Significant Tornado Events

[Central Ohio Wx]

Well, what i meant is i agreed with people's points about him maybe being a bit too much trusted. I have no problem hearing his analysis and respect he took the time to do it, but it seems he's a growing figure when it comes to proving about tornado intensity. I'm glad to see he's willing to join the forum, and have a discussion with us if this altercation didn't sour it....

Nick, or Saltical? Automatically assuming someone is completely incorrect based on doing minimal research (they have posted their general calculations before, it was just assumed that they didn’t) is counterproductive. People should do more research before assuming something here is inaccurate, and maybe be open to other ideas instead of looking at images and saying “yup, that’s EF5 damage”. That’s why my activity here has declined, because I realize that outside of damage photos and other images of past events this forum isn’t too useful for things regarding damage analysis; I’d rather hear from someone who has laid out their reasonings and have actual discussion/debate than just back-and-forth bickering and insulting people who are clearly experts in the field of damage assessment (people who work at NOAA/NWS, to be clear).

And the whole “peer-reviewed” thing is ironic, because TornadoTalk is often brought up here as fact (as recent as 2 days ago!) - literally zero of the authors are subject experts in the field, and I don’t think their stuff is peer-reviewed either. But I guess that’s “common sense”, while this simply can’t be trusted? That doesn’t make sense, regardless of whether it’s aerial imagery vs. math.

As for Nick his stuff is mostly legit, as he’s provided in-depth explanations on tornadoes before and has laid out his reasoning.

That’s all from me here, because I think it’s generally obvious this is going to end in a bickering match, as that usually happens here when viewpoints that counter this forum’s ideas regarding tornado damage are brought up.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Anywho, what the heck happened here? Haleyville 4/27/11

 

[buckeye05]

Nick, or Saltical? Automatically assuming someone is completely incorrect based on doing minimal research (they have posted their general calculations before, it was just assumed that they didn’t) is counterproductive. People should do more research before assuming something here is inaccurate, and maybe be open to other ideas instead of looking at images and saying “yup, that’s EF5 damage”. That’s why my activity here has declined, because I realize that outside of damage photos and other images of past events this forum isn’t too useful for things regarding damage analysis; I’d rather hear from someone who has laid out their reasonings and have actual discussion/debate than just back-and-forth bickering and insulting people who are clearly experts in the field of damage assessment (people who work at NOAA/NWS, to be clear).

And the whole “peer-reviewed” thing is ironic, because TornadoTalk is often brought up here as fact (as recent as 2 days ago!) - literally zero of the authors are subject experts in the field, and I don’t think their stuff is peer-reviewed either. But I guess that’s “common sense”, while this simply can’t be trusted? That doesn’t make sense, regardless of whether it’s aerial imagery vs. math.

As for Nick his stuff is mostly legit, as he’s provided in-depth explanations on tornadoes before and has laid out his reasoning.

That’s all from me here, because I think it’s generally obvious this is going to end in a bickering match, as that usually happens here when viewpoints that counter this forum’s ideas regarding tornado damage are brought up.

While I can’t vouch for every single opinion, person, or TornadoTalk for that matter, I can guarantee you that there’s a little more that goes into it than that, and can guarantee you that some very reasonable points have been made here, even if that’s not all the time. In addition, and I’ve said this before, but the EF scale is not some ultra convoluted myriad of incomprehensible analysis that can understood by a select few or NWS employees only. People are capable of researching it and grasping it, and accurately applying it to available information on the internet. While it’s never going to be quite the same as being there, we live in a day and age where you can gather remarkably detailed information about a specific tornado, and have detailed images and information regarding the type of structures it impacted, have specific details of their construction, along with the context and rationale used by the NWS in the rating process. If a person really takes a careful look at everything, ranging from NWS info to raw imagery and everything in between, they can put together a surprisingly detailed picture, and have enough info to factor in critical details like construction and context, which is a majority of what goes into a rating. There are a ton of resources out there that can allow you to have a fine-tuned understanding of house construction and just how it relates to the EF scale. There’s also just the mental database you develop after poring over countless tornado events, and within it there are certain patterns, signatures, and contextual hallmarks that become undeniably linked to varying levels of intensity. Also there are sometimes certain inconsistencies, double standards, and gaps in rationale that stick out like a sore thumb in certain surveys (Vilonia being a big one). Sometimes the rationalization provided by the NWS seems valid and consistent, other times it doesn’t, and when it doesn’t it gets discussed, sometimes with genuinely compelling evidence to support a dissenting opinion. My point being, while I don’t agree with every take I see on here, it’s not all just a bunch of people jumping to conclusions and calling for EF5 any time they see a foundation or some debarked trees.

 

[WeathermanLeprechaun]

Nick, or Saltical? Automatically assuming someone is completely incorrect based on doing minimal research (they have posted their general calculations before, it was just assumed that they didn’t) is counterproductive. People should do more research before assuming something here is inaccurate, and maybe be open to other ideas instead of looking at images and saying “yup, that’s EF5 damage”. That’s why my activity here has declined, because I realize that outside of damage photos and other images of past events this forum isn’t too useful for things regarding damage analysis; I’d rather hear from someone who has laid out their reasonings and have actual discussion/debate than just back-and-forth bickering and insulting people who are clearly experts in the field of damage assessment (people who work at NOAA/NWS, to be clear).

And the whole “peer-reviewed” thing is ironic, because TornadoTalk is often brought up here as fact (as recent as 2 days ago!) - literally zero of the authors are subject experts in the field, and I don’t think their stuff is peer-reviewed either. But I guess that’s “common sense”, while this simply can’t be trusted? That doesn’t make sense, regardless of whether it’s aerial imagery vs. math.

As for Nick his stuff is mostly legit, as he’s provided in-depth explanations on tornadoes before and has laid out his reasoning.

That’s all from me here, because I think it’s generally obvious this is going to end in a bickering match, as that usually happens here when viewpoints that counter this forum’s ideas regarding tornado damage are brought up.

I'm not one to bicker or fight over damage analysis if that's what you're intending to say.

I meant Saltical. I've seen some stuff of his go around, but what I'm saying is i wouldn't entirely just trust his calculations and etc about what he says. That's my main point, i am open to anyone's thoughts!

I enjoy Nick's analysis on certain tornadoes a lot, especially new findings and etc like you say yourself

Please refer to who you mean though when talking about a "bickering match" because I'm not that type of person lol and you haven't specified if you mean certain members of the forum here.

TT is not just a process of searching on Google for videos, photos etc like many do, they actually go out and write their research. I mostly read their articles for the damage aspect, not their personal thoughts on a certain damage indicator. That's all subjective, it's anyone's guess what it takes to loft a car and do what New Wren did!

None of it is presented as fact either, i really haven't seen anyone say that Tornado Talk presents everything as legit here and if so, they're incorrect. They give their best attempt to detail the tornado's lifetime on the ground, what it did etc

 

[TH2002]

while i don't know whether its true that all the EF5 homes in joplin had straight nailed studs, i will say that there is pictures of homes in joplin that had the majority of their sill plates removed, as well as bent anchor bolts, which indicates a completely load transfer despite the straight nailed studs. this leads me to believe even if those homes had straight nailed studs, they would still get rated EF5 (this has been backed up by ladue recently with him stating straight nailing can still be EXP).

by comparison, the large majority of the vilonia 190DI's sillplates remained on the foundation, and there was very few bent bolts. the only bent bolt on the vilonia home was one that was improperly placed too close to the edge of the foundation. the generally accepted criteria for EF5 by modern standards is the removal of the majority of a homes sillplates and the presence of some bent bolts, neither of which vilonia had (while joplin had both)

also, joplin still had EF5 DIs even ignoring the wood framed residences. for example, i believe its most impressive DI is a masonry office building, ive seen suggestions that could've warranted a ~220mph rating.

"Also, having both exterior AND interior walls bolted down isn't an attribute of a UB home? Even the EF5 homes in Moore didn't have that."
also, as far as i know, the interior walls of that vilonia home weren't bolted down, they were attached with cutnails weren't they? could be wrong though.

"Until his stuff gets peer reviewed, or he AT LEAST provides some insight into his so-called method" he has explained how his formula works on twitter. while his paper is still in progress and hasnt been officially peer reviewed yet, Jim LaDue himself has seen it and approved of it, as well as other notable figures in the tornado scene such as Reed Timmer.

Absolutely. Homes with straight nailed studs can still get EXP. And that's why the Vilonia home should have gotten an EF5 rating.

Some of the EF5 homes in Moore only had 25% of their baseplates removed, and there's no "bolts have to be bent" EF5 requirement as far as I know. Saying otherwise seems pedantic to me.

And let me say again that yes, Joplin was an EF5.

Yes, the Wicker St home had its interior walls bolted down as well. Proof:

One final note: If Saltical is actively working towards getting his methods peer reviewed, and they have been seen and approved by people like LaDue, that's great! That deserves to be commended. Doesn't change the fact that his overanalysis of the Wicker St. home is just that - overanalysis.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

TT is not just a process of searching on Google for videos, photos etc like many do, they actually go out and write their research. I mostly read their articles for the damage aspect, not their personal thoughts on a certain damage indicator. That's all subjective, it's anyone's guess what it takes to loft a car and do what New Wren did!

None of it is presented as fact either, i really haven't seen anyone say that Tornado Talk presents everything as legit here and if so, they're incorrect. They give their best attempt to detail the tornado's lifetime on the ground, what it did etc

Saltical does similar, and here he's being treated like crap for no discernable reason besides the fact that his stuff isn't peer-reviewed and he doesn't post his calculations (which he has done). My point is that TornadoTalk does the exact same thing (even they don't post their reasoning for several things) but on this forum a lot of the stuff they say is treated as fact. What's the difference? Narramore is the only person there who could remotely be called a subject expert and even she only has a B.S. (Bachelors) in a field I forgot.

Have you seen some of the sources TT uses in their papers? I edit Wikipedia as a hobby so I'm a lot more likely to notice this, but a lot of the sources they use are objectively non-reliable, ie Patch or other. Taking conclusions from a source that isn't reliable just makes your own paper unreliable.

 

[ColdFront]

This will be my final comment on the matter because I want to turn the temperature down.

This site absolutely does not have a “everything is an EF5” mentality. I’d argue the opposite. Many of our posters here lean conservative in their damage assessments. Yes, we have a few users who say every slab and debarked tree is an EF5 candidate. They are the exception, not the rule, and they get called out on it all the time.

Re: Saltical. A lot of us had never even heard of this person. Our first introduction was a few posters here saying his calculations showed Robinson was stronger than Smithville. Then proceeded to dig their heels in and not show any proof. If you all have issues with how that was represented or framed, take it up with the users who stated that to begin with.

@Central Ohio Wx if you don’t like the site or the way things are discussed, no one is forcing you to stay here. I don’t think this site has a groupthink issue. I’m just saying, if you already have a negative opinion of the site, you’re going to bring a negative/dismissive attitude to any discussion on here by default. Even if you don’t mean to bicker, that can still show up in replies. Painting with a broad brush like you have over the past few days certainly isn’t going to endear yourself to the user base on here.

Edit: I also want to apologize to @NickKrasz_Wx. My comment about him was entirely unwarranted and had zero to do with what was being discussed at hand. I got a little hot under the collar, and used something I disagreed with from a few months ago to throw shade at him.

 

[WeathermanLeprechaun]

Saltical does similar, and here he's being treated like crap for no discernable reason besides the fact that his stuff isn't peer-reviewed and he doesn't post his calculations (which he has done). My point is that TornadoTalk does the exact same thing (even they don't post their reasoning for several things) but on this forum a lot of the stuff they say is treated as fact. What's the difference? Narramore is the only person there who could remotely be called a subject expert and even she only has a B.S. (Bachelors) in a field I forgot.

Have you seen some of the sources TT uses in their papers? I edit Wikipedia as a hobby so I'm a lot more likely to notice this, but a lot of the sources they use are objectively non-reliable, ie Patch or other. Taking conclusions from a source that isn't reliable just makes your own paper unreliable.

Nelson Tucker is actually involved in the OTUS Project and pursues meteorology, and Jen's field is meteorology.

I don't normally use Wikipedia as a source because they stupidly allow people without accounts to edit meaning easily false and berserk information can be put on there (Elkhorn got a EF5 edit within two days of the tornado happening which was false.) For the most part, people like you keep that portion of the site clean but it still has its issues. A fair "agree to disagree" here.

I'm not gonna harp on further

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

I don't normally use Wikipedia as a source because they stupidly allow people without accounts to edit meaning easily false and berserk information can be put on there (Elkhorn got a EF5 edit within two days of the tornado happening which was false.) For the most part, people like you keep that portion of the site clean but it still has its issues. A fair "agree to disagree" here.

Quick tip: use the underlying sources that we use instead of Wikipedia itself. I totally get not using Wikipedia as a source, but at the bottom of every article there's a list of references from (usually, still make sure they're reliable) news channels, experts and the NWS on the topic. For example, on the Greensburg article, there's about ~170 references and a list of research papers at the bottom.

As for the rest we'll agree-to-disagree.

 

[Kds86z]

Quick tip: use the underlying sources that we use instead of Wikipedia itself. I totally get not using Wikipedia as a source, but at the bottom of every article there's a list of references from (usually, still make sure they're reliable) news channels, experts and the NWS on the topic. For example, on the Greensburg article, there's about ~170 references and a list of research papers at the bottom.

As for the rest we'll agree-to-disagree.

Agree that Wikipedia is pretty point on and these days and I rarely find a fault.

 

[WeathermanLeprechaun]

Quick tip: use the underlying sources that we use instead of Wikipedia itself. I totally get not using Wikipedia as a source, but at the bottom of every article there's a list of references from (usually, still make sure they're reliable) news channels, experts and the NWS on the topic. For example, on the Greensburg article, there's about ~170 references and a list of research papers at the bottom.

As for the rest we'll agree-to-disagree.

As a fellow tornado fanatic and researcher like yourself, i like to find my own sources haha but i will make sure to do that in case i lurk around the site!

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Agree that Wikipedia is pretty point on and these days and I rarely find a fault.

Also watch for the articles with the green "+" and gold star, specifically the latter. The green plus-sign means it's been reviewed by another editor, and the gold star means it has been deemed a "quality article" by 5 or more experienced people. Greensburg is a good example.
View attachment 48307
Ignore the "ORES" thing here; it's a script I have installed. The star is the only thing that will show for y'all.

 

[crosby]

Absolutely. Homes with straight nailed studs can still get EXP. And that's why the Vilonia home should have gotten an EF5 rating.

Some of the EF5 homes in Moore only had 25% of their baseplates removed, and there's no "bolts have to be bent" EF5 requirement as far as I know. Saying otherwise seems pedantic to me.

Yes, the Wicker St home had its interior walls bolted down as well. Proof:

sorry if this explanation is a bit wordy, i tried my best to phrase it in a way thats somewhat understandable lol. tldr is if a home has bent bolts, it had a complete load path and is EF5. if it didnt, its EF4 (like vilonia).

to get an EF5 rating, a home needs to have a complete load path that can verify EF5 winds. straight nails often (but not always) stop a complete load path from occurring, such as in the case of vilonia. bent bolts are evidence of a complete load path, if there is no bent bolts, that means the failure occurred at the straight nailing rather than at the bolts, and no EF5 rating can be awarded. this is why a lot of EF5 homes often have toenailing rather than straight nailing, as toenailing better allows for the load the be transferred all the way down to the anchor bolts

its not the straight nailing that matters for an EF5 rating, but whether there is a complete load path. in the case of vilonia, the straight nailing prevented a complete load path from occurring, meaning there was no bent bolts, and therefor, no EF5 rating could be given. in other tornadoes, including (i assume) joplin, the straight nailing didnt stop a complete load path from occurring, and the force was still properly transferred all the way down to the bolts, bending them, even though the wall studs were straight nailed.

tornadoes can be straight nailed and rated EF5, or they can be straight nailed and rated EF4. its all about whether a complete load path occurs, its just less likely for that to happen in straight nailed homes

in terms of bolts being bent being a requirement for EF5, this is a quote from a paper on Moore 2013:
"it was decided that an EF5 rating would be assigned to homes that had the following characteristics:
1) foundation swept clean with debris strewn some distance downwind; (vilonia had this)
2) foundation (generally slab) to base-plate connections with properly spaced bolts with properly sized, fitted, and tightened washers and nuts; (vilonia mostly had this)
3) removal of a large percentage of the base plates from the foundation; (vilonia didnt have this)
4) some anchor bolts bent (vilonia didnt have this)"

in regards to the wicker st home's interior walls, im 90% sure those are cut nails and not bolts, but i could be wrong. kinda hard to tell from the image but i think i remember reading in a paper somewhere that they were cutnails

 

[slenker]

After seeing where Saltical gets his cycloid wind calculations from, I can say that the math being done seems quite legitimate - and the numbers are in line with EF scale ratings and DOW readings to an extent. I’d love to see further investigation on using cycloids to support a rating for a tornado after seeing the work being done. And like @buckeye05 stated earlier, it isn’t very hard to follow these things at all, and it doesn’t take a professional to decipher it. From what I could tell, it’s honestly very straightforward to understand if you’re very familiar with parametric equations and calculus. All you need to have background knowledge on is the parametric equations of an ellipse and how to take a derivative. Very followable even for laymen and the logic makes sense to me.

Not a fan of how this thread went. We should be better than what happened here a little while ago.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Not a fan of how this thread went. We should be better than what happened here over the last 12 hours.

Unless I’m missing something, the messages from this morning don’t seem particularly bad? Just a disagreement. Agree with your other points.

 

[WeathermanLeprechaun]

The good thing is regardless of what the train wreck we had many hours ago, that people have realised. This site can be pretty wild but we're still level headed enough to know where the line was crossed at least.

No doubt though, we can do much more better

 

[slenker]

Fixed it. My bad.

Unless I’m missing something, the messages from this morning don’t seem particularly bad? Just a disagreement. Agree with your other points.

 

[Tanner]

I love this sight, and turn to it DAILY. But this is a thread where purely subjective discussions reside when it comes to significant tornadoes in our history–turmoil is inevitable from time to time. Shall we discuss sig tors further and move on from this?

 

[ColdFront]

The good thing is regardless of what the train wreck we had many hours ago, that people have realised. This site can be pretty wild but we're still level headed enough to know where the line was crossed at least.

No doubt though, we can do much more better

To be completely candid, the discussion here was relatively tame compared to some of the more classic dust ups that have occurred on here.

I’ll hand up that my ad hominem attack on Nick was unfair and uncalled for, however, outside of that, the debate itself really wasn’t that heated. Those vigorous debates are to be expected on a forum like this.

 

[TH2002]

sorry if this explanation is a bit wordy, i tried my best to phrase it in a way thats somewhat understandable lol. tldr is if a home has bent bolts, it had a complete load path and is EF5. if it didnt, its EF4 (like vilonia).

to get an EF5 rating, a home needs to have a complete load path that can verify EF5 winds. straight nails often (but not always) stop a complete load path from occurring, such as in the case of vilonia. bent bolts are evidence of a complete load path, if there is no bent bolts, that means the failure occurred at the straight nailing rather than at the bolts, and no EF5 rating can be awarded. this is why a lot of EF5 homes often have toenailing rather than straight nailing, as toenailing better allows for the load the be transferred all the way down to the anchor bolts

its not the straight nailing that matters for an EF5 rating, but whether there is a complete load path. in the case of vilonia, the straight nailing prevented a complete load path from occurring, meaning there was no bent bolts, and therefor, no EF5 rating could be given. in other tornadoes, including (i assume) joplin, the straight nailing didnt stop a complete load path from occurring, and the force was still properly transferred all the way down to the bolts, bending them, even though the wall studs were straight nailed.

tornadoes can be straight nailed and rated EF5, or they can be straight nailed and rated EF4. its all about whether a complete load path occurs, its just less likely for that to happen in straight nailed homes

in terms of bolts being bent being a requirement for EF5, this is a quote from a paper on Moore 2013:
"it was decided that an EF5 rating would be assigned to homes that had the following characteristics:
1) foundation swept clean with debris strewn some distance downwind; (vilonia had this)
2) foundation (generally slab) to base-plate connections with properly spaced bolts with properly sized, fitted, and tightened washers and nuts; (vilonia mostly had this)
3) removal of a large percentage of the base plates from the foundation; (vilonia didnt have this)
4) some anchor bolts bent (vilonia didnt have this)"

in regards to the wicker st home's interior walls, im 90% sure those are cut nails and not bolts, but i could be wrong. kinda hard to tell from the image but i think i remember reading in a paper somewhere that they were cutnails

I appreciate your explanation, but I'm just going to have to go with Occam's razor on this one.

Vilonia did have baseplate removal and bent anchor bolts. Here's another angle of the home:

Also, in this angle, you can see a bent bolt where a sill plate was ripped away:

Regarding whether or not the interior walls were bolted, we'll have to agree to disagree. I personally think they're way too thick to be cut nails, especially in comparison to these photos from Moore and Joplin, where nails were used to secure the interior walls:

edit: Fixed a misspelling that was really bothering me