Moore, OK Tornado 5/20/2013

[AtticaFanatica]

There were a ton of groups out, but they were all farther south. One group got data, but from a distance.

 

 

 

To that point: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/opinion/wurman-tornado-prediction/index.html?hpt=op_t1

[Thunder Road]

Is there any way, without data from a DOW, to prove that there were winds higher than 220 mph?  In other words, the damage survey estimates 220 mph wind, but would a damage survey alone of 5/3/99 be able to indicate 318 mph?

 

My point is that it might be that 5/20/13 was not really 100 mph weaker than 5/3/99, but that there's no way to prove it.  Is that a valid assumption?

[SluggerWx]

 

 

 

 

To that point: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/opinion/wurman-tornado-prediction/index.html?hpt=op_t1

 

So Wurman calls out that he feels they got it relatively 'wrong' when he says:

"And on Monday, my team and several other teams of really smart scientists with mobile radars and other equipment independently concluded -- incorrectly -- that southern Oklahoma, about 50 miles south of Moore, was at the highest risk of strong tornadoes. We all missed the opportunity to collect data in the Moore tornado."

 

So that's pretty noble of him to come out and say - though I think we'd all agree they were the 'best' at being incorrect (meaning, it's not like anyone knows more than these guys), but there's just still a lot to learn.

 

Actually, he just flat out says it here: " But, as our missed forecasts for Moore show, we have a long way to go."

 

I'm glad he's not writing this article stating - "we did the best we can do" and "these things happen."  I've heard that a lot on here in the past few days.

 

Kudos to Josh for staying committed to excellence and measuring results not intention or effort.

[AtticaFanatica]

Is there any way, without data from a DOW, to prove that there were winds higher than 220 mph?

In situ observations would be the only other way other than remote sensing, but there also were no probe teams on the storm that I am aware of.

 

In other words, the damage survey estimates 220 mph wind, but would a damage survey alone of 5/3/99 be able to indicate 318 mph?

No.

 

My point is that it might be that 5/20/13 was not really 100 mph weaker than 5/3/99, but that there's no way to prove it.  Is that a valid assumption?

You are 100% correct. Which is why the endless comparisons between violent tornadoes is basically speculative entertainment.

Also not forgetting that radars are wind estimators themselves (though I'd argue pretty good ones), given the distribution of radial velocities in the radar's resolution volume and that observations are rarely below 100 m above the ground.

[bluewave]

Not sure exactly how you would figure the odds for that out, however I would think they would be pretty high considering EF-5 tornadoes are rare and there is a lot of real estate for a tornado to track through without hitting the exact same location. 

 

I mean, you're talking 1-1.5 miles wide for a wedge EF-5 tornado. That's pretty tiny when compared to all the land out there. 

 

This older paper tries to address the return period for EF4 or greater tornadoes at different locations.

But it highlights the challenges of getting a true measure of frequency due to an incomplete picture

of past tornadoes.

 

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/papers/meyeretal.pdf

 

 

An important, albeit almost impossi- ble to answer question, is how well the assumed distribtions fit reality. This is made more difficult than for some other problems of this nature by the changes that have occurred over time to the obser- vations, such as the apparent increase in reported width of F4 tornadoes since 1981. We know that the reports do not correspond exactly to meteoro- logical “truth”, but the relationship is almost impos- sible to determine and, unfortunately, it is likely to be different in different locations for a variety of reasons, such as population density (e.g., Doswell and Burgess 1988, King 1997).

In addition, the assumption that the most of the parameters are constant across the United States, there is the possibility that real, small-scale fea- tures in the climatology are being ignored. Since the statistical model looks over the entire United States and not over smaller sections at a time, there might be spatial variability that is missed. The model also holds everything constant (path length, path width, F-scale, number of tornadoes) across the entire United States except for the prob- ability of a tornado occurring. So, given a location where a tornado is occurring, all of the other infor- mation about the event at hand is then drawn from general statistics. While this is reliable and does give a smooth graph, there are certain features specific to regions of the United States that might not be seen.

[isohume]

The half hour or so lead time was just about perfect. You don't want a lead time around an hour (warn on forecast), at least not now. Currently, many folks do not respond well enough, or in the wrong way, to an imminent threat. If there was more time to wait for a storm that may not directly affect them, they would become even more complacent and take little if any action in the future.

The next generations will need to be trained from early on, such as in elementary school, what to do and what to expect from a svr/tor warning. They need to learn to just react every time and not care if the threat pans out or not. They need to know the scientific limitations of severe warnings, as well as the consequences of not taking action.

[AtticaFanatica]

The half hour or so lead time was just about perfect. You don't want a lead time around an hour (warn on forecast), at least not now. Currently, many folks do not respond well enough, or in the wrong way, to an imminent threat. If there was more time to wait for a storm that may not directly affect them, they would become even more complacent and take little if any action in the future.

I know someone here who did a pretty big scientific survey (not sure if it's published yet) where people were asked for their optimal tornado warning lead time. I think the median answer was somewhere in the 30-40 minute range.

[SluggerWx]

I really think all the automobiles around these populated areas significantly changes the entire ball game.

 

With EF-3 or greater strength, a car becomes a 2-ton artillery round. If it lands in front of the tornado's path, the structural integrity of a 'once sturdy' dwelling now becomes irrelevant.

 

Now, with Tuscaloosa automobile impact may have been hindered because average tree height is pretty big, with pretty tall pines 75ft+. (some of the pines might shatter or splinter, but some may actually stop the flying car)

 

But, in Joplin and Moore, it appears that tree height is lower. And in that case, shorter trees with a wider branch base might just rip the tree right out of the ground (when hit by a flying car). So then, you've got two pretty solid projectiles.

 

This is unrealistic, but...

 

If cars were required to be anchored by chain/chassis to ground anchor, there would be less 2-ton artillery rounds that could be added to the debris field and/or destroy structural integrity of dwellings that may otherwise survive.

[OUGrad05]

So Wurman calls out that he feels they got it relatively 'wrong' when he says:

"And on Monday, my team and several other teams of really smart scientists with mobile radars and other equipment independently concluded -- incorrectly -- that southern Oklahoma, about 50 miles south of Moore, was at the highest risk of strong tornadoes. We all missed the opportunity to collect data in the Moore tornado."

 

So that's pretty noble of him to come out and say - though I think we'd all agree they were the 'best' at being incorrect (meaning, it's not like anyone knows more than these guys), but there's just still a lot to learn.

 

Actually, he just flat out says it here: " But, as our missed forecasts for Moore show, we have a long way to go."

 

I'm glad he's not writing this article stating - "we did the best we can do" and "these things happen."  I've heard that a lot on here in the past few days.

 

Kudos to Josh for staying committed to excellence and measuring results not intention or effort.

 

Yeah but I think from reading your other posts you're expecting and wanting the impossible, at least impossible for the next few years.  I think SPC did a superb job with the forecast and risk assessment (I've been critical of them in the past).  The implication that SPC or others aren't committed is just flat wrong IMO.  The reality is these systems have a TON of moving parts that guys like you and I who aren't properly educated in the field will never fully understand no matter how much informal education we may possess.  To expect hours of warning or other such predictions simply isn't realistic.

 

Is there any way, without data from a DOW, to prove that there were winds higher than 220 mph?  In other words, the damage survey estimates 220 mph wind, but would a damage survey alone of 5/3/99 be able to indicate 318 mph?

 

My point is that it might be that 5/20/13 was not really 100 mph weaker than 5/3/99, but that there's no way to prove it.  Is that a valid assumption?

 

If for example a given group of homes have their slabs wiped clean at 220mph, is there a difference at 320mph? no probably not...perhaps ground swirl patterns, additional damage to roads, removal of grass etc is the best indicator?  But we've seen several tornadoes with ground scouring that were far less than the 318mph winds from 1999...

So yeah I think you're dead on with your assertion above.  Without doppler data it's hard to know exactly how strong the wind speeds were.  If some folks have some great HD video it may be possible using a computer to track some inner parcels of debris within the condensation funnel to get a better estimate.  However, my guess is we're a week or two out from any such analysis being made public assuming its already under way....

 

 

[SluggerWx]

I would never imply SPC/other mets were not committed, I just tried to argue they wouldn't call their own performance spot on.

They are the best, and they are committed to continual improvement and understanding.

If anything I've stated was interpreted otherwise, I poorly communicated my thoughts and apologize for that.

There is much to still learn before anyone can deliver a spot on forecast, but we are heading in the right direction.

[Mallow]

I would never imply SPC/other mets were not committed, I just tried to argue they wouldn't call their own performance spot on. They are the best, and they are committed to continual improvement and understanding. If anything I've stated was interpreted otherwise, I poorly communicated my thoughts and apologize for that. There is much to still learn before anyone can deliver a spot on forecast, but we are heading in the right direction.

 

The way I interpreted some of your initial posts on the matter was that we as a research community are being somehow lazy and not actually putting effort into researching the things that make a storm tick. Of course, that couldn't be further from the truth.

[L.B. LaForce]

I'll try and get my pics and video up either tonight or tomorrow. This was my first (and hopefully) last EF5 I have seen. My friend Ben Holcomb and his friend Jari from Finland (who has been coming to the US every year  for the past 3 years for a week or so to chase finally got his first tornado) have footage of the 7-Eleven as they drove past it while chasing the monster. They took pictures of what was left of the 7-Eleven and upon reviewing their footage realized they had video of it before it go destroyed. I believe he has a photo of a before and after shot on his facebook page. Apparently the gas station was brand new.

[CUmet]

So Wurman calls out that he feels they got it relatively 'wrong' when he says:

"And on Monday, my team and several other teams of really smart scientists with mobile radars and other equipment independently concluded -- incorrectly -- that southern Oklahoma, about 50 miles south of Moore, was at the highest risk of strong tornadoes. We all missed the opportunity to collect data in the Moore tornado."

 

So that's pretty noble of him to come out and say - though I think we'd all agree they were the 'best' at being incorrect (meaning, it's not like anyone knows more than these guys), but there's just still a lot to learn.

 

Actually, he just flat out says it here: " But, as our missed forecasts for Moore show, we have a long way to go."

 

I'm glad he's not writing this article stating - "we did the best we can do" and "these things happen."  I've heard that a lot on here in the past few days.

 

Kudos to Josh for staying committed to excellence and measuring results not intention or effort.

 

I think everyone who makes the statement "we did the best we can do" in the context of such weather disasters means that: we did the best we could given the information and predictive tools we had available at the time the forecasts was made.  That does NOT read as "it's impossible/not worthwhile to improve prediction", and is not inconsistent with the comments that Dr. Wurman made in that piece.

[SluggerWx]

I would never imply SPC/other mets were not committed, I just tried to argue they wouldn't call their own performance spot on. They are the best, and they are committed to continual improvement and understanding. If anything I've stated was interpreted otherwise, I poorly communicated my thoughts and apologize for that. There is much to still learn before anyone can deliver a spot on forecast, but we are heading in the right direction.

The way I interpreted some of your initial posts on the matter was that we as a research community are being somehow lazy and not actually putting effort into researching the things that make a storm tick. Of course, that couldn't be further from the truth.

No way. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[JoMo]

Anyone watch ABC News tonight? The teacher with the camera inside the school as it was happening? That was scary, especially the raw reaction as they came out of the bathroom and saw everything.

[gkrangers]

There were a ton of groups out, but they were all farther south. One group got data, but from a distance.

So nothing from the funnel?

[LocoAko]

The way I interpreted some of your initial posts on the matter was that we as a research community are being somehow lazy and not actually putting effort into researching the things that make a storm tick. Of course, that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

That's kind of how I interpreted it, too. Apology accepted. 

[SluggerWx]

So Wurman calls out that he feels they got it relatively 'wrong' when he says:

"And on Monday, my team and several other teams of really smart scientists with mobile radars and other equipment independently concluded -- incorrectly -- that southern Oklahoma, about 50 miles south of Moore, was at the highest risk of strong tornadoes. We all missed the opportunity to collect data in the Moore tornado."

 

So that's pretty noble of him to come out and say - though I think we'd all agree they were the 'best' at being incorrect (meaning, it's not like anyone knows more than these guys), but there's just still a lot to learn.

 

Actually, he just flat out says it here: " But, as our missed forecasts for Moore show, we have a long way to go."

 

I'm glad he's not writing this article stating - "we did the best we can do" and "these things happen."  I've heard that a lot on here in the past few days.

 

Kudos to Josh for staying committed to excellence and measuring results not intention or effort.

 

I think everyone who makes the statement "we did the best we can do" in the context of such weather disasters means that: we did the best we could given the information and predictive tools we had available at the time the forecasts was made.  That does NOT read as "it's impossible/not worthwhile to improve prediction", and is not inconsistent with the comments that Dr. Wurman made in that piece.

I agree with that.

[LocoAko]

Won't be able to get up to do ground work until this weekend, but had a few friends head up there today. This was just a portion of the people walking over I-35 into Moore to help with the clean-up.

 

 

Also, the husband of a friend of mine heard barking a few piles down and managed to undig this little guy out. Definitely great news especially 2 days later!

 

[JoMo]

That's awesome news to hear, LocoAko. I like the pic of everyone going to help as well. It's a very 'togetherness' feeling and it's a great feeling.

 

In a few weeks, you're probably going to find these "Stars of Hope" that were painted in Joplin today in parts of Moore.

 

[NavarreDon]

Saw this on one of the networks yesterday. Big props to the West Virginia Baseball team! As they were collecting, people where giving them money & cheering. The GM for the Arizona Diamondbacks is a alum & when he got wind of it he pledged a couple hundred thousand for relief asst. Not sure if this is correct but my understanding is the money the team used is from a alumni fund they use for bats, gloves, & other equipment.

 

http://www.pistolsfiringblog.com/west-virginia-baseball-team-helps-moore

[LocoAko]

http://google.org/crisismap/2013-oklahoma-tornado?hl=en&llbox=35.324705%2C35.318166%2C-97.513319%2C-97.527192&t=CUSTOM&layers=9%2C7%2C11%2C8%2Clayer2%2Clayer11%2C10%3A100

 

Google has set up before/after aerial comparisons now. 

[MN Transplant]

http://google.org/crisismap/2013-oklahoma-tornado?hl=en&llbox=35.324705%2C35.318166%2C-97.513319%2C-97.527192&t=CUSTOM&layers=9%2C7%2C11%2C8%2Clayer2%2Clayer11%2C10%3A100

 

Google has set up before/after aerial comparisons now. 

 

Very interesting to see how much the damage path widened after it hit Briarwood Elementary.

[yoda]

Anyone watch ABC News tonight? The teacher with the camera inside the school as it was happening? That was scary, especially the raw reaction as they came out of the bathroom and saw everything.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-tornado-teacher-storm-whipped-school-records-moment/story?id=19239454#.UZ4ZS65ECVo

 

Very creepky... and with the children screaming in the background

[needbiggerboat]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-tornado-teacher-storm-whipped-school-records-moment/story?id=19239454#.UZ4ZS65ECVo

 

Very creepky... and with the children screaming in the background

 

Total devastation, brought to you by Proctor and Gamble.  Sometimes, ads can wait for the next vid.

[DaculaWeather]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-tornado-teacher-storm-whipped-school-records-moment/story?id=19239454#.UZ4ZS65ECVo

 

Very creepky... and with the children screaming in the background

I had to stop watching when I heard that. Heartbreaking, it will bring tears to your eyes.

[griteater]

Close up video from opening in storm shelter.  One thing that stands out is how slow the tornado is moving.

 

 

[Mallow]

http://google.org/crisismap/2013-oklahoma-tornado?hl=en&llbox=35.324705%2C35.318166%2C-97.513319%2C-97.527192&t=CUSTOM&layers=9%2C7%2C11%2C8%2Clayer2%2Clayer11%2C10%3A100

 

Google has set up before/after aerial comparisons now. 

 

Interesting... a very sharp northward turn just before the interstate, then back east around the hospital. A lot of really lucky houses in that development just west of the interstate. And some very unlucky houses just west of the hospital, where it initially would have appeared the tornado was going to miss just south.

 

Also, there's a trailer park JUST south of the track (right before it bends northward)... there would have been nothing but bare ground there.

[klw]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-tornado-teacher-storm-whipped-school-records-moment/story?id=19239454#.UZ4ZS65ECVo

 

Very creepky... and with the children screaming in the background

I must question why the teacher was filming during this time.  Especially during the portion in the hallway while others are moving around and helping, the camera person was filming and moving the camera around.  Just struck me as an odd thing to be doing.

[blizznd]

Earlier in the thread there was talk about having a tornado shelter in school....

 

I read this the other day here locally (ND/MN).    In 2010 Wadena MN middle-high school was hit with an EF-4 tornado.  Its new 38 million dollar middle-high school for 700 kids was completed in 2012 and contains a tornado shelter with space for 1200.   Most of the money to build it 1.2 milion came with a grant from FEMA.  The shelter was built to withstand an EF-5 tornado and the roof of the school was designed to withstand winds of 250 mph.

 

http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/80720/