Multi-day outbreak of May 25-31

[EF-5bigj]

Well there is likely EF-5 damage but we have no seen yet.

[artist]

Does anyone know where the report is listed? I am not sure where to look (for example, I didn't see it at the NWS news page). I would like to read a primary source before believing that it is a record-breaker. I am cynical like that...

NWS NormanVerified account ‏@NWSNorman 1h The El Reno tornado of May 31, 2013 is officially the widest known tornado in the U.S. Rated EF-5. http://t.co/NNAEWDNehN

https://twitter.com/NWSNorman/status/341962720930852865

[Ntxw]

EF scale is a damage scale. I did not see a report stating EF5 damage, given I have not seen the damage but nothing from the NWS stating it found such damage. I am not doubting the data, I fully support it but what I am coming from is continuity.

Every tornado from 1950-1972 was retroactively rated using newspaper articles. I'm pretty sure the tornado database has much, much bigger problems than using radar data.

I understand and appreciate your concern for database integrity, but if we ever want to actually get a reliable climatological dataset about tornado intensity (which is what the F/EF scale is already used for, whether that's really valid or not), we need to start using the observations that are available to us. Hopefully, we'll eventually look back at the 1950-20xx tornado dataset the same way we look at pre-satellite hurricane records.

Fully agree! Technology for such data is vastly improving and IMO is more accurate than the current EF scale (measures damage to property and only "estimates" winds). Either they need to update officially the EF scale to accommodate these wind readings stating which data is reliable and which is not with fully backed research or create a proper wind scale alongside the current damage scale. Until then the official criteria that has been given out by the NWS that I have been told is based solely on damage. To suddenly add on a set of measurements without setting that as an official criteria, I have problems with.

[thetruesms]

The lower-left picture seems to suggest two tornadoes though (both intense).

The May 24, 2011 tornado had radar complete the upgrade, but it was already high-end EF-4 on initial surveys so there had to be some suspicion of a 5 right away.

What you're referring to as separate tornadoes are actually subvortices. They took the boundary of EF-0 winds in the radar data and defined that as the width of the tornado. Those smaller circulations are actually within the larger tornado.

Those subvortices have their own rotational velocities of about 100 mph. Those things, if they were outside the parent circulation, would be EF-1 tornadoes all on their own. And now here's the really mindblowing part - at times those subvortices were moving within the parent circulation at 185 miles per hour

[EF-5bigj]

185 mph for just a subvortice

[Ntxw]

Pretty amazing to think that El Reno has been hit by 2 EF5's in 3 years, and OKC metro 2 of these big kahunas in the span of 2 weeks.

[RL3AO]

I can't say I'm surprised. Also goes to show that Tim's team was killed by an unusual and historic tornado.

[EF-5bigj]

So it was unpredictable, extremely powerful, rain wrapped and extremely wide. Seems like a chasers worst nightmare

[RL3AO]

This raises an interesting question. If this DoW data measuring at 500 feet was deemed as acceptable to use, what about ground radar? The TDWR at the airport would be measuring around 1800 feet near El Reno. Should this data be used? What about a tornado closer to the radar thats measuring at 500 feet?

[RL3AO]

I really can't imagine if that was 20 miles further east.

[EF-5bigj]

I think this tornado has raised a lot of questions not just on data collection either. I listened to a weatherbrains podcast yesterday where they talked about how close is to close ect. Is it being upgraded just based on the wind measurements? Or is there EF-5 damage as the investigation is still on going.

[apocalypt-flyer]

Edit: I'm blind, obviously.

But yeah, 2.6 m wide? That combined with the turn really turned this into something completely unpredictable. Ridiculous tornado.

[Nate-Gillson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVUHdCGqiSI

El Reno tornado vs storm chasers. It's like a game of frogger that you would never want to play again.

[EF-5bigj]

Wow a lot of chasers where too close to that monster.

[brunota2003]

This raises an interesting question. If this DoW data measuring at 500 feet was deemed as acceptable to use, what about ground radar? The TDWR at the airport would be measuring around 1800 feet near El Reno. Should this data be used? What about a tornado closer to the radar thats measuring at 500 feet?

The DOW is a very high resolution, close range radar whose detail is far superior (I think) to the other radars. Wouldn't there be clutter on TDWR, just like NWS radars?

[thetruesms]

Looks like I need to make a clarification. Everything I posted about the RaXPol findings was correct, it just didn't apply to the image I posted The posted image was from a few minutes before, when the tornado was indeed multi-vortex. And it does appear the satellite is indeed beyond the 30 m/s area, so I should have caught that.

[vbhoutex]

I really can't imagine if that was 20 miles further east.

You don't even want to imagine if that was 20 miles further East!!!

[Hurricaneman]

I really can't imagine if that was 20 miles further east.

You don't even want to imagine if that was 20 miles further East!!!

I don't even want to think about it, but it was pretty well covered in "It Could Happen Tomorrow" on the weather channel, the only difference was that was Dallas and this is OKC, but not much difference in terms of unholy damage if it was 25 miles farther east so this was probably a blessing it cycled before heading into the OKC metro area

[EF-5bigj]

That's a horrific image http://youtu.be/kk7LJvjYV9s the El Reno,OK 2013 EF-5 tornado you can actually see another tornado form next to the larger on towered the end of the video. These chasers where pretty close though.

[Alyono]

While in my mind I have no doubt this was an EF5 with tremendous winds, I do have a problem with using wind measurements for the sake of continuity. Lets remember the EF system is a damage scale, not a wind scale. If they upgraded this tornado based on those kind of measurements then it opens up a whole new can of worms. I would understand if they created a wind based system of some sort but don't agree on using the EF scale. What about the other big ones that only got recorded as EF0s in the middle of nowhere but looked amazing on radar? Is it fair to pick and choose?

The EF scale is used to obtain WIND estimates

So why wouldn't you use actual data to obtain what you are SUPPOSED to obtain?