I’m honestly not happy with this at all, but I’m not surprised unfortunately.I can live with a high-end EF4 rating but this tornado certainly should be rated EF5.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I’m honestly not happy with this at all, but I’m not surprised unfortunately.I can live with a high-end EF4 rating but this tornado certainly should be rated EF5.
I am not happy with it either but I would hate to go back to 2006 right before the EF-SCALE. The tornado ratings then were abysmal.I’m honestly not happy with this at all, but I’m not surprised unfortunately.
I hope it is but I don't know for sure.Did I miss something? I thought 190 was preliminary?
Agree 100%, let's hope the professionals discuss and rate after reviewing all the data and DI. As stated by NWS Paducah this was "historic" + plus accepted assistance, which lends me to believe that they will ultimately rate Western KY an EF5 in due time. As much as 5 days is a long time to wait, it is much longer to those impacted.I expect them to upgrade some. Bowling Green, Western Kentucky, etc. Realize all the work that these engineers and surveyors need to do amidst all this damage. It's not as simple as writing down "EF4" on a sheet. There needs to be a certain set of eyes and a level of profession applied to these ratings, and it's a hell of a process to go through. Be patient just a little longer.
There are way more contextual (and perhaps residential) indicators than any prelim 190mph EF4 that I can ever remember. I trust that it is preliminary and that surveys are not even close to done. If it stays at what it is, then I will have to hop on the idea of that being BS. However, until I see "OFFICIAL" on a survey I won't sweat it. Nor should you or anyone else.Totally unscientific, but I can’t remember a single preliminary 190 MPH that has ever been upgraded further. I view it as a bad omen at this point. But yeah technically it is preliminary, even though I think no major changes will occur given past experiences:
I find it kind of sad that seeing a tornado being rated high-end EF4. I remember the days when the FUJITA-SCALE was about to be replaced with the EF-SCALE and surveys were particularly brutal back then. I however think this tornado definitely deserves an EF5 rating.There are way more contextual (and perhaps residential) indicators than any prelim 190mph EF4 that I can ever remember. I trust that it is preliminary and that surveys are not even close to done. If it stays at what it is, then I will have to hop on the idea of that being BS. However, until I see "OFFICIAL" on a survey I won't sweat it. Nor should you or anyone else.
Officially two >120 mile long paths now from 12/10. Insane.
123 miles was even longer than Cordova or arguablely Hackleburg according to Tornadotalk yet such a historic tornado was largely ignored on that day.Not comparing the event in general to 4/27, but I think that was the last day when there was more than one tornado with a path that long.
Well if Bridge Creek and Jarrell are the standard for EF5 now, then no wonder...
I don't get it! I thought you could rate tornadoes EF5 it there is extreme contextual damage.Well if Bridge Creek and Jarrell are the standard for EF5 now, then no wonder...
I definitely agree that it should be rated EF5.I've officially hopped on the BS train. This is ludicrous. I really don't care what anyone else thinks.
This is the exact failure mode I was expecting. Context-based EF5 is no longer a thing. This establishes it.I don't get it! I thought you could rate tornadoes EF5 it there is extreme contextual damage.