• 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

buckeye05 said:
Again, Tim Marshall is not responsible for the EF3 rating in Matador. As explained previously, he found the damage to be consistent with a very violent tornado, and stated as such on his posts regarding the event. He was actually impressed by it, but differed the rating decision to NWS Lubbock, who worked in conjunction with Texas Tech University during the survey. TTU is notorious for not factoring in contextual evidence, and uses an absurdly strict engineering-only approach that uses the lowest conceivable wind speed estimate that could have possibly resulted in the failure of the structures in question. When using that approach, getting above the EF3 range is almost impossible. TTU and NWS Lubbock are to blame for this one, not Tim.

I am not some huge fan of Tim Marshall, but I am just tired of seeing his name attached to bad decisions that he simply did not make. He’s become the preferred scapegoat for tornado geeks, while the real culprits get overlooked.
Click to expand...
Hey actually I did not know this; thank you for telling me. I had assumed he was actively collaborating with Texas Tech; my apologies. I have met Tim myself and assumed nothing bad or malicious of him! I dont have facebook so some things I see are second hand.
He's a cool dude and I even asked him about Jarrell; that was simply a mistake on my end
 
buckeye05 said:
Again, Tim Marshall is not responsible for the EF3 rating in Matador. As explained previously, he found the damage to be consistent with a very violent tornado, and stated as such on his posts regarding the event. He was actually impressed by it, but differed the rating decision to NWS Lubbock, who worked in conjunction with Texas Tech University during the survey. TTU is notorious for not factoring in contextual evidence, and uses an absurdly strict engineering-only approach that uses the lowest conceivable wind speed estimate that could have possibly resulted in the failure of the structures in question. When using that approach, getting above the EF3 range is almost impossible. TTU and NWS Lubbock are to blame for this one, not Tim.

I am not some huge fan of Tim Marshall, but I am just tired of seeing his name attached to bad decisions that he simply did not make. He’s become the preferred scapegoat for tornado geeks, while the real culprits get overlooked.
Click to expand...
Tim is genuinely one of the better surveyors out there, but like you said he doesn’t have the final say in most ratings it’s almost always up to the NWS. His survey of Joplin found 22 instances of EF5 damage to homes, not including some businesses he also deemed EF5 damage. Whenever the rating got disputed in 2013, NWS Springfield came out and said that “there was only a very small area of EF5 damage in Joplin,” which simply isn’t true.

Something interesting I learned while conversing with him over email about his Greensburg survey, he mentioned some of his findings and opinions differentiated that of the NWS. For instance, NWS Dodge City and the initial QRT made the decision on an EF5 rating based on the High School, and that the residential damage was indicative of EF3 to low-end EF4 intensity — which is a bit outlandish. Tim meanwhile rated the High School high-end EF4, however found several instances of EF5 damage to homes throughout town and mentioned contextual evidence was indicative of such intensity as well. I’d also like to think had he been involved in the survey for the tornadoes post-Greensburg, at least one of them would’ve been rated EF4.

I believe whenever Tim gets included in a survey, he’s more so there as a guide or secondary opinion for the NWS, but does not have a say in the official rating. All of the unnecessary hate he has received is quite literally for no reason.
 
Just stumbled upon this video from the Mayfield tornado path. It was taken near Cayce, fairly early in the tornado's path.. I searched for other comments in here related to Cayce and saw some people suspected debris may have been the cause for the trenching we saw, but I think this video might dispel that theory. The trenching was all over the place and it doesn't look like most of it has any indication of large debris in the area. There's no markings that indicate debris bouncing or rolling, and the clumps of dirt look indicative of intense wind erosion, rather than impact. Also, the cycloidal marks are some of the most impressive I've seen, and there is widespread complete debarking of trees where particularly intense sub vortices hit.

 
andyhb said:
I think it certainly qualified for EF4, even high end EF4, EF5 I'm less certain of.

It's a very poor survey overall though. Tornadoes like that should simply not be rated EF3.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. High-end EF4 would be totally fine, but it’s just so rare that you ever see contextual damage of that level. That’s what sets it apart from a lot of other tornadoes of the 2020s.
 
In my times digging around for interesting Texan tornadoes, and on the subject of the Matador EF3; Ive discovered the 4/15/1973 Pearsall TX F4. Now far back in this thread, there was a couple posts on it; but sadly for some reason I cannot see, or access any of the posted pictures. This tornado seems to be wholly overshadowed, similar to Loyal Valley or a lot of the violent tornadoes in 1995 outside Pampa.
But I did discover a photo of tree damage from this tornado in a scientific paper published in AIMS Mathematics, titled: "Possible implications of self-similarity for tornadogenesis and maintenance" . There's also a nice photo of some 1980 Grand Island NE damage in this, plus a lot of other tornadoes; but that's another subject; the paper is a rather wacky mess of fractal patters and other brain bending things.
I would love to know more about the Pearsall tornado, its very obviously on the upper end of F4s; being that it scoured 1-inch thick asphalt. It also looks to have done extensively violent vehicle damage. On the asphalt thing; Ive found a photo on eBay of the airport this tornado impacted, where the asphalt was found to have been scoured.


1743006431839.png1743007134509.png
 
Last edited:
NewFoundWeatherNerd said:
In my times digging around for interesting Texan tornadoes, and on the subject of the Matador EF3; Ive discovered the 4/15/1973 Pearsall TX F4. Now far back in this thread, there was a couple posts on it; but sadly for some reason I cannot see, or access any of the posted pictures. This tornado seems to be wholly overshadowed, similar to Loyal Valley or a lot of the violent tornadoes in 1995 outside Pampa.
But I did discover a photo of tree damage from this tornado in a scientific paper published in AIMS Mathematics, titled: "Possible implications of self-similarity for tornadogenesis and maintenance" . There's also a nice photo of some 1980 Grand Island NE damage in this, plus a lot of other tornadoes; but that's another subject; the paper is a rather wacky mess of fractal patters and other brain bending things.
I would love to know more about the Pearsall tornado, its very obviously on the upper end of F4s; being that it scoured 1-inch thick asphalt. It also looks to have done extensively violent vehicle damage. On the asphalt thing; Ive found a photo on eBay of the airport this tornado impacted, where the asphalt was found to have been scoured.


View attachment 37313View attachment 37314
Click to expand...


Check out this post on it:


talkweather.com

Significant Tornado Events

I remember these scanned black and white photographs of an airport runway scoured of asphalt on one side, but they looked different than these. Locomusic01 posted some of the older thread before it went down, perhaps they were more from this tornado? Not sure. Totally out of the blue, I finally...
talkweather.com talkweather.com



I'm convinced this thing was an F5
 
Juliett Bravo Kilo said:
Check out this post on it:


talkweather.com

Significant Tornado Events

I remember these scanned black and white photographs of an airport runway scoured of asphalt on one side, but they looked different than these. Locomusic01 posted some of the older thread before it went down, perhaps they were more from this tornado? Not sure. Totally out of the blue, I finally...
talkweather.com talkweather.com



I'm convinced this thing was an F5
Click to expand...
Holy Moly
That was a beast
I'm surprised I've never heard of this tornado before
 
Well, I've been looking around at tornado stuff nonstop for like 3 days now, while searching I've come across two tornadoes, well one specifically, in the Texas panhandle. This EF2 in specific, a massive wedge near Cee Vee Texas. Ive been searching real hard but couldnt find any photos of damage or anything, but apparently it severely damaged a bunch of Mesquites. I was wondering if anyone has any more information on this Tornado at all? Or damage photos?1743022172718.png
 
BennyILWX said:
Well, I've been looking around at tornado stuff nonstop for like 3 days now, while searching I've come across two tornadoes, well one specifically, in the Texas panhandle. This EF2 in specific, a massive wedge near Cee Vee Texas. Ive been searching real hard but couldnt find any photos of damage or anything, but apparently it severely damaged a bunch of Mesquites. I was wondering if anyone has any more information on this Tornado at all? Or damage photos?View attachment 37324
Click to expand...
I will add this is probably Overshadowed by Matador, as its just north of it, in the same county.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
Western_KS_Wx said:
Tim is genuinely one of the better surveyors out there, but like you said he doesn’t have the final say in most ratings it’s almost always up to the NWS. His survey of Joplin found 22 instances of EF5 damage to homes, not including some businesses he also deemed EF5 damage. Whenever the rating got disputed in 2013, NWS Springfield came out and said that “there was only a very small area of EF5 damage in Joplin,” which simply isn’t true.

Something interesting I learned while conversing with him over email about his Greensburg survey, he mentioned some of his findings and opinions differentiated that of the NWS. For instance, NWS Dodge City and the initial QRT made the decision on an EF5 rating based on the High School, and that the residential damage was indicative of EF3 to low-end EF4 intensity — which is a bit outlandish. Tim meanwhile rated the High School high-end EF4, however found several instances of EF5 damage to homes throughout town and mentioned contextual evidence was indicative of such intensity as well. I’d also like to think had he been involved in the survey for the tornadoes post-Greensburg, at least one of them would’ve been rated EF4.

I believe whenever Tim gets included in a survey, he’s more so there as a guide or secondary opinion for the NWS, but does not have a say in the official rating. All of the unnecessary hate he has received is quite literally for no reason.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of folks still relate him to the botched Vilonia rating and for doubting some of the damage west of Hackleburg. Which reminds me, who was the other surveyor with him that deliberately missed some of the most significant damage in Vilonia?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
BennyILWX said:
Well, I've been looking around at tornado stuff nonstop for like 3 days now, while searching I've come across two tornadoes, well one specifically, in the Texas panhandle. This EF2 in specific, a massive wedge near Cee Vee Texas. Ive been searching real hard but couldnt find any photos of damage or anything, but apparently it severely damaged a bunch of Mesquites. I was wondering if anyone has any more information on this Tornado at all? Or damage photos?View attachment 37324
Click to expand...
Man, something about Texas tornadoes..... big, monstrous things all out by themselves on the lonesome prairies but still seeming like they're searching for something to strike
 
I have a very elementary met question about the effects of Lake Michigan on tornadic systems. Please consult this day, for example: April 21, 1967. This saw an impressive outbreak with significant tornadoes in Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan. This is most famous for the Oak Lawn tornado south of downtown Chicago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Oak_Lawn_tornado_outbreak

What I don't understand is how these supercells interact with the lake. I know that it's very rare for tornadoes to hit closer to downtown Chicago due to the effects of the lake's waters (although it's not AT ALL rare for tornadoes to hit the western half of the Chicago metro!). In such systems, did (does) the lake temporarily or permanently halt tornadogenesis? I'm guessing temporarily?
 
csx1985 said:
I think a lot of folks still relate him to the botched Vilonia rating and for doubting some of the damage west of Hackleburg. Which reminds me, who was the other surveyor with him that deliberately missed some of the most significant damage in Vilonia?
Click to expand...
The damage west of Hackleburg rated EF5 was questionable, and I think Marshall’s disagreement was definitely justifiable. NWS Huntsville rated this home in particular EF5, but it was constructed on a CMU foundation with little to no anchoring at all. 7F0374E8-9CF7-495E-972D-F6B223C41D46.png99630270-FA25-433F-9170-949AA3724DE9.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
Aaron Rider said:
I have a very elementary met question about the effects of Lake Michigan on tornadic systems. Please consult this day, for example: April 21, 1967. This saw an impressive outbreak with significant tornadoes in Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan. This is most famous for the Oak Lawn tornado south of downtown Chicago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Oak_Lawn_tornado_outbreak

What I don't understand is how these supercells interact with the lake. I know that it's very rare for tornadoes to hit closer to downtown Chicago due to the effects of the lake's waters (although it's not AT ALL rare for tornadoes to hit the western half of the Chicago metro!). In such systems, did (does) the lake temporarily or permanently halt tornadogenesis? I'm guessing temporarily?
Click to expand...

Cold waters of the lake (especially in early spring coming out of a cold winter when lake temperatures are below average) tend to create a cool easterly lake breeze that restricts how far north warm fronts can push. It also tends to make them rather sharp (tight temperature/moisture gradient) right over the Chicago metro. Thus a SW-NE moving storm approaching the front may briefly experience enhanced low-level shear, but will quickly cross the boundary and become undercut in cool air.

Local chaser/meteorologist Andrew Pritchard had a good write-up in which he mentioned how sharp warm fronts are less favorable for significant tornado events in his recent blog about the March 19 setup in Illinois.

www.skydrama.net

SKYDRAMA.NET • Severe Risk in the I-States Today

Let me get this out there right away - I respect the crap out of the brilliant meteorologists over at the Storm Prediction Center and could never do what they do 365 days out of the year. It's also just the nature of the science that meteorologists aren't going to agree with each other in...
www.skydrama.net www.skydrama.net
 
Western_KS_Wx said:
The damage west of Hackleburg rated EF5 was questionable, and I think Marshall’s disagreement was definitely justifiable. NWS Huntsville rated this home in particular EF5, but it was constructed on a CMU foundation with little to no anchoring at all. View attachment 37366View attachment 37367
Click to expand...
Agreed, having said that, some of the Parkersburg, Joplin, and Greensburg EF5 dis Marshal has written about do also seem questionable to me. Not doubting the overall rating though. Also I wish better views of the Oak Grove home existed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top