tacoman25

Right, and this goes along with what I was telling JoMo earlier: people are free to make their own choices. If they are knowledgable enough about the weather to safely flee, they can do just that like you did. Or even if they don't know what the hell they are doing, they can try to get out of the way. But if you tell the general public to do that, it's a recipe for much greater disaster.

True...but this type of event is anything but common.

Yeah, I suppose it could work for some very small, compact neighborhoods (or apartment buildings). But certainly not very well for most.

Well then what would be? People have been trying to explain that there really isn't a better option. Telling people to evacuate would only work if we knew well in advance exactly when and where a tornado would be. Look what happened with Houston and Hurricane Rita a number of years ago...you tell people to evacuate a major metro area and you are going to instantly create huge traffic jams. Works to an extent for hurricanes, but would be the worst case scenario for tornados, for obvious reasons.

I think that about sums it up.

It would be foolish to ever tell anyone "you'll be safe" from a tornado (it would also be foolish to believe it). What the TV people probably said, or should have, was simply to take shelter in the lowest level of an interior room - which honestly is the best advice you can give someone. People make their own choices...if they felt they'd be safer trying to flee, then they can try. But that's just not the wisest move.

That might be an option for some neighborhoods. But even if it's a small neighborhood (30-50 residences), you're going to need a huge shelter. And you'd have to be able to get everyone in the neighborhood there within a few minutes of the tornado siren going off. This could be difficult, especially with elderly or disable people. Finally, you'd still be asking people to go outside in potentially dangerous situations...even if the tornado doesn't get there, hail/wind/lightning would all pose a threat. I'm just not sure it's a feasible option.

Exactly. Well said.

What's your point? In a scenario like this, all you can do is go with the best odds...some people are going to die no matter what, sadly. Telling people to flee a tornado when you don't know exactly where it's going to go or how long it will take to get there is not a viable option.

If you're unlucky enough to be directly in the path of an EF4+ tornado, I think you could live (pun intended) with 60% survival odds...especially compared to potentially lower odds if you try to flee on foot or by car. The fact is, no one knows exactly what path a tornado will take, so telling people to stay in place and take shelter is certainly no more dangerous than telling them to leave their homes and try to flee.

Agreed. We would see a lot more fatalities every year if "taking shelter" like that wasn't effective. I'd say it is 95% of the time, for people who live in normal, well-constructed houses. If you're in a mobile home and get hit by an EF-2 or higher, though, you're pretty much screwed.

Exactly. I was pretty sure by late in the morning given the setup with the big, slow-moving MCS in TN/KY that serious convection would have trouble getting going further north...and sure enough, the most favorable dynamics weren't able to push further north than southern KY. That being said, we won't be able to truly compare 1974 to 2011 until we get all the numbers in...number of strong and violent tornados, EF-3/EF-4/EF-5, track lengths, etc. But I'm pretty sure we will fall well short of the Super Outbreak in just about every category, except damage and deaths (and maybe sheer number of twisters). But that is more due to where exactly the strongest/most dangerous storms tracked.

Not to be morbid, but I have to think the total death toll this spring from severe weather will be the greatest in a long time. I know there have been a number of other deadly tornados this spring. Amazing year/event from a weather standpoint, yet horrifying for so many people.

Oh yeah, Palm Sunday, how could I forget.

The case for La Nina favoring lots of severe continues to grow. This year is setting all sorts of records, 2008 was huge, 1999 had some big outbreaks, 1974...

There were, but I don't think they were truly violent tornados like the ones in the U.S. But of course it's unusual for Canada to have ones as big/strong as further south in the U.S., anyway.

Yeah, the fact that some of the most violent and long-lived twisters hit highly populated areas really made heavy casualites inevitible, unfortunately. Fatalities-wise, this may end up close to the Super Outbreak, but in terms of scope, not quite. 1974 had strong/violent tornados from the deep South all the way up to nearly Canada...13 different states, I believe.

This has to be one of the deadliest U.S. weather disasters in the past 50 years...certainly the worst since Katrina.

Truly breathtaking and scary.

The only upside to that thing hitting Tuscaloosa is that it didn't happen late at night or during the main part of the work day (when more people would be downtown, I would imagine).

If you are counting both days, then yes, I think we'll easily see over 150 tornado reports. Keep in mind, the 148 tornados in the Super Outbreak was over a 24 hour period.

Definitely.

Haven't seen a bowl cut like that in a long time.

There's no doubt that this event is hitting its potential in MS/AL. The main questions at this point are: 1) how strong do the tornados get, 2) do they hit major metro areas, 3) do areas farther north get unstable quickly enough to set off a major round of tornadic storms this evening (I'm referring mainly to the OH Valley).