Significant Tornado Events

[pohnpei]

Some recording of Goldsby's damage in this footage from 20:00.
Just classic EF5 damage fashion.

 

[buckeye05]

I personally don’t think there’s enough evidence for Ringgold. EF4 is acceptable there. Same with Mayfield (not a popular opinion, but I’m not convinced it deserves it). The rest, yeah absolutely all underrated egregiously.

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

i think any of these should be upgraded to EF5 , as i cant find any reason to not rate them as EF5 without getting rid of 99% of all past F5/EF5

should be rated 205+ mph list

Pre EF scale

1. Marion County - Barnes F4+ July 2004 --not rated because it was moving too slow but stated would of been rated EF5 in 2007

EF scale

1. Wren EF3+ April 2011 --all EF5 damage spots missed by NWS
2. Ringgold EF4+ April 2011 --1 to 2 Homes show EF5 damage, one was clearly well built with no flaws.
3. Flat Rock EF4+ April 2011 --interesting to note that this one apparently had a better chance of getting a EF5 rating then Tuscaloosa according to NWS
4. Chickasha - Blanchard - Newcastle EF4+ May 2011 --no good reason
5. Vilonia - Mayflower EF4+ April 2014 --no good reason
6. Rochelle EF4+ April 2015 --no good reason with 10-20 200 mph DI spots
7. WTS EF4 August 2018 --note happened in china? threw a water tank that was over 3-5 tones over 4+ miles away, it also swept clean well built brick homes
8. Mayfield - Bremen EF4+ Dec 2021 --no good reason

Borderline or 200+ mph list (200 mph EF4 to EF5 but more on the 201-204 mph side)

Pre EF scale
Lincoln County- Franklin County- Coffee County F4+ April 1974 -- apparently did F5 damage (EF5 in 2007-2011 terms) but nws kind of missed the main spot

EF scale

1. Hopewell - Macksville EF3+ May 2007 --apparently a reverse tanner situation, as it was rated EF4? but a error was made and they kept the error...it swept clean a well built home, and killed some one in a underground shelter, threw a vehicle over 700+ yards away
2. Goldsby - Dibble EF4+ May 2011 --no good reason

and others to note (should be 200 mph at least) are
Pre EF scale

1. Salix F4+ June 1899
2. Norton F4 June 1909

EF scale

1. Trousdale EF3+ May 2007
2. Barnesville EF3+ April 2011
3. Henryville EF4+ March 2012
4. Louisville EF4 April 2014 --weird situation with this one as it has the only DOD on the EF scale with no wind speed
5. Chapman EF4+ May 2016
6. Hope - Sartinville - Bassfield EF4 April 2020
7. Bassfield - Collins - Soso EF4 April 2020

I'm sure Ringgold achieved EF5 intensity in that area but I don't think the damage is anything higher than high-end EF4 based on the way the scale is used. This is back in 2011 so I think it was deployed correctly here. 4/27/11 had so many tornadoes so many agencies were stretched to their response limit so it's understandable that plenty of tornadoes were underrated that day.

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

Canton lake. It did contextual damage meet with that level. Despite DOW being like 185-190mph, it deployed too far away from tornado with lowest scan too high. The highest wind was observed at 195m AGL which is highly unlikely being the strongest tornado inside tornados. (tornados usually have strongest tornado very near the ground)

What damage from Canton Lake do you think warrants an EF5 rating. I'm not sure if trees being debarked alone warrants EF5 (at least not in my mind) damage.

 

[pohnpei]

What damage from Canton Lake do you think warrants an EF5 rating. I'm not sure if trees being debarked alone warrants EF5 (at least not in my mind) damage.

Despite the impressive debarking, the ground scouring it did was just as impressive as other tornados on that day, regardless to say about asphalt scouring and other stuff. I did what it can did. But also the criteria nowadays already become a very personal things due to the major absence of fairness of rating from officials. One can tend to agree with all of NWS's rating and accept there was no EF5 in last 10 years like Grazilis and one can only believe in DOW's find and believe at very least 20% of all supercell tornados were violent tornados with a large percent of them have EF5 winds. (Also things very worth noticing is quite a few tornados with winds well into EF5 level on DOW don't have EF5 fashion contextual or structural damage like: Red Rock(little debarking and F3 house damage nearby), El Reno 2013, Mulhall, Spencer, Sulphur, Bennington 2013)

I even saw Extremeplanet once said he think most tornados have 200+mph winds once in their lifetime. Though I don't agree with this but I respect his opinion.

For ringgold, tornadotalk give its EF5 rating for damage in that valley. The rating was based on major debarking, granulation that on par with other EF5 tornados on that day. And they do point out that one of house in the valley maybe well built though the evidence wasn't clear enough. But on the hand I do notice that tornadotalk's team tend to have a more liberal rating criteria than most people on this forum like they give plenty of EF5 damage points for Cullman tornado which normally don't belong to the EF5 discussion in this tread. Though I also have hesitation of judgement like this but like I said before, do understand that everyone nowadays can have their own criteria and opinions if there are relative coherent logic in it.

 

[jiharris0220]

I for one agree on the mayfield rating, as I personally didn’t see any damage that made me think it was underrated.
Bremen however is a different case, as there were obvious points of Ef5 contextuals as everyone here already knows. Classic case of that oddly built house simply not being well built itself to warrant the rating but clearly was Ef5 level in the way it was obliterated.
And the recent video June has posted regarding the tornado, pointed out another home in Bremen. Which was well built, anchor bolts and all, and even had a part of its foundation scoured.
The engineers themselves alluded the structure as superior in construction. The only reason why they didn’t go Ef5 is because trees near the house were still standing.
Had this tornado occurred pre 2013, there’s no doubt in my mind it would be rated as such.

 

[joshoctober16]

Despite the impressive debarking, the ground scouring it did was just as impressive as other tornados on that day, regardless to say about asphalt scouring and other stuff. I did what it can did. But also the criteria nowadays already become a very personal things due to the major absence of fairness of rating from officials. One can tend to agree with all of NWS's rating and accept there was no EF5 in last 10 years like Grazilis and one can only believe in DOW's find and believe at very least 20% of all supercell tornados were violent tornados with a large percent of them have EF5 winds. (Also things very worth noticing is quite a few tornados with winds well into EF5 level on DOW don't have EF5 fashion contextual or structural damage like: Red Rock(little debarking and F3 house damage nearby), El Reno 2013, Mulhall, Spencer, Sulphur, Bennington 2013)

I even saw Extremeplanet once said he think most tornados have 200+mph winds once in their lifetime. Though I don't agree with this but I respect his opinion.

For ringgold, tornadotalk give its EF5 rating for damage in that valley. The rating was based on major debarking, granulation that on par with other EF5 tornados on that day. And they do point out that one of house in the valley maybe well built though the evidence wasn't clear enough. But on the hand I do notice that tornadotalk's team tend to have a more liberal rating criteria than most people on this forum like they give plenty of EF5 damage points for Cullman tornado which normally don't belong to the EF5 discussion in this tread. Though I also have hesitation of judgement like this but like I said before, do understand that everyone nowadays can have their own criteria and opinions if there are relative coherent logic in it.
View attachment 22626View attachment 22627

DOW did conf that most tornadoes have winds over 136+ mph compared to NWS 65+ mph rating.

im honestly starting to think we are all underestimating tornadoes, what i mean is each time theres a wind mesurment + damage at the same spot, there is some wierd stuff that i notice.

heres a spreadsheet of what i mean


EF3 winds making EF0 damage and EF5 winds making EF3 damage

and to make things worse the IF scale now has a wind measurement DI

ive seen people say before that the winds gust for the Andover tornado was only for 1 second and not 3 seconds, and that it was 10-20 meters.... well here ya go it lets you rate stuff from 0 to 60 meters, it lets you use 1 second wind gust as well.

note Andover was at 118 ms, thats apparently a IF5 on any wind gust speed... also note some people feel like the 118 ms is a mistake, i mean it could be but its not going to make much of a difference when your that high up, a whole 10 ms difference still has the 1 second gust at IF5

and note for Andover, it didn't hit a poorly built home, and it never event swept clean the house, most walls were still standing from this 118 ms spot, and note this measurement was from a part of debris from this house it self.

i feel like 290+ mph winds are likely what you would find if you had a wind measurement of some kind at a all the official EF5 di.

 

[pohnpei]

DOW did conf that most tornadoes have winds over 136+ mph compared to NWS 65+ mph rating.

im honestly starting to think we are all underestimating tornadoes, what i mean is each time theres a wind mesurment + damage at the same spot, there is some wierd stuff that i notice.

heres a spreadsheet of what i mean

View attachment 22630
EF3 winds making EF0 damage and EF5 winds making EF3 damage

and to make things worse the IF scale now has a wind measurement DI
View attachment 22632
ive seen people say before that the winds gust for the Andover tornado was only for 1 second and not 3 seconds, and that it was 10-20 meters.... well here ya go it lets you rate stuff from 0 to 60 meters, it lets you use 1 second wind gust as well.

note Andover was at 118 ms, thats apparently a IF5 on any wind gust speed... also note some people feel like the 118 ms is a mistake, i mean it could be but its not going to make much of a difference when your that high up, a whole 10 ms difference still has the 1 second gust at IF5

and note for Andover, it didn't hit a poorly built home, and it never event swept clean the house, most walls were still standing from this 118 ms spot, and note this measurement was from a part of debris from this house it self.

i feel like 290+ mph winds are likely what you would find if you had a wind measurement of some kind at a all the official EF5 di.

Good sheet here. I've been collecting DOW reading/damage correlations for years and I think the discrepancy do exist for many and we have to accept for now.
Speaking of discrepancy, we have seen EF4-5 contextual with EF1 house damage and EF4-5 house damage with EF1 contextual. Like what happened here? How to rate? That's interesting question.

DOW did conf that most tornadoes have winds over 136+ mph compared to NWS 65+ mph rating.

For this, here's an example.

This was a footage from Toledo EF2 tornado this year but it appears to be very weak at this time but still managed to attain 148mph recording.

 

[joshoctober16]

Good sheet here. I've been collecting DOW reading/damage correlations for years and I think the discrepancy do exist for many and we have to accept for now.
Speaking of discrepancy, we have seen EF4-5 contextual with EF1 house damage and EF4-5 house damage with EF1 contextual. Like what happened here? How to rate? That's interesting question.
View attachment 22633View attachment 22634

For this, here's an example.

This was a footage from Toledo EF2 tornado this year but it appears to be very weak at this time but still managed to attain 148mph recording.

man that video, never seen it before , as for the weird contextual vs main damage thing

Strong Main damage | weak contextual

1. likely a Mineral point situation if the home is well built were a strong short live burst happens.
2. if the homes debris is just beside the home in big chunks then its likely a poorly built home.
3. Hackleburg situation were the grass isn't even scoured but everything else would be badly damaged if the core hit it.

Weak Main damage | strong contextual

1. one could be a bunch of sub vortex that perfectly dodges that home
2. it might of did the violent damage somewhere else and threw all the granulated debris in a different spot
3. for trees its possible it was a dead tree
4. the main damage is extremely well built, while i am not sure if this happened for tornadoes i do know one home was completely undamaged by a hurricane while everything else was destroyed.

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

Despite the impressive debarking, the ground scouring it did was just as impressive as other tornados on that day, regardless to say about asphalt scouring and other stuff. I did what it can did. But also the criteria nowadays already become a very personal things due to the major absence of fairness of rating from officials. One can tend to agree with all of NWS's rating and accept there was no EF5 in last 10 years like Grazilis and one can only believe in DOW's find and believe at very least 20% of all supercell tornados were violent tornados with a large percent of them have EF5 winds. (Also things very worth noticing is quite a few tornados with winds well into EF5 level on DOW don't have EF5 fashion contextual or structural damage like: Red Rock(little debarking and F3 house damage nearby), El Reno 2013, Mulhall, Spencer, Sulphur, Bennington 2013)

I even saw Extremeplanet once said he think most tornados have 200+mph winds once in their lifetime. Though I don't agree with this but I respect his opinion.

For ringgold, tornadotalk give its EF5 rating for damage in that valley. The rating was based on major debarking, granulation that on par with other EF5 tornados on that day. And they do point out that one of house in the valley maybe well built though the evidence wasn't clear enough. But on the hand I do notice that tornadotalk's team tend to have a more liberal rating criteria than most people on this forum like they give plenty of EF5 damage points for Cullman tornado which normally don't belong to the EF5 discussion in this tread. Though I also have hesitation of judgement like this but like I said before, do understand that everyone nowadays can have their own criteria and opinions if there are relative coherent logic in it.
View attachment 22626View attachment 22627

Show me the pictures of the scouring from Canton Lake, I've only seen the asphalt scouring. Also, did it slab any homes or other buildings in EF5 fashion? If so, I'd like to see pictures because all I can usually find from this thing is the campgrounds around the lake.

 

[ColdFront]

I personally don’t think there’s enough evidence for Ringgold. EF4 is acceptable there. Same with Mayfield (not a popular opinion, but I’m not convinced it deserves it). The rest, yeah absolutely all underrated egregiously.

I agree. Ringgold was violent, and it’s parent supercell was by far the supercell of the outbreak. However, I think the rating was correct.

What’s insane is there were probably 3-4 other EF5 candidates that day with 2 being pretty obvious. New Wren was exceptionally violent but the survey was botched (minimum EF4 at least) and once the Tuscaloosa tornado left the metro it had some extreme damage I believe to a home in Hurricane Creek with contextuals that would point to EF5. I always went back and forth on Tuscaloosa but I believe it deserved a 5.

I think the Smoky Mountains EF4 would have yielded a high rating had it actually impacted structures and civilization and not just stayed in the mountains the entire time. The other was either the Fackler-Bridgeport storm or the Pigsah storm. Chris Darden from NWS told Spann he believed it was a 5 and surveyed it with Tim Marshall but a cow fence was left standing that negated an EF5. Which is a bit annoying, if you think it’s a 5 then rate it as such.

 

[TH2002]

I personally don’t think there’s enough evidence for Ringgold. EF4 is acceptable there. Same with Mayfield (not a popular opinion, but I’m not convinced it deserves it). The rest, yeah absolutely all underrated egregiously.

I'm okay with Ringgold's EF4 rating though I do at least feel one could credibly argue for EF5. The most EF5-worthy (home) damage I've seen from Ringgold actually occurred across the state line in Tennessee, where a large, well-built brick home was swept away in Apison, though it was on a block foundation. As such, high-end EF4 isn't horrible though I do feel an EF5 rating would have been necessary had the foundation been poured concrete.

Badly mangled car, also in Apison:

 

[pohnpei]

Show me the pictures of the scouring from Canton Lake, I've only seen the asphalt scouring. Also, did it slab any homes or other buildings in EF5 fashion? If so, I'd like to see pictures because all I can usually find from this thing is the campgrounds around the lake.

Those two pics I uoload all showed strong scouring. It clearly didnt have EF5 fashion house damage and it may probably did't have EF4 fashion house damage either. I never said it should be rated EF5. What I said is it has EF5 intensity at once and capable of doing that damage and I don't think I'm the only one to hold the opinion

 

[TH2002]

Those two pics I uoload all showed strong scouring. It clearly didnt have EF5 fashion house damage and it may probably did't have EF4 fashion house damage either. I never said it should be rated EF5. What I said is it has EF5 intensity at once and capable of doing that damage and I don't think I'm the only one to hold the opinion

Yeah, I think there's a difference between saying "this tornado reached F5/EF5 strength at some point" and "this tornado should have been rated EF5".

There are plenty of tornadoes I can think of which I wholeheartedly believe reached F5/EF5 intensity (LaMoure County ND 2011, Matador 2023, Mikulčice 2021, Cullman 2011, so on so forth) though I don't necessarily think they should have been rated F5/EF5.

One of my crazy ideas I've had in regards to rating tornadoes would be to leave EF0-EF4 ratings a bit more open ended - e.g. rating a tornado like Cisco 2015 "EF4+" to show that an EF4 rating is what can be proved with 100% certainty (since in that specific example, there were no well-constructed "clean sweep" homes, yet it debarked countless trees and threw vehicles over a mile) while also showing the rating doesn't discount the possibility it had winds capable of causing EF5 damage. Although, the closest we'll get is surveyors publicly acknowledging a tornado could have had stronger winds than what it was rated (Old Kingston 2023 for example) which is good enough for me.

 

[joshoctober16]

Yeah, I think there's a difference between saying "this tornado reached F5/EF5 strength at some point" and "this tornado should have been rated EF5".

There are plenty of tornadoes I can think of which I wholeheartedly believe reached F5/EF5 intensity (LaMoure County ND 2011, Matador 2023, Mikulčice 2021, Cullman 2011, so on so forth) though I don't necessarily think they should have been rated F5/EF5.

One of my crazy ideas I've had in regards to rating tornadoes would be to leave EF0-EF4 ratings a bit more open ended - e.g. rating a tornado like Cisco 2015 "EF4+" to show that an EF4 rating is what can be proved with 100% certainty (since in that specific example, there were no well-constructed "clean sweep" homes, yet it debarked countless trees and threw vehicles over a mile) while also showing the rating doesn't discount the possibility it had winds capable of causing EF5 damage. Although, the closest we'll get is surveyors publicly acknowledging a tornado could have had stronger winds than what it was rated (Old Kingston 2023 for example) which is good enough for me.

ya there is a difference of should be rated EF5 and likey was a EF5 tornado.

however...

1. Vilonia - Mayflower EF4+ April 2014
2. Rochelle EF4+ April 2015
3. WTS EF4 August 2018 --not usa
4. Mayfield - Bremen EF4+ Dec 2021

these 4 are the 4 post moore 2013 that i feel should for sure be rated EF5.

1. El reno EF3+ May 2013​
2. Coleridge EF3 June 2014​
3. Cisco EF3 May 2015​
4. Canton EF3 April 2017​
5. Andover EF3+ April 2022​
6. Robinson EF3+ March 2023​
7. Metador EF3+ June 2023​

i feel like these 7 tornadoes listed above should be rated EF4

1. Capitol EF3 June 2018
2. Xuzhou EF2+ June 2021 --not usa
3. Mongolia EFU July 2021 --not usa

the 3 here are for sure should be rated high end EF3 and likely EF4, i think that's currently the full list of all the tornadoes (that happened after moore 2013) i feel do deserve to be upgraded

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

Those two pics I uoload all showed strong scouring. It clearly didnt have EF5 fashion house damage and it may probably did't have EF4 fashion house damage either. I never said it should be rated EF5. What I said is it has EF5 intensity at once and capable of doing that damage and I don't think I'm the only one to hold the opinion

My bad, I thought those pics were from Ringgold.

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

Some rare recording of damage of Red Rock tornado in this footage beginning from 50:00
This was shot from Interstate 35 which was the place where around 280mph winds recorded by DOW

View attachment 22610View attachment 22611

This pic of the vehicle in the trees I previously saw as being identified as from Andover so this post is interesting:




I wonder if this tire is from this vehicle:






I've always loved this pic of Red Rock; the horizontal vortex on it is about as textbook as they come:




The more I read about Red Rock & see damage photos from it, the ground scouring, tree debarking, low-lying vegetation being stripped & an automobile being torn into pieces (in addition to the oil rig with the 18-inch foundation being toppled) there's no doubt this thing achieved F5 intensity & was likely on par with El Reno in intensity it just avoided hitting any populated areas which is nothing short of a miracle. In fact, 4/26/91 reminds me a lot of 5/24/11 as there was likely multiple F5s on the ground simultaneously in Oklahoma. I know Andover, KS is the only official F5 from 4/2/691 but Red Rock, Skiatook and Winfield, OK were likely F5s, just didn't hit any DIs capable of registering it.

 

[Ivanthetornadoenthusiast]

WTS EF4 August 2018 --note happened in china? threw a water tank that was over 3-5 tones over 4+ miles away, it also swept clean well built brick homes

Any informations about the WTS tornado?

 

[joshoctober16]

Any informations about the WTS tornado?​

As the second EF4 missing the town.The third EF4 formed to the east of the second one in the same river valley,the two EF4s were on the ground simultaneously for about 3-5 mintues,like the pilger twins event.The second one quickly curved to the north and disspates while the third one heading directy to the east and then climbed a mountain, growing in size and strength,the third one then directly went through the town abbreviated "WTS",here was the most severe damage occurred,entire rows of brick-concrete-mixed one or two story big houses were completeley swept away,some only left clean foundation,debris was scattered downwind for long distances,reinforced concrete poles are broken off at ground level,hardwood trees nearby only left debarked trunks and no leaves or branches remaining,small branches deeply embedded into concrete walls,tractors were mangled and thrown several hundred yards away,a water tank weighing between 3-5 tons were thrown four miles away according to local residents.Ground scouring was obvious as the tornado left the town and went downhill.Again the tornado "dived"into another valley and again climbed another mountain,slightly shrinking in width and strength,tornado encountered another town,abbreviated "SZZ".EF4 damage took place again where numerous well-anchored brick homes were completely swept away left only piles of rubbles,the tornado then climbed to the peak of the mountain and quickly disspated. In all,five people were killed,58 were injured.​

 

[Ivanthetornadoenthusiast]

I think that tornado was the 2017 Chifeng tornadoes