PDA

View Full Version : Most Impressive or Strongest Tornado of the Last 20 Years?



Michael Auker
01-09-2006, 08:53 PM
I'm a sucker for polls...so which tornado, in your mind, has been the definitive tornado of the last 20 years? Incredible obliterating structural damage...heavy objects thrown long distances...and so on?

Chris Lott
01-09-2006, 09:04 PM
I think the Moore, Oklahoma F-5 was the most impressive just from the damage it did. I saw some clips on t.v. of Val Castor chasing that beast and I have never seen anything like it, not to mention that Wurman and the D.O.W. clocked wind speeds of 318 mph- wonder if it was an f-6? Just kidding, not starting that debate all over.

Dan Christianson
01-09-2006, 09:12 PM
Personally, despite other sources, i believe the May 3rd 1999 incident should of been rated an F-6, i agree the damage was astonishing, and images of soem of the craters created from the tornado sucking up the ground was amazing.... wind speeds also highest recorded in this tornado were remarkable, it was very sad day though i must say , i do and still believe history will repeat itself, omaha ne is due for disaster, and many other places to, dont be suprised .... if it happens in the near future, but deeply with my f-5 i believe Moore OK will be in the books for the closest rating to an F-6 tornado, the damage tells you alot...

Shane Adams
01-09-2006, 09:26 PM
I'm guessing the Moore tornado is winning in a landslide because of the widely-publicized 318mph wind measurement, plus it's the most recent event. That 318mph was recorded several meters above the surface, and Josh Wurman himself has stated the numbers are deceiving, and could go 20mph either way. Regardless, I've never considered that tornado as one of the all-time most powerful.

That distinction goes to the Andover, KS tornado of April 26, 1991. Earl Evans' video of this shows the most amazing and violent upward velocity as well as rotation. This tornado was alive. There isn't a more dramatic or graphic tornado video in existence IMO.

Darin Brunin
01-09-2006, 09:42 PM
I believe there have been tornadoes just as strong as the Moore F5. It just stole the show because it hit a major metropolitan area. If the Hallam, NE tornado had hit OKC there would have been many more lives lost in my opinion not because it was stronger but because of its size. The 5-3-99 tornado gained more media attention and that's why people remember it more. If you put the damage path of the Moore, OK tornado through a rural area then it would not be remembered nearly as much.

Overall, I voted for the Andover, KS tornado.

brody_clifton
01-09-2006, 10:10 PM
I may be bit biased towards the Moore tornado because I've seen much more footage, but to me the storm structure was just jaw dropping. But I've not seen the structure of any of the other parent storms to compare, other than Jarrell. Andover would be a close second. For years it and the Pampa F4 in 1995 were the main highlights of any videos I saw. Until Moore. I agree the 318mph doppler measurement made a large impact on how I look at that tornado. Red Rock would fall in right behind Andover, I think it could have likely rivaled Moore had it hit a metro area.(Btw, if I were forced to find a pattern in the sequence above of F5 events with years, I'd have to say the next string of consecutive years looked to begin with 2006).

Mikey Gribble
01-09-2006, 10:14 PM
I would have to go with the Hallam tornado also. It may have only been an F4, but being 2.5 miles wide more than makes up for that. To me, that is much more impressive than a typical wedge with winds that are slightly stronger. If I had to pick one of the tornadoes listed though, I would vote for a tie between Andover and Moore. They are both equally impressive.

Angie Norris
01-09-2006, 11:54 PM
Given the restraints of the time frame, I had to go with Andover. The videos of the tornado demonstrate the absolute ferocity of the storm. Moore and Jarrel stand out because they are more recent.The Lawrenceburg TN tornado was in a more rural area, but the photos of the damage path show that storm was capable of much more damage.
If there hadn't been a time frame of 20 years, I think Wichita Falls (1979) and the monster storms of the Superoutbreak (Brandenberg, Guin, and Xenia) might definitely be in contention there.
Angie

Greg Stumpf
01-10-2006, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Dan Christianson
Personally, despite other sources, i believe the May 3rd 1999 incident should of been rated an F-6, i agree the damage was astonishing, and images of soem of the craters created from the tornado sucking up the ground was amazing.
Hmmmm....I missed those in the survey (http://tinyurl.com/bosc8). Where can I find more info?


greg

Tim Vasquez
01-10-2006, 12:37 AM
Hard to tell what we're looking for here (strong, impressive, definitive). I put my money on Jarrell... the deviant movement, extreme CAPE, and incredible vortex had "monster" written all over it. Ultra-CAPE events and Pakwash storms are just amazing. The other choices really haven't impressed me as much, though it's just a matter of perspective as many of them were certainly devastating for some people.

Tim

Brian Stertz
01-10-2006, 12:42 AM
The May 3rd 1999 tornado soundly gets my vote...this one did F4/F5 damage during 2 distinct cycles along it's track. Not sure what makes the Andover one so special over other's in the list...it had true F4/F5 intensity for a much shorter time than the BC/Moore. It's like picking between a lumbering pissed off grizzly bear (May 3rd Bridge Creek/Moore, etc.) and a tightly wound tazmanian devil (April 26th Andover). I'll take the grizzly bear...not to make light of such tragic events. None in the list can hold a candle to the April 9, 1947 Woodward F5 though.

John Farley
01-10-2006, 12:48 AM
I'd have to go with Jarrell, Texas, largely because of the way it morphed from a skinny rope to a massive F5 in a matter of a couple minutes.

Dan Christianson
01-10-2006, 01:29 AM
Ok maybe i over did it with craters, , i rememember seeing video on TLC i think it was and DISCOVERY CHANNEL, now its been awhile, ill try and find some links, for you greg.... sorry with my over/expression .

Ok i agree with you all on Hallam thats true being weaker but a much more wider tornado, if it hit OKC , it would of done alot of damage, hmm on andover ks, i guess this goes with tornadoes as well so DONT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER..... ... anyways my 2 cents

Michael Auker
01-10-2006, 01:48 AM
Interesting how much weight personal perspective carried, which really is what I meant in the poll. For example, nobody else picked my choice, the OH-PA F-5. For some reason, when I think of F-5, I think of that tornado. The Birmingham and Jarrell tornadoes also stick out in my mind.

Bill Tabor
01-10-2006, 02:44 AM
I think I'd have to go with Jarrell. I toured the damage path of both Jarrell and Moore and Moore was very destructive and went through a large urban area for that it gets points. It also gets points for recorded wind speeds 318mph - albeit above ground and recent tornado intercepts indicate that ground level winds may be significantly lower (20 to 50 mph) to those measured by DOW above ground. However F-scale is damage based and based on that damage I have seen I would rank Jarrell higher.

Although Jarrell wind speeds weren't measured asphault was removed from the road, house and material was swept clear of the foundation and taken...somewhere. Maybe it was dumped in the lake. Large trucks, semis, and farm equipment were dismembered and squashed into very small unrecognizable heaps. I've heard bad stories about what happened to the people and livestock as well. It may very well have had a faster windspeed than Moore even though it moved slower. Had Jarrell gone through a more urban area such as Austin and stayed on the ground even longer it would have been even more devasting. Note also the parent circulation later produced another tornado rated F4 at Hazy Hills which killed an Emergency Medical Technician. It also dropped one near my home that knocked a train off the track and collapsed a grocery store roof.

Brian also may be right about Woodward. I've read a book about it and it's an amazing event.

Andrea Griffa
01-10-2006, 03:10 AM
Before rating I'm not sure to have seen the video of Andover tornado..Guys, could you give me one link?

Chris Sokol
01-10-2006, 01:14 PM
Having seen both storms in person, I would definately pick Andover over Moore/Bridge Creek. Andover was the most visually impressive storm of the lot, and the damage was incredible, even if it was not spead out over as an extensive area as Moore/Bridge Creek. As for second place, I would probably go with the Lawrence County Tornado (1998 Middle Tennessee).

I would have to say that the Lawrence County Tennessee tornado is probably the most underrated event on the list, considering that it is the only confirmed F5 tornado in Tennessee. The NWS report title for this event says it all:


The Forgotten F5: The Lawrence County Supercell during the Middle Tennessee Tornado Outbreak of April 16, 1998


http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ohx/research/f5.htm

David Draun
01-10-2006, 01:28 PM
I voted for 5/3/99 Moore, OK. Just seeing that thing on TV from a live newscam on a building made it all too impressive. I was going to vote for the Plainfield 1990 storm, because I have a connection to some of the vicitms. (My relatives were in the apartment complex that got completely leveled, they were ok :D ) The pictures they took of the damage were just astounding, I should get some from them. This was a rain-wrapped beast of a storm. The Andover storm was a monster too! :shock:

Tony Laubach
01-10-2006, 01:45 PM
Andover cause it was the first big one I studied and sent me into this spiral of severe weather I now obsess over. May 3 gets a real close second for every obvious reason known to man!

Bobby Eddins
01-10-2006, 02:32 PM
Had to go with Niles-Wheatland, OH-PA. May 31, 1985. Even though I've seen much more video of both the tornado and the damage from Moore, Andover, and Jerrell, I'll stick with my old favorite descriptive of this tornado and the fact that it produced F5 damage at both ends of it's track. Just wish there was video of it.

Andy Wehrle
01-10-2006, 03:02 PM
Something I'm curious about regarding the Andover tornado...where along its path did it do F5 damage? So many sources say the tornado was "at its worst" over the Golden Spur mobile home park, but to the best of my knowledge one can't rate damage to trailers F5. Where did it take well-constructed frame houses securely attached to their foundations, scour them off the foundation, and sweep away the debris?

Michael Auker
01-10-2006, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Eddins
Had to go with Niles-Wheatland, OH-PA. May 31, 1985. Even though I've seen much more video of both the tornado and the damage from Moore, Andover, and Jerrell, I'll stick with my old favorite descriptive of this tornado and the fact that it produced F5 damage at both ends of it's track. Just wish there was video of it. Actually, there are two videos in existence of the Niles-Wheatland tornado. You can view them both here: http://1985tornado.tripod.com/

Chris Sokol
01-10-2006, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Andy Wehrle
Something I'm curious about regarding the Andover tornado...where along its path did it do F5 damage?

The F5 damage occured in the Greenwich Heights Subdivision, just to the northeast of McConnell Air Force Base.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk/preparedness/tornado_small/images/tnmvs008.jpg

http://www.andovernet.com/tornado/tornado/images/pix_crew.jpg

Greg Stumpf
01-10-2006, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Chris Sokol+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chris Sokol)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Wehrle
Something I'm curious about regarding the Andover tornado...where along its path did it do F5 damage?

The F5 damage occured in the Greenwich Heights Subdivision, just to the northeast of McConnell Air Force Base.[/b]
There was also F5 damage in the subdivision just west of the trailer park, to well-built single-family residences. This was my first violent tornado damage survey of my career.

samuel stone
01-10-2006, 06:26 PM
I believe we are in the longest f-5 drought since at aleast the 50's (maybe longer) so we are definantly due for one. I think that is partially due to the fact that some houses these days are made to be able to withstand stronger winds wich would result in less dammage done to them hence a lower F-rating. Just a thought.

Greg Stumpf
01-10-2006, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by samuel stone
...some houses these days are made to be able to withstand stronger winds...
Nope....quite the opposite! Houses these days are built like houses of cards. Tim Marshall can attest to this.

samuel stone
01-10-2006, 06:39 PM
I heard somthing about structures being built with rubar enforced concrete on TWC, maybe it was just tornado shelters built with it?

Chris Sokol
01-10-2006, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by samuel stone
I heard somthing about structures being built with rubar enforced concrete on TWC, maybe it was just tornado shelters built with it?

Rebar is used for reinforcing concrete. While it is used in residential construction, it is mainly used in the foundation. Safe rooms would also use rebar for reinforcement.

Chris Lott
01-10-2006, 08:42 PM
Speaking of The Jarrell tornado, check out this sounding. This was taken at 20z just east of the supercell.

http://www.met.tamu.edu/research/texacal/s...71945.TEX.2.gif (http://www.met.tamu.edu/research/texacal/soundings/X5271945.TEX.2.gif)

Over 7000 j/kg CAPE when this sounding was taken. INSANE!

Glen Romine
01-10-2006, 10:59 PM
I don't see any comparison between the intensity of the Jarrell tornado and any other damage I've ever seen from any other F-5. Certainly the F-5 damage in Moore wasn't nearly as impressive - can't recall seeing anything at Jarrell level at Bridge Creek either, but do recall the damage there looking more impressive than in Moore. Jarrell defined what it meant for a home to be swept clean from the foundation.

Glen

Jeff Snyder
01-10-2006, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by Glen Romine
Certainly the F-5 damage in Moore wasn't nearly as impressive - can't recall seeing anything at Jarrell level at Bridge Creek either, but do recall the damage there looking more impressive than in Moore.
Glen

True, but who's to say Bridge Creek wouldn't have looked like Jarrell had the Bridge Creek tornado moved much slower like the Jarrell tornado? I guess forward motion is inherent in an F-scale rating, both because structure damage is proportional to ground-relative winds and because damage seems to be affected by tornado residence time (these two factors opposing each other). Regardless, is the Jarrell tornado more impressive because it moved slower (and thus had higher residence time over any particular place), or was it objectively stronger?

Chris Lott
01-10-2006, 11:23 PM
I think that is what is most impressive about the Jarrell tornado-damage. It literally blew away everything, but one thing you have to remember if you have never been to Jarrell, there wasn't that much to blow away to start with. The damage that the Moore tornado did going through a big Metropolitan area, that was pretty impressive. Had the Moore tornado gone through Jarrell, it would have blown it off the map. Here are a couple of damage pics from Jarrell, still very impressive.
http://home.mchsi.com/~tomph/trip/jpeg/jarrell1.jpg

http://home.mchsi.com/~tomph/trip/jpeg/jarrell2.jpg

Shane Adams
01-11-2006, 10:10 AM
I agree the Jarrell event was the most impressive damage I've ever seen, and I would've picked Jarrell....except that several experts have always downplayed its intensity, oweing to a nearly-stationary, slow track that ground everything down as it lumbered along. A lot of respected names believe it was only F3 and just sat over the same places for long durations.

I can see the argument from both sides, but if the F3 theory is true, this makes it less powerful IMO, as far as brute wind force. If it truly was an F5 because the winds were that destructive (not just airborne debris), than it gets my #1 vote.

Glen Romine
01-11-2006, 12:02 PM
I understand the slow motion aspect in the tornado damage, as in how it would have aided in pulverizing everything in it's path, but it doesn't explain how it was all carried away (centrifuged?) from the subdivision. The materials of 40 homes, attendant vehicles, asphalt, trees excepting 2-3 foot stumps, all completely evacuated from the area. That's tough to attribute to weaker winds, no matter how long they stayed there. Remnants of cars were moved up to 1/2 mile I think I recall seeing, and cattle (not known for their aerodynamics) were moved up to 1/4 of a mile.

Brian Stertz
01-11-2006, 12:57 PM
I guess we're into the classic battle of F5 intensity questioning....I guess the best way to handle this topic is to consider that each of these nasty tornadoes were not born of/thrived in the exact same conditions as each other. I would have to agree that Jarrell's F5 was horrific in that it not only flattened stuff and swept it clean, it also turned things into very small fragments of debris. I would also have to say that I had a nice clear view of a swath of scoured earth/vegetation of the May 3rd tornado right after it had passed by. This was by far the most stunning and severe tornado damage I have ever seen personally. I did manage to see the Andover damage path a month after it had it happened. I would have to say that still the May 3rd damage swath was still more intense. There are a ton of factors at work when these atmospheric brush hogs cut loose, and it is hard to pin exacts when so many factors may have not been exactly known, or at least added into the equation and "totaled".

Bill Tabor
01-11-2006, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Chris Lott
I think that is what is most impressive about the Jarrell tornado-damage. It literally blew away everything, but one thing you have to remember if you have never been to Jarrell, there wasn't that much to blow away to start with. The damage that the Moore tornado did going through a big Metropolitan area, that was pretty impressive. Had the Moore tornado gone through Jarrell, it would have blown it off the map. Here are a couple of damage pics from Jarrell, still very impressive.
http://home.mchsi.com/~tomph/trip/jpeg/jarrell1.jpg

http://home.mchsi.com/~tomph/trip/jpeg/jarrell2.jpg

I heard they were brick at Jarrell or at least partial brick which is similar to what was at Moore just east of I35 - both of which I toured. I believe I remember seeing some on the outskirts of the path at Jarrell still standing too. I took a bunch of pics back then but forgot where I put them. I should try and find them and post them to the net.

As for Jarrell moving slower - that does give it more time over target to grind; however a faster moving tornado can also do more damage because of it's right front quadrant (assuming cyclonic) - forward momentum being added to the tornado. This could be between 0 to 70mph typically. That can make a big difference too, but I'd say sitting over something longer has more effect. Still you have to keep in mind that since F-scale is damage based only - it doesn't take into account the actual tornado speed of movement across the ground - that is implicit in the damage results - as I believe Jeff mentioned. So to speculate on which one possibly had higher wind speeds and so would be considered more definitive I think is errant thinking as we really don't know. The tornado west of Moore where it received an F5 rating may have been measured at 318mph but that was some 50 meters or so above ground - we do not know surface wind speeds. Also we have no measurements of Jarrell or Andover for that matter of winds speeds to compare it to. We just have F-scale.

Oh PS Chris: Consider if the Jarrell tornado had gone through Moore! Imagine Moore with nothing left on the ground. Consider all the extra debris because it was a larger urban area. That grinder would have ground it even worse IMO! In this case 'slow speed kills', and perhaps a qualification of a truly devasting tornado is that not only does it have high wind speeds but it stays over the damage area longer.

I think everyone may be basing this on what they 'think' may have had the highest wind speed without really knowing for sure, not the fact that our sly little Jarrell tornado was a slow moving grinder of destruction and death.

Bill Tabor
01-11-2006, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by samuel stone
I believe we are in the longest f-5 drought since at aleast the 50's (maybe longer) so we are definantly due for one. I think that is partially due to the fact that some houses these days are made to be able to withstand stronger winds wich would result in less dammage done to them hence a lower F-rating. Just a thought.

I doubt it is an F5 drought. I think it is more likely that a tornado capable of inflicting F5 damage hasn't hit a quality engineered structure so that a damage assessment of F5 could be made. Here are some thoughts from Chuck Doswell taken from some of his online writings:

"What we do know about tornado climatology says that there will be something on the order of 5-20 violent tornadoes (F4-F5) in any given year ... we certainly do not have a clear idea of where or when they will occur. It's noteworthy that tornado fatalities in a given year are not very closely related to the number of tornadoes in that year (or even to the number of F2 and greater tornadoes). Fatalities are most closely associated with bad luck, where strong or violent tornadoes strike in populated areas. "

From that I take it he means 5 to 20 F4 to F5 type tornadoes occur every year but only the occasional ones are detected by a case of 'bad luck' for those that get hit. For us chasers out there that means that one of the F0 rated torns you intercepted last season may truly have been an F5 at times it just never got a rating.

On the other hand in the sense of a drought as you mention it the odds maybe piling up against us and we may be due for a few detected F5 strikes to populated areas rather than just in the rural countryside.

Dean L. Cosgrove
01-11-2006, 02:47 PM
The following photos are of incredible tornado damage from a tornado June 15, 1990 in Hitchcock County, NE. In my opinion this tornado was a very strong F5 not an F4 as it was rated. I base this on the following damage shots that I took . I have been unable to find pics from --ANY-- tornado that equal the damage shown below .

I have observed damage from "officially" F5 rated tornadoes. These F5 tornadoes did throw vehicles for long distances and tear them into several pieces.

The June 15, 1990 tornado went beyond that. It tore vehicles including very heavy farm equipment into small and in some cases almost unrecognizable pieces.

The first pic shows debris that I collected from the path of this tornado. Shown here are pieces of cars, farm equipment , a piece of a fence post twisted severely on both ends and a cast iron skillet. The small green piece of metal is from a vehicle that I documented finding pieces of over a 2 mile path through hilly terrain. I was unable to locate any piece of that vehicle larger than about 2 feet long.

I have photos of this tornado taken by someone living in the area. I spoke to an insurance agent who said he measured the tornado path of up to 2 miles wide. Since I did not take the tornado pics I can not post them.

I do however have copies from the NWS publication "Storm Data" that show some of the pics I have in black and white. I will post the "Storm Data" pages if I receive permission from NWS to do so. Perhaps someone at NWS can confirm if it is ok for me to post 2 pages from "Storm Data"

The following comment is from "Storm Data" : " The owners also had a van for which they needed to find an identifiable part for insurance purposes; they found its fire wall 7 miles to the east."

http://windsweptchasetours.com/June_15_1990_04.jpg

http://windsweptchasetours.com/June_15_1990_05.jpg

http://windsweptchasetours.com/June_15_1990_06.jpg

http://windsweptchasetours.com/June_15_1990_07.jpg

Dean Cosgrove
http://windsweptchasetours.com/index.html

Bill Tabor
01-12-2006, 01:38 PM
Here's a link to some Jarrell damage. I took a lot of pictures that looked quite a bit worse than these in my opinion. Most everything I found that I took pictures of was very small and shredded.

http://www.k5kj.net/jarrell.htm

Pat Lawrence
01-12-2006, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Shane Adams
I agree the Jarrell event was the most impressive damage I've ever seen, and I would've picked Jarrell....except that several experts have always downplayed its intensity, oweing to a nearly-stationary, slow track that ground everything down as it lumbered along. A lot of respected names believe it was only F3 and just sat over the same places for long durations.

I can see the argument from both sides, but if the F3 theory is true, this makes it less powerful IMO, as far as brute wind force. If it truly was an F5 because the winds were that destructive (not just airborne debris), than it gets my #1 vote.

Shane,

I was wondering who thought it only deserved an F3 rating, if you can recall. It would be interesting to learn what they based that value on.

Thanks

Pat

Shane Adams
01-12-2006, 09:09 PM
I'm pretty sure Tim Marshall is one, but I can't be for certain. I just know I've been in conversations when Jarrell was brought up, only to have others downplay the tornado intensity due to little or no movement, and the "grinding down" of the same structures for several seconds.

Chris Lott
01-12-2006, 09:27 PM
Excellent case study of May 27th and the Jarrell tornado.


http://www.vvm.com/%7Ecurtis/Jarrell/Jarrell.htm

Lon Curtis and Al Moller lay it all out in this study.

Pat Lawrence
01-12-2006, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Shane Adams
I'm pretty sure Tim Marshall is one, but I can't be for certain. I just know I've been in conversations when Jarrell was brought up, only to have others downplay the tornado intensity due to little or no movement, and the "grinding down" of the same structures for several seconds.

Thanks, Shane.

I was mainly interested in what caused them to arrive at this conclusion...could it be tornado loitering? Would be interesting if this is so as the Jarrell tornado performed some amazing, albeit destructive, feats!

Guess most can thank their "lucky stars" most tornadoes move right along, regardless of strength :)

Pat

Bill Tabor
01-13-2006, 12:21 AM
Wanted to mention I just watched 'Tornado Intercept' or some name to that affect on National Geographic channel. After the alleged June 12th intercept for the first time Wurman was able to calculate winds from the DOW versus surface wind speed of the TIV vehicle. The result was the surface vehicle experienced 109 mph winds or 80% of the speed measured by the DOW 50 feet above ground.

I find this interesting and if this can be extrapolated and compared to Moore which was similarly measured with DOW of 318 mph that would make surface wind speed ~254 mph.

Thoughts?

Andy Wehrle
01-13-2006, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by Bill Tabor

Still you have to keep in mind that since F-scale is damage based only - it doesn't take into account the actual tornado speed of movement across the ground - that is implicit in the damage results - as I believe Jeff mentioned.

Good point, Bill. Even though the F-scale is "supposed" to be only a damage scale, sometimes other factors are taken into account in the results. The Stoughton tornado, like the Jarrel event, was a slow-mover that remained over the same area for a considerable duration, and I believe this was considered as one of the deciding factors to rate it F3 instead of F4.

Dick McGowan
01-13-2006, 01:25 AM
Back to the Topic.

I voted for the Andover as well, watching it over and over from Western KS, shortly after I moved to Kansas. It still gives me chills watching it.

Glen Romine
01-13-2006, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by Andy Wehrle
and I believe this was considered as one of the deciding factors to rate it F3 instead of F4.

I doubt it - and would hope that you are wrong. The damage assessment should be based on the level of damage, not a guess as to the strength and duration of winds.

Glen

Pat Lawrence
01-13-2006, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Glen Romine

I doubt it - and would hope that you are wrong. The damage assessment should be based on the level of damage, not a guess as to the strength and duration of winds.

Glen

I agree..it's kind of like saying it did F3 damage for most of it's track with the exception of F5 damage in a few areas..the tornado must have loitered over the F5 damage areas for a while...so in conclusion we will give it an F3 rating and ignore tthe F5 damage, caused by loitering, altogether.

Pat

Shane Adams
01-13-2006, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by Pat Lawrence+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pat Lawrence)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-Shane Adams
I'm pretty sure Tim Marshall is one, but I can't be for certain. I just know I've been in conversations when Jarrell was brought up, only to have others downplay the tornado intensity due to little or no movement, and the "grinding down" of the same structures for several seconds.

Thanks, Shane.

I was mainly interested in what caused them to arrive at this conclusion...could it be tornado loitering? Would be interesting if this is so as the Jarrell tornado performed some amazing, albeit destructive, feats!

Guess most can thank their "lucky stars" most tornadoes move right along, regardless of strength :)

Pat[/b]

The knock on Jarrell is that it caused the extreme F5 damage because it sat over the same areas for a long time, just grinding things down, as opposed to containing true F5 windspeeds and just moving through the area. I understand the argument, but like someone else mentioned, this theory doesn't explain how all the debris was evacuated from the scene.

I don't believe an F1 tornado sitting over the same house for five minutes would cause F3 damage. By the same token, I'm convinced Jarrell was an F5 because it had F5 caliber winds, not because it sat and grinded. But I'm no wind engineer.

Kevin Bowman
01-14-2006, 12:04 AM
has to be the Moore Tornado, it had OMG written all over it.

Mike Kay
01-14-2006, 02:47 AM
I should note that the Edmonton tornado in 1987 is impressive not only for its severity (which was one of the few F4 tornadoes reported in Canada), but also that it was the farthest north that an F4 has ever been reported having occured. (about 5334' N - as far north as the Aleutians in Alaska!) For those not familiar, that's the one in my avatar.

Alex Lamers
01-14-2006, 04:10 PM
http://webserv.chatsystems.com/~doswell/Ou...ages/3may99.jpg (http://webserv.chatsystems.com/~doswell/Outdoor_Images/3may99.jpg)
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/1999050...ge/mb990118.jpg (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/19990503/damage/mb990118.jpg)
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/1999050...ge/mb990310.jpg (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/19990503/damage/mb990310.jpg)
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/1999050...ge/mb990316.jpg (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/19990503/damage/mb990316.jpg) (yes believe it or not thats a railroad car)
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/1999050...mage/kjdam3.jpg (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/19990503/damage/kjdam3.jpg)

and that my friends is why I picked the Moore OK tornado.

...Alex Lamers...