HurricaneJosh

It's nice to see a more detailed report, although I'm disappointed they still haven't assigned a max wind-speed value to the event.

Yeah, that happened to me. I grew up in NY and within two years of moving to L.A., the city had its biggest and most violent quake in well over over a century (Northridge 1994). Scared the crap out of me.

That's my feeling as well. The core circulation seemed to be embedded in a large envelope of heavy rain and damaging winds that extended well beyond that core.

I didn't feel uncomfortable because this is a weather forum and of course we're going to analyze these events from a technical standpoint. However, if the folks who were affected by this disaster (JoMO, Joplinmet, etc.) would like, perhaps we can make a separate thread for technical analysis, so this one can be more about disaster recovery and human-interest topics. It's a big enough event that perhaps it needs separate threads for these subtopics. I'm cool either way. Anyone have a preference?

Does anyone know when the NWS will come out with the complete, detailed survey of the event? I imagine we'll need to be patient-- an event of this magnitude requires a sh*tload of time to piece together and analyze-- but I was just curious if anyone knew. I'm particularly interested in what the max wind estimate ends up being-- to see if they go over the 210-mph benchmark we've seen with a couple of other EF5s.

OK, so not nearly as short as we all first thought. Wasn't the initial estimate like 4 mi or something like that? We all couldn't believe such a strong tornado could be so short-lived. 22 mi makes a lot more sense. Also, does anyone have a clear idea of the circulation's translational speed as it passed through Joplin? I had thought it was very fast-- that it barreled through at well over 40 mph-- but the big article posted above (several pages back) said it was more like 10 mph. Any thoughts, anyone?

Agreed. But what about the hospital, Walmart, and Home Depot? Those structures structures all survived to some degree, and I believe they would all at least partially withstand 210-mph winds-- so I would think they could give clues Re: higher speeds-- no?

The EF scale has been used for 4 years now, and the sample set of EF5s is very small. From this sample set, I haven't seen any value over 210 mph mentioned. Given this, it seems logical that the low-end would be restricted to 205 mph, or else every single observed EF5 is "low-end", and the descriptor therefore has no meaning. If the reports start mentioning tornadoes with winds of 230 mph, then perhaps I could consider 210 mph "low-end" as well. Right now, though, 210 mph seem to be the "high end".

Personally, I consider 140 kt low-end Cat 5 and 145 kt borderline low-end/medium. But that's beside the point, because with 'canes, it's totally different. Although the SS scale is open-ended, hurricane winds are actually be measured (as opposed to exclusively estimated based on damage), and based on this, we have a good idea of the upper limit in the N Atlantic, which seems to be ~165 kt. So although the scale is open-ended, decades of recon data give us a pretty-clear upper limit. Given this, one can say: 140-145 kt = low-end 150-155 kt = medium 160-165 kt = high-end With tornadoes, this is all theoretical. With the new EF scale, which has only been applied for a few years, we really have no idea what the upper limit is, and so saying "low-end" or "high-end" doesn't make sense. Twenty years from now, surveyors can come to the conclusion that tornado wind speeds really can't exceed 220 mph-- in which case, 210 mph wouldn't be "low end"-- whereas if they estimate some tornadoes have winds of 250 mph, then 210 mph would be "low-end".

Since the scale is open-ended, there can be no high-end.

But then why even say "low-end", if that's the norm? P.S. I would consider 205 mph low-end, but not 210 mph or more. Given that each scale range is only ~30-35 mph, I would consider 10 mph above the threshold well into that range.

Weird-- I'm almost disappointed with that assessment! We were all expecting this one to break some kind of record in terms of estimated wind speed.

Seriously! Sounds like an interesting task you have to do. If you want any inputs Re: worst-case hurricane conditions at any location, let me know. I'm essentially a walking almanac of the NHC's ongoing reassessment of historic storms-- which ties directly into the question of what each location can expect to receive. Sorry to go OT...

Yeah, we were talking about this above. The highest official estimate right now is the "greater than 200 mph"-- however, reputable sources were suggesting instantaneous winds up to 225-250 mph. But it's unclear 1) whether that will be at some point considered official and 2) whether instantaneous winds would count, as a tornado is rated as per the max estimated 3-sec gust.

Wow. Well, don't be too hard on yourself. It was not an easy storm to warn for, given how fast it developed and moved. I'm sure y'all did the very best you could. Thanks for this very frank reflection on it, and best of luck as you rebuild.

I hear ya. I'd just like to think that, theoretically, there's some consistency in the ratings just because of 1) a shared and well-documented methodology and 2) sometimes it's the same people reviewing these major events-- i.e., the super-elite survey dudes who really specialize in this. But, yeah, with 'canes we are lucky. Sure, the reanalysis estimates for early-20th-century cyclones probably have plenty of error-- but at least we know the analysis techniques are being applied consistently across samples by the same committee of people.

Hmmm. Do you think they'll settle on a specific value at some point?

I admit I have a real fetish for the numbers. You know me too well.

Is that the same as "greater than 210 mph"? Have they settled on an official peak value for Joplin yet?

Wow-- winds greater than 210 mph. That's the highest EF scale assessment I've seen yet. Greensburg and Parkersburg were both 205 mph.