Significant Tornado Events

[SpotlightForRareTornadoes]

The "EF3" that rivals Jarrel; The Horrifying Story of the 2023 Matador, TX Tornado

 

[Aaron Rider]

Finally, a video that does this tornado justice.

This guy’s video about the Palm Sunday tornado outbreak was a masterpiece as well.

Can you link to the Palm Sunday video? I don't see it on his channel

 

[jiharris0220]

Can you link to the Palm Sunday video? I don't see it on his channel

Wrong channel, oopsie. The format is so similar that I got mixed up.
Here’s the link to the video though.

 

[Aaron Rider]

What would be the argument AGAINST Matador being an F5?

 

[UK_EF4]

What would be the argument AGAINST Matador being an F5?

1. Tornado had high duration of windspeeds which exacerbated damage. Personally not a huge fan of this one, as I think it takes a certain threshold of wind to start doing certain type of damage (cant back this up with anything, just a personal theory Id be happy to be proved wrong on), and also since we have seen other intense tornadoes produce damage not similar to Matador and nowhere near close to Jarrell even with similar long dwell times of the wind. Would have contributed a bit in the same way Greenfields contextual damage likely underrepresented windspeeds there - but Matador was clearly violent and very likely high end EF4/EF5

2. The tornado also didn't do any classic EF5 damage in which a well built structure was swept away (at least from any photos Ive seen). Yet the standards of this are so ridiculous nowadays - the homes destroyed would almost certainly have been F5 worthy back in the day, and given context I think the decision to not give the tornado violent status may reflect badly on future tornado climatology and understanding, especially on days were EF4+ tornadoes were not expected, like the Matador day.

 

[slenker]

2. The tornado also didn't do any classic EF5 damage in which a well built structure was swept away (at least from any photos Ive seen). Yet the standards of this are so ridiculous nowadays - the homes destroyed would almost certainly have been F5 worthy back in the day, and given context I think the decision to not give the tornado violent status may reflect badly on future tornado climatology and understanding, especially on days were EF4+ tornadoes were not expected, like the Matador day.

I do agree, the standards for EF5 are quite overblown nowadays. I personally would be completely fine if Matador was given a 190 EF4 due to the fact that there definitely wasn’t any EF5 home damage, but at the same time, whatever the standards of EF5 home damage are, they only exist in heavily populated areas or very few-and-far between in rural areas.

For example, during the 2011 super outbreak, I’m pretty sure I heard somewhere (can’t remember the exact source) that just over 1% of the land area of Alabama was directly affected by tornadoes. If this is true this is a completely absurd stat, but at the same time, it’s also the reason why “only” 4 tornadoes were rated EF5 that day. Even in an extremely high-end outbreak like that, 1% of the land area isn’t that much. There were likely a dozen tornadoes that reached EF5 intensity at some point in their life during that outbreak, but they didn’t hit the right thing, so they were given a HE EF4 rating (Ringgold, Tuscaloosa, New Wren, Cordova, Flat Rock, and probably others)

It’s really unfortunate because it directly affects the way we think about tornadic intensity. While the loss of life and destruction is what matters the most, it’s on the damage surveyors to accurately capture the intensity of tornadoes for purposes of study and scientific legitimacy. When surveyors completely disregard vehicle damage and high-end contextuals, that’s not being scientific, at least in my opinion.

 

[TH2002]

Regarding Matador, all I have to say is this:

The fact that it couldn't be rated EF5 isn't at the fault of the surveyors. The fact that they didn't rate it EF4 absolutely is, and NWS Lubbock and the TTU National Wind Institute should be held accountable as such.

We already have Bassfield (a tornado nearly identical in intensity to Matador, IMO) to prove that some WFO's like NWS Jackson do take contextuals into account during their damage surveys, and take assigning an accurate EF rating very seriously. If Bassfield didn't get rated EF5, then there's no chance any WFO would have rated Matador EF5.

Now, would Matador have gotten an F5 rating pre-1995 or so? More than likely, and such would have been warranted on the original Fujita scale, but not the EF scale.

 

[Tornadowritter]

Just read the Great Tri State Tornado newest book by Justin Harter, and it a lot shorter than expected like in the Missouri portion of the book there were only 2 chapters on Reynolds county and Annapolis/Leadanna, and I honestly surprised there wasn’t a single chapter about Biehle. So Missouri section is very short, and the Illinois and Indiana sections are okay. But this book goes over most of the things we already know but even more simplified there are books that are better and explain the tornado better in detail, so don’t buy this book.

 

[Sawmaster]

1. Tornado had high duration of windspeeds which exacerbated damage. Personally not a huge fan of this one, as I think it takes a certain threshold of wind to start doing certain type of damage...

Kind of with you here. I found reading the papers of Dr.s Phan & Simla post-Jarrell very interesting as they make a very strong case that after their meticulous inspection at Double Creek, they concluded that an F3 could have done the damage seen because of the long duration on any given spot. I'm NOT saying I agree with them but I can now understand how duration could exacerbate a given level of damage and how repetitive debris impacts could do the same. Still, on very solid structures like steel beams and reinforced concrete I feel that overall it DOES take a specific high level of wind to severely destroy them, as any lesser damage should show at least part of the damage was due to debris impacts.

My personal take: Duration needs to be taken into account when assessing damage as a strong contextual factor. The destruction at Matador was extreme, and certainly beyond EF-3 even if no buildings were available to justify rating it higher. Misrating in either direction just destroys the credibility of the surveyors to the general public and harms support of the science by them. If the Emperor truly has no clothes then say so, exposing those who overlook fact as the fools they have made themselves to be..

 

[jiharris0220]

Regarding Matador, all I have to say is this:

The fact that it couldn't be rated EF5 isn't at the fault of the surveyors. The fact that they didn't rate it EF4 absolutely is, and NWS Lubbock and the TTU National Wind Institute should be held accountable as such.

We already have Bassfield (a tornado nearly identical in intensity to Matador, IMO) to prove that some WFO's like NWS Jackson do take contextuals into account during their damage surveys, and take assigning an accurate EF rating very seriously. If Bassfield didn't get rated EF5, then there's no chance any WFO would have rated Matador EF5.

Now, would Matador have gotten an F5 rating pre-1995 or so? More than likely, and such would have been warranted on the original Fujita scale, but not the EF scale.

I’m not sure about the Bassfield being similar in intensity argument. (I apologize for the essay you’re about to read)

Bremen, Vilonia, Chapman, and definitely Matador did more impressive damage than that tornado.
Matador along with Chapman are tornadoes that would get ef5 ratings without a shred of doubt if they had hit well built house located in the NWS Jackson survey area.

Matador is legitimately the most impressive tornado on par with Bridge Creek, Moore, Smithville, and Jarrel, etc.

As it’s one of the exceptionally rare class of tornado that literally disintegrates vehicles completely to nothing, 100% debarks and denudes vegetation, (mesquite at that, with some even straight up going missing), and creates a wide clean area of ground scouring, (not just a thin area of scouring with patches here and there).

Bassfield definitely didn’t do any of that, with perhaps its most impressive feat is almost completely debarking hardwood.

In the end, I’m fine with an ef4 rating, as ef5 contextual damage isn’t possible post 2011. Though looking at the damage it’s utterly no less violent than the four tornadoes I stated previously.

Id actually put it above Moore 2013 and perhaps Smithville?

And regarding the slow movement argument, I really don’t think it makes a difference at all, whatsoever. The research paper claiming a slow moving ef3 could’ve done jarrel like damage is bollucks.

My two reasons why is that similarly rated slow moving tornadoes should’ve done jarrel like damage as well, obviously that’s not the case.

Finally, their argument would have to take into account that if an ef3 moving slowly can cause the worst tornado damage ever, then tornadoes like Bridgecreek/Smithville moving slowly would cause biblical levels of damage.

We’re talking ground trenching rather than scouring and concrete slabs being plucked like feathers and all vegetation types 100% simply ceasing to exist.

Would that actually happen if those tornadoes moved as slowly as Jarrell? No way in hell. Contrary to popular belief, fast movement in tornadoes can enhance the damage just like slow movement would.

For example, let’s say a tornado was stationary with wind speeds up to 135mph, then let’s make it move at 70mph, like Smithville.

The added forward momentum would increase its wind speeds in the corner flow region just as much, now we have a 205mph tornado.

Also, you have to take into account the low pressure in a tornado, which is responsible for the vacuum effect that occurs inside one and is a major factor responsible for the extreme phenomenon that occurs.

In fast moving tornadoes, the damage caused by this pressure deficit increases substantially. You go from background level pressure to deficits over 100mbs in mere seconds, that can trigger almost a shock wave type of explosion on a structure. This goes for ground scouring too as the second sudden change in air pressure basically makes the soil easy to suck up.

Had Bridgecreek moved as slow as Jarrel, the damage would’ve been no more extreme, especially since it itself wasn’t exactly a fast mover at 30mph.

Let me ask you guys this, why does violent tornado damage occur so often in fast movers and not so much in slow movers? There’s so many more cases of tornadoes moving at speeds above 50mph doing violent damage than one’s moving below 30mph.

Again, if ef3 tornadoes moving at 10mph should be causing upper echelon ef5 damage, then surely all of these slow movers with winds as low as ef1 level should be doing at least 170mph type damage.

Basically what I’m saying in this long winded ramble is that fast forward motion is likely responsible as to why these types of tornadoes get rated as violent so much more often than slow movers.

 

[slenker]

Kind of with you here. I found reading the papers of Dr.s Phan & Simla post-Jarrell very interesting as they make a very strong case that after their meticulous inspection at Double Creek, they concluded that an F3 could have done the damage seen because of the long duration on any given spot.

What I really want to know is if they used the F3 wind speeds rather than EF3 windspeeds for this inspection; F3 windspeed estimates bleed into the lower end of 200 MPH, which is EF5, so if they estimated that an F3 could do the damage wrought there, it may have still been over 200 MPH and thus still be equivalent to an EF5 today. If they did use the original Fujita wind estimates, this study doesn’t really say a whole lot IMO.

 

[slenker]

Matador is legitimately the most impressive tornado on par with Bridge Creek, Moore, Smithville, and Jarrel, etc.

That is a very bold statement. While it was no doubt a very violent tornado and it is almost certain that it reached EF5 intensity, I don’t think it reached that level of power through its relatively short life.

 

[jiharris0220]

That is a very bold statement. While it was no doubt a very violent tornado and it is almost certain that it reached EF5 intensity, I don’t think it reached that level of power through its relatively short life.

It’s not a bold statement at all. 100% debarking of trees, complete disintegration of vehicles, (as in vehicles never being found other than pieces of metal) and consistent ground scouring with all grass removed is something I’ve seen only in those 4 tornadoes, and other F5s of course but we’ll stick with the popular well known ones.

None of those 4 tornadoes would’ve had gotten an ef4 rating let alone an ef5 rating had they hit the same areas due to the poor construction, plus it being TTU National Wind Institute doing the surveys.

And yes, I said it, not even ef4, because again, all 4 tornadoes did the same amount of contextual damage as matador. 100% debarking of trees, complete disintegration of vehicles, (as in vehicles never being found other than pieces of metal) and consistent ground scouring with all grass removed.

 

[slenker]

It’s not a bold statement at all. 100% debarking of trees, complete disintegration of vehicles, (as in vehicles never being found other than pieces of metal) and consistent ground scouring with all grass removed is something I’ve seen only in those 4 tornadoes, and other F5s of course but we’ll stick with the popular well known ones.

None of those 4 tornadoes would’ve had gotten an ef4 rating let alone an ef5 rating had they hit the same areas due to the poor construction, plus it being TTU National Wind Institute doing the surveys.

And yes, I said it, not even ef4, because again, all 4 tornadoes did the same amount of contextual damage as matador. 100% debarking of trees, complete disintegration of vehicles, (as in vehicles never being found other than pieces of metal) and consistent ground scouring with all grass removed.

The bottom line feels like this: There needs to be a point where they can very obviously say that contextuals need to be taken into account. It’s simply not accurate to call Matador an EF3, not even close. The argument that people say where “people lost their lives, it’s just a rating” is understandable but inherently flawed because scientific accuracy still matters too, for the sake of the future.

 

[Sawmaster]

What I really want to know is if they used the F3 wind speeds rather than EF3 windspeeds for this inspection; F3 windspeed estimates bleed into the lower end of 200 MPH, which is EF5, so if they estimated that an F3 could do the damage wrought there, it may have still been over 200 MPH and thus still be equivalent to an EF5 today. If they did use the original Fujita wind estimates, this study doesn’t really say a whole lot IMO.

It's been ages since I read their papers and I really don't remember which scale they used, but it was current for the time. Part of their contention was that several houses in Double Creek which had been rated "well-anchored" were apparently only shot down with "Ramset nails" instead of anchor bolts and they showed pics purported to be from there like this. Some nails didn't even have washers so their holding strength would have been low. They also contend that debris which is ejected back into the inflow path gets ingested again which could explain the extreme granulation. They are degree-holding scientists so you shouldn't discount them if you don't agree; they are peers of those who gave it a 5 and they did make their points decently well though the WX community at large wasn't convinced. In comparison the Smithville where similar damage occurred in a few seconds versus a minute or more, that says to me that it was probably a stronger tornado than Jarrell even taking into account that winds would have been faster on one side due to groundspeed. It wouldn't have been there long enough to re-ingest debris much outside of it's path, but that time was there for Jarrell

Taking all this into account with Matador seems to show that it wasn't quite as bad, but it was absolutely more than it's given ratings indicated. It should have been ranked higher based on contextuals, of which there were enough to quash any arguments against a higher rating had it been assigned that. Misratings hurt everybody, and epecially the trust in those who give the ratings.

 

[slenker]

It's been ages since I read their papers and I really don't remember which scale they used, but it was current for the time. Part of their contention was that several houses in Double Creek which had been rated "well-anchored" were apparently only shot down with "Ramset nails" instead of anchor bolts and they showed pics purported to be from there like this. Some nails didn't even have washers so their holding strength would have been low. They also contend that debris which is ejected back into the inflow path gets ingested again which could explain the extreme granulation. They are degree-holding scientists so you shouldn't discount them if you don't agree; they are peers of those who gave it a 5 and they did make their points decently well though the WX community at large wasn't convinced. In comparison the Smithville where similar damage occurred in a few seconds versus a minute or more, that says to me that it was probably a stronger tornado than Jarrell even taking into account that winds would have been faster on one side due to groundspeed. It wouldn't have been there long enough to re-ingest debris much outside of it's path, but that time was there for Jarrell

Taking all this into account with Matador seems to show that it wasn't quite as bad, but it was absolutely more than it's given ratings indicated. It should have been ranked higher based on contextuals, of which there were enough to quash any arguments against a higher rating had it been assigned that. Misratings hurt everybody, and epecially the trust in those who give the ratings.

Perhaps I worded my responses in a strange way here. I didn’t mean to discount the researchers behind this, they’re definitely more in-line to talk about this sort of thing than I am. I’m an undergraduate physics student who’s just interested in meteorology (severe weather in particular). I apologize for coming off that way.

 

[TH2002]

I’m not sure about the Bassfield being similar in intensity argument. (I apologize for the essay you’re about to read)

Bremen, Vilonia, Chapman, and definitely Matador did more impressive damage than that tornado.
Matador along with Chapman are tornadoes that would get ef5 ratings without a shred of doubt if they had hit well built house located in the NWS Jackson survey area.

Matador is legitimately the most impressive tornado on par with Bridge Creek, Moore, Smithville, and Jarrel, etc.

As it’s one of the exceptionally rare class of tornado that literally disintegrates vehicles completely to nothing, 100% debarks and denudes vegetation, (mesquite at that, with some even straight up going missing), and creates a wide clean area of ground scouring, (not just a thin area of scouring with patches here and there).

Bassfield definitely didn’t do any of that, with perhaps its most impressive feat is almost completely debarking hardwood.

I don't agree with your assessment of Bassfield. It didn't just produce what is arguably the most significant tree debarking ever photographed - vehicles were hurled hundreds of yards and torn to pieces, a cabin (albeit not well built apart from being anchored) literally disappeared with the little debris that remained from it being finely granulated, every single anchor bolt at the property was flattened or ripped from the slab, wind rowing occurred, and grass was scoured.

 

[jiharris0220]

I don't agree with your assessment of Bassfield. It didn't just produce what is arguably the most significant tree debarking ever photographed - vehicles were hurled hundreds of yards and torn to pieces, a cabin (albeit not well built apart from being anchored) literally disappeared with the little debris that remained from it being finely granulated, every single anchor bolt at the property was flattened or ripped from the slab, wind rowing occurred, and grass was scoured.

I’m not sure about the most significant debarking, as there is still some left, although it’s definitely on the upper end.

I will admit I didn’t know about that picture of the almost disintegrated vehicle, so I underestimated Bassfield in that department, if it’s possible, could you show more photos of such vehicle damage?

 

[perceptible]

The "EF3" that rivals Jarrel; The Horrifying Story of the 2023 Matador, TX Tornado

I don't have much to say other than it's confusing how it wasn't given an EF4 rating at minimum.

If there aren't any highly reasonable arguments for a non-violent rating (I can't think of any with the contextuals at hand), it's straight up as bad of a final rating as Vilonia or Barrie 1985 not being given you-know-what.

 

[TH2002]

I’m not sure about the most significant debarking, as there is still some left, although it’s definitely on the upper end.

I will admit I didn’t know about that picture of the almost disintegrated vehicle, so I underestimated Bassfield in that department, if it’s possible, could you show more photos of such vehicle damage?

This truck that originated in the driveway of the well anchored cabin flew about 300 yards and basically embedded itself into the ground:


Here, you can see a random axle that probably belonged to either a car or trailer - not really sure:


A couple other vehicles were mangled pretty badly near the slabbed restaurant, albeit not quite on the same level as the others:



Also, I feel that saying "there is a tad bit of bark left on those trees" seems a little bit pedantic. It's extremely, extremely rare to see entire groves of trees as thoroughly and completely obliterated as that grove from Bassfield, much less with hardwoods.