Moore, OK Tornado 5/20/2013

[PennyForYourThoughts]

CNN reporting confirmation of 40 more deaths...bringing total to 91.    I was hoping against hope that wouldn't happen.   So very very sad. 

[SluggerWx]

The first part I agree with. 

 

The last, anything but. The watch probabilities perfectly outlined the risk. The media and the forecast offices highlighted that it could happen. Once again, you can't artificially bump up your probabilities simply to scare people. This day very well could have produced nothing but minor tornadoes. Also, having an eroded cap speaks to the thunderstorm risk, but speaks very little to the other parameters for a tornado risk.

You said it differently and I agree with you - I communicated that point incorrectly and it was not my intention.

 

I guess I meant to state in my post that the suggestion of probabilities RE: EF-5 tornadoes are irrelevant to me.

 

What I was trying to say is that there needs to be a way publicly communicate a message that resonates with the public, quicker, what the 'verified' 20% of that watch probability means - it means catastrophic, life-changing damage.

 

It means the President will probably come visit your city, it will take at least 12-24 months to rebuild.

 

And I meant to communicate that we have to strive to become better public communicators than putting a 20% number out there and saying - there was a 20% chance it would happen.

 

A 20% chance to 95% of people means - I've got a great shot.

 

I'd rather the watch probabilities say:

Probability YOU will be impacted by EF-2 or lower storms: 98%

Probability YOUR home will be destroyed, there will be casualties and life will be changed forever: 2%

 

Or more simply:

Probability no lives will be lost within 50 miles of your area: 98%

Probability of loss of life within 50 miles of your area: 2%

[Shawn]

I believe this is the development of the Moore twister:

 

[wxsniss]

I'm going to admit that I thought today would be more focused along the Red River Valley, especially with some of the WRFs that performed excellently on Sunday keying in on that area.

 

That said, when I (and I'm sure others) saw that supercell developing around Bridge Creek, it looked so eerily similar to the big storms on Sunday when it was developing that it just had that look of trouble from the beginning.

 

You're not alone. I anticipated and most here expressed focusing on tail-end Charlies today around the Red River area where cells were expected to be more discrete than cells near / north of OKC.

[yoda]

CNN reporting confirmation of 40 more deaths...bringing total to 91.    I was hoping against hope that wouldn't happen.   So very very sad. 

 

Yup, just heard 91 and they are still expecting more... very sad

[Coach McGuirk]

I believe this is the development of the Moore twister:

 

looks like it.

[SluggerWx]

The NWS/SPC made the best decisions it could today. It's impossible to predict beyond minutes whether a metro area will be affected by a devastating tornado when certain parameters are in place over several states. That's the risk of living in Tornado Alley-metro areas like in the Northeast can fairly accurately be predicted several days in advance for events such as Nor'easters, blizzards, etc. Even Sandy was known a threat for us 5 days out. I wouldn't envy a Plains forecaster on a day like today. It's pretty much like playing Russian Roulette.

I disagree with the potential of our collective capability.

 

I'd imagine the NWS/SPC would disagree with you as there's probably nobody more hurt/disappointed when there's wide-scale loss of life/destruction from a tornadic storm - and I do imagine they feel some responsibility. 

 

I don't think these guys will come into work tomorrow and say 'we did the best we could yesterday.'

 

While their research/risk-outlines/watches/warnings provided directionally the right forecast, not even the best mets on this board could have told you at 8 AM this morning that there would DEFINITELY BE A LOSS OF LIFE AND PROPERTY - WITHOUT QUESTION.

 

I cannot live with saying it's 'impossible' to predict, and I don't think the folks at the NWS/SPC can either.

 

That's not to say they are at fault, but I certainly do not think they share your opinion that it's 'impossible' to predict.

 

That's why they come into work every day - make a forecast, analyze the results, and then apply learning to improve future forecasts until you can deliver a 99.9999% accurate forecast - all in the spirit of protecting public life and property.

[Shawn]

Bowling Alley (I think?)

[Shawn]

Did I just hear TWC wrong or did they say 70 children and like 140 confirmed dead?  Hopefully I heard something incorrectly.

[Thrasher Fan]

Bowling Alley (I think?)

Confirmed.

[SluggerWx]

This discussion is honestly going into a topic (warning lead times, etc.) that I seriously do not believe warrants this much attention for this particular event. EF4/EF5 tornadoes hitting populated areas, by their definition, do catastrophic damage. This was no exception. 

Baro, I agree, but why do they impact populated areas?

 

Why aren't there EF-5 tornadoes in cornfields or open fields?

[Disc]

Baro, I agree, but why do they impact populated areas?

Why aren't there EF-5 tornadoes in cornfields or open fields?

There's nothing to be damaged, thus the actual strength is never usually known.

[tornadotony]

Unfortunately I'm too young to remember 5/3/1999, but a prof I had this semester said that that day was also a somewhat ambiguous set-up, and not a major tornado-producing day.  Seems like today was very similar, no?  Although it sounds like SPC handled it better this time around.  I think the prof said that the morning outlook on 5/3/1999 was only a SLGT?

You definitely misheard.  I'm 100% positive he meant to say it wasn't apparent that morning that it would be a big tornado day,not that it wasn't a big tornado day.

[Coach McGuirk]

Baro, I agree, but why do they impact populated areas?

 

Why aren't there EF-5 tornadoes in cornfields or open fields?

They give away too easily to tell. 

[iowahawkeyedave]

Baro, I agree, but why do they impact populated areas?

 

Why aren't there EF-5 tornadoes in cornfields or open fields?

 

I've heard this asked before, if I recall correctly the answer given is that you can't tell if a tornado is an EF-5 by looking at damage to a field.  It has to impact a structure for a better estimate of strength.  It doesn't take 200+ mph winds to knock over a stalk of corn.

[jm1220]

I disagree with the potential of our collective capability.

 

I'd imagine the NWS/SPC would disagree with you as there's probably nobody more hurt/disappointed when there's wide-scale loss of life/destruction from a tornadic storm - and I do imagine they feel someone responsible. 

 

I don't think these guys will come into work tomorrow and say 'we did the best we could yesterday.'

 

While their research/risk-outlines/watches/warnings provided directionally the right forecast, not even the best mets on this board could have told you at 8 AM this morning that there would DEFINITELY BE A LOSS OF LIFE AND PROPERTY - WITHOUT QUESTION.

 

I cannot live with saying it's 'impossible' to predict, and I don't think the folks at the NWS/SPC can either.

 

That's not to say they are at fault, but I certainly do not think they share your opinion that it's 'impossible' to predict.

 

That's why they come into work every day - make a forecast, analyze the results, and then apply learning to improve future forecasts until you can deliver a 99.9999% accurate forecast - all in the spirit of protecting public life and property.

I'm just saying the kind of losses we usually have up in our regions are on a very macro scale,and not limited to a neighborhood, city, etc. I just don't think the NWS/SPC should have much to be ashamed about given the same conditions for tornadic activity was present over a huge area, over KS, OK, TX, MO, AR. This could just as easily hit Wichita, or Dallas, or Joplin, or anywhere in the affected area. Tornadoes are on a minutes-warning scale, not more.

[weatherwiz]

I disagree with the potential of our collective capability.

 

I'd imagine the NWS/SPC would disagree with you as there's probably nobody more hurt/disappointed when there's wide-scale loss of life/destruction from a tornadic storm - and I do imagine they feel someone responsible. 

 

I don't think these guys will come into work tomorrow and say 'we did the best we could yesterday.'

 

While their research/risk-outlines/watches/warnings provided directionally the right forecast, not even the best mets on this board could have told you at 8 AM this morning that there would DEFINITELY BE A LOSS OF LIFE AND PROPERTY - WITHOUT QUESTION.

 

I cannot live with saying it's 'impossible' to predict, and I don't think the folks at the NWS/SPC can either.

 

That's not to say they are at fault, but I certainly do not think they share your opinion that it's 'impossible' to predict.

 

That's why they come into work every day - make a forecast, analyze the results, and then apply learning to improve future forecasts until you can deliver a 99.9999% accurate forecast - all in the spirit of protecting public life and property.

 

While forecasting capabilities have vastly increased over the years, and overall forecasts of tornadoes are pretty damn solid, in the end tornadoes occur on such a microscale level of meteorology that we just don't have enough to still predict exactly where a tornado will occur until it's really now-cast time...even then how you you really say this supercell will produce this while this supercell won't produce this?  

 

Anytime you are forecasting a threat for severe weather/tornadoes, I think it's implied that the potential for loss of life or destruction of property is a possibility.  The chances of a major/violent tornado hitting a highly populated metro area is also not relatively common, when you take into account how many tornadoes we see each year.  

 

I'm sure there are many who feel like one day we can predict these things much better and can perhaps highlight a more localized area where potential may be vastly increased but we will need much improved computer technology which has very high resolutions, and we will need further understanding of supercells and understand why one does this and not that.

 

All in all the forecasts leading up to today were great...the potential was highlighted and the awareness was there.  Wording in the MD's/convective outlooks/forecasts all highlighted the potential for strong/violent tornadoes.  The lead time in the warning was 30 minutes...that's tremendous.  In the end, when you have such violent storms, sometimes there is just nothing you can do b/c what happens is sometimes out of our hands.  

[Stebo]

Baro, I agree, but why do they impact populated areas?

 

Why aren't there EF-5 tornadoes in cornfields or open fields?

 

There are EF-5 equivalent tornadoes in wind speed that occur in open fields but because they hit nothing of significance they end up with a EF-0.

[andyhb]

Baro, I agree, but why do they impact populated areas?

 

Why aren't there EF-5 tornadoes in cornfields or open fields?

 

Well yes usually these tornadoes never hit anything to allow them to be classified as such.

 

However, tell that to the Plainfield, IL tornado in 1990...

[Hoosier]

CNN reporting confirmation of 40 more deaths...bringing total to 91.    I was hoping against hope that wouldn't happen.   So very very sad. 

 

 

 

This tornado unfortunately appears to be on the verge of joining an exclusive club...a bad one.  I made this graphic after the Joplin tornado when looking at the deadliest tornadoes in the US.  These are the 15 that have been recognized as producing 100 or more fatalities.  Pre 1950 info comes from Grazulis.  Some attempt was made to draw paths as accurately as possible but they are approximate. 

 

 

 

[weatherwiz]

Let's remember the EF-scale is a scale used based on the severity of the damage with the wind speeds for each rating an estimation based off of research/studying.  If a tornado goes through a field and does no damage, there really is no way to determine it's strength.  However, if you happen to have wind measuring equipment in close proximity to the tornado, then you can have an idea of it's strength,

[jm1220]

There are EF-5 equivalent tornadoes in wind speed that occur in open fields but because they hit nothing of significance they end up with a EF-0.

So out of every reported tornado out there, or not reported on some open corn field, how frequent are the really destructive, EF4 or EF5's?

[SharonA]

And I meant to communicate that we have to strive to become better public communicators than putting a 20% number out there and saying - there was a 20% chance it would happen.

 

A 20% chance to 95% of people means - I've got a great shot.

 

I'd rather the watch probabilities say:

Probability YOU will be impacted by EF-2 or lower storms: 98%

Probability YOUR home will be destroyed, there will be casualties and life will be changed forever: 2%

 

Or more simply:

Probability no lives will be lost within 50 miles of your area: 98%

Probability of loss of life within 50 miles of your area: 2%

 

The current 20% number does not mean there's a 20% chance it will happen.

 

It means there's a 20% chance of that event happening within N miles of any point inside that risk area.

[weatherwiz]

The current 20% number does not mean there's a 20% chance it will happen.

 

It means there's a 20% chance of that event happening within N miles of any point inside that risk area.

 

This is correct...so when you're talking about a 20% chance of a strong/violent tornado say within 50 miles of a point...that's some hefty odds right there.  

[Shawn]

So out of every reported tornado out there, or not reported on some open corn field, how frequent are the really destructive, EF4 or EF5's?

 

I don't think it can be judged since I'm sure there have been many that have been missed.  In populated areas they were rare, but with the USA population and devopement blowing up still, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more of this in the following years.

[Ensō]

So out of every reported tornado out there, or not reported on some open corn field, how frequent are the really destructive, EF4 or EF5's?

 

That's a good question that I don't think anyone can answer accurately. All we can really do is speculate, but I think we can assume there are considerably more than we actually record.

[Stebo]

So out of every reported tornado out there, or not reported on some open corn field, how frequent are the really destructive, EF4 or EF5's?

 

The same ratio of those that hit stuff, I believe it is less than 5% of the 2 combined. Maybe negligibly higher but not my much.

[Thrasher Fan]

For those who are going to stay here on into the night, I would let you know that news9 will be streaming during the overnight hours and into sun up.

 

http://www.news9.com/category/258217/weather-control-center

 

 

I'm out for the night. Prayers to everyone involved on such a tragic weather day.

[SluggerWx]

While forecasting capabilities have vastly increased over the years, and overall forecasts of tornadoes are pretty damn solid, in the end tornadoes occur on such a microscale level of meteorology that we just don't have enough to still predict exactly where a tornado will occur until it's really now-cast time...even then how you you really say this supercell will produce this while this supercell won't produce this?  

 

Anytime you are forecasting a threat for severe weather/tornadoes, I think it's implied that the potential for loss of life or destruction of property is a possibility.  The chances of a major/violent tornado hitting a highly populated metro area is also not relatively common, when you take into account how many tornadoes we see each year.  

 

I'm sure there are many who feel like one day we can predict these things much better and can perhaps highlight a more localized area where potential may be vastly increased but we will need much improved computer technology which has very high resolutions, and we will need further understanding of supercells and understand why one does this and not that.

 

All in all the forecasts leading up to today were great...the potential was highlighted and the awareness was there.  Wording in the MD's/convective outlooks/forecasts all highlighted the potential for strong/violent tornadoes.  The lead time in the warning was 30 minutes...that's tremendous.  In the end, when you have such violent storms, sometimes there is just nothing you can do b/c what happens is sometimes out of our hands.  

I agree with everything you've said here.

 

I just feel there is some link we have not yet identified or we currently do not understand that explains why one tornado is an EF-3 tornado and one tornado is an EF-5 tornado.

 

We're getting closer in that we have leading indicators that some may be stronger than others (as opposed to there just might be an increased risk for an increased quantity of 'x' intensity tornado).

 

I started thinking about the vortex interaction with our electric grid after seeing Andy G's footage from the very beginning/formation of the Philadelphia MS, EF-5. That storm destroyed a power line and it produced a power flash right in front of him - just as the storm formed.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that we do not have a good explanation for rapid intensification (which I believe is the link to strong/violent tornadoes).

 

I do not believe RI is entirely independent of factors on the ground (soil composition, debris field composition, soil moisture). 

 

We've come so far in forecasting - I just wish there was some way for this group to crowd analyze/hypothesize and diagnose rapid intensification.

 

If we find that ground factors that contribute to rapid intensification, maybe we could learn/alter some of the ground factors to help more closely predict when RI was more likely to occur.

[Thunder Road]

You definitely misheard.  I'm 100% positive he meant to say it wasn't apparent that morning that it would be a big tornado day,not that it wasn't a big tornado day.

 

Yeah that sounds more right, come to think of it.  And it concurs with what all the others have said.