tornado examiner
Member
- Messages
- 2,224
- Location
- texas
I'm like 80% sure the slabbed home in question had anchor bolts connecting the sub floor to the foundation.
-
Welcome to TalkWeather! We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion. CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER
Thanks for sharing these. Damage from Greenfield was certainly less extreme than some of our EF5s and also some of the other HE EF4s. But the fact it did such generally intense destruction given the extremely quick motion and very small size of the core windspeeds is, to me at least, exceptionally impressive. Did a couple rough calculations based on the width of the EF3+ damage core on DAT and the average speed of the tornado (which probably accelerated during its occlusion) and came to a residence time of just 2.8 seconds of the tornado when it was doing its worst damage. No wonder DOW got windspeeds so high.
Also really appreciate how thorough and accurate the survey was from the NWS. One of the standout surveys of the decade so far, I dare say? The more I learn about the Greenfield tornado, the more I think it was probably one of the most consequential in the 2020s era, so far, considering all the research and observations likely to result. Really hope the town is getting on a lot better now, and that rebuilding efforts are going on smoothly
- Messages
- 876
- Location
- Iowa
I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement, even though I agree with the rest of your comment. There hasn't been a single tornado in the last 11 years that completely wiped away as many houses as this one did. Vilonia was the closest and it was only about half as many (most of the pictures people share are after significant clean up was already completed). Sure, build quality was worse, but the scale of the totality of destruction is unmatched. Vilonia is the only tornado i've seen with as severe of a scar on satellite as well.
Here's a video taken 30 days later that really shows how many houses were converted into the mountains of debris you see in pictures of the aftermath.
80 empty lots on my last count. Have only gotten as far as verifying 40 of them as being houses before, which were completely wiped clean, and didn't care to go any further. The 17 scoured basement walls in my above posts are really the best example of what the tornado did across its entire path.
It's especially crazy when you sit and count to 2 in your head and realize the tornado had more in common with the physical properties of an explosion than high winds.
Here’s the deal:
1.) I never shrugged off the negligence that led to the ratings of those tornadoes. They were negligently rated EF4 when they genuinely met EF5 criteria. We’re in agreement there, so I have no idea what you mean by that.
2.) Your misconception that the Goldsby tornado is being used as the training standard for EF4 damage at every forecast office in the US is 100% unfounded, and demonstrably false. Even if it was, it obviously isn’t having much influence given more liberal EF4 ratings like Marietta, Newnan, and others. That means your assertion that it has set a blanket precedent at every WFO is also demonstrably false.
3.) I at no point said that bad precedent doesn’t exist. I am saying it doesn’t exist at every single office.
4.) The official EF5s listed happened in the Dodge City, Des Moines, Jackson, Birmingham, Huntsville, Springfield, and Norman office forecast areas. Every single one of the “should a been EF5s” post-2013 that have been discussed at length on this forum happened exclusively OUTSIDE OF THOSE WFOs. That means your claim that “equals” have happened since then and been underrated by those same WFOs, is demonstrably false.
5.) Training wise, all I said about was that it should include studies on prior official EF5s and what led to those ratings being finalized as such. I didn’t say anything about "actually too unorganized and incompetent", so you’re quoting a statement I didn’t make.
6.) I never said that the “NWS couldn’t possibly use their own precedent to rate tornadoes”, so that’s another quote I never made, and I don’t really even know what that’s supposed to mean. If anything, there should be MORE focus on precedent related to the rating process rational behind the official EF5s, as I mentioned earlier.
7.) There’s no super nice way to say it, but “One of the most valuable contributors” is not an accurate description, at all. I’m sorry, but I don’t think that’s a controversial statement among Talkweather users, as unpleasant as it is. There is a history of disruptive, foolish, and uninformed posts from that user. Most weather forums would have banned him quickly.
8.) Calling it “gathering data” is a grotesque abuse of the definition of that term. He slapped Robinson-style survey logic on the official list EF5s, got several details wrong, and called it a day. Calling that “research” is an insult to that term as well. It’s not like somebody toiled, dug, and pored over academic journals to compile the list. You’re trying to make it seem like days of hard work went into it, which is laughable. It’s literally a Wikipedia binge’s worth of info.
9). The list is not “concrete verifiable fact”. There were multiple inaccuracies that me and TH2002 pointed out, and that’s not even up for debate.
10.) The DAT and any other sources are not needed or relevant in this conversation, as I am already aware of the specific damage details and rating process rational behind each EF5 in extreme detail, as are others here. Ranting about the DAT and sources is an attempt to lend credence to something that doesn’t have any. It is literally the official EF5s from Wikipedia, a sweeping generalization, and damage survey details that aren’t even accurate. It’s not that deep, and I don’t need to source what is already established common knowledge on this forum.
11.) The bottom line is that the list was created under the assumption that EVERY SINGLE forecast office surveys damage the exact same way, each is extremely conservative with tornado ratings, and each uses Robinson-esque survey logic. That is demonstrably untrue, and since the list operates on a claim that is demonstrably untrue, it invalidates the conclusion about Parkersburg. This one isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of you and whoever made the list just being straight up wrong, period.
12.) I’m not a contrarian, your assertions simply do not hold up under scrutiny, and you’re not enjoying the process of that being pointed out. That’s all there is to it. This isn’t people ganging up on you, it’s not ego, and it’s not people making fun of you. It’s your confidence exceeding your actual knowledge and reasoning skills, and you making claims that are demonstrably false on a public forum. Finding out your stance doesn’t hold water is never a pleasant experience, but that’s all this is. I’ve experienced it, it’s not fun, but I’ve learned from it, I’d recommend you try to do the same.
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong, I agree the damage was intense, high-end and widespread. I believe its probably F5 level and you could maybe make a strenuous argument in the 2007-2011 era of the EF scale it constitutes EF5 damage. Certainly was EF5 intensity.
But the number of slabbed homes is merely a function of how many homes there were to hit. The extremity of the damage, which is what I was talking about, is unrelated to the number of damaged homes. I'm talking about the nature of the damaged homes + other contextual and structural damage of course.
Also, I would imagine Mayfield probably has the most destroyed homes of any tornado since maybe Moore 2013 by far, given it tracked 168 miles consistently destroying homes in Cayce, Mayfield, Cambridge Shores, Princeton, Dawson Springs, Bremen, plus less developed areas in between.
- Messages
- 876
- Location
- Iowa
This is the only video that exists of the tornado going through Greenfield. I saw it posted on Reddit and have no way of verifying its legitimacy, but have no reason to believe it's fake either.
- Messages
- 876
- Location
- Iowa
I'm talking about homes that weren't just destroyed but were completely torn off their foundation without a trace left behind. I always thought Mayfield and Rolling fork were lacking in that department. Recent pictures have changed my mind on Mayfield, but I only counted about 20-25 with that type of damage between Princeton, Cambridge shores, and Bremen.
I'm probably unnecessarily opening a can of worms making such bold claims about Greenfield, but it had 318 mph winds, and I believe it shows every bit of those winds if you analyze the damage close enough. The damage was one of a kind.
1.) Flaccid, tepid rebuttal with no actual substance. Nice try though.This is called projection.
And here's the training module. look at it for yourself.
Discriminating EF4 and EF5 tornado damage
Discriminating EF4 and EF5 tornado Read more about ladue, debris, tornado, swept, piedmont and blanchard.www.yumpu.com
Have a good day.
2.) I am aware that exists, but you posting it doesn’t further your argument in any way, so I’ll elaborate. You’ve obviously convinced yourself of a reality where this slideshow is an integral part of training, and that every NWS surveyor specifically heads out to survey damage with images of Goldsby slabs fresh in mind. But that is an imagined scenario. Let me explain to you what that document actually is: a slideshow to accompany a live presentation that was shown once at an AMS conference, many years ago. That’s all it is. I know NWS employees, and this is not some sort of mandatory standard training guide being used at every WFO in the US, but you’ve taken a huge leap in logic and are operating under the impression that this is what’s happening. As a matter of fact, it has clearly fallen out of favor, as it was actually removed from the AMS website as a published study years ago. Have you ever bothered to think why you can only find it on Yumpu for crying out loud? Someone saved it and uploaded it there, and it wouldn’t be publicly accessible otherwise, because the American Meteorological Society pulled it. Who knows how many NWS employees are even aware of its existence?
Look, there’s a lot of misconception, shoddy logic, and assumptions on your end. You can either dig your heels in and get indignant when presented with info that doesn’t jive with your current viewpoint, or be willing to learn and adjust to that info being presented.
Last edited:
AJS
Member
- Messages
- 2,370
- Location
- Houston Texas.
I am not too sure if the slab swept on the far left is the result of clean up throughout Smithville, but good lord… that might be the most cleanly swept house I have ever seen photographed from any tornado aftermath.
tornado examiner
Member
- Messages
- 2,224
- Location
- texas
AJS
Member
- Messages
- 2,370
- Location
- Houston Texas.
I consider this area of Smithville, being the Eastern subdivision and area around the funeral home, to be the most intense area of tornado damage ever photographed. The sheer amount of destruction of everything in it’s path while moving at an astonishing 70 mph will forever be unfathomable.
tornado examiner
Member
- Messages
- 2,224
- Location
- texas
Every single home, quite a few of them exceptionally well built two story brick homes, swept away with every piece of them turned into fragments. Essentially blitzed in a mother natural food processor set to the tune of a nuclear shockwave spiralling around at several hundred RPM. Or some other such indescribably powerful force cause the smithville tornado remains inexplicable to me. I cannot process how one would visualize the core of that thing.
AJS
Member
- Messages
- 2,370
- Location
- Houston Texas.
Also @buckeye05 do you happen to have any damage photos from the Dayton tornado/Ohio tornadoes from the May 2019 sequence or any images of the tornadoes? I am planning to do a big write up on this sequence for school.
- Messages
- 630
- Location
- Columbus, OH
What in the world did I just walk into?
The rating is fine for Greenfield. I will stand by this. There was no actual EF5 damage. The unsurveyed home shown isn’t anchored. The ground scouring, while existent, is not overly impressive especially when compared to other tornadoes of similar intensity. DOW measurements were taken roughly 50 meters off the ground and coincided with an area of EF3 damage. The office responsible for Greenfield’s rating did a fine job iirc, and really spent a lot of time going over a vast majority of homes. The damage scar is exaggerated because the vortex is A) small, and B) moving at about 50 mph through the town. I believe that relying on a DOW windspeed measurement to rate a tornado EF5 is not reliable at all, because there’s been EF2 tornadoes with winds exceeding 200 mph from DOW that most certainly did not meet the requirement for getting an EF5 rating.
Greenfield had subpar debris granulation and nothing overly impressive on the debarking front, outside of one totally debarked tree in town that I’m pretty sure they found to be a dead tree (unsure of the source here, but I heard it repeated somewhere on here). Said tree also wasn’t entirely denuded, leading me to believe that the bark on it was weaker than surrounding trees. It being dead is entirely believable. Comparing Greenfield to a tornado of similar shape that was F5 intensity, you would be comparing it to Niles/Wheatland, which had more impressive damage feats across the board - scouring, tree damage, home damage. It also had a faster forward speed than Greenfield did.
Greenfield was undoubtedly of EF5 intensity at some point through town, but the point is, they used the scale correctly. There was never a home that deserved an EF5 rating. Painting them scrutinizing building standards as “offensive” in a sense is strange. The people you should direct that anger towards are the people behind building these homes, because they’re the ones that cut corners for the sake of cost over safety. There is one argument you could make for Greenfield being EF5, and that’s the parking stops being launched, which - fair, I suppose. But it’s also completely within reason to view that as an outlier compared to the outside damage. I can see both sides of the argument there.
@buckeye05 While I can understand where you’re coming from, I feel like it would be more civil if this was approached in a more chill sense. @Grand Poo Bah never insulted or used a demeaning tone, he’s just stating an opinion - albeit one I do disagree with on many fronts - to a science that is incredibly subjective. I’m of the opinion that comparing other WFOs reasons for not rating something EF5 to the past EF5s can and should absolutely be used to scrutinize said agencies, but they shouldn’t be broadly applied. So the document isn’t inherently bad and doesn’t scream pseudoscience to me, but when it is applied in a manner to further an overly idealized “EF only awful” argument across the board, then I understand.
The EF scale, when used by a WFO like Birmingham AL or Wilmington OH, seems to be at its best. And when it’s used in those ways it absolutely is the best option we have as of now to rate tornadoes.
First of all, you have shown a lot of imagery backing your point, and I appreciate that. But not all of it is sound to me.
The rating is fine for Greenfield. I will stand by this. There was no actual EF5 damage. The unsurveyed home shown isn’t anchored. The ground scouring, while existent, is not overly impressive especially when compared to other tornadoes of similar intensity. DOW measurements were taken roughly 50 meters off the ground and coincided with an area of EF3 damage. The office responsible for Greenfield’s rating did a fine job iirc, and really spent a lot of time going over a vast majority of homes. The damage scar is exaggerated because the vortex is A) small, and B) moving at about 50 mph through the town. I believe that relying on a DOW windspeed measurement to rate a tornado EF5 is not reliable at all, because there’s been EF2 tornadoes with winds exceeding 200 mph from DOW that most certainly did not meet the requirement for getting an EF5 rating.
Greenfield had subpar debris granulation and nothing overly impressive on the debarking front, outside of one totally debarked tree in town that I’m pretty sure they found to be a dead tree (unsure of the source here, but I heard it repeated somewhere on here). Said tree also wasn’t entirely denuded, leading me to believe that the bark on it was weaker than surrounding trees. It being dead is entirely believable. Comparing Greenfield to a tornado of similar shape that was F5 intensity, you would be comparing it to Niles/Wheatland, which had more impressive damage feats across the board - scouring, tree damage, home damage. It also had a faster forward speed than Greenfield did.
Greenfield was undoubtedly of EF5 intensity at some point through town, but the point is, they used the scale correctly. There was never a home that deserved an EF5 rating. Painting them scrutinizing building standards as “offensive” in a sense is strange. The people you should direct that anger towards are the people behind building these homes, because they’re the ones that cut corners for the sake of cost over safety. There is one argument you could make for Greenfield being EF5, and that’s the parking stops being launched, which - fair, I suppose. But it’s also completely within reason to view that as an outlier compared to the outside damage. I can see both sides of the argument there.
@buckeye05 While I can understand where you’re coming from, I feel like it would be more civil if this was approached in a more chill sense. @Grand Poo Bah never insulted or used a demeaning tone, he’s just stating an opinion - albeit one I do disagree with on many fronts - to a science that is incredibly subjective. I’m of the opinion that comparing other WFOs reasons for not rating something EF5 to the past EF5s can and should absolutely be used to scrutinize said agencies, but they shouldn’t be broadly applied. So the document isn’t inherently bad and doesn’t scream pseudoscience to me, but when it is applied in a manner to further an overly idealized “EF only awful” argument across the board, then I understand.
The EF scale, when used by a WFO like Birmingham AL or Wilmington OH, seems to be at its best. And when it’s used in those ways it absolutely is the best option we have as of now to rate tornadoes.
tornado examiner
Member
- Messages
- 2,224
- Location
- texas
Oh…so…nevermind on greenfield being upgraded at all.
Well said. There is a lot of focus on improving or creating a new scale - I agree improvements to include more context and other structures can only be a good thing - but the vast majority of problems with the ratings (In my opinion) would be solved with just correct and thorough application of the scale.
tornado examiner
Member
- Messages
- 2,224
- Location
- texas
And I hope new training teaches surveyors about how tight tornado damage gradient’s can be. So no more “random thing left standing near slabbed home means no EF5” bullcrap.
I do have some personal aftermath photos of the Beavercreek EF3 if you’d be interested in that.
In terms of the other topic, that’s about as chill as I can be. This issues are that first off, several details are verifiably false, namely what contextual damage did or didn't occur where. Secondly, that page IS absolutely applied in the manner you’re describing in the last sentence if I’m hearing you right. That manner assumes the most unreasonable surveyors around would be utilized, so everything else on that page stems from that unreasonable assertion, to arrive at an unreasonable conclusion. I just have little tolerance for when incorrect or illogical info is asserted confidently or as factual.
In terms of calling it pseudoscience or not, theres no science involved. It’s just extrapolation.
In terms of the other topic, that’s about as chill as I can be. This issues are that first off, several details are verifiably false, namely what contextual damage did or didn't occur where. Secondly, that page IS absolutely applied in the manner you’re describing in the last sentence if I’m hearing you right. That manner assumes the most unreasonable surveyors around would be utilized, so everything else on that page stems from that unreasonable assertion, to arrive at an unreasonable conclusion. I just have little tolerance for when incorrect or illogical info is asserted confidently or as factual.
In terms of calling it pseudoscience or not, theres no science involved. It’s just extrapolation.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 630
- Location
- Columbus, OH
I went back and read the page, and yes, it turns out it indeed was being used in that manner, because the title of the document is literally “proof that no past EF5 would get EF5 today.” I thought that the page was used in the manner of scrutinizing those surveyors specifically. I’ll digress a bit on that point. I’m still of the opinion that the tone is a little unnecessary, but you are free to act as you wish on this topic.
Also, go bucks. Lol
AJS
Member
- Messages
- 2,370
- Location
- Houston Texas.
Any images would be greatly appreciated.