Iowa tornado rated EF5

[RL3AO]

Source: NWS

NWS personnel have rated the Parkersburg-New Hartford-Dunkerton tornado as a Low-end EF 5 (correlated to wind speeds up to 205 MPH) on the Enhanced Fujita Scale at the locations of maximum damage. Additional details on path length, width, etc. will be posted on this webpage Wednesday, May 28. This is the first EF5 tornado in Iowa since the Jordan tornado of June 13, 1976.

Read more: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/crnews/display_story.php?wfo=dmx&storyid=14909&source=0

---

WOW!

[stray cat]

1. wow is right!

[Warpy]

2. I'm not surprised

Some of those towns were totally shredded.

[Ian David]

3. I didn't realize Parkersburg, New Hartford of Dunerton even HAD Gay Pride Parades.

God must REALLY hate them something extra-special, huh?


:sarcasm:

[orleans]

4. holy shit! n/t

[kestrel91316]

5. Well, I'm not surprised, given how huge that thing was in the film clip

I saw. So was the Windsor, CO tornado. HUGE.

[Virginia Dare]

6. I guess we'll be seeing more and more of those...n/t

[phantom power]

9. That may be hard to determine:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=151053&mesg_id=151053

[RL3AO]

16. Probably not.

A few degrees of warming won't have a major impact on tornadoes like it would with hurricanes.

[SlicerDicer-]

23. Degrees of warming

Sure they will just like the glorious models that say wind shear will increase.. You know that pesky thing that inhibits hurricanes. However I figure if there is another few major landfalling hurricanes the IPCC no doubt will manipulate the data to suit their needs on hurricanes.

We havent seen the worst yet.. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/costliesttable3.html Just wait till this urban sprawl we have created gets cremated. Past is key to future not the other way around that some insane model predicts.

Garbage in Garbage out.

[SlicerDicer-]

22. Are you crazy?

I say take a look at the raw numbers of actual damaging tornados.. I know it is not nice what happened to these folks but there is really no substantial increase in F-5 etc.. Data says so.. Also consider how many would not be reported due to umm say our SCREWED UP URBAN SPRAWL!!! that plowed over farmland... I wont go on a huge rant but suffice to say there was not millions living where they do now and reports were not commonplace like now.

Also consider that it was not too long ago that there was not 24/7 news! There is so much that has changed so rapidly.. Whatever not that it matters cold and wet has delayed so many crops that it makes Global Warming laughable.. It flys in the face of everything. Also has merit too that our preparations for global warming will lead us down a path of extreme famine with ethanol and everything else... Enjoy your carbon credits..

[semillama]

27. Welcome to DU

Enjoy your stay. And remember, just because you aren't standing in a river in Egypt doesn't mean you aren't in denial.

[SlicerDicer-]

28. Thank you :) I already have been enjoying my stay.

As for De Nile? I am a AGW Denier I call myself that :)

[Shoelace]

32. AGW deniers belong on Freeper forums

in my not so humble op. Extreme weather is the poster child of global climate change but since you are an avowed denier, you will not see that.

Heh, I'm going to see what else you post as I love to verbally wrestle with y'all and I usually win! :spank:

[uppityperson]

34. AGW? Guessing global warming, but not sure

Acronym Definition
AGW Access Gateway
AGW Accident Generated Water
AGW Actual Gold Weight
AGW Actual Gross Weight
AGW All Going Well
AGW Allowable Gross Weight
AGW Alt.Games.Warbirds (forum)
AGW Anganwadi Worker (India)
AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming
AGW Application Gateway (telecom)
AGW Art Gallery of Windsor (Ontario, Canada)
AGW Atmospheric Gravity Waves
AGW Automatic Girth Welder
AGW Autonomous Guided Weapon
AGW Audio Gateway

[Shoelace]

35. Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming

"anthropogenic;" caused or created by human beings. In other words, since the Industrial revolution, all the crap humans have been spewing into the atmosphere ala coal, petroleum products of all kinds, etc., that has contributed to global warming or as I prefer to call it "global climate change" which is a more appropriate term.

[Psephos]

36. Ideological enforcers belong on freeper forums...are you one of those?

All ribbing aside, that kind of statement doesn't further the cause of tolerance for different opinions.

Make an argument, not an ad hom, and I'm all ears.

[Shoelace]

37. zero tolerance for AGW deniers & new bill before Senate next week...

though I've spent some years arguing the science at great length with many deniers on other forums, I have developed a "zero tolerance" for them on this forum since I am presuming we are Democrats here and should by now know better. They can find plenty of other forums to spew their pseudo science paid for by Big Oil, mining interests and others who gain from continuing the charade of their so called "skepticism" when in reality their real motives have always been to buy time by planting doubt, especially in this country where sound bites last longer than most political careers.
Further, in nearly every case, I've found that those so called scientists who are most often cited by deniers, have well established connections to said energy/petroleum industry shills.

You do realize of course that had it not been for Bush climate muzzling bonafide climate scientists at every turn, we could be 8 years AHEAD, not BEHIND in developing, implementing alternative energy which will free us from Middle East dependence on said products?

The latest bill having to do with ways to reduce emissions comes before the Senate next week and predictably, Pres. Bush is against it:

NY Times, May 28th, 2008

For seven long years, President Bush has refused to confront the challenge of climate change and provide the leadership that this country and the world needs to reduce greenhouse gases and avoid the destructive consequences of global warming.

The Senate, and all three presidential candidates, have a chance to provide that leadership. Next week, the Senate is scheduled to take up a bill sponsored by John Warner, the Virginia Republican, and Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, that seeks aggressively to reduce emissions from all sectors of the economy.

Mr. Bush, predictably, opposes the bill. Add that to the slim Democratic majority and the complexity of the bill itself, and the chances of getting 60 filibuster-proof votes are modest at best. Even so, a majority vote would create positive momentum for the next Congress and send a strong signal to the country and the world that help on this issue is on the way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/opinion/28wed1.html?hp

[Psephos]

38. Not a fan of zero tolerance, personally

It's a tool of zealots and true-believers.

Climate science is immensely complex, nonlinear, and teleconnected. It cannot be understood by the casual nonscientist who lacks the mathematical and theoretical underpinnings. Frankly, it can't even be decently understood by those who do possess those tools. Yet I hear endless streams of invective from people on both sides of the debate who've never read even a basic climate textbook, have no idea how even to convert Fahrenheit temperatures into Celsius, and think that integrals are a brand of Japanese car. The shrill invective flows in inverse proportion to actual knowledge.

Figuring out how to best respond to GW requires spirited debate, creation of competing hypotheses, experiments that attempt to disprove these hypotheses, and the rise of theories from the few hypotheses that survive. These theories must lead to testable predictions, and the tests must be repeatable by disinterested researchers elsewhere. All of these basic elements of scientific progress require open, nonpolitical argument. Those who don't understand this are part of the problem and definitely not part of the solution. Climate scientists are currently doing exactly this, but political pressure, in the form of P.C. thinking in universities, biased allocation of research grants, special-interest group lobbying of legislatures, and general voter ignorance are all distorting the process to the breaking point.

Global warming is as obvious as tomorrow's sunrise. Duh. But using the techniques once used upon Galileo will not lead to practical understanding, or more importantly, to reliable solutions. Using Inquisition thinking means once again religion will triumph over science. And we don't have that kind of time to waste. Which was the reason I said that ideological enforcement belongs on a freeper site, not on a liberal site.

"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."
- Bertrand Russell

[SlicerDicer-]

39. Thank you.

I have posted at depth about AGW and what its fallices are when I first joined. Actually I did it due to somebody asking about it I registered just for that purpose.

However I will say it is not very nice people telling me to GTFO over my stance on AGW. And anyway whatever happened to spirited debate and reason? I mean honestly... Its not like I go around here citing stupid data.. I have cited everytime legitimate data and I still get trashed? I would rather see the people here cite data against me from legitimate sources to make their claims. I would also like to see it without computer models like I said garbage in garbage out.

Statistically we have not warmed since 1998 so explain that one with raw data.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=19026
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/1794960

http://www.surfacestations.org/ do you think what is being done here is undemocratic? Do you think that he is mean and out to get the polar bear down? I mean honestly people.. Look at all the evidence and actually look at real data..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml one more news article.. Now lets be real and cite a REAL source :)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf hopefully you have access ;-)

[uppityperson]

43. DU has rules and there are lots of other places for "sprited debates"

"Reason" now, that is a subjective term. You say you joined DU over AGW to provide "reason"?

Global Climate Change is the more correct term than Global Warming since no, it is not just about everything getting warmer. Calling it Global Warming rather than the correct Global Climate Change sets off pundit bells for many here.

[SlicerDicer-]

44. I never realised citing facts and research papers

was considered against rules?

Ohh I get it.. If I do not believe the mighty Goracle then I am shunned and booted for just bringing up that fact. I understand.. Yet nothing is cited to refute what I say just attacks. Sadly this is what things have degenerated too in the "Climate Change" Religion as Michael Crichton calls it.

[uppityperson]

46. You confuse "citing facts" with "spirited debate"

My reply was about "spirited debate" and now you switch it to "citing facts" rather than sticking to the topic OR replying about Global Climate Change vs Global Warming. Not biting.

[Shoelace]

48. you might try the Environment/Energy forum for your citations

research links, et al. I think that you'll find many informed and spirited replies there. Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=115

[SlicerDicer-]

50. I will go there :)

[Shoelace]

47. debate and reason

are fine when both sides use reliable sources for their debate. Also, many if not all of the so called "skeptics" simply serve to obfuscate, delay or deny that there is a problem we must address now after many years of "debate."

A good example would be back in 1974 when to two American scientists, Professor Sherwood Roland and Dr Mario Molina. They coolly set out the evidence that the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in refrigeration, aerosols and air conditioning were eating at the ozone layer which protects mankind and plants from dangerous ultraviolet radiation.
They were at once smeared as scaremongers. The manufacturers ran an all too successful campaign to fog the issue. A lazy media bought into it. The public got bored and bamboozled. And as they did so, millions more tons of the pollutant were added to the atmosphere.

Thirteen years later when the world finally woke up to an ozone hole bigger than anyone had predicted, there was a swift international agreement - led by the US - to find alternatives to the CFCs. In the meantime, great damage had been done.

Winston Churchill back in the 1930s had this to say about another government that didn't believe a threat was real. As the Chamberlain Cabinet dithered about Hitler, Churchill warned: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."

And he concluded: "The era of procrastination, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

And for the abstract at your "Nature" link, there's a very good article about this paper from realclimate.org that might be of interest to you.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the-global-cooling-bet-part-2/

Michael Crighton? "They Don't Call it Science Fiction for Nothing"
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcrichton.asp

[SlicerDicer-]

49. so Nature is not reliable?

http://www.nature.com/index.html

And yes I will take it elsewhere on the board I just had to respond. And note about CFC look into chemicals that came online and follow the money trail.. It shows that there was a deliberate attempt to make a quick buck from forcing the bans on CFC. I am just sayin :) I am not saying that CFC are a good thing nor am I saying that excess sulfur and everything else that creates a nice cancer cocktail are a good thing. I am merely saying that I do not believe that we are altering the climate. From what is available to read I see it as natural cycle, the undertones of cutting carbon, cutting pollution you will NEVER hear a argument from me on this. It is appalling the statistical numbers of increase in cancer and asthma that is related to fossil fuels no reasonable person can deny this.

There is plenty of information regarding the poisoning of the planet through means of chemical fertilizer causing salinity and so forth. My biggest beef is that people are hollering up and down about climate change, polar bears, beavers, badgers and any other animal, insect or whatever may be.. Why are we not talking about the toll of human life by factory farming? Why are we not discussing how this leads to dead zones in the ocean from the excessive nitrogen? Why are we not talking about the toll on human life and everything else by pesticides (Look at DDT)?

I look at the whole picture I see it as we are driving ourself to decimation.. We are killing ourself with our practices. This should be reason enough to change! And claiming that what I see as cyclical patters are caused by man is rather insane. Lets deal with real problems that face us now, if we do this we will eliminate carbon emissions and everything else.

Something to ponder :)

[Shoelace]

51. yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point

pollution and all it's ills. The natural cycles vs. human caused climate change is just one of the many discussions I'm sure we could have if I only had time and I can't agree on that particular point but one day we may be able to discuss it in detail.

I've addressed the issues of pollution caused human illnesses for many years and have studied it in great depth. On the "Health" forum within DU, this issue has been discussed at length from what I've seen in the past though I've not been to that forum lately. One thing I love about DU is that we have among us many professionals in the health sciences who, if we are lucky, pop in for a visit to add their knowledge, opinions to the data. The link to the Health forum is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=222

You might want to use the Science forum for these topics as well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=228

[SlicerDicer-]

45. Note: Extreme Weather

Sure its happening again...

What about the past? Is that not poster for climate change? 1938 for example?

[1776Forever]

7. Anyone who saw the pictures knew if was a big one -

Reminded me of Homestead Florida after Hurricane Andrew!

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weather/story?id=4936647&page=1

Expert Explains High Number of Tornadoes
Active Winter Storms Lead to Many Twisters
By ERIC HORNG, SABRINA PARISE, EKUA HAGAN and STEPHANIE DAHLE
May 27, 2008

Tornadoes have killed about 100 people in the United States so far this year, according to the National Weather Service.

This Memorial Day weekend, 43 tornadoes were counted ripping through Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa and Minnesota — killing a least seven people, including a toddler.

"Now we're reaching our peak in terms of severe weather activity in tornado events," said Greg Carbin of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

So why all this twister activity?

Experts say it's all thanks to an active winter storm season.

"The storm track was very active across the Rockies, into the East Coast — and this active storm track lends itself to more severe weather events," said Carbin.

"The more severe weather events you have, the more you are to see an increase in tornadoes," he added.

[DemReadingDU]

10. such horrible damage

There was F5 on 4/3/74 in Xenia, Ohio, with similar mass destruction.








edit: added the photo album link
http://www.ohiohistory.org/etcetera/exhibits/swio/pages/albums/1974_tornado/1974_tornado_albumPage02.html

[JeanGrey]

13. I lived in Dayton then - dated a guy in the Civil Air Patrol. Saw a

lot of that damage first hand. It was awful.

[uppityperson]

21. F5 1957 Fargo, ND

1 picture in a series of 6 or 7 of the path. This neighborhood is where the majority of the deaths were. My house was 200 ft from the center, but in a better built part of town.


And the Thing

[DemReadingDU]

26. oh wow

that is a monster.

you were very lucky.

[SavageDem]

30. I cannot believe the nut job...

...that took the top photo! That's a pretty normal-perspective lens, which makes it to be 150 yards (my eyeball guess) from the freakin' funnel! That is absolutely insane!

[emmadoggy]

8. Yikes. When I saw the damage, I knew it would be at least an EF4.

Looks like Waterloo/CF got VERY lucky on this one -not to mention Fairbank! Holy crap, talk about lucky!

A couple my family knows, lost their home in Parkersburg. Thankfully, they were back in our hometown camping for the Memorial weekend, so were safe.

Over 200 homes were completely destroyed, another 400 were damaged and over 20 businesses were destroyed along with the high school. So sad and devastating.

[Debi]

11. Storm Chasers Capture Video of New Hartford Tornado

video: http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/19260589.html?video=YHI&t=a

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/19260589.html

NEW HARTFORD - Nick Weig along with fellow storm chaser Barry Hansen were near the Butler/Grundy County line Sunday as a powerful tornado struck New Hartford. The storm killed 2 in New Hartford, after tearing through Parkersburg where 4 others were killed. The video was shot approximately 2 miles south of New Hartford.

++++

Path of tornado


++++

For crazy-assed reference my house is just left of the 218 sign at the bottom of the green line (pretty much where the first brown line on the left is). The tornado had weakend significantly by the time it reached my home and the other two it hit and then picked back up the farther it went.

Those pictures of Parkersburg just break my heart - we have been dealing with the headaches of insurance calls and no vehicles and trees and debris everywhere - but we have a home to sleep in and power and food and each other. Those poor people.

[emmadoggy]

14. Hey, Debi. Haven't had a chance (until now) to let you know I'm glad you and

your family are all ok. What a scary time. My husband and I were narrowly missed by an F4 tornado when we lived in WI. It missed us by two-tenths of a mile and we heard it go by (too dark and too many trees to see it). That was a very surreal experience and that one killed two people, including a little girl.

I know that the clean up sucks and the insurance stuff is a hassle and it must be a pain to not have a vehicle. You were very lucky in the grand scheme of things, but I'm still sorry that you are dealing with all that.

As I said upthread, my family knows a couple in Parkersburg who lost their home. So many there have lost everything and it is heartbreaking.

I hope you are able to get your situation normalized very soon. Take care! And hoping for quiet weather for a while so everyone can take care of clean-up and all the rest. :hug:

[progressoid]

20. I remember driving through Parkersburg to and from UNI many times.

This is heartbreaking.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

42. Brown line is Dunkerton Road or Lone Tree Road?

Working from memory ... I grew up in Cedar Falls and my mom is still there.

[JeanGrey]

12. I thought so. Someone said they thought it would be rated an

EF3 and I said not a chance, not with that kind of damage. At one point the tornado was a mile wide, on the ground for seventy miles. With that kind of "atomic bomb" damage, it's a 5.

[RL3AO]

17. I said the prelim rating was EF3.

There was no way in hell it was going to stay that way.

PS: I expected a strong EF4 to be the final rating.

[JeanGrey]

25. I thought it would be EF5. Amazing isn't it that we consider

205 mph "low end" for an F5. What power.

[newscott]

15. Just heard about this a little while ago.

Yowza! My heart goes out to those poor people impacted by the twister.

I spent two wonderful years in IA at ISU. Good people Iowans.

[Tashca]

18. Not normal here

I watched that footage and couldn't accept that it was as big as it appeared. I guess I was wrong.
We don't get tornado's like that up here. Maybe in Oklahoma or Kansas and other points south.
I guess the article does mention we haven't had one of those monsters since 1976.
I can't even fathom 205 mph wind............and the debris flying around in there.

[Debi]

31. Stories are coming out about people in their basements watching their house fly away

and others seeing pick ups flying over their heads. I believe every single one of them after looking at the pictures.

[Wapsie B]

19. Omg same as the Oelwein tornado.

Only these pics look even worse.

[MilesColtrane]

24. Moore, Oklahoma tornado, almost an F6.

318mph...holy crap.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/tornado/wtwur318.htm

[RL3AO]

29. Yeah. Most people don't know the Fujita scale goes to F12, which is mach 1.

But now the enhanced Fujita scale is used and EF5 is the highest with winds of 200+.

[JeanGrey]

33. My sis lives on Oklahoma and were discussing this the other

night, that the '99 twister was stronger than the one that hit Iowa.

[guitar man]

41. yep

the one that hit Moore on 5-3-99 had winds in excess of 300 mph. :scared:

[Max_powers94]

40. If i see something like that coming my way I would just passout.