EquusStorm Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 A la Lane/Alpena, events like this outbreak make me really wish we had another classification scale (separate from and used as a complement to the EF scale) even a highly informal one, that we could use based entirely on radar data for these giant plains tornadoes that strike very little. Perhaps not actual ground-level data, but some form of comparison in radar data between one tornado and another, such as highest observed velocity at a certain scan height. Just the look of the motion in the more intense tornadoes on June 16, 17, and 18 makes me wonder how they compare to previous, more highly documented events.Sure, we don't have mobile radar on the ground next to tornadoes on many (or most!) occasions, but the detail of the radar data one can obtain from even the NWS radar sites boggles at least my mind. While it often seems to be a point of contention after an outbreak when some focus on the rating and others focus on the more immediate issue of the lives lost and the human toll, I think it is very important that, after the casualties and those who have lost so much are on their way to recovery, we do try to have an accurate record of tornado intensity for climatological and comparison purposes. I'd wager we have many more violent tornadoes per year in a given area than we would think, simply because well-built structures are spread extremely thinly in most places.And I realize this has been discussed so much that I'm kicking a dead horse that is so damn dead that I'm basically stubbing my toe on a skeleton. Still, dusting off this account for the first time in a year seems worth the risk of having to bandage my foot a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ground Scouring Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Considering it was almost certainly the strongest/longest lived tornado produced by that supercell and did cause significant structural damage, it seems weird that they would "avoid" surveying/rating that one when others such as the Hyde County tornado were rated. Please consider (discreetly) emailing the local NWS WFO re: the Alpena tornado. I have no idea as to why a tornado that produced legit structural damage would not be surveyed while others in the area were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted June 21, 2014 Author Share Posted June 21, 2014 Please consider (discreetly) emailing the local NWS WFO re: the Alpena tornado. I have no idea as to why a tornado that produced legit structural damage would not be surveyed while others in the area were. Probably would be more prudent to post something on their twitter if this issue is to be raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ground Scouring Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Probably would be more prudent to post something on their twitter if this issue is to be raised. After Vilonia (where EF5 structural and contextual indicators were ignored) and now this (where a potentially significant and confirmed damaging tornado is just being ignored), I think it's time for someone to raise some noise. Otherwise, I'm increasingly inclined to believe that each WFO applies the EF-Scale so differently that the current rating system is unreliable. If that is the case, it is completely unscientific to continue rating tornadoes on any scale, damage-based or otherwise. Besides, the general public places too much emphasis on EF ratings and not enough on the potential damage a tornado could cause depending on the quality/density of local construction. My personal preference, unless scientific consistency is established, is to abolish the EF-Scale and just rely on DOW/radar measurements to estimate wind speeds in tornadoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted June 21, 2014 Author Share Posted June 21, 2014 After Vilonia (where EF5 structural and contextual indicators were ignored) and now this (where a potentially significant and confirmed damaging tornado is just being ignored), I think it's time for someone to raise some noise. Otherwise, I'm increasingly inclined to believe that each WFO applies the EF-Scale so differently that the current rating system is unreliable. If that is the case, it is completely unscientific to continue rating tornadoes on any scale, damage-based or otherwise. Besides, the general public places too much emphasis on EF ratings and not enough on the potential damage a tornado could cause depending on the quality/density of local construction. My personal preference, unless scientific consistency is established, is to abolish the EF-Scale and just rely on DOW/radar measurements to estimate wind speeds in tornadoes. Except you can't do that because of the limited sample size of DOW measurements and the inaccuracies of velocity data (in addition to other factors like radar holes). Honestly, this case is just on FSD's watch, not anyone else. It has nothing to do with the EF scale itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Reimer Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 I rarely criticize NWS offices but there are a few things Sioux Falls really screwed up IMO (or at least a select few on their staff). They missed an obvious TDS with a violent couplet on the Humboldt tornado. They kept the tornado tag 'RADAR INDICATED' versus 'OBSERVED' until the final minutes of the tornado. For those not familiar with the warning tag system a 'RADAR INDICATED' tag is the basic level for tornado warnings when radar detects strong rotation. An OBSERVED tag is added when a TDS is detected (Radar Confirmed Tornado) and adds 'A CONFIRMED TORNADO...' to the warning. I'm honestly surprised a CONSIDERABLE DAMAGE tag wasn't added based on the couplet,but it did remain over a fairly rural area. I hope that is looked at in-office and discussed among the staff for future events. It isn't like the storm was in the outer range of the radar. If I recall correctly the tornado occurred within 30 miles of FSD's radar. As for not rating the tornado that produced structural damage... Are you kidding me? I've never heard of an office not going out to rate a tornado that produced structural damage. Does anyone know if this is budget related? A NWS office refuses to conduct a damage survey on a tornado that completely destroyed a home. There better be a good reason for there to be no survey. There are several great NWS offices across the country that handle severe weather like champs, but apparently FSD isn't one of them right now. Hopefully both of these issues will be resolve and can be good teaching/learning moments for future events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted June 21, 2014 Author Share Posted June 21, 2014 As for not rating the tornado that produced structural damage... Are you kidding me? I've never heard of an office not going out to rate a tornado that produced structural damage. Does anyone know if this is budget related? A NWS office refuses to conduct a damage survey on a tornado that completely destroyed a home. There better be a good reason for there to be no survey. There are several great NWS offices across the country that handle severe weather like champs, but apparently FSD isn't one of them right now. It can't be that because there were tornadoes with the supercell that produced less significant damage that were surveyed/rated (Hyde County). I see on Wikipedia (not sure the validity of the source ATTM) that the damage was cleaned up prior to surveying, but apparently there are photos of the damage before that? The damage to the trees alone could warrant an EF3 rating based on the debarking. http://www.ksfy.com/story/25833210/farm-near-alpena-completely-demolished-by-tornado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornadotony Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 As displeasing at it is to be reading all of this, it's rather uncouth to be sharing internal WFO information publicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Reimer Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 As displeasing at it is to be reading all of this, it's rather uncouth to be sharing internal WFO information publicly. Choosing not to conduct a damage survey on a significant tornado isn't something that would have remained 'internal' indefinitely. Regardless of the reason hopefully this will prove to be an example of why funding must continue for damage surveys in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ground Scouring Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Maybe WFO FSD refused to survey the Alpena tornado because it only damaged one property and the owner barred surveyors from getting an up-close view. Other than the leveled home, was any other structure reported damaged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackjack123 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I am not sure but couldn't they rate this tornado based on these pictures. I am not highly certain but it looks like it could be rated EF4 easily based on the pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunder Road Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Tony's right; I need to watch what I share. I didn't think there was anything confidential about what I said, but when I said it, it started a conversation that led to discrediting NWS FSD, which I did not intend and is not a view I hold. I have removed my posts on the matter and will ask a mod to remove quotations of my posts. Thank you for your cooperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I mean, gosh based on those damage photos I'd rather see the Alpena tornado receive an EF3 rating (though it was clearly higher) than nothing at all, even if the damage has been cleaned up or entry permission to the location denied or funds depleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 Maybe WFO FSD refused to survey the Alpena tornado because it only damaged one property and the owner barred surveyors from getting an up-close view. Other than the leveled home, was any other structure reported damaged? There was a barn that was completely destroyed in one of the videos of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 Choosing not to conduct a damage survey on a significant tornado isn't something that would have remained 'internal' indefinitely. Regardless of the reason hopefully this will prove to be an example of why funding must continue for damage surveys in the future. Will be interesting to see what happens Storm Data wise. Deliberately not surveying a potentially likely violent tornado is pretty bad. Seriously, the description of the damage in that news article is almost a no brainer high end tornado. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornadotony Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 FYI, Sioux Falls WILL perform a survey of that track. https://twitter.com/NWSSiouxFalls/status/480700140777250816 We can all unknot our britches now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ground Scouring Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 FYI, Sioux Falls WILL perform a survey of that track. https://twitter.com/NWSSiouxFalls/status/480700140777250816 We can all unknot our britches now. Actually, that's even worse, because it confirms that FSD likely had the permission by the property owner to perform an immediate on-site survey of the damage right after the tornado, but for some inexplicable reason (probably unrelated to budgeting) chose not to. FSD looks all the more worse by this latest turn of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Let's refrain from judging the WFOs. There could have been many reasons why the damage survey was not done. It's easy to point a finger or speculate, but let's try to keep this discussion to the actual events and analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornadotony Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Actually, that's even worse, because it confirms that FSD likely had the permission by the property owner to perform an immediate on-site survey of the damage right after the tornado, but for some inexplicable reason (probably unrelated to budgeting) chose not to. FSD looks all the more worse by this latest turn of events. I would assume it's likely moreso do to the widespread severe thunderstorms they've had in their CWA almost every day since the tornado. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ground Scouring Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I would assume it's likely moreso do to the widespread severe thunderstorms they've had in their CWA almost every day since the tornado. That doesn't really explain why other tornadoes in their CWA were surveyed, but I'll stop there. I don't want to keep opening this can of worms publicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornadotony Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 That doesn't really explain why other tornadoes in their CWA were surveyed, but I'll stop there. I don't want to keep opening this can of worms publicly. Yes it does. They gave Wessington Springs priority because it was a town. All the other tornadoes surveyed were in Aberdeen's CWA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ground Scouring Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Yes it does. They gave Wessington Springs priority because it was a town. All the other tornadoes surveyed were in Aberdeen's CWA. Ah, that makes a bit more sense. I still have misgivings, but that explanation--a combination of logistics and severe thunderstorms--plausibly explains the lack of an initial survey for the Alpena event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornadotony Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Ah, that makes a bit more sense. I still have misgivings, but that explanation--a combination of logistics and severe thunderstorms--plausibly explains the lack of an initial survey for the Alpena event. The hiring process since the freeze was lifted has been very slow, so many offices are still short-staffed to begin with. You gotta remember that it's summer, too...people schedule vacations and time off, and that thins the staff even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 Actually, that's even worse, because it confirms that FSD likely had the permission by the property owner to perform an immediate on-site survey of the damage right after the tornado, but for some inexplicable reason (probably unrelated to budgeting) chose not to. FSD looks all the more worse by this latest turn of events. Any survey is better than no survey, end of story. Also, looking at damage assessment toolkit, max windspeed along the track appears to be 191 mph, so high end EF4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornadotony Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Any survey is better than no survey, end of story. It's still less than a week out from the tornado. I guarantee you there will be plenty of evidence left out there. With the house, the foundation is really the most important part of the damage to survey, and I highly doubt that's been removed. I've surveyed two much smaller tornadoes much later after the fact this year (an EF1 10 days after April 28th and an EF1 8 days after June 5th) and was still able to get a clear picture of what happened. If something's cleaned up, then you talk to survivors, dig up news stories, and use Google Earth to fill in the rest of the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 If something's cleaned up, then you talk to survivors, dig up news stories, and use Google Earth to fill in the rest of the picture. This, I feel like some people forget that there is more than one way to develop a picture of what happened. That home that was swept away near Coleridge still has the 200 mph estimate on it, so we'll see what happens there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MnWeatherman Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I was about a half mile away from the Alpena, SD tornado and I could hear "the roar". No doubt in my mind this was EF3+. Regarding FSD, I called in a brief tornado on June 5th and they did nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 I was about a half mile away from the Alpena, SD tornado and I could hear "the roar". No doubt in my mind this was EF3+. Regarding FSD, I called in a brief tornado on June 5th and they did nothing. Care to specify where this was? http://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/archive/event.php?date=20140605 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MnWeatherman Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Care to specify where this was? http://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/archive/event.php?date=20140605 It was 5 miles south of Chandler, MN, which is not listed on SPC. The other two cells that day did have tor warnings with reports. They never issued a warning for this cell. The image was heavily edited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 It was 5 miles south of Chandler, MN, which is not listed on SPC. The other two cells that day did have tor warnings with reports. They never issued a warning for this cell. The image was heavily edited. Are you sure that's even a tornado? It could be a rain curtain near the wall cloud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.