WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
And this is why I dislike DOW readings. Rarely what they record actually correlate to the ground. It's great science but it means nothing if these winds didn't touch the ground
-
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
Aaron Rider
Member
Can someone remind me why the Greenfield parking stops shouldn't be used? I forget
I mean, it's entirely possible Greenfield is what 320 mph 1-5 second wind gusts look like on the ground. The lack of expected intensity in the damage can realistically be attributed to the short duration.
If ratings were assigned based on a probability curve the parking stops would move the distribution upwards without being the total deciding factor of the rating. They're the perfect example of how unresolved doubt is currently treated as a ceiling. Even if there was a debris collision or some other element that helped move them, it doesn't eliminate the extraordinary evidence of them being moved, and it's still an exceptionally rare DI.
slenker
Member
One thing that does need to be emphasized is the fact that the wind parcel responsible for the 300+ mph reading was very likely accelerated to that velocity after ground contact, assuming it made direct contact with the ground in the first place. It’s extremely unlikely that it was 300 mph the entire time. Definitely doesn’t omit it from being 200+ at the surface though, in fact it was very likely in that range at the surface.
I wouldn’t be against an EF5 rating for Greenfield, I just think there are much worse examples of the EF scale’s misapplication than this (if you can even call it a misapplication). Specifically, the ratings where the EF scale was very obviously misapplied. Vilonia, Chickasha, Goldsby, Matador, Linton, Lake City, arguably Bassfield and Mayfield, etc. are the tornadoes that truly emphasize the misapplication of the scale IMO.
I wouldn’t be against an EF5 rating for Greenfield, I just think there are much worse examples of the EF scale’s misapplication than this (if you can even call it a misapplication). Specifically, the ratings where the EF scale was very obviously misapplied. Vilonia, Chickasha, Goldsby, Matador, Linton, Lake City, arguably Bassfield and Mayfield, etc. are the tornadoes that truly emphasize the misapplication of the scale IMO.
Last edited:
Eoline
Member
I wouldn’t even call Greenfield a misapplication - for what the EF scale is intended to do (rate verified structural, contextual and vegetative damage) the rating is completely fine.
Aren't parking stops and sewer systems engineered structures too, though?
slenker
Member
I edited my comment before your reply, I didn’t mean to insinuate it was.
IIRC they were pretty structurally weak (I think their anchoring was worn down) for parking stops and weren't good evidence like in Joplin. Washington 2013 is a real instance of one of them getting lofted and it probably actually being an EF5 worthy DI.
Washington, IL lofted parking stops? I’ve never heard of this. Is there a source? Besides an automotive store and an apartment complex, that tornado’s path was almost entirely through neighborhoods and subdivisions, so I don’t see much opportunity for it to have even encountered parking stops. I’m skeptical but willing to be proven wrong here.
All the discussion I saw regarding their structural flaws were pure, unsubstantiated speculation. The concrete shattered and the bolts were left behind so that wasn't the failure point anyways. The structural integrity makes no difference if they aren't even being included in the rating though.
Not necessarily. Sometimes businesses just throw them in a parking lot without anchoring them and there’s usually no governing body or code to make sure they are attached to the pavement. They’re only potentially significant if they are anchored. The ones in Vilonia weren’t anchored at all and subsequently aren’t significant. I also recall an EF2 in Florida years ago that hit a correctional facility parking lot while clearly below EF5 intensity, and parking stops were moved despite the tornado absolutely and conclusively not being violent. You can’t automatically assume parking stops are an EF5 damage indicator, because they often aren’t. But if the Greenfield ones were anchored it is potentially significant.
Like they broke before they left the ground? If so, they weren’t actually lofted from their anchors intact. This is different than what happened in Joplin. What you’re describing here screams “broken apart by debris impacts” rather than actual intact lofting and removal. I’d really need to see some detailed pics to fully understand what happened there though.
While the parking stops are interesting, I echo the same general sentiments as everyone else. Out of all the potentially missed EF5s, Greenfield is not high on the list, and it could be argued that it doesn’t belong on the list at all. There’s just not one single structure that anyone can point out as a huge miss or obvious EF5 damage point. It debarked a bunch of trees and swept away a bunch of older farmhouses and block foundation homes, which is something an EF4 is absolutely capable of. In terms of contextual damage I’ve seen much, much worse as well. The only thing that can be pointed out is the parking stops and manhole covers, and I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable using those as the sole basis for EF5. There are other tornadoes far more deserving of scrutiny for possible EF5 intensity.
Ozonelayer
Member
Yeah, I feel like there's a big difference between candidates like Vilonia/Mayfield and Greenfield. It has some argument but personally, I'm of the opinion it was rated just fine, considering the poorly built homes and since it was so thin at this point, it had so little time over each home, as opposed to other EF5 Candidates like the two I mentioned who swept structures more than worthy of EF5 Clean [The church in Mayfield, the 190 Home and surrounding trees, literally close to a dozen or more homes regarding Vilonia], and had contextual damage comparable to the likes of Smithville.
I agree with the sentiment that in terms of EF-5 Candidates, Greenfield is not high up in the list [if on it at all]
I agree with the sentiment that in terms of EF-5 Candidates, Greenfield is not high up in the list [if on it at all]
Um..NWS Grand Forks just altered their official path of the 2010 Almora, MN EF4 tornado and added new tornadoes from that event based on Nick K’s findings…
Hmm, what happened the “ban” on records changes? It’s almost like it doesn’t exist in any official capacity, almost like it’s a statement that WFOs can throw out there any time they are proven wrong but don’t want to change anything. What’s the term for that…hmmmmm uh “lying to people” I think it’s called???
In all seriousness, that is so ridiculous. This just motivates me to double down and carry on with my own personal research. I can’t interpret this any other way besides WFOs finding new creative ways to dodge accountability, and side step any attempt to set the record straight amid the growing influx of “armchair” tornado damage researchers as they bring forth more and more evidence of the NWS getting things wrong. It seems they have a created a blanket statement to shoo away amateur tornado event/damage researchers when they do anything that rocks the boat or challenges the official record. The takeaway? Don’t back down, and keep working on getting info out there that promotes truth and accuracy, even if it’s not “official”. Sorry but this one has me heated big time. It really sounds like the records change ban is a big fat lie.
Hmm, what happened the “ban” on records changes? It’s almost like it doesn’t exist in any official capacity, almost like it’s a statement that WFOs can throw out there any time they are proven wrong but don’t want to change anything. What’s the term for that…hmmmmm uh “lying to people” I think it’s called???
In all seriousness, that is so ridiculous. This just motivates me to double down and carry on with my own personal research. I can’t interpret this any other way besides WFOs finding new creative ways to dodge accountability, and side step any attempt to set the record straight amid the growing influx of “armchair” tornado damage researchers as they bring forth more and more evidence of the NWS getting things wrong. It seems they have a created a blanket statement to shoo away amateur tornado event/damage researchers when they do anything that rocks the boat or challenges the official record. The takeaway? Don’t back down, and keep working on getting info out there that promotes truth and accuracy, even if it’s not “official”. Sorry but this one has me heated big time. It really sounds like the records change ban is a big fat lie.
Last edited:
I mean if you can get the NWS offices actually on board with this, I have little doubt that the official records could be changed, given they are the source of those records.
However, I'm going to guess that fixing paths and adding previously undocumented tornadoes may go over better than trying to change ratings (as dumb as that really is).
However, I'm going to guess that fixing paths and adding previously undocumented tornadoes may go over better than trying to change ratings (as dumb as that really is).
Last edited:
Apparently so. It just irritates me that people’s valid findings have been brushed away citing that “reason”, in a manner that made it seem like an official, non-negotiable, across the board decision. Now I’m wondering if they’ll only accept emails from people with academic involvement in the field. That’s going to be a barrier for any email I send, even me and the people I’m working with find something incredible.
It probably depends on the WFO. We've seen the NWS make tweaks to DAT of older tornadoes quite a few times before, both with path corrections and occasionally rating changes. However, I suspect that when the main tornado rating is unchanged (in this case there is still a 175mph EF4, just additional weaker tornadoes), or when the rating change is something like EF0->EF1 or EF1->EF2 it is less troublesome. I'd also be curious how many of those changes are entered into finalised databases.
I also remember NWS Paducah saying: "it is not out of the question that at some point in time in the future that this could be upgraded to a five." regarding Mayfield. Possibly hinting at the new EF Scale version, though I don't know.
Eoline
Member
I’m starting to think it’s a southeast-specific thing given every office that turned me down was within SE HQ; they almost exclusively seem to be affected by it.