Oh man that is a thing of beauty. Such a massive improvement over the old DI list. I really like what I am seeing here.
-
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
Also the fact that the new 2030 scale will allow not only EF4, but EF5 ratings to be applied based on tree damage alone, is such an incredibly important step forward that doesn’t get talked about enough.
What this means is that when we have a high-end top of the scale event, even if the construction quality is crap, context and tree damage will be there to fill that gap. I mean heck, a tornado could theoretically hit zero structures and nothing but open fields and a few groves of trees, and still get an EF5 rating! We’ve been needing something like that for a long time, and 2030 cannot come soon enough.
What this means is that when we have a high-end top of the scale event, even if the construction quality is crap, context and tree damage will be there to fill that gap. I mean heck, a tornado could theoretically hit zero structures and nothing but open fields and a few groves of trees, and still get an EF5 rating! We’ve been needing something like that for a long time, and 2030 cannot come soon enough.
NorthGaWeather
Member
I'm surprised no one has mention what Lyza (NSSL) is trying to do, and Jim mentioned it in the podcast, but he is working to reanalyze intense tornadoes over the last decade plus. Whether that actually occurs or is considered official is a different story. I don't believe there are any other internal plans to officially analyze previous tornadoes yet.
Just finished listening to that part. Ladue thinks they already secured the funding. Basically Lyza putting together a team and re analyzing all strong tornadoes of the last 15 years. That would be absolutely insane! (in the best way)
Oh we’ve been talking about him and his efforts a ton, although a good portion of the conversation has probably been in private messages. A small group of us has actually been trying to get in touch with him, particularly regarding a way to get the lofted fertilizer tank from Vilonia independently calculated. But if he’s already on it and has funding for a full scale reanalysis, then that works too. We just want to see past and recent EF ratings corrected some way and somehow, and we don’t really care how it happens as long as it gets done. I really hope this happens.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
I'll concede and agree. That criteria for trees meets Greenfield all over. That thing always had EF5 winds but no fuse to light it. I think that's the fuse.
Watched the video…geez
LaDue absolutely did not say there was tree damage in Greenfield consistent with the new EF5 criteria from the updated scale. He simply showed a map overlay of treefall pattern forensic analysis in Greenfield, and stated that the treefall analysis came out in the EF5 range. That’s a completely different, separate thing. It has nothing to do with the updated scale’s actual EF5 tree damage criteria, nor the root-balling that defines it, neither of which were even mentioned when Jim was discussing Greenfield. If you’re going to make a claim and paraphrase from a video, please make sure you actually understand what is being conveyed. That part was a frustrating and frankly disappointing watch as a result. I got all excited and extrapolated a bunch of positive news based on a misunderstanding. Other than that it was an interesting and informative video, and my sentiments about the future of the tree scale remain the same.
Last edited:
Tomcats Forever!
Member
Yeah I was planning on listening to it again today, anyway. My post was hours after the fact, so I forgot the actual wording, and the actual point. Sorry.
Really wish they would have put up the link to the paper he mentioned on the other tornado the did a comparison of the updated scale
.....hope you read this after I made all the edits
Last edited:
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
LMAO now I revert to my original statement. Paraphrasing and wording is a very key thing.
Tomcats Forever!
Member
Boy did I screw that up.. oh well, I'm gonna own my mistake.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Don't beat yourself up. It's a easy mistake to do. I've misworded stuff or incorrectly paraphrased something. We're guilty of it
Seconding @NorthGaWeather, one of my bigger takeaways is Lyza securing funding to reevaluate previous intense/strong tornados.
I did laugh out loud when I saw John Robinson as one of the key members on the latest EF scale committee on Ladue’s slide. Especially with his fingerprints all over the precedent setting that directly led to the EF5 drought. Seems he’s still heavily involved in the new EF scale conversations.
I did laugh out loud when I saw John Robinson as one of the key members on the latest EF scale committee on Ladue’s slide. Especially with his fingerprints all over the precedent setting that directly led to the EF5 drought. Seems he’s still heavily involved in the new EF scale conversations.
jiharris0220
Member
Is he really? Jeez, this guy is going all in full steam ahead on this thing. The fact that he’s even securing funding is an exceptionally good sign that a lot of significant people in this field of study want this done.
Very nice to see so much momentum in seemingly trying to correct the wrongs made in the past; the tornadoes Im almost certain are going to be upgraded is the 2021 Kentucky tornado and Vilonia.
Hopefully Chapman is included even though that thing is a tad harder to get an upgrade for.
slenker
Member
Can anyone point me to good images of damage from Chapman on this thread? I've definitely seen them before but I'd like a refresher on why it's so infamously lumped with the more "obvious" missed EF5s.
speedbump305
Member
jiharris0220
Member
A short summary of the talk.
I should clarify I meant it was unexpected that such a big statement was made about such a controversial tornado so randomly. Came out of nowhere! I should definitely work on my cynicism, but i've also settled into my role as the cynic quite nicely in this thread, so i'd hate to ruin the delicate balance we have here by changing! (lol jk)
No worries at all, dude! I didn't make the distinction while I was watching the video either. I definitely got the impression they're seriously considering implementing the treefall methodology in the updated scale, along with some other methods of forensic analysis. Which means it's still possible Greenfield will be an EF5 under the new scale. Remains to be seen. Props to @buckeye05 for catching the discrepancy. Here's the slide for anyone wondering. The little blue arrows are treefall patterns. The house icons with hearts are undergoing (or have undergone) deeper forensic analysis.
These are the craziest images for me. A truck straight up fused with a combine.
This post from the EF5 subreddit seems to have a very comprehensive list of EF3 tornadoes that could really use some reanalysis. I invited the OP here because holy moly talk about thorough!
speedbump305
Member
Bowling Green should have never been downgraded from an EF4 to an EF3. The force and winds needed to inflict the damage at the RV park to that automotive facility surely indicated violent intensity.