Prelim Tornado Assessment

[thewxmann]

I said this comment before but it kind of got buried....

The bottom line is even the best pictures won't be able to differentiate between a high end EF3 and a low end EF4 just glancing at it. They can tell us stuff like "ok, that's pretty obviously not an EF2", but when fine tuning the rating, it usually takes some more research into the integrity of the most heavily damaged structures which is where experts come in.

Agreed. In general one can get a pretty good picture from just pictures alone. Usually for legit EF3+ tornadoes the pictures will tell you it's at least EF3, with structural considerations and consistencies through DI's necessary to bump to an EF4 (or EF5, if everything's just wiped out). In this case I just did not see widespread, consistent EF4 damage, so I would've rated an EF3 off the pictures, knowing that structural considerations are needed for a possible higher rating.

Many weaker tornadoes are, from what I've heard (especially in the Plains), rated solely through pictures...with the exception of those that make headlines.

[Turtle]

All of this having been said, it's extreme damage, for sure, and I would be interested in hearing some remarks or analysis of this particular location from one of the surveyors. Perhaps Arnold214 can ask his friend?

I DID go to Hollow (not Hallow) Road and East Hill Road in Brimfield on Thursday as a part of the survey. I don't have my notes with me (long story, but they are at work), but one location where the car repair shop/junk yard, etc., yes...it was hit badly. However, I believe that building was made out of concrete blocks. It was not a substantial building. On another road in Brimfield, two houses were substantially damaged while another one was destroyed. The destroyed home was on the hill, and the tornado actually knocked it off its foundation and broke apart as it rolled down the hill. Oh, and a woman WAS in the home when it hit. She was found without a scratch on the roadway down the hill (about 200 feet or so). Across the street, there was a barn and paddocks. The paddocks were wiped off the map, while the farm was destroyed, but not of substantial construction and no basement (OMG is there a story behind the lady that walked out of the destroyed farm without a scratch!). NOTE: It was somewhat "easy" for this tornado to knock that house of its foundation.

I'm going to defer to JoeD or others that looked at the damage personally. I don't have all the details about what they saw in that particular area.

Joe went out on Friday with the Eastern Region representative (and Ekster's friend, whom has a lot of knowledge on storm surveys since he was previously stationed in Wichita) and one of my co-workers that I surveyed with on Thursday on the re-evaluation in Monson. After re-examining the damage, along with the expertise of the ER representative, it was decided that the building damage (and YES, we did take into account building construction <a VERY big factor> and how the homes were anchored on their foundations) as consistent with EF-3. Joe actually did the other portion of the survey on Thursday (W. Springfield/Springfield/Westfield).

You have to understand, with such a long track and having only so much daylight plus getting out there and back, PLUS being short handed (yes, again), it's really tough to get this done in a timely fashion (or as quickly as you guys would like it).

JoeD was on the survey? Oh, very cool!! I didn't know that.

Yes, he was. Actually, for two days...the initial survey on Thursday, then the re-examination on Friday. He actually got to see quite a bit of the damage throughout a majority of the track.

--Turtle

[Turtle]

Holy blown out of proportion, if the folks that post here get insulted from us discussing damage degrees and questioning why, how, what and where then they are pretty thin skinned. Debate spurns knowledge, questioning authority and norms brings change. Sure some posts are silly, guys and gals like JD and El are so intune with board dynamics they know when to laugh off comments. The holier than thou comments are pretty strange, as if we do not appreciate the Mets , surveyors, and assessors. Keep one thing in mind though, history has been rewritten many times, reclassing of hurricanes, tornados has taken place because of somebody questioning authority. Think ORH 53 being a 4 not a 5 is not significant, check the PPT on BOX's own web site that states it should have be classed a 5. All I am saying is we debate, we question, we learn, have an issue with that bookmark www.boringagreementwitheverything.com

This WILL be updated to remove all mention of F5 on the Worcester tornado. There was a blue ribbon committee that got together in 2005 to re-examine the damage in the Worcester tornado (Dr. Greg Forbes WAS on that panel). They decided that there was not enough evidence of the building construction in that area from 1953 to change the classification. I updated that show a couple of years ago, but it has not been uploaded to the website. I am truly hoping it is updated before the anniversary on 6/9 so the latest info (including changes due to the Joplin tornado) will be there. Our IT can be slow (even though he IS a met as well!), but with all this going on with Springfield et al., I think it will be there very soon.

--Turtle

[free_man]

Unless it's been a derecho, all CT EML supercell cases (I think) were north to south movers. Speaks to the importance of northwest flow aloft. June 20, 1995 was a due south mover, 7/10/89 was SSE, 8/28/73 was due south in the CT portion of the track. There are a couple of others. It's interesting.

Was 8/10/00 an EML event? I don't remember the specifics from the soundings There was definitely an airmass riding in from the Lakes and Upper Plains previously. If I had a guess there was at least a weak or remnant EML given the way much of the severe weather held off until the latter afternoon and eventually night time.

Tthat was a decent supercell for CT and very different from the southward moving cases.

[HurricaneJosh]

Eleanor--

Thanks so much for all this great info. I didn't realize you were one of the surveyors, too-- how cool. (You guys are like rock stars. ). It's just great to hear the reasoning behind the verdict directly from the source like this-- so big thanks!

That's very interesting Re: the Worcester Tornado-- that a panel of the top experts had gotten together to reanalyze it so recently and came to a firm verdict. I'm a bit surprised more people don't know about this, given the event's importance in this region, and the ongoing controversy around it. I was always a bit puzzled about it-- didn't know who to listen to Re: whether it was an F4 or F5-- as I'd hear so much conflicting info from seemingly reliable sources. This settles it for me: given this 2005 expert-panel verdict, I'm considering it an F4 from here on out.

EDIT: Wait... I just checked the ORH Tornado thread, and I see that even you don't buy the F4 verdict. OK, so the controversy continues.

[HoarfrostHubb]

Thank you Eleanor to the thoughtful and detailed post.

I am going to save a copy of the Worcester PowerPoint in a secret location my wife doesn't even know about.

It will always be an F5 to me!!! Lol

Any idea who would have done surveys back in 1981 out of Boston?

[Ginx snewx]

This WILL be updated to remove all mention of F5 on the Worcester tornado. There was a blue ribbon committee that got together in 2005 to re-examine the damage in the Worcester tornado (Dr. Greg Forbes WAS on that panel). They decided that there was not enough evidence of the building construction in that area from 1953 to change the classification. I updated that show a couple of years ago, but it has not been uploaded to the website. I am truly hoping it is updated before the anniversary on 6/9 so the latest info (including changes due to the Joplin tornado) will be there. Our IT can be slow (even though he IS a met as well!), but with all this going on with Springfield et al., I think it will be there very soon.

--Turtle

Great job El, can not wait to hear the stories. My bad for the f5 post, kind of threw me with the Web site saying so and other things like Josh stated. Let's pray for forested area only F-3 T's from now on.

[HoarfrostHubb]

This WILL be updated to remove all mention of F5 on the Worcester tornado. There was a blue ribbon committee that got together in 2005 to re-examine the damage in the Worcester tornado (Dr. Greg Forbes WAS on that panel). They decided that there was not enough evidence of the building construction in that area from 1953 to change the classification. I updated that show a couple of years ago, but it has not been uploaded to the website. I am truly hoping it is updated before the anniversary on 6/9 so the latest info (including changes due to the Joplin tornado) will be there. Our IT can be slow (even though he IS a met as well!), but with all this going on with Springfield et al., I think it will be there very soon.

--Turtle

I was looking at this again (I know should be in the Worcester thread), but the part about the frozen matress in Weymouth was cool. Did you guys get to interview people for this?

[#NoPoles]

Greate images Diane. How were the people doing?

as kev mentioned, the power companies are doing a great job of trying to get the power back...brigades of new powerpoles and wires cruising constantly into the damaged towns...

as for the people, well my guess is, while they are holding up ok right now, as time goes on and they still have no house to live in, and it sinks in how much they have lost...a delayed depression will hit...

i passed a man on the sidewalk walking through the area of monson that was hit the hardest...and i'll describe him as looking like he belonged to a harley motorcycle gang...and he had tears in his eyes...which made me tear up

it sucks that i can't do anything to help...i don't have a chainsaw, nor do i know how to use one...i'm so poor i can't donate any money...

[tornadotony]

You have to understand, with such a long track and having only so much daylight plus getting out there and back, PLUS being short handed (yes, again), it's really tough to get this done in a timely fashion (or as quickly as you guys would like it).

Yes yes yes. Having been on three damage surveys now (one I conducted myself on behalf of LOT when they needed some assistance because of ongoing severe weather), it's very clear how one's greatest enemy to the process is time. I recently completed a survey of a relatively minor outbreak of tornadoes in this area from 5/25. What I thought was going to be a rather short survey turned into a process where it took about 8 hours to survey 5 relatively short-tracked tornadoes, most 2 miles or so in length (one being 6.3 miles long), and only having a maximum of EF2 damage, and that was only hitting about half of the areas that actually received damage! It is an arduous, time-consuming, and emotionally draining process, and I can't even imagine doing it for a long-tracked maxi tornado. It's hard enough to survey what EF2 winds can do to people's property and to meet with those people and hear their stories. I feel some expect surveys to be as easy as going down, taking pictures, and putting a rating to the damage. What many don't realize is that there's relatively little idea when a survey begins what damage is going to be found often, or where it starts, and where it ends, and finding those start/end points can be challenging. For instance, that 6.3mi track of damage I surveyed started with ONE report of damage. It was in meeting with the ESDA director and having him lead me to other sites that I got a handle on what exactly happened. I do not envy you or anyone else at BOX that had to go through this process.

[HurricaneJosh]

Yes yes yes. Having been on three damage surveys now (one I conducted myself on behalf of LOT when they needed some assistance because of ongoing severe weather), it's very clear how one's greatest enemy to the process is time. I recently completed a survey of a relatively minor outbreak of tornadoes in this area from 5/25. What I thought was going to be a rather short survey turned into a process where it took about 8 hours to survey 5 relatively short-tracked tornadoes, most 2 miles or so in length (one being 6.3 miles long), and only having a maximum of EF2 damage, and that was only hitting about half of the areas that actually received damage! It is an arduous, time-consuming, and emotionally draining process, and I can't even imagine doing it for a long-tracked maxi tornado. It's hard enough to survey what EF2 winds can do to people's property and to meet with those people and hear their stories. I feel some expect surveys to be as easy as going down, taking pictures, and putting a rating to the damage. What many don't realize is that there's relatively little idea when a survey begins what damage is going to be found often, or where it starts, and where it ends, and finding those start/end points can be challenging. For instance, that 6.3mi track of damage I surveyed started with ONE report of damage. It was in meeting with the ESDA director and having him lead me to other sites that I got a handle on what exactly happened. I do not envy you or anyone else at BOX that had to go through this process.

Wow-- that does sound really complicated! It seems almost like detective work, trying to piece together what happened. It sounds like interesting-- but complex-- work.

And I really don't feel Eleanor/BOX owes anyone any explanation Re: the time it took to complete the survey. Given the length of the track and the level of impact at so many widely-spaced locations, I was actually surprised how fast they issued the preliminary findings!

[HoarfrostHubb]

No, you are correct to say no one owes an explanation. They do the job, they put out a report.

What would be interesting (and Turtle and TornadoTony and others have done this somewhat already) would be how they distinguish between the levels. Seems very human to me. Or are there good online resources that can teach me? Some of the sites I have seen are weak in this regard.

My untrained eye can't distinguish EF3 fromEF4

[bobbutts]

Spoke with a friend from Kansas City today and he brought up a good point. He said the damage looked as bad up here as some of the worst damage he has ever seen living his life in tornado alley. Given that it was an EF-3 that is not surprising but he thinks the devastation looks even worse up here because we have so many more mature trees/forests here than they have in a lot of the mid-western areas that get hit.

Nobody else commented on this post, but I find it interesting. Seems to me that NE's thick forests are a serious liability when the winds go over 80mph or so. In a tornado I imagine this is fuel for a more significant debris field/ball too.

[CT Rain]

Nobody else commented on this post, but I find it interesting. Seems to me that NE's thick forests are a serious liability when the winds go over 80mph or so. In a tornado I imagine this is fuel for a more significant debris field/ball too.

Just wait until we get a cat 3 hurricane. That's probably one of the biggest concerns I have about a landfalling Cat 2 or 3 in SNE.

[tornadotony]

No, you are correct to say no one owes an explanation. They do the job, they put out a report.

What would be interesting (and Turtle and TornadoTony and others have done this somewhat already) would be how they distinguish between the levels. Seems very human to me. Or are there good online resources that can teach me? Some of the sites I have seen are weak in this regard.

My untrained eye can't distinguish EF3 fromEF4

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ef-ttu.pdf

[Arnold214]

Just wait until we get a cat 3 hurricane. That's probably one of the biggest concerns I have about a landfalling Cat 2 or 3 in SNE.

we lose all sorts of trees with a wet ground and gusts to 40-45kt...basically wind advisory criteria. Just a minimal 65G85kt CAT 1 going up the ct valley for instance would be amazing in terms of outages...probably worse than a devstating ice storm.

[HoarfrostHubb]

http://www.spc.noaa....nado/ef-ttu.pdf

Thanks!

Bookmarked

I really appreciate all that you, Josh, and some of the other non-New Englanders have added over the last week or so

[tornadotony]

Thanks!

Bookmarked

I really appreciate all that you, Josh, and some of the other non-New Englanders have added over the last week or so

It was a fascinating event, that's for sure.

[HoarfrostHubb]

we lose all sorts of trees with a wet ground and gusts to 40-45kt...basically wind advisory criteria. Just a minimal 65G85kt CAT 1 going up the ct valley for instance would be amazing in terms of outages...probably worse than a devstating ice storm.

Yeah, I remember Gloria in '85 and that was not a huge storm, but the damage it did was sick in eastern Mass. I had not seen tree damage like that until the '08 Ice Storm, and even then it was trees falling over with root balls, etc. The Ice Storm was mostly tops of trees and large branches.

[Ian]

That tornadotony poster from ohio saw the debri ball on the radar during the event and posted it was either EF-3 or 4......that guy seems to know his stuff

let's not let facts get in the way of a good story...

[tornadotony]

let's not let facts get in the way of a good story...

What is your bone to pick with me? If you actually see enough of these things, you tend to get the general idea of what's going on. Yes, I said EF4/EF5, and this ended up "only" being a high-end EF3. Reality is it takes one of these maxi-type tornadoes to create what we saw on radar on Wednesday. Case closed. If you ever see a debris ball that strong that high up in elevation with a tornado any less than that, then come back and we'll talk.

[CT Rain]

we lose all sorts of trees with a wet ground and gusts to 40-45kt...basically wind advisory criteria. Just a minimal 65G85kt CAT 1 going up the ct valley for instance would be amazing in terms of outages...probably worse than a devstating ice storm.

I think the 2 real items of concern in SNE for a landfalling cat 2 or 3 would be the potential for huge Buzzards Bay surge that hasn't been realized in any modern storm... and the potential for widespread deforestation and an unmanageable amount of debris and total decimation of the power infrastructure.

The Fairfield County windstorm a year ago closed nearly 40% of roads in Greenwich and knocked out power in some of those towns for 7+ days. That was 5 hours of 50-55 knot gusts.

[HurricaneJosh]

I really appreciate all that you, Josh, and some of the other non-New Englanders have added over the last week or so

Thank you-- that's very kind of you. I felt like I was bustin' in on wx that wasn't my business.

[Ian]

What is your bone to pick with me? If you actually see enough of these things, you tend to get the general idea of what's going on. Yes, I said EF4/EF5, and this ended up "only" being a high-end EF3. Reality is it takes one of these maxi-type tornadoes to create what we saw on radar on Wednesday. Case closed. If you ever see a debris ball that strong that high up in elevation with a tornado any less than that, then come back and we'll talk.

It's not really a bone to pick with you personally, though as someone who does this on the ground I'd be cautious if I were you myself... It's more the fact that there is tons of leeway here when it comes to going overboard on things. The young smart folks here sometimes act like they are teaching everyone a lesson even when they are wrong. I've been watching severe weather for like 18 yrs, i've seen a debris ball before.

[bobbutts]

we lose all sorts of trees with a wet ground and gusts to 40-45kt...basically wind advisory criteria. Just a minimal 65G85kt CAT 1 going up the ct valley for instance would be amazing in terms of outages...probably worse than a devstating ice storm.

exactly what I was thinking

well + gloria memories + 1938 stories too.. heavy tree damage

[tornadotony]

It's not really a bone to pick with you personally, though as someone who does this on the ground I'd be cautious if I were you myself... It's more the fact that there is tons of leeway here when it comes to going overboard on things. The young smart folks here sometimes act like they are teaching everyone a lesson even when they are wrong. I've been watching severe weather for like 18 yrs, i've seen a debris ball before.

There were people asking in that thread what that debris ball meant because, unlike you and me, there were people in that thread (and understandably so given that this occurred in Southern New England) that didn't quite have much experience viewing a debris ball on radar. And when I tried to convey that, I felt that "EF4/EF5" meant more to those not as versed in that sort of situation than just saying "violent tornado." When you have 67dBz at 5000ft. AGL outside of a hail core and atop a 160kt or whatever the Godawful hell strength couplet that was there, placing a Vegas bet on there being an EF4/EF5 tornado in there is far from the worst bet you could make. So I was an estimated 6 MPH off...it got the point across.

[Ian]

There were people asking in that thread what that debris ball meant because, unlike you and me, there were people in that thread (and understandably so given that this occurred in Southern New England) that didn't quite have much experience viewing a debris ball on radar. And when I tried to convey that, I felt that "EF4/EF5" meant more to those not as versed in that sort of situation than just saying "violent tornado." When you have 67dBz at 5000ft. AGL outside of a hail core and atop a 160kt or whatever the Godawful hell strength couplet that was there, placing a Vegas bet on there being an EF4/EF5 tornado in there is far from the worst bet you could make. So I was an estimated 6 MPH off...it got the point across.

Fair enough... I'm not here to fight with you. I've just repeatedly noted (especially recently) that overestimates are widely applauded while underestimates get treated like the person is a moron even if it can be the same thing. I guess it's because really damaging weather is cool. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll still give people goosebumps when you enter a thread despite a "6 mph error".

[tornadotony]

Fair enough... I'm not here to fight with you. I've just repeatedly noted (especially recently) that overestimates are widely applauded while underestimates get treated like the person is a moron even if it can be the same thing. I guess it's because really damaging weather is cool. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll still give people goosebumps when you enter a thread despite a "6 mph error".

Haha I do not get your passive-aggressiveness. I stated what I saw as likely happening.

[Ian]

Haha I do not get your passive-aggressiveness. I stated what I saw as likely happening.

You're young enough that I wouldnt expect you to be too humble yet.

[tornadotony]

You're young enough that I wouldnt expect you to be too humble yet.

Humble? Humble about what? I was wrong. I conveyed the likelihood of an EF4-EF5 on the ground, and it was only a high-end EF3. My bad.

It's not likely I went through here eliciting compliments on my commentary from the June 1st outbreak, or any other outbreak for that matter. What should I say? "Ah, nah, I suck?" That's more self-hatred than humility. Fact is, I'm not going to deprecate myself when I have a clue what's going on, just to seem "humble." If I think I'm aware of what's going on, I'm going to share my thoughts. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and it's a lesson learned. If I'm right, great, fantastic. I really don't understand your need for passive-aggressiveness.