Dallas Tornado Article

[mappy]

I dunno... Fourth-largest outbreak in one part of one state doesn't really sounds like a big extreme to me. It sounds like the kind of "extreme" that occurs somewhere in the country every day.

I just think when we start tying every climatologically normal event to climate change, the discussion dissolves into useless banter. Again, a cluster of strong-ish tornadoes in N TX in April is about as climatologically average as you can get. L.A.'s high temperature was a few degrees above normal on Saturday. Does that reflect climate change also? Where do we draw the line?

It is extreme enough for the state. 13 confirmed tornadoes, one of which an EF3. The fourth EF3 to hit Texas in April.

Does it mean climate change? I don't think so, but I still find the event itself to be extreme for the state.

[BillB]

That's about how 99% of mets feel. It totally propelled an incorrect assumption. You could also say the SPC thread would not have been started if it hit a wheat field in Kansas.

Again, the question is not whether climate change is causing-- or will cause-- extremes in weather. I think all of us except for climate-change-denier idiots agree on this.

I would take issue with this. I am NEITHER a supporter or denier. And most of the fellow mets that I've talked with...right here in the backyard of the AMS...are also neither supporters or deniers. So "99% of mets" is not an accurate characterization...rather, we are somewhere in the spectrum in between the poles. Kindly do not count us in unreasonably sweeping statements such as these.

[Ian]

As far as outbreaks go it was not that big IMO. That region of N Tx does not generally see as much large-scale tornadic activity as much of Tornado Alley. Plus none of the tornadoes were violent.. the Forney one was close I suppose. But plenty of the coverage of it makes it sound like it's really unusual to have tornadoes in N TX this time of year and it's not even if they don't often come in groups greater than 10.

[mappy]

As far as outbreaks go it was not that big IMO. That region of N Tx does not generally see as much large-scale tornadic activity as much of Tornado Alley. Plus none of the tornadoes were violent.. the Forney one was close I suppose. But plenty of the coverage of it makes it sound like it's really unusual to have tornadoes in N TX this time of year and it's not even if they don't often come in groups greater than 10.

lol we are so not on the same page.

Or our versions of extreme are slightly different

[HurricaneJosh]

It is extreme enough for the state. 13 confirmed tornadoes, one of which an EF3. The fourth EF3 to hit Texas in April.

Does it mean climate change? I don't think so, but I still find the event itself to be extreme for the state.

I guess it depends how you define "extreme". To me this is not extreme-- it is a noteworthy event, but not an extreme. If this is our definition for "extreme", then we have extremes all the time, all around the nation, every week. Are we confusing "extreme" with "noteworthy"?

In my opinion, legit extremes would be-- for example-- the 2011 tornado season (collectively), the 2005 hurricane season (collectively), the 2011 "Super Outbreak", the May 2011 outbreak (which included the Joplin tornado), the cluster of intense tornadoes (including an F5) that hit Pennsylvania on 31 May 1985 (an example of a regional extreme), etc.

An EF3 in Texas in April? Meh.

[Ian]

lol we are so not on the same page.

Or our versions of extreme are slightly different

There are plenty of outbreaks just about if not every yr this size or larger. If 13 tornadoes touched down in bumble-f kansas no one would have cared. It's big for that local area no doubt.

[mappy]

I guess it depends how you define "extreme". To me this is not extreme-- it is a noteworthy event, but not an extreme. If this is our definition for "extreme", then we have extremes all the time, all around the nation, every week. Are confusing "extreme" with "noteworthy"?

In my opinion, legit extremes would be-- for example-- the 2011 tornado season (collectively), the 2005 hurricane season (collectively), the 2011 "Super Outbreak", the May 2011 outbreak (which included the Joplin tornado), the cluster of intense tornadoes that hit Pennsylvania on 31 May 1985 (an example of a regional extreme), etc.

An EF3 in Texas in April? Meh.

You are absolutely right, I wouldn't say this is extreme in the sense of climate change, blah blah blah. But significant is a good word. Or noteworthy. Both work.

And I was just spouting off some facts

[HurricaneJosh]

I would take issue with this. I am NEITHER a supporter or denier. And most of the fellow mets that I've talked with...right here in the backyard of the AMS...are also neither supporters or deniers. So "99% of mets" is not an accurate characterization...rather, we are somewhere in the spectrum in between the poles. Kindly do not count us in unreasonably sweeping statements such as these.

Huh? I was not describing a viewpoint that reflects either extreme, so I don't understand how your comment is applicable to my post.

[BillB]

Again, the question is not whether climate change is causing-- or will cause-- extremes in weather. I think all of us except for climate-change-denier idiots agree on this.

Huh? I was not describing a viewpoint that reflects either extreme, so I don't understand how your comment is applicable to my post.

The usage here is generic. In reality, most deniers are not idiots (either literally or figuratively). Some, in fact, are greatly-respected meteorologists. To brand climate change deniers as idiots is as sweeping as it is wrong.

When I first read this, I interpreted your meaning as being this restatement: "Climate change is causing/will cause extremes in weather. Only the denier-idiots disagree with this." If that was not your intent then I will withdraw that portion of my objection.

[HurricaneJosh]

The usage here is generic. In reality, most deniers are not idiots (either literally or figuratively). Some, in fact, are greatly-respected meteorologists. To brand climate change deniers as idiots is as sweeping as it is wrong.

I guess whether or not climate-change denial is reasonable is a whole other area of debate, and probably off topic-- so I guess we can just leave it at that.

Back on topic, I just don't see how this climatologically-ordinary TX event is relevant to a climate-change discussion.

[AtticaFanatica]

As far as outbreaks go it was not that big IMO. That region of N Tx does not generally see as much large-scale tornadic activity as much of Tornado Alley. Plus none of the tornadoes were violent.. the Forney one was close I suppose. But plenty of the coverage of it makes it sound like it's really unusual to have tornadoes in N TX this time of year and it's not even if they don't often come in groups greater than 10.

Agree. There was little that was unusual about this case, especially if you factor in population bias in historical tornado reports. It happened near a large population center, and that of course, means little meteorologically.

[HurricaneJosh]

When I first read this, I interpreted your meaning as being this restatement: "Climate change is causing/will cause extremes in weather. Only the denier-idiots disagree with this." If that was not your intent then I will withdraw that portion of my objection.

That was what I meant. However, please keep in mind that "extremes in weather" is an extremely wide category of events that could include, for example, higher average temperatures, droughts, and things that you would obviously expect to see with long-term temperature increases (or the opposite if the world is actually cooling).

Basically, I thought only fringe folks debate whether climate is changing and whether such changes will cause new (undefined) extremes in weather.

[CoastalWx]

I would take issue with this. I am NEITHER a supporter or denier. And most of the fellow mets that I've talked with...right here in the backyard of the AMS...are also neither supporters or deniers. So "99% of mets" is not an accurate characterization...rather, we are somewhere in the spectrum in between the poles. Kindly do not count us in unreasonably sweeping statements such as these.

The comment was more to the fact that we know the planet has warmed in the last 100 years...most would agree with that. However, we are more in the business of wanting to find the truth of why this is happening and this is where we probably differ as a community. We know about things such as natural variability that play a part in warming or cooling...and are not so AGW like other people in the scientific community. That's more or less what I meant.

[CoastalWx]

The comment was more to the fact that we know the planet has warmed in the last 100 years...most would agree with that. However, we are more in the business of wanting to find the truth of why this is happening and this is where we probably differ as a community. We know about things such as natural variability that play a part in warming or cooling...and are not so AGW like other people in the scientific community. That's more or less what I meant.

Basically goes back to your comment about not being supporters or deniers....but I probably didn't word it so clearly. Don't take it so literally.

[Ian]

Agree. There was little that was unusual about this case, especially if you factor in population bias in historical tornado reports. It happened near a large population center, and that of course, means little meteorologically.

Yeah.

Paul Douglas' post has made the rounds of course but I'm slightly perplexed at least by the opening. Hopefully it was a copy-editor who added it to something they already had and needed to tie to current news.

Tuesday's 13 large, violent tornadoes in the Dallas were a wake-up call for America. With camera-ready smartphones -- it may have been the most-photographed and filmed tornado outbreak in history -- dramatic video that convinced many locals to take the warnings seriously and take cover. Had the Arlington tornado tracked just 19 miles farther east it would have struck downtown Dallas.

http://www.huffingto..._b_1403642.html

One thing that disturbs me about mainstream coverage is that there seems to be little interest by many broadcast/blogging mets to actually get into the details that I think a fair amount of people would do well with knowing. This outbreak was IMO not that close to a worst case scenario for Dallas though looking at the coverage you'd think we just averted a massive disaster.

[aslkahuna]

As an aside, I remember that is 1964 and 1979 Wichita Falls TX (which I think is in N.Texas) was hit hard by >F3 tornadoes. The 1964 event hit Sheppard AFB and produced the classic end of observation remark "TORNADO 1/2 SW MOVG NE ROS BEING ABANDONED" the ROS being a small structure near the runway where the observer was and where the observations were taken. The 1979 event was a solid F5. Also, when I say remember I do mean remember because I was an active Air Force forecaster back then.

Steve

[aslkahuna]

Yeah.

Paul Douglas' post has made the rounds of course but I'm slightly perplexed at least by the opening. Hopefully it was a copy-editor who added it to something they already had and needed to tie to current news.

Tuesday's 13 large, violent tornadoes in the Dallas were a wake-up call for America. With camera-ready smartphones -- it may have been the most-photographed and filmed tornado outbreak in history -- dramatic video that convinced many locals to take the warnings seriously and take cover. Had the Arlington tornado tracked just 19 miles farther east it would have struck downtown Dallas.

http://www.huffingto..._b_1403642.html

One thing that disturbs me about mainstream coverage is that there seems to be little interest by many broadcast/blogging mets to actually get into the details that I think a fair amount of people would do well with knowing. This outbreak was IMO not that close to a worst case scenario for Dallas though looking at the coverage you'd think we just averted a massive disaster.

Well no doubt that if Dallas had been hit full on it would have been a messy situation though not as bad as an EF5. For that you only need to go down I-35 a ways and rewind to May 11, 1953 in Waco or perhaps back off to the west and May 11,1970 in Lubbock to see what an EF5 can do to a downtown area.

Steve

[vortex95]

You hit that nail on the head. There were, what, about 12 tornadoes? I know of no knowledgeable climatologist or meteorologist who would consider that to be any thing but a run of the mill tornadic April day in Texas. From what I've seen of the damage on video they weren't even particularly noteworthy in intensity. I'm aware that that there seems to be evidence tying extreme events to climate change-however, this can in no way be considered an extreme event for April in the Alley.

Steve

This is the best statement so far, and was exactly what I was thinking. Tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, etc . occur regardless of climate change. It is NORMAL to have them and yes some will be very bad for people and property. That's the way the Earth works and has long before humans existed. Now how extreme they are and how more often they are occurring, that is another issue, but geez, can't we get storms anymore w/o someone blaming climate change or acting like they are "unusual"??

The only reason why the DFW tornadoes got so much attention b/c they were in the biggest city in tornado alley. I agree, the tractor trailers being lofted like that was amazing, but if anything it was more the AWE factor. Nothing wrong with that, as it is part of human nature, but it ends up being portrayed (hyped) as if it is unusual from a meteorological POV, which is clearly not the case. It was a run of the mill tornado day for Texas. It's April, it's the Great Plains...what do you expect???

This wouldn't even be a story if the outbreak was 20 miles further N-S-E or W! Nature doesn't care was it is in its way, it just does what it does, and yes, sometimes big cities are going to get hit by tornadoes...law of averages. The real issue, is that with population growth and expanding infrastructure, we as a society are always becoming more vulnerable to

the wx. Nothing or no one to blame here, that is just the way it is.

These days events that would have had low impact 50 years ago, now are high impact (Irene is a good example) simply b/c there are more "targets" so to speak.

[somethingfunny]

Yes, it could have been much worse.

This is just speculation on my part, but does it seem like most tornadoes only form where there's a rural exposure for the southerly inflow? I would never state that concrete urbanized areas could actually suppress tornadoes, but has it been thoroughly investigated? Even recent tornadoes in Irving, west Dallas, Haltom City, and downtown Fort Worth could fit this profile if you consider the wide Trinity River floodplain to be a large rural exposure south of the wall cloud.

I'm bringing this up because certain areas in DFW seem to get hit over and over - Lancaster to Forney seems like an especially popular route.

[Ian]

Well no doubt that if Dallas had been hit full on it would have been a messy situation though not as bad as an EF5. For that you only need to go down I-35 a ways and rewind to May 11, 1953 in Waco or perhaps back off to the west and May 11,1970 in Lubbock to see what an EF5 can do to a downtown area.

Steve

Sure, that's true. But "a wake up call for America" and "violent tornadoes". What was last year? These were not long-track violent tornadoes. I wonder if we get to a place where people make it through an event like this and then in the future don't take as much precaution should an EF-4/EF-5 bear down. I think people, particularly an online audience, are more eager to learn about the intricacies than getting some sensational attention grabber thrown at them, but perhaps I'm wrong there...

[Srain]

Well no doubt that if Dallas had been hit full on it would have been a messy situation though not as bad as an EF5. For that you only need to go down I-35 a ways and rewind to May 11, 1953 in Waco or perhaps back off to the west and May 11,1970 in Lubbock to see what an EF5 can do to a downtown area.

Steve

Bingo. What some fail to understand is the current situation seems to have become fodder for those with an agenda. This was not the largest tornado to ever hit a Texas downtown area, nor will it be the last, I suspect.

[somethingfunny]

• 
  Well no doubt that if Dallas had been hit full on it would have been a messy situation though not as bad as an EF5. For that you only need to go down I-35 a ways and rewind to May 11, 1953 in Waco or perhaps back off to the west and May 11,1970 in Lubbock to see what an EF5 can do to a downtown area.
  Steve
  

  
  This wouldn't even be a story if the outbreak was 20 miles further N-S-E or W! Nature doesn't care was it is in its way, it just does what it does, and yes, sometimes big cities are going to get hit by tornadoes...law of averages. The real issue, is that with population growth and expanding infrastructure, we as a society are always becoming more vulnerable to
  the wx. Nothing or no one to blame here, that is just the way it is.
  These days events that would have had low impact 50 years ago, now are high impact (Irene is a good example) simply b/c there are more "targets" so to speak.
  

The really amazing thing is that DFW doesn't get hit more often. The urbanized core, where houses and businesses are ass end to elbow with no open spaces inbetween, stretches over 70 miles east-west and 50 miles north-south.

The risk simulations run by the NWS ( http://www.nctcog.org/weather/study/ ) actually found that the when a facsimile of the 1999 Moore Oklahoma tornado was simulated through DFW in multiple locations, the worst track of all of them didn't hit downtown Dallas at all. It runs from Arlington through North Dallas and into Richardson and causes something like $5 billion in damage and presumed thousands of fatalities.

[vortex95]

BTW, do EF-4 tornadoes in Kansas cornfields exist?

Looking at prelim surveys from NWS FWD, most of the tornadoes in population areas were rated EF-2, with one EF-3, while the tornadoes over open country were rated EF-0. Maybe the conditions had changed by the time the storms were East of the Metroplex population centers, but if EF ratings are based on damage, and there are no structures, barring something extreme like EF-5 style pavement being ripped from the ground, won't most rural tornadoes be prone to receive lower EF ratings than their wind speeds would otherwise justify?

Putting it another way, Dr. Forbes on TWC showed a graphic, in the last decade, 100% of the EF-5 tornadoes have had associated fatalities. Every EF-5 tornado has hit a populated area?

I bet there are a lot more EF4 and EF5 tornadoes each year, but they simply do not hit anything at all or anything sufficiently

strong enough to give EF4 or EF5 damage ratings. Regardless of climate change, we are going to see more violent tornadoes

gradually over time as we give them more to hit with expanding infrastructure. You don't have to be a meteorologist to

connect the dots here either. Apply a little bit of logic and reasoning, and you be amazed at what you can figure out!

[vortex95]

I dunno... Fourth-largest outbreak in one part of one state doesn't really sounds like a big extreme to me. It sounds like the kind of "extreme" that occurs somewhere in the country every day.

Ok, so it's the fourth largest outbreak in North Texas. I know Texas is a big state, but as far as records go, I think

some are reaching here (not on this forum) for just something to hype and use the word "record". When you look

at outbreaks like the 2011 Superoutbreak or 5/3/99 or even a localized event like Joplin, this event pales in comparison.

We need to keep things in the proper perspective. Everything isn't "extreme" or "worst ever" or even close to that and

we should not be trying to label everything as such.

[HurricaneJosh]

Ok, so it's the fourth largest outbreak in North Texas. I know Texas is a big state, but as far as records go, I think

some are reaching here (not on this forum) for just something to hype and use the word "record". When you look

at outbreaks like the 2011 Superoutbreak or 5/3/99 or even a localized event like Joplin, this event pales in comparison.

We need to keep things in the proper perspective. Everything isn't "extreme" or "worst ever" or even close to that and

we should not be trying to label everything as such.

Yeah, that was my point. I wasn't suggesting it was an extreme, but rather, the opposite-- that it was climatologically average.

[Ian]

Ok, so it's the fourth largest outbreak in North Texas. I know Texas is a big state, but as far as records go, I think

some are reaching here (not on this forum) for just something to hype and use the word "record". When you look

at outbreaks like the 2011 Superoutbreak or 5/3/99 or even a localized event like Joplin, this event pales in comparison.

We need to keep things in the proper perspective. Everything isn't "extreme" or "worst ever" or even close to that and

we should not be trying to label everything as such.

FWIW, since I wrote that piece linked here--it was not to state it was extreme, but rather to put it in context for that specific area. It was also a 2-hour analysis and perhaps done slightly oddly, though it would have at least caught everything in the immediate DFW area. As far as outbreaks go overall it's near the bottom of the list depending on your definition -- I know Grazulis went with 6 from multiple cells, and some go higher like 10.

[vortex95]

Wasn't the detection rate for EF0/EF1 tornadoes a bit lower in 1994 than it is today?

Yes...1) There are many more spotters and storm chasers now and 2) camera in mobile devices everywhere now confirm many tornadoes to the

NWS (a pix is worth a 1000 words) that may not have been prior, 3) instant communication and social media, and 4) overall public awareness

and interest in tornadoes really took off after the movie "Twister" and has never looked back since. These are the factors, among others, you

must consider when trying to figure out if tornadoes are getting worse in absolute number and/or intensity...not an easy thing to do with so

many variables.

[Ian]

Err, I guess that was a different article. My methodology was different than theirs as I focused more closely on the immediate DFW area. On that scale, this is near the top since 1950.

[Indystorm]

I think Hurricane Josh did a good job illustrating extreme tornadic events in the examples he gave in his post listed above. I concur. I also do not think climate change can adequately be applied to mesoscale influenced processes such as tornadoes. As a layperson from what I have read of human induced climate change it would lead to greater extremes in warmth and cold, drought and precip, and more intense hurricanes though not necessarily more frequent numerically.

[Hoosier]