Not so small Tornadoe outbreak any more! 83 Tornado REPORTS

[weatherlover427]

610 reports last I saw. This is the most I have ever seen in one day.

[Matthew5]

The weather channel said there has been 187 reports of tornadoes, Saturday and Sunday?

So 83 + 12 =95
Sat reports= 92
Total 187


Number of severe weather reports 615.

Updated to 620 severe weather reports!

It is now up to 624!

[pawlee]

how many are duplicates? i bet once the heads get together and assess the last 72 hours, the count will decrease. read through the SPC log, many sightings in same locations thus possible they are repeats. if the number stands without conducting official field survey then great disservice...

[Derecho]

how many are duplicates? i bet once the heads get together and assess the last 72 hours, the count will decrease. read through the SPC log, many sightings in same locations thus possible they are repeats. if the number stands without conducting official field survey then great disservice...

There actually won't be an OFFICIAL FINAL count of ACTUAL tornadoes for THREE MONTHS, by which time nobody will care how many tornadoes there were this wekend. (in StormDATA.) However, individual NWS offices may have a preliminary tornado number based on surveys posted in public information statements.

SPC tornado reports are NOT INTENDED to be reports of tornado numbers AT ALL IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. They're not even "preliminary tornado numbers."

The "Great disservice" are media outlets, TWC, and uneducated posters using tornado reports as a count of tornado numbers. But people are so desperate for a "count of tornadoes" they turn it into a tornado count.

Frankly, this wasn't much of an outbreak, given the lack of long-track or powerful tornadoes.

The amount of damage done by this, really, once you get past the frenetic attempts to hype this outbreak, was fairly mundane for a typical spring tornado outbreak.

[Anonymous]

Frankly, this wasn't much of an outbreak, given the lack of long-track or powerful tornadoes.

The amount of damage done by this, really, once you get past the frenetic attempts to hype this outbreak, was fairly mundane for a typical spring tornado outbreak.

In much the same way people should also ignore Derecho's attempts to downplay everything. Media frenzy about the outbreak (even if somewhat exaggerated) does help to keep people prepared and safe. Also, there has been a lot of damage this weekend.

[Matthew5]

Hey Derecho, I was not using those as number but just telling them as they are reports. I know enough about this to say that this was no normal spring outbreak. "Please calm down"

[Rainband]

The amount of damage done by this, really, once you get past the frenetic attempts to hype this outbreak, was fairly mundane for a typical spring tornado outbreak.

Tell that to the people that lost their homes and lives.

[wx247]

how many are duplicates? i bet once the heads get together and assess the last 72 hours, the count will decrease. read through the SPC log, many sightings in same locations thus possible they are repeats. if the number stands without conducting official field survey then great disservice...

There actually won't be an OFFICIAL FINAL count of ACTUAL tornadoes for THREE MONTHS, by which time nobody will care how many tornadoes there were this wekend. (in StormDATA.) However, individual NWS offices may have a preliminary tornado number based on surveys posted in public information statements.

SPC tornado reports are NOT INTENDED to be reports of tornado numbers AT ALL IN AN WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. They're not even "preliminary tornado numbers."

The "Great disservice" are media outlets, TWC, and uneducated posters using tornado reports as a count of tornado numbers. But people are so desperate for a "count of tornadoes" they turn it into a tornado count.

Frankly, this wasn't much of an outbreak, given the lack of long-track or powerful tornadoes.

The amount of damage done by this, really, once you get past the frenetic attempts to hype this outbreak, was fairly mundane for a typical spring tornado outbreak.

It wouldn't be mundane if you lived in Polk, Missouri, Indianapolis, Indiana, Marengo, Indiana, Dayton, Indiana... NEED I GO ON??

I will agree that this outbreak was not one for the record books, but mundane is not the adjective to describe it either. Look into the faces of the man on the video down below in another thread... DID YOU SEE THAT??? THEN TELL ME THIS OUTBREAK WAS MUNDANE. GO START CLEANING UP THE DAMAGE IN NW MISSOURI, GO TO THE THREE DECEASED PEOPLE'S FUNERALS AND THEN TELL ME IT IS MUNDANE.

That is sick.

[Stephanie]

Good point Garrett.

Regardless if there were duplicates or not, or F5's or long track, the weather the past two days has been destructive AND deadly. I think that people have the right to know what the heck just "hit them".

It's sad to think that we can only consider a tornado outbreak as "serious" when there is an F4 or F5 involved.

[Rainband]

I think in derechos defense..he was talking about the Outbreak from a Scientific point of view and thats why he said Mundane. I am sure he didn't think the loss of life and property was mundane. I guess it's easy to get emotional..after all these storms are serious. A lot of damage was done and some people died. We are all here to learn about the weather. It's easy for some of the more experienced posters to get frustrated when they are trying to teach us. I guess if we listen and read we will learn.

[simplykristi]

No outbreak is MUNDANE, in my opinion. Damage is damage regardless. We don't need an F5 tornado for there to be destruction. Destruction can occur with any type of severe thunderstorm. All severe thunderstorms need to be taken seriously.

Kristi

[Lindaloo]

I think in derechos defense..he was talking about the Outbreak from a Scientific point of view and thats why he said Mundane. I am sure he didn't think the loss of life and property was mundane. I guess it's easy to get emotional..after all these storms are serious. A lot of damage was done and some people died. We are all here to learn about the weather. It's easy for some of the more experienced posters to get frustrated when they are trying to teach us. I guess if we listen and read we will learn.

Well said and I agree 100%.

[wx247]

I think in derechos defense..he was talking about the Outbreak from a Scientific point of view and thats why he said Mundane. I am sure he didn't think the loss of life and property was mundane. I guess it's easy to get emotional..after all these storms are serious. A lot of damage was done and some people died. We are all here to learn about the weather. It's easy for some of the more experienced posters to get frustrated when they are trying to teach us. I guess if we listen and read we will learn.

I don't need to be taught. I may not know as much as some of the so called experts, but I do believe that I am well versed in severe weather. You can't live and track storms here in the Southern Plains and not be. He says we won't care how many tornadoes... you know what... somebody just might, but that isn't the point. I don't know what he would call an outbreak, but it was a deadly day... 9 people dead now... and just because there were no F4's and F5's (as I believe Stephanie pointed out) that is NO REASON to call this mundane. Underplaying storm system after storm system is pointless. That is just like calling five cat. 1 hurricanes slamming into the east coast mundane... because they weren't Cat. 3 or higher. Sorry... this doesn't fly with me.

And maybe I am emotional, but you know what, I have a reason to be. My world was turned upside down last May when friends and family were left homeless and even DEAD because of the tornado that ripped through here. Was that MUNDANE??

WAKE UP!!! Quit being so scientific and look at the human side of the tragedy, too. If you don't, you're missing the forest for the trees.

[Anonymous]

Derecho is obviously very smart and knowledgeable about weather. However, he often tends to criticize people in a blatant troll-like manner -- so that we start long threads about his posts like this one. Perhaps, if he were less this way then more people would want to learn from him.

As far as this storm goes, in my opinion it was not ordinary in any way -- scientific or otherwise. Just because it was not the worst outbreak of all time does not make it mundane.

[Stephanie]

Good point Johnathan!

Everyone has a different way of getting their point of view across. I do know that I have learned alot from the pro and amateur mets on board here. Some of the discussions are WAY over my head, but I appreciate and admire the knowledge that all the posters share.

There are alot on this board that have had up close and personal experiences with severe weather, so it is easy to understand the emotional feelings associated with these memories when severe weather strikes again.

I have no doubt that the counts that are being reported preliminarily now will fall. It's doesn't make it any less devastating which I'm sure everyone will agree with.

[simplykristi]

I saw a funnel pass directly in front of my house about three years ago.. Went across rooftops and treetops. It scared the %^&* out of me! I remember screaming to my two young nieces to get downstairs NOW. They were scared because our power was off. They didn't understand what was going on then.

Kristi

[pawlee]

There actually won't be an OFFICIAL FINAL count of ACTUAL tornadoes for THREE MONTHS, by which time nobody will care how many tornadoes there were this wekend. (in StormDATA.) However, individual NWS offices may have a preliminary tornado number based on surveys posted in public information statements.

in respect to the overall season, it seems most significant activity thus far has been crammed into specific event dates despite the ongoing daily count (23 now?). i wonder how this season will rate in respect to others past by way of seasonal averages. some are citing this as beating the super outbreak of 1974 which i think for now is a sensationalist claim. till all is said and done and the wheat is seperated from the chaff, the count may be equal or greater but yesterday will pale in contrast to the number of large tornadoes occurring on previous outbreaks. don't get me wrong, yesterday (and this entire weekend) was absolutely nothing to take for granted as i have personal friends in Peru and Lafayette IN whom were hit hard and am concerned for. i just hope that we are all wrong and the events of this past weekend stay fresh in everyone's minds. sadly already, Hallam NE as far as news services go, is but only a memory...

[Valkhorn]

I don't get Derecho's over-hype about 'long-track' storms.

Undoubtably though there were perhaps one or two in this outbreak anyways, plus there were probably F4's, and who knows, we could find some damage somewhere to point to an F5.

By Derecho's logic, we don't know yet what truly happened - yet he's already assuming two things anyways... count that three - no long track tornados, no large number of F4's +, and that it was mundane.

I'd hate to tell this guy, but obviously he's never looked at the map of the super outbreak of 1974, or has heard the recent study of the tri-state tornado in the 1920's, or even has taken notice of most of the more deadly storms like the one in Udall, Kansas or Moore, OK, or Jarrel, TX.

Most of the tornadoes produced in what appear to initially be 'long-track' situations are indeed Tornados that are produced from one single thunderstorm over the course of a few hours.

If he ever looked at the 1974 map, for example, he'd notice that there are some lines of a dozen tornados that fall along the same path. Those were just as severe, deadly, and dangerous - and in fact more-so because with short-tracked or multiple tornados from one storm, you have less warning.

The Udall Torando killed 80 innocent lives in the 1950's, and it was a very short tracked, very intense tornado that wasn't even part of a major outbreak. I guess to your logic it doesn't count for much.

Moore, OK's deadly tornado was part of a decent outbreak - but in no way close to the 1974 outbreak. Survey teams even have suggested it was not an F5 for most of it's life, in fact it could have only been an F5 for a brief, but very intense time. However, that doesn't make it less deadly, or less horrible. It certainly doesn't make it Mundane.

Jarrel, TX was a very strong tornado for most of it's life - it even sheared pavement off of several roads. It wasn't part of a very large outbreak, nor was it 'long-tracked'... but tell that to the poor victims that lost everything when their foundations of their homes were wiped clean from an otherwise 'mundane' system.

Tell that to the people in Indianapolis right now, or NW Missouri, or even Hallam, NE a week ago.

All it really takes is just one tornado, and it doesn't matter in the end whether it was short-tracked, long-tracked, an F2 or and F5.

In the end it's human life and personal safety that matters, and to me an over-hyped situation saves far more life than a passive, 'mundane', attitude.

[Rainband]

Good point Johnathan!

Everyone has a different way of getting their point of view across. I do know that I have learned alot from the pro and amateur mets on board here. Some of the discussions are WAY over my head, but I appreciate and admire the knowledge that all the posters share.

There are alot on this board that have had up close and personal experiences with severe weather, so it is easy to understand the emotional feelings associated with these memories when severe weather strikes again.

I have no doubt that the counts that are being reported preliminarily now will fall. It's doesn't make it any less devastating which I'm sure everyone will agree with.

Good point(s) as well Steph

[wx247]

I don't get Derecho's over-hype about 'long-track' storms.

Undoubtably though there were perhaps one or two in this outbreak anyways, plus there were probably F4's, and who knows, we could find some damage somewhere to point to an F5.

By Derecho's logic, we don't know yet what truly happened - yet he's already assuming two things anyways... count that three - no long track tornados, no large number of F4's +, and that it was mundane.

I'd hate to tell this guy, but obviously he's never looked at the map of the super outbreak of 1974, or has heard the recent study of the tri-state tornado in the 1920's, or even has taken notice of most of the more deadly storms like the one in Udall, Kansas or Moore, OK, or Jarrel, TX.

Most of the tornadoes produced in what appear to initially be 'long-track' situations are indeed Tornados that are produced from one single thunderstorm over the course of a few hours.

If he ever looked at the 1974 map, for example, he'd notice that there are some lines of a dozen tornados that fall along the same path. Those were just as severe, deadly, and dangerous - and in fact more-so because with short-tracked or multiple tornados from one storm, you have less warning.

The Udall Torando killed 80 innocent lives in the 1950's, and it was a very short tracked, very intense tornado that wasn't even part of a major outbreak. I guess to your logic it doesn't count for much.

Moore, OK's deadly tornado was part of a decent outbreak - but in no way close to the 1974 outbreak. Survey teams even have suggested it was not an F5 for most of it's life, in fact it could have only been an F5 for a brief, but very intense time. However, that doesn't make it less deadly, or less horrible. It certainly doesn't make it Mundane.

Jarrel, TX was a very strong tornado for most of it's life - it even sheared pavement off of several roads. It wasn't part of a very large outbreak, nor was it 'long-tracked'... but tell that to the poor victims that lost everything when their foundations of their homes were wiped clean from an otherwise 'mundane' system.

Tell that to the people in Indianapolis right now, or NW Missouri, or even Hallam, NE a week ago.

All it really takes is just one tornado, and it doesn't matter in the end whether it was short-tracked, long-tracked, an F2 or and F5.

In the end it's human life and personal safety that matters, and to me an over-hyped situation saves far more life than a passive, 'mundane', attitude.

Can I get an amen!!!