- Messages
- 4,014
- Reaction score
- 6,977
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
It's definitely an outbuilding, not a slab home. NWS Huntsville overdid it when it comes to assigning EF5 DI's during the Hackleburg survey, and many of their assigned EF5 damage points are rather questionable to say the least. That's really all there is to it.
Now there were spots with genuine EF5 damage including those duplexes in Hackleburg, a duplex in Phil Campbell, the well built home in Oak Grove and a restaurant in Mount Hope, among others.
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
My bad, THIS is the last batch of Guin photos:
Lamar County Airport, near Vernon and Sulligent, Alabama:
Yampertown, Alabama:
Various points along the path. Some from Guin, some from Basham, some from Decatur and some various rural areas between the towns.
This classic. Note how the scar is visible before it reaches the Bankhead Forest area; it left razed forest all over Alabama, before and after it struck populated areas.
Lamar County Airport, near Vernon and Sulligent, Alabama:
Yampertown, Alabama:
Various points along the path. Some from Guin, some from Basham, some from Decatur and some various rural areas between the towns.
This classic. Note how the scar is visible before it reaches the Bankhead Forest area; it left razed forest all over Alabama, before and after it struck populated areas.
This damage is extreme. It's not really hyperbole to say that core streak is "as complete a wipeout as you can have", especially with such a fast moving tornado.
1-4 are all true, however 5 and 6 are not true. Sure for the cases you mentioned, but no two cases are the same. In the cases you presented, they were both already questionable to begin with, Vilonia, that home had unknown anchorage and no interior nuts and washers. For Mayfield, no true EF-5 damage occurred to a DI, the one home in Bremen was kept at EF-4 due to not just contextuals but the garage itself was cmu and the large overhanging porch meant that it failed at EF-4 level winds. All the 9 EF-5s would likely get EF-5 today, perhaps Philadelphia would not.
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
So, today I got the SIGNIFICANT TORNADOES 1974-2022 in the mail. My first response was to look at what it had for Vilonia and it was disappointing, to say the least. The controversy over the rating isn't even addressed. Also, Chapman 2016, Goldsby, Chickasha and Canton Lake of 5/24/2011 don't have any changed ratings either. On the plus side, the book has a new thing called the "Outbreak Intensity Score". A link below shows how it works. It has seven categories of outbreaks: weak, minor, significant, major, devastating, historic and super.
I've emailed Tom and his wife a few times and they've told me some interesting stuff. One thing I learned is that they have tons of photos of tornadoes and damage but they don't have permission to print them in a book due to copyright issues. They said over the decades lots of small, local independent newspapers have been swallowed up by national chain newspapers and those companies have so many photographs archived from the ones they absorbed; they often charge $250 or more for a single photograph. They said this is likely the reason lots of tornadoes (especially ones that strike rural areas) have tons of photos that aren't available digitally; you have to pay to get them in person. They said this is likely what happened with Guin and quite a few of the 4/3/74 tornadoes. So, TornadoTalk likely has to pay a ton of money to get some of the photos they do. From that perspective, I understand why they have a paywall now (even though I don't fully agree with it). As for Vilonia, Doris told me that I should contact Tom myself if I want to understand his reasoning for not changing the rating from EF4 to EF5. She even gave me a phone number.
Photos of the book:
This was interesting. He had to attach it as a note since he forgot to get it in the book but in involves the Mulhall, OK F4 from May 3, 1999. At its start it was 3.6 miles wide before narrowing for most of its path. This is interesting as El Reno 2013 at 2.6 miles wide officially the widest tornado on record. For the next book he plans on researching for pre-1950 tornadoes that are wider than El Reno 2013.
Link to OIS scale:
www.tornadoproject.com
I've emailed Tom and his wife a few times and they've told me some interesting stuff. One thing I learned is that they have tons of photos of tornadoes and damage but they don't have permission to print them in a book due to copyright issues. They said over the decades lots of small, local independent newspapers have been swallowed up by national chain newspapers and those companies have so many photographs archived from the ones they absorbed; they often charge $250 or more for a single photograph. They said this is likely the reason lots of tornadoes (especially ones that strike rural areas) have tons of photos that aren't available digitally; you have to pay to get them in person. They said this is likely what happened with Guin and quite a few of the 4/3/74 tornadoes. So, TornadoTalk likely has to pay a ton of money to get some of the photos they do. From that perspective, I understand why they have a paywall now (even though I don't fully agree with it). As for Vilonia, Doris told me that I should contact Tom myself if I want to understand his reasoning for not changing the rating from EF4 to EF5. She even gave me a phone number.
Photos of the book:
This was interesting. He had to attach it as a note since he forgot to get it in the book but in involves the Mulhall, OK F4 from May 3, 1999. At its start it was 3.6 miles wide before narrowing for most of its path. This is interesting as El Reno 2013 at 2.6 miles wide officially the widest tornado on record. For the next book he plans on researching for pre-1950 tornadoes that are wider than El Reno 2013.
Link to OIS scale:
Significant Tornadoes outbreaks preview
www.tornadoproject.com
joshoctober16
Member
i think nws stated el reno 2011 would not be rated EF5 if it happend today, i feel like most would fail today , Parkersburg might have a chance but the rest suffers from trees standing within 100 yards away issue.
note issues like this , note most tornadoes have too much debris (both moore tornadoes for examples)there for most tornadoes would not be rated EF5 today.
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
According to Grazulis it may have been moving up to 75mph as it went through Guin. While I'm not wholly sure given how far this thing traveled and how long it was on the ground it wouldn't surprise me if it was moving that fast.
Grazulis has its path length at 102 miles and starting at 7:50 PM. Most sources say it dissipated around 9:30 PM. So 102 miles in 100 minutes. That's fast, even for Dixie Alley.
Last edited:
joshoctober16
Member
interestingly villonia was listed as a EF5 by him..... but suddenly he went quiet , came back and put it to EF4 and stated it had EF5 winds but no EF4 damage?So, today I got the SIGNIFICANT TORNADOES 1974-2022 in the mail. My first response was to look at what it had for Vilonia and it was disappointing, to say the least. The controversy over the rating isn't even addressed. Also, Chapman 2016, Goldsby, Chickasha and Canton Lake of 5/24/2011 don't have any changed ratings either. On the plus side, the book has a new thing called the "Outbreak Intensity Score". A link below shows how it works. It has seven categories of outbreaks: weak, minor, significant, major, devastating, historic and super.
I've emailed Tom and his wife a few times and they've told me some interesting stuff. One thing I learned is that they have tons of photos of tornadoes and damage but they don't have permission to print them in a book due to copyright issues. They said over the decades lots of small, local independent newspapers have been swallowed up by national chain newspapers and those companies have so many photographs archived from the ones they absorbed; they often charge $250 or more for a single photograph. They said this is likely the reason lots of tornadoes (especially ones that strike rural areas) have tons of photos that aren't available digitally; you have to pay to get them in person. They said this is likely what happened with Guin and quite a few of the 4/3/74 tornadoes. So, TornadoTalk likely has to pay a ton of money to get some of the photos they do. From that perspective, I understand why they have a paywall now (even though I don't fully agree with it). As for Vilonia, Doris told me that I should contact Tom myself if I want to understand his reasoning for not changing the rating from EF4 to EF5. She even gave me a phone number.
Photos of the book:
View attachment 24982View attachment 24983View attachment 24984View attachment 24985
This was interesting. He had to attach it as a note since he forgot to get it in the book but in involves the Mulhall, OK F4 from May 3, 1999. At its start it was 3.6 miles wide before narrowing for most of its path. This is interesting as El Reno 2013 at 2.6 miles wide officially the widest tornado on record. For the next book he plans on researching for pre-1950 tornadoes that are wider than El Reno 2013.
View attachment 24986
Link to OIS scale:
Significant Tornadoes outbreaks preview
i found it wierd almost as if nws badly wants evreyone to use there offical rating and wont let others correct them....
in a other post he mentions that the 2 f5 in oklahoma in 1955 would not be rated EF5 today... its realy starting to get anoying and i wish they would be allowd to fix tornado ratings instead of making them all messed up....
also talking about hints of somthing is odd look at this at your last image you posted.....
wow wait.... even he and fujita find the offical ratings to be poor?
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
Yeah, I wish the photo was in color and higher quality so we could get a better view but at this point I've seen photos to realize that Guin lives up to its reputation and likely was the most violent tornado of the outbreak (although Brandenburg comes close in spots). I can't wait until this summer when the whole 6-part premium summary of Guin by TornadoTalk is complete, then we'll really know the full extent of it.
Same home, main reason for the EF-5 rating not being awarded is due to unknown strengthening mechanisms. El reno 2011 would be given EF-5, that presentation was making the point that it was an unconventional rating for a EXTREME tornado, Rick smith did a presentation, and even Marshal agrees with the EF-5 rating. For good reason, it is in my opinion most powerful tornado we can confirm in history based off of damage alone. As for Moore, both instances had areas with extreme granulation. The final home in 2013 rated EF-5 would solidly get so today. Bridge creek is a no-brainer, not much to say here considering it is used as the textbook example for EF-5 damage, in the presentation of discriminating between EF-4/EF-5 damage.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #10,353
locomusic01
Member
This is super common and it drives me absolutely crazy. I'd say probably a majority of the major tornadoes in the last 50+ years that are considered not well-documented actually do have plenty of photos out there, but it's unlikely anyone will ever see them because of greedy corporations. I suppose it's not quite as egregious as libraries and universities doing the same thing w/photos they've usually had donated to them, but it's no less frustrating. I ran into this problem multiple times w/tornadoes from 5/31/85, both in the US and in Canada. And not just photos - videos, too.
I mean, that snippet there from Grazulis just about says it all.
- Thread starter
- #10,355
locomusic01
Member
Thanks! That's for Bridge Creek. I haven't checked my Tri-State folder but I'm sure it's probably like half that.
Besides Tri-State, I'd really like to revisit my Palm Sunday article someday. I've collected tons of photos since I wrote it, but I also don't feel like I did nearly a good enough job covering some of the lesser-known tornadoes especially. Somehow it's still a hugely underrated outbreak IMO.
I'd totally forgotten about it tbh. I'll have to make a note to reach out to them again. The whole May 1896 outbreak sequence has been on my list to cover forever, but it's a bit intimidating because it's so huge and there doesn't seem to be much available photo-wise (besides St. Louis obviously).
I have to say, the fact that it has no official F5s is probably part of this, and that's a complete shame.
- Thread starter
- #10,357
locomusic01
Member
Yeah, that's probably the biggest factor, when in reality there were (at least IMO) a pretty comparable number of F5 candidates as with the Super Outbreaks. It's strange how much something like that affects peoples' perceptions.
I also posted the the 4/3/1974 simulation over in the dedicated thread, but this guy has a number of WRF simulations of historical tornado events (5/31/1985 included here): https://www.goldenhorseshoewx.ca/case_studies/barrie_tornado/barrie_tornado_param_selector.html
Cood101
Member
I don't wish to stir the pot with the E/F5 debate but I do wish people would give Mr. Grazulis some leeway about the Vilonia rating.
Is there even an entry in the Enhanced Fujita era part of the new book that differs from the official rating? My recollection, and I can double check, is that even debated tornadoes from 4/27/2011 such as New Wren are still in the narrative section as their official ratings. That doesn't mean Mr. Grazulis has been taken over by Big Weather or however one wants to construe a conspiracy. I think that note, for example, pertains more to earlier outbreaks and tornadoes such as 4/3/74. Those do have rating changes, such as Tanner #2, that vary from the official rating in the narrative section.
Is there even an entry in the Enhanced Fujita era part of the new book that differs from the official rating? My recollection, and I can double check, is that even debated tornadoes from 4/27/2011 such as New Wren are still in the narrative section as their official ratings. That doesn't mean Mr. Grazulis has been taken over by Big Weather or however one wants to construe a conspiracy. I think that note, for example, pertains more to earlier outbreaks and tornadoes such as 4/3/74. Those do have rating changes, such as Tanner #2, that vary from the official rating in the narrative section.
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
I'm just curious as to his reasoning for backpedaling from EF5 to EF4 on Twitter. But yeah, no ratings have been changed for any tornado (so far). Now the volume that will go from 1680-1973 I wonder if he might change up some things.
