HurricaneJosh

If you're paraphrasing the report accurately, that's actually quite incredible, in that it seems to be suggesting a continuous swath of EF5 damage, which I've never even heard of. (Usually, even in the most extreme cases, the EF5 instances are isolated-- mere dots in the greater damage swath.) Re: Wichita Falls 1979... Yeah, the really impressive thing about that one has always been that the peak damage swath (F4) was wide and continuous. It mowed down a large area and remains one of the more spectacular non-F/EF5s in American history.

Wow-- thanks for creating this side-by-side. Can you describe the structure for us? Like was it solid brick? Was it steel-reinforced? How big? How many stories? Etc.

It is the highest official toll in a single American tornado since 1947.

Ugh! This and the mistaken gas-station receipt in IN are almost disappointing, in a weird way. The Joplin catastrophe is so enormous, it's like we want special confirmation of it in these novelties. Is this one a deliberate hoax? The receipt was an honest mistake, and the folks who discovered it immediately came clean when they realized.

Why is Moore so clearly stronger, in your opinion? And why Jarrell? I've actually heard some skepticism Re: that one-- doubts about the quality of the construction, etc.

You're from Joplin, too?? So what did you experience? Please share!

Wow-- just fascinating. I was wondering how soon after your post the tornado struck. I figured it was a couple of minutes. I have to say, your last few posts kind of haunted me for a couple of days-- specifically, the red ones.

Nothing to be sorry about. It's a good place to learn. (I'm no expert on tornadoes, either.)

I believe tornadoes are rated by the highest estimated 3-second value. I know for sure it is not a 1-minute sustained wind. Definitely not. The estimate says the max winds may have reached 250 mph. No one should be extrapolating higher "gust" values from that. They mean the 250 as the peak.

Winds up to 250 mph? Is that a finding from the official survey? If so, holy sh*t. This thing was literally off the charts. Since the Fujita scale was revised/enhanced and the wind values were made more reality-based, I never again expected to see a credible source suggesting wind speeds that high in a tornado. That is just nuts. The human tragedy aside, I am in complete awe of this event-- not only the intensity, but the speed of its development and the very short lifespan (for a tornado of this intensity). The whole thing is simply bizarre-- like a bomb went off.

Totally agreed. I'm sorry, but they just have no credibility. There always seems to be an ulterior motive in every utterance, every forecast map, every seemingly analytical remark, every historical comment, every graphic.

Ugh-- so tacky.

Omg. Wow. Scary sh*t. What's especially interesting is how it's practically at the surface-- suggesting those max winds were really gouging down to the ground with this thing.

Another very interesting detail.

Back to the meteorological aspects: notice that JoMo describes that same lull that we heard in the now-famous convenience-store video and that we saw in that video of someone's back lawn (with the trampoline). Interesting.

Hey, JoMo- I'm so glad to hear you're OK! And thanks for taking the time to write this really engrossing account-- it is greatly appreciated to hear it firsthand from someone who was there. It's important history. The quoted part (above) really stood out for me. I think it's hard for a lot of us to get our heads around that level and extent of destruction. Welcome back, dude.

Ah, OK-- cool. I misread your post and felt an odd sense of dread. It's not like I'm friends with the dude on any level, but he's one of us-- part of our weather-nerd community-- and we want him to be OK.

?

I agree-- it's a bit odd he hasn't found a moment to pop on just tell us he's OK. I've been on other forums-- for example, the UK's Daily Mail-- where several Joplinites have come online and posted. Hopefully it's just that he's been busy-- which, as others have said, is completely understandable.

Really? He might want to look at the video I posted above. That building and everything around it is flattened, and all of the trees are stripped. It looks to me like the store was directly impacted.

Except that there is a real and distinct lull between that first "incident" and the primary impact-- more so than I would expect once you're within range of subvortices that are embedded in the main one. My impression is that embedded subvortices will cause substantial, localized increases in wind speed, but once you're in that main circulation, it's going to be crazy, even if you're not being directly impacted by one of the subvortices. I dunno.

Yeah, I saw it discussed earlier-- it was probably a microburst or some localized disturbance preceding the arrival of the main core circulation. (And, in itself, that "appetizer" wind was quite destructive-- it was strong enough to smash all the store windows and pelt the building with debris.) It seems that this system was complex, and that the actual primary vortex was perhaps embedded in an envelope of damaging winds.

Yeah. If winds got up to 150 mph, there would be no video. Oh, totally agreed. It looks absolutely ferocious. It's a fantastic video and another great "microdocument" of this very interesting event.

Probably 80-90 mph, maybe 100 mph-- no higher, or the surrounding structures, trees, and even the camera wouldn't have stayed intact. That's not to take away from the video, which is extremely cool. P.S. It's weird for me to talk in mph. In the tropics we use knots, but I know that the severe crowd uses mph. "When in Rome...".

Here's the "sequel" to that incredible video from inside the convenience store-- the one where you can't see anything. The guy returns to show what's left of the building. The area was flattened-- it looks like they took a direct hit from what was surely at least an EF4 at that time (notice the trees). They're all very fortunate to be alive: