Anyone saying this doesn’t understand the concept of contextual discrepancy. Since the single-family home DI maxes out at 200 MPH, contextual EF5 indicators are the determining factors that push the rating over the EF5 threshold. Many people (including myself when I was a teen) see a clean slab with bolts and immediately jump to “That’s EF5” without understanding the nuance of context.
Some areas looked like the tornado may have possibly reached EF5 intensity but the mid to high-end EF4 rating is certainly a good call. I just wonder how the people survived in that area as their houses were completely slabbed. I am glad they did survive. Unfortunately 1 person did die though but it wasn't in the most intense damage though.
I don't agree with the people who say it's a no-brainer EF5, I think anyone who says so is a bit misguided, and a tornado like this goes to show how important context is. Context being used to settle on a lower rating is often abused (need I remind everyone of Vilonia?), but I think it was valid in this case. I think it's also cases like Vilonia that give the overall idea of contextual downgrades a bad rep, even though it is the right call sometimes.
How so? There’s literally zero contextual support for that claim. Even the worst debarking falls short of high-end EF4, and there was no scouring, extreme wind rowing, or remarkable vehicle damage of any kind. 185 is literally as high as they could go given the type of damage.
I didn't say the tornado was an EF5 I said it may have possibly reached EF5 intensity in a small area but of course it was only a tiny area but there was other context near the house was lacking it. I. I highly agree with the mid to high-end EF4 rating.
No it doesn't. 200 mph is actually the expected value, albeit apparently interpreted on an unreasonable expectation. The upper bound is 220.
This may be a bit of a generalisation, but I find most/many SE based WFOs to be quite reasonable in their surveying overall. I can't really think of that many instances where context was used to downgrade but not upgrade, lower bound ratings were abused etc etc. Some people may argue Bassfield deserved an EF5 rating (and this is a whole other debate for another thread), but I personally would say that those tornadoes were surveyed very well and accurately.
Yup you are right. I was meaning to say the expected value is 200 MPH, with context usually being the factor that bumps it up higher than that. This is what I’ve heard from multiple damage surveyors.
Admittedly, I was in the “Bassfield should have been EF5” train until I got better “before” photos of the anchor-bolted cabin in question. They show a rather small, almost barn-like structure that many WFOs probably wouldn’t rate as high as 190 MPH.
Geography question that totally depends on who you ask, but to help you out a bit the Deep South states (MS, AL, GA, SC, FL and perhaps NC AND LA) could be considered southeast. NWS Little Rock (Arkansas as you know) is in a Southern state but I wouldn't consider them a part of the southeast.
Memphis and Nashville are both SE offices imo, and utilize some of the most clueless survey teams in the US unfortunately. Memphis seems to be slightly better now (was kinda surprised they rated the December 2021 Tri-State tornado EF4). Nashville on the other hand seems to be getting worse. Their survey of the December 2021 Bowling Green, KY tornado is….questionable to say the least.
Is that NWS Louisville, KY?
Yup my bad, meant to say Louisville. I’m tired lol. Though they are technically part of Dixie, I think many would call them a Midwest/Ohio Valley region office to be fair.
Except even leaving off the debate as to whether that interpretation is reasonable, we are not even seeing that interpretation used as the standard of residence required apparently doesn't actually exist, or at least is sufficiently rare that it is very unlikely to be encountered.
Yes, in a way you are right. However NWS Des Moines and NWS Charleston are probably are best NWS offices in the country though they are not perfect. The Pembroke tornado may have likely not got an EF4 rating in other parts of the country.
Absolutely. I have so many questions I don’t have answers to, like why call it the expected value if the lower bound is being used as the expected value instead? Why do surveyors give themselves permission to break the rules by doing things like this, or even going down below the lower bound?
Do you think the 200 mph EF4 rating should be used more often? Of course if context is extreme it should then be upgraded to EF5.
No I do not.
