-
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
DanLarsen34
Member
Honestly, your takes and evolution on the damage made sense at the time, namely that the worst contextual damage (Bremen) didn’t overlap with the proper structures to warrant an upgrade. It was also easy for some of the most impressive damage pics to get lost or forgotten as the survey began to come out and steer the discussion towards what they were considering versus the limited info we had at the time from pics.
I highly recommend people to go back through that thread to be honest. There’s a lot of damage pics in that thread that may have been forgotten or somewhat lost. I believe the area around Cayce where the trenching occurred towards the beginning of the path may have also had a row of trees that were obliterated just beyond the trenching, but I may be confusing that with the Buckeye, AR row (I’ll attach that below). There’s also the train derailment that I know got some discussion in this thread back when Enderlin got upgraded.
There were also areas of the path for which we did not get as much details on damage that might be worth discussing or reviewing. The survey was not as thorough as you would have expected given the historic nature of the tornado, but it’s understandable to some degree given the length of the tornado path.
I came away from my fresh look at the damage and the discussion as viewing the Western Kentucky tornado as a plausible EF-5. It’s not the most egregious miss of this era, but it is definitely deserving of another look as the new scale and DIs get implemented.
Attachments
TH2002
Member
- Messages
- 4,974
- Reaction score
- 11,116
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
I have to correct myself and say the location of that photo was misreported at the time - it's from Cambridge Shores.
Also, the First Christian Church is not the structure in question - it's the First Presbyterian Church. For reference:
speedbump305
Member
Still blows my mind to this very day. About to be 5 whole years since that tragic day as well. Vividly remember tracking it as the night went on with such a horrible gut feeling. Probably won’t see a tornado of this caliber ever again in December during our lifetime.
There are better ones out there, but here’s an example of some of the EF5 tree damage in Bremen. Literal wind rowing of root balled trees that were not in leaf. This is not something you ever really see.
Also I am not 100% sure, but I believe that’s the 190 MPH house right there. If so, this type of tree damage could provide enough contextual support for a context-based upgrade of the house itself. It’s ridiculous to think the house was kept at 190 largely because of tree damage (I personally think the bigger issue here was the construction but hey what do I know). The fact that the survey team cherry picked a few standing trees as a contextual discrepancy, but completely missed the numerous root ball displacements right in front of them shows just how poor of a grasp some WFOs have on the concepts of tree and contextual damage.
Edit: Yup that’s 190 MPH house. Storm shelter door on the white part of the floor confirms it. If the records change ban is lifted, this absolutely needs to be considered. Prime candidate for a context based upgrade.
Also I am not 100% sure, but I believe that’s the 190 MPH house right there. If so, this type of tree damage could provide enough contextual support for a context-based upgrade of the house itself. It’s ridiculous to think the house was kept at 190 largely because of tree damage (I personally think the bigger issue here was the construction but hey what do I know). The fact that the survey team cherry picked a few standing trees as a contextual discrepancy, but completely missed the numerous root ball displacements right in front of them shows just how poor of a grasp some WFOs have on the concepts of tree and contextual damage.
Edit: Yup that’s 190 MPH house. Storm shelter door on the white part of the floor confirms it. If the records change ban is lifted, this absolutely needs to be considered. Prime candidate for a context based upgrade.
Last edited:
SouthFLwx
Member
This ain't gonna sit well with those who are hyper-focused on construction quality and using a single DI, but the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado is a blatantly obvious EF-5. It quite literally checks off all the boxes of EF-5 damage when you take poor construction out of the picture. Hundreds of homes were leveled and swept away, trees were debarked and tossed, vehicles were tossed considerable distances and mangled, granulation and wind rowing of debris occurred, and multiple strong structures were destroyed (Mayfield church and UK Research Center). Another description of EF-5 damage is that "incredible phenomenon will occur" and this box is checked off by the train tossing in Barnsley and some of other other incredible contextual damage feats along it's path. Lastly, one more thing that solidifies it as an EF-5 in my mind is the complete destruction to numerous communities along the path. There was EF-4+ damage in Cayce, Mayfield, Cambridge Shores, Princeton, Dawson Springs, Barnsley, and Bremen and this is not taking communities in between into consideration. Many EF-5 tornadoes usually leave their mark in one or two communities but this one caused mass devastation in so many towns, particularly Cambridge Shores, Dawson Springs, and Bremen.
DanLarsen34
Member
I know we’ve talked a bit in this thread about ground scouring. One of the most intense instances of it I can recall is what Simon Brewer and Justin Drake observed in the aftermath of the Coleridge tornado in 2014.
Does anyone else have examples of violent tornado damage associated with this tornado, even if it’s just contextual evidence? I imagine if this tornado had impacted Coleridge proper that it would have produced EF-5 intensity damage. It’s one of the most violent tornadoes I can recall watching.
Does anyone else have examples of violent tornado damage associated with this tornado, even if it’s just contextual evidence? I imagine if this tornado had impacted Coleridge proper that it would have produced EF-5 intensity damage. It’s one of the most violent tornadoes I can recall watching.
Attachments
sripey
Member
About a year ago Simon said that the Coleridge tornado was visually the most violent tornado he had ever seen. That's really something considering the amount of tornadoes he has witnessed over 25 years or so.
I think a lot of chasers end up saying bs with how tornadoes look, but from chasers that have seen like, hundreds of tornadoes, many of which strong, if not violent? That's legit crazy, what the hell was up with June 2014?
sripey
Member
Agreed.
Simon and Jake are as matter of fact, zero-hype, as they come. I respect the hell out of them and their approach to chasing. They've seen everything. That's why Simon's account of the Coleridge tornado stuck with me.
Eoline
Member
NCEI report this morning confirms that Enid was “very highly likely an EF5 tornado” in the vicinity of Southgate Road, yet they kept it at 180.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=1331794
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=1331794
jiharris0220
Member
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Wow. I haven't seen a tornado like Enid that got acknowledged as a EF5 without the rating since Chapman. Insane.
jiharris0220
Member
Gotta love this rating era when a tornado is explicitly stated to be EF5 and yet not classified as such, classic.
slenker
Member
I'm guessing the only thing that held them back from giving the rating was the amount of assumptions that went into the modeling, combined with the fact that the windspeed calculations weren't "overwhelmingly" EF5 like they were in Enderlin's case. At least you can tell that they put a lot of work into the process, and they probably did want to rate this EF5, but were held back by the precedent set post-2013.
This is a rating I would love to see upgraded, but it seems it is finalized. My prediction on Enid getting EF5 based on contextuals can be officially thrown into the garbage now.
Eoline
Member
The entire situation is weird; I think some sort of higher-up process prevented an EF5 rating.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Honestly, Im struggling to find a reason. They found through calculations that the RV would've took 204-217 mph winds, CLAIMED it as a likely EF5 yer the Enderlin precedent isn't done here? Enid deserves a upgrade and if not, i have serious questions. Just because it isn't overwhelming EF5 winds doesn't mean it doesn't deserve it. I wouldn't rule it out but I think if we are to see the upgrade, people need to go all out and try get consideration for it.
jiharris0220
Member
The whole thing with Enderlin didn’t get me excited at all for proper tornado ratings, it just solidified my thinking that the EF scale will continue to be a joke until the new version is out and if and when the reanalysis of past ratings is put into practice.
The fact that higher ups need to get involved plus an entire scientific verification process through multiple agencies, just to rate a tornado EF5 is what sealed the deal for any hope in this current scale.
slenker
Member
This isn't me saying that I think the rating reasonable or that I agree with their decision to keep it at EF4 180 - but I do understand where they are coming from if their concern lies with such simulations containing too many generous assumptions, which is likely to me.
If that is the case, then the fact that they weren't getting values well exceeding 200 mph means that if there is something wrong with the assumptions they made (and there very likely is, when considering the real world vs. idealized simulations), these numbers cannot be 100% trusted, even with Monte Carlo simulations. They add good credence to the fact that it likely reached EF5 intensity, but it's not as set-in-stone as structural damage calculations would be. Unlike with structural damage indicators, there isn't a standardized way to approach granting a rating based on the simulations. I was hoping Enderlin would get the ball rolling when it comes to this type of thing, but it appears that it has not (at least, not yet).
Also, it is worth mentioning that the numbers they are using are almost explicitly median/mean values and ranges. They almost certainly did get runs below the 200 mph threshold for any one or more of these DIs they tested on, and if the amount of runs pointing to EF4 rather than EF5 intensity is within a single standard deviation, the decision to keep it at EF4 is honestly a good one to me. FWIW, I do still think it reached EF5 intensity, and it should be rated as such. Of course, I'm throwing out a lot of hypotheticals here, and I could be wrong on what the true reasoning is... but their decision to state outright "the tornado very highly likely reached EF5 intensity" and not say "certainly" does some heavy lifting here.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
That's true. This is the same process though, so i find it boggling that the EF5 rating just hasn't been PLANTED as such on it. Tornadoes like Elkhorn took until July to upgrade, so i honestly think Norman have a good enough understanding of this to HOPEFULLY reconsider that door open on this one.
On a side note, i decided to email NWS Norman at a risk of understanding if thinking has shifted in recent years regarding rather non traditional ways to consider tornadoes EF5.