2013 U.S Severe Weather: Videos / Photos / Stats / Forecasts

[artist]

WFUS52 KTBW 260047
TORTBW
FLC103-260115-
/O.NEW.KTBW.TO.W.0026.130626T0047Z-130626T0115Z/

BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
TORNADO WARNING
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE TAMPA BAY AREA - RUSKIN FL
847 PM EDT TUE JUN 25 2013

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN RUSKIN HAS ISSUED A

* TORNADO WARNING FOR...
SOUTHERN PINELLAS COUNTY IN FLORIDA.

* UNTIL 915 PM EDT

* AT 845 PM EDT...A TRAINED WEATHER SPOTTER REPORTED A TORNADO NEAR
PASS-A-GRILLE BEACH...OR NEAR SAINT PETE BEACH...MOVING SOUTHWEST
AT 15 MPH.

* THE TORNADO WILL BE NEAR...
THE SKYWAY BRIDGE
SAINT PETE BEACH.
PASS-A-GRILLE BEACH.
FORT DESOTO PARK.

[Ntxw]

An update on tornado count. We're going to need (certainly hope not) a very active fall to keep pace with last year, in itself was unusually low. However unlike last year this year did feature a couple of EF5's, so more quality than quantity.

[cycloneye]

Oh boy,I have forgotten to update this thread. Thank you for posting that.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Another tornado, the second in as many months, confirmed in Maine -

http://hybridstorm-weatherblog.blogspot.ca/

http://hybridstorm-weatherblog.blogspot.ca/2013_06_04_archive.html

[Ntxw]

Quick update 2013 is running at record low level pace in terms of tornado count to date.

[brunota2003]

Tropics are dead, tornadoes (in terms of numbers) are dead. Record setting rainfall throughout the SE, leading to some record low temperatures!!! Wonder if this winter is going to make up for all the lack of activity? After a really mild winter last year, I wouldn't mind some snow!

[brunota2003]

Hearing through the grapevine that the El Reno tornado is being downgraded to an EF-3, due to damage only being EF-3. Looking for sources to confirm this, but if true, that means they threw out the radar data.

[EF-5bigj]

I have mixed opinions about it being down graded I think the rating system needs to change with the technology. Now it's the EF-5 that they do not want to say was a EF-5?

[cycloneye]

There are unconfirmed reports that the El Reno tornado was downgraded to EF3. Waiting for the official word.

[cycloneye]

Is official the downgrade.



http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/torn/fatalmap.php

[CrazyC83]

For sure, that will mean a lot of studies and peer-reviewed reports will be done in the upcoming years on this and similar tornadoes. There was definitely no legitimate basis for the EF-5 rating due to the fact the radar data has significant margin of error which is difficult to determine.

[cycloneye]

Hearing through the grapevine that the El Reno tornado is being downgraded to an EF-3, due to damage only being EF-3. Looking for sources to confirm this, but if true, that means they threw out the radar data.

I moved your post to this sticky thread as it will not go down the pages and here it will stick at the top of forum. Is official now.

[Alyono]

Hearing through the grapevine that the El Reno tornado is being downgraded to an EF-3, due to damage only being EF-3. Looking for sources to confirm this, but if true, that means they threw out the radar data.

Typical NWS (and I don't mean the mets... but those at the top who forced this decision)... all that needs to be said about that

That's what happens when BUREAUCRATS try to take on the role of SCIENTISTS

[Alyono]

Since we cannot use wind data to determine wind speeds, we should immediately eliminate all aircraft recon into hurricanes. Only use damage. Hurricanes cause far more damage than tornadoes, right? So damage should be able to tell us exactly what the winds are

After all, doesn't the NWS want consistency? Thus, we should ignore the fact that things like duration of wind can affect the damage, as well as the fact that the highest winds may not affect a structure.

Perhaps it is time that NWS record are NOT used for climatological purposes since as we have just seen... things other than science do affect the record

[Alyono]

For sure, that will mean a lot of studies and peer-reviewed reports will be done in the upcoming years on this and similar tornadoes. There was definitely no legitimate basis for the EF-5 rating due to the fact the radar data has significant margin of error which is difficult to determine.

You are aware that many meteorologists would laugh at that statement, especially given that the winds were well above the margin of error

[EF-5bigj]

I think it hurts the NWS legitimacy honestly it looks political...it's still a EF-5 to me. The EF-5 that beaurocrates want to be a EF-3. I think politically it did not play well because had it tracked longer and hit more populated area's the beaurocrat's would have looked bad in some respects. Now it's just a polerizing tornado that everyone will have a opinion on what rating the tornado should have been.

[Nate-Gillson]

Really did not see this downgrade coming!

Oh, I'm calling it. The May 24, 2011 EF5 tornado near El Reno, Oklahoma will be downgraded to an EF4. If it isn't downgraded, I'm eating my shoe.

[brunota2003]

This is something I posted on my Facebook, and I felt like posting it here as well. Sorry it is long, but I needed to say it.

Today was a sad day, tornado science and research took one huge step backwards. The El Reno tornado was downgraded from an EF-5 to an EF-3, in what can only be possibly considered a "News/Data dump" (Friday afternoon release, on a holiday weekend). The reasoning? The EF Scale is not a scale that uses observations (weather stations, radar measurements, to include Doppler On Wheels, etc). Instead, the EF Scale is strictly "damage" related. A tornado produces damage, a storm survey is conducted and the tornado's wind speed is estimated off of the type and degree of damage produced. Keep in mind that using damage is not an exact science, and even at best produces a spread of wind speeds the tornado COULD have had.

Estimating wind speeds based off of damage is difficult, with different buildings (and construction types) being able to withstand different wind loads and speeds. My question is: why would you *NOT* use observations when they are available? WHY has research not been done dealing with this, and acceptable forms of observations to consider been implemented? The DOW has been around since the 1990s, and weather stations (along with radar sites) have increased, and gotten more detailed and accurate, across tornado prone areas exponentially. It was only a matter of time before a tornado moved close to a radar site, or over someone's backyard (or FAA) weather station...and this is assuming the DOW wasn't on the tornado almost the entire time! These observations can help in damage studies and refining the damage scale even further...but if they are not included in the final estimate of a tornado, these very important data points could very easily be lost in time. As scientists, any data should be EMBRACED and accepted as much as possible, pending accuracy. Instead, we find ourselves belittling and discarding important data because the "Scale" is only a "damage" scale. This is an issue that SHOULD have been addressed in the original update to the F-Scale, and the new rules for data acceptance SHOULD have taken effect on 1 February 2007. Instead, here we find ourselves in 2013 arguing over whether real, hard data should be used to determine what the intensity of a tornado is, in lieu of or in supplement to, damage determinations.

If a tornado forms and goes through a field where a home owner's weather station records a peak gust of 170 mph, and then slightly damages a single wide mobile home as it is dissipating...which is more accurate of the tornado's overall peak strength? The damage indicator estimate ( http://www.spc.noaa.gov/efscale/3.html Upper bounds of 76 mph), or the weather station that recorded the 170 mph wind gust (pending tests and verification)? Right now, that EF-4 tornado would be rated an EF-0, because the weather station data (despite being REAL WORLD data!!!) would be dismissed and discarded.

[/rant]

[RL3AO]

Maybe I need to add another scale to my signature.

[Alyono]

remember, consistency is more important than accuracy according to the NWS

Therefore, since we do not have recon in all hurricanes, we should immediately cut all funding for hurricane hunters due to budget concerns. This way, all TCs around the world (and in the Atlantic for that matter) are measured in a consistent manner. Maybe throw out surface obs as well since we do not have them at all times. Only Dvorak numbers should be used

Just applying NWS brass logic. I most certainly do not agree with it... but we need to be consistent, right?