MnWeatherman Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Are you sure that's even a tornado? It could be a rain curtain near the wall cloud. Yes. I was watching it the entire time, it was rotating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann 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. And the flooding, I bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Storm Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Pilger tor footage from Randy Hicks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted June 24, 2014 Author Share Posted June 24, 2014 Pilger tor footage from Randy Hicks... "Nobody's got the balls we do" ugh The dialogue in that is just bad. Also whoever is with him has been smoking way too many cigarettes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brettjrob Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Now that's entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwburbschaser Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 That is good ol' boy chasing right there. Interesting to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted June 24, 2014 Author Share Posted June 24, 2014 Looks like Wessington Springs is getting an upgrade to EF3 based on the damage assessment toolkit. Nvm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted June 24, 2014 Author Share Posted June 24, 2014 Alpena's an EF4 per damage assessment toolkit as well. If Coleridge happens to get upgraded, it would be the second straight year with a three consecutive violent tornado day span (Rozel, Shawnee and Moore on 5/18-20 last year). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonbo Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Coleridge has been left as a strong EF3. http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=OAX&product=PNS&issuedby=OAX&glossary=1&format=txt COLERIDGE TORNADO #2... RATING: EF-3 PATH LENGTH /STATUTE/: 8.24 MILES PATH WIDTH /MAXIMUM/: 1.17 MILES FATALITIES: 0 INJURIES: 0 START DATE: JUNE 17, 2014 START TIME: 809 PM CDT START LOCATION: 3.42 NORTHWEST OF COLERIDGE END DATE: JUNE 17, 2014 END TIME: 855 PM CDT END LOCATION: 1.93 MILES NORTHEAST OF COLERIDGE THIS WAS THE STRONGEST OF THE TORNADOES THAT THE CEDAR COUNTY SUPERCELL PRODUCED. THIS TORNAOD DEVELOPED TO THE NORTHWEST OF COLERIDGE AND MOVED SLOWLY EAST SOUTHEAST JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE CITY OF COLERDIGE. AS THE TORNADO NEARED 567TH AVE THE TORANDO TURNED TO THE SOUTH ALONG THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE CITY PRODUCING SOME SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL DAMAGE ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF COLERIDGE. THE TORNADO CONTINUED SOUTH UNTIL NEARING 874TH ROAD WHERE THE FOWARD SPEED FURTHER SLOWED...AND THE TORNADO CHANGED TO AN EASTERLY MOVEMENT WHILE BECOMING RAIN-WRAPPED. THE EASTERN DIRECTION OCCURRED FOR A HALF MILE BEFORE THE TORNADO MOVED ALMOST DUE NORTH ALONG 568TH AVE WHILE SIGNIFICANTLY WEAKENING. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE...WHICH WAS STRONG EF3...OCCURRED TO THE NORTH OF COLERIDGE ALONG 876TH ROAD. HERE...TWO FARM HOUSES WERE DESTROYED DOWN TO THE FOUNDATION AND TREES WERE SNAPPED AND DEBARKED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunder Road Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Alpena's an EF4 per damage assessment toolkit as well. Official product: PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENTNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SIOUX FALLS SD 1050 AM CDT WED JUN 25 2014 ...NWS DAMAGE SURVEY FOR ALPENA SD TORNADO EVENT... A VIOLENT...DAMAGING...TORNADO DEVELOPED EARLY WEDNESDAY EVENING... JUNE 18 2014...SOUTHEAST OF LANE SD AND TRAVELED NORTH. THE TORNADO WAS ON THE GROUND FOR OVER 40 MINUTES AND AFFECTED TWO FAMILY FARMS ALONG ITS ROUTE WITH ONE FAMILY AT HOME DURING THE TORNADO. THE FAMILY HEARD THE TORNADO WARNING AND MOVED TO THEIR BASEMENT AS THE TORNADO APPROACHED. THE TORNADO INCREASED IN STRENGTH AND REACHED ITS MAXIMUM INTENSITY...PRODUCING 170 MPH WINDS...NEAR THEIR LOCATION. WHILE IN THEIR SHELTER...DEBRIS FELL UPON THEM RESULTING IN A MINOR INJURY AND THE DEATH OF A FAMILY PET. BOTH THE HUSBAND AND HIS WIFE ...AS WELL AS OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS...CREDIT THE EARLY WARNING FOR THEIR SAFETY. THE TORNADO WARNING WAS ISSUED 45 MINUTES BEFORE THE TORNADO IMPACTED THEIR RESIDENCE. .APLENA SD TORNADO... RATING: EF-4 ESTIMATED PEAK WIND: 170 MPH PATH LENGTH /STATUTE/: 11.65 MILES PATH WIDTH /MAXIMUM/: 880 YARDS/HALF MILE FATALITIES: NONE INJURIES: ONE START DATE: JUN 18 2014 START TIME: 743 PM CDT START LOCATION: 2 MILES SE OF LANE SD END DATE: JUN 18 2014 END TIME: 825 PM CDT END LOCATION: 2 MILES NW OF APLENA SD EF SCALE: THE ENHANCED FUJITA SCALE CLASSIFIES TORNADOES INTO THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES. EF0...WEAK......65 TO 85 MPH EF1...WEAK......86 TO 110 MPH EF2...STRONG....111 TO 135 MPH EF3...STRONG....136 TO 165 MPH EF4...VIOLENT...166 TO 200 MPH EF5...VIOLENT...>200 MPH NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FINAL REVIEW OF THE EVENT AND PUBLICATION IN NWS STORM DATA. $ HEITKAMP WARNING COORDINATION METEOROLOGIST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmeddler Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Pilger tor footage from Randy Hicks... Well... They're name serves them well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfgmfg Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Coleridge has been left as a strong EF3. http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=OAX&product=PNS&issuedby=OAX&glossary=1&format=txt The track map is quite interesting (source) Can someone notify OAX they have an error in their Laurel #3 end time? .LAUREL TORNADO #3... RATING: EF-2 PATH LENGTH /STATUTE/: 8.04 MILES PATH WIDTH /MAXIMUM/: 750 YARDS FATALITIES: 0 INJURIES: 0 START DATE: JUNE 17, 2014 START TIME: 945 PM CDT START LOCATION: 5.60 MILES NORTHEAST OF LAUREL END DATE: JUNE 17, 2014 END TIME: 925 PM CDT END LOCATION: THE TORNADO EXITED INTO DIXON COUNTY 3.79 MILES EAST OF LAUREL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ground Scouring Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Coleridge has been left as a strong EF3. http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=OAX&product=PNS&issuedby=OAX&glossary=1&format=txt I think that rating's conservative and keeps EF3 based on the slow forward movement. Based on the video of this tornado, it was certainly EF4+ for part of its life span. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunder Road Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I think that rating's conservative and keeps EF3 based on the slow forward movement. Based on the video of this tornado, it was certainly EF4+ for part of its life span. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 No. I completely disagree, there were times in its lifespan where it could have produced damage of EF4+ had it hit something. It was a violent tornado that for the most part didn't hit anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 No. What? Did you not watch the videos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensō Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 The Coleridge wedge had some of the more intense motion you'll see in a tornado and was very likely capable of high-end violent damage, but I'm assuming TR's referring to the idea of actually rating a tornado via video, which is obviously not possible/practical, or at least not very scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 The Coleridge wedge had some of the more intense motion you'll see in a tornado and was very likely capable of high-end violent damage, but I'm assuming TR's referring to the idea of actually rating a tornado via video, which is obviously not possible/practical, or at least not very scientific. Well no you can't rate via video, I don't think Snowflake was suggesting that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hvward Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Pilger tor footage from Randy Hicks... This belongs with the show on Discovery that depicts rednecks trying to make their living's in none traditional ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensō Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Well no you can't rate via video, I don't think Snowflake was suggesting that. I don't either, but it seemed like that's what TR was "no"-ing. I think it was pretty obvious the Coleridge tornado was visually extremely violent and I can't imagine he's suggesting it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunder Road Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 The Coleridge wedge had some of the more intense motion you'll see in a tornado and was very likely capable of high-end violent damage, but I'm assuming TR's referring to the idea of actually rating a tornado via video, which is obviously not possible/practical, or at least not very scientific. I don't either, but it seemed like that's what TR was "no"-ing. I think it was pretty obvious the Coleridge tornado was visually extremely violent and I can't imagine he's suggesting it wasn't. Yup. My apologies if I misunderstood. I've only seen a bit of video, and yes, it sure looks like it could have been violent, but you can't say it was EF4+ based solely on video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Big can of worms there lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Reimer Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The Enhanced Fujita Scale is a damage scale. In order for a tornado to be rated 'violent' it has to do that type of damage based on current policy. With that said many tornadoes are at their most violent while hitting nothing but telephone poles and open fields. I agree based on visual evidence the tornado was undoubtedly violent, but you can't rate a tornado based on video under most circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The Enhanced Fujita Scale is a damage scale. In order for a tornado to be rated 'violent' it has to do that type of damage based on current policy. With that said many tornadoes are at their most violent while hitting nothing but telephone poles and open fields. I agree based on visual evidence the tornado was undoubtedly violent, but you can't rate a tornado based on video under most circumstances. Yes, which is why we are saying if it had hit anything it would have been capable of damage to that magnitude... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Yes, which is why we are saying if it had hit anything it would have been capable of damage to that magnitude...Lol. How much does this situation occur? Too many to count?My idea, and yes I know it's not an original idea, of a rating system outside of the NWS damage assessment kind of got sht on here, and yet countless posts would lend themselves to the idea. Damage is not equal to capacity to cause damage. Many here and elsewhere have intense interest in both metrics. Sometimes a video may be the best evidence, even if it means that it is as much an art as it is a science. Plenty of professions have been built on "art." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MnWeatherman Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Surprised by the EF3 rating as well. Comparing this to the Marquette, KS EF4 on 4/14/12, I thought this tornado was much stronger. I believe Reed said he got probes into this tornado. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensō Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Lol. How much does this situation occur? Too many to count? My idea, and yes I know it's not an original idea, of a rating system outside of the NWS damage assessment kind of got sht on here, and yet countless posts would lend themselves to the idea. Damage is not equal to capacity to cause damage. Many here and elsewhere have intense interest in both metrics. Sometimes a video may be the best evidence, even if it means that it is as much an art as it is a science. Plenty of professions have been built on "art." The problem is that assigning ratings would imply that there's some underlying objective, credible method for discerning between each point on the scale, and if you're relying on apparent visual intensity I don't think that's possible. You can broadly differentiate between a weak, moderate and strong/violent tornado I suppose, but I don't think that really accomplishes anything or adds any value beyond the EF-scale. It's well-known that the EF-scale has several shortcomings, the biggest being the sparsity of high-end DIs (and DIs in general), but barring some big advances in technology and/or understanding, I don't know that there's much to be done about it. There are always going to be high-end violent tornadoes that do little damage and go into the history books as just another EF2 or EF3. I suppose you could keep a list of tornadoes that appear to have been underrated for this reason, but most of them are probably already well-known, and again I dunno what value that'd provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensō Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Surprised by the EF3 rating as well. Comparing this to the Marquette, KS EF4 on 4/14/12, I thought this tornado was much stronger. I believe Reed said he got probes into this tornado. I asked the other day and apparently they did collect data and Reed's supposed to be working on a paper to be done later in the year. Take it for what it's worth, but I can't help being skeptical until I see it for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The problem is that assigning ratings would imply that there's some underlying objective, credible method for discerning between each point on the scale, and if you're relying on apparent visual intensity I don't think that's possible. You can broadly differentiate between a weak, moderate and strong/violent tornado I suppose, but I don't think that really accomplishes anything or adds any value beyond the EF-scale. It's well-known that the EF-scale has several shortcomings, the biggest being the sparsity of high-end DIs (and DIs in general), but barring some big advances in technology and/or understanding, I don't know that there's much to be done about it. There are always going to be high-end violent tornadoes that do little damage and go into the history books as just another EF2 or EF3. I suppose you could keep a list of tornadoes that appear to have been underrated for this reason, but most of them are probably already well-known, and again I dunno what value that'd provide. That's a point well taken, but eventually these high-end tornados without EF-4 or 5 ratings will get lost in the records.Is there a reason the EF scale doesn't significantly takes into account width of damage path, duration, speed of motion, etc.? I think these factors would often equalize the rating system for tornados with high destructive potential that lack individual high-end damage points due to not hitting any sturdy enough structures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensō Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 There is a general correlation between width and intensity, but it's tenuous and not clear-cut enough that you could draw any real conclusions from it. There have been half-mile wide F1s before and there have been F5s that were 100 or 200 yards wide. Depending on the surveyor, translation speed (which I'm assuming is what you mean by speed of motion?) is taken into account to the extent that a slower-moving tornado is assumed to cause more damage because of a longer residence time over a given structure. I do think more can be done to identify high-end tornadoes, but ultimately estimating tornado intensity via damage is just a very difficult and imperfect system and there's only so much you can do when a tornado doesn't strike any high-end DIs. There are some interesting things in this paper by Edwards et al. in regard to estimating tornado intensity if you haven't read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.