- Messages
- 3,230
- Reaction score
- 4,940
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
Probably gonna regret getting this thread going again, but:
I know some users here mentioned the probability that Texas Tech was working behind the scenes in the Matador survey, as they were during the survey of the 2006 Westminster "F3", and were one of the reasons for the low rating. Directly quoting NWS Lubbock:
I can accept that this tornado didn't hit any structures well constructed enough to support an EF5 rating. But from my understanding, if you have incredible contextual damage but the construction quality isn't sufficient to go EF5, you go EF4. Isn't that how the scale is supposed to work, at least in its current implementation? Taking a look at a proper survey (the Old Kingston tornado from earlier this year) isn't that essentially what happened? They surveyed an area with poor construction (mobile homes) but violent contextual damage, and actually took that contextual damage into consideration for the final rating. BMX even accompanied this with an explanation acknowledging the tornado may have had stronger winds in that area, but they could only go EF3 based on the DI's that were present.
Another example of a good survey would be the Pembroke, GA tornado from last year. They had well-built homes slabbed (which is normally HE EF4 or EF5 damage) but contextual damage indicative of nothing more than maybe a low-end EF4, so they went 185MPH EF4 which was a decent middle-ground.
Also, some questions I have to ask: Have either Marshall or LaDue made ANY statements about the rating of the Matador tornado? Have they given any hints they may have come to a different conclusion, backed up the official rating, or even said anything at all beyond those initial posts from Marshall?
I know some users here mentioned the probability that Texas Tech was working behind the scenes in the Matador survey, as they were during the survey of the 2006 Westminster "F3", and were one of the reasons for the low rating. Directly quoting NWS Lubbock:
Yep, there you have it. I guess this was NWS Lubbock's "official" excuse for not calling in the QRT to go above EF3, because they had their own engineering alternative to hone in on the lowest possible wind speeds the structures in Matador could have failed at, all the while completely disregarding all the contextual damage."Peak wind gusts corresponding to the observed damage were estimated to be in the 145 mph to 165 mph range, resulting in an EF-3 rating. This rating was determined through consultation with engineers from the Texas Tech University National Wind Institute, who also performed a damage survey in Matador."
I can accept that this tornado didn't hit any structures well constructed enough to support an EF5 rating. But from my understanding, if you have incredible contextual damage but the construction quality isn't sufficient to go EF5, you go EF4. Isn't that how the scale is supposed to work, at least in its current implementation? Taking a look at a proper survey (the Old Kingston tornado from earlier this year) isn't that essentially what happened? They surveyed an area with poor construction (mobile homes) but violent contextual damage, and actually took that contextual damage into consideration for the final rating. BMX even accompanied this with an explanation acknowledging the tornado may have had stronger winds in that area, but they could only go EF3 based on the DI's that were present.
Another example of a good survey would be the Pembroke, GA tornado from last year. They had well-built homes slabbed (which is normally HE EF4 or EF5 damage) but contextual damage indicative of nothing more than maybe a low-end EF4, so they went 185MPH EF4 which was a decent middle-ground.
Also, some questions I have to ask: Have either Marshall or LaDue made ANY statements about the rating of the Matador tornado? Have they given any hints they may have come to a different conclusion, backed up the official rating, or even said anything at all beyond those initial posts from Marshall?
Last edited: