Atomz
Member
Should be working now. Thank you for the help!
-
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
Severe weather threat 4/23/26 (Central/Southern Plains)
- Thread starter WeathermanLeprechaun
- Start date
slenker
Member
I think he realistically means that you don't see them completely debarked and denuded in tornadoes that actually deserve EF4 intensity. I'm fairly sure he's acknowledged that Vilonia and Bassfield were at EF5 intensity at points along their paths. I'm not sure if he did the same with Matador or Chapman, though.
Tomcats Forever!
Member
It strikes me as odd that Nick K. of all people is so gung-ho on this being a 5.
He has stated that typical DIs and structural damage likely isn't supportive of EF5, but contextuals in those areas are so exceptionally extreme that it's hard to deny the intensity of it
akt1985
Member
Not only are there no fatalities so far with the Enid tornado 48 hours later, all the injuries I am reading so far are only minor injuries.
Grand Poo Bah
Member
I'm very pleased by the amount of discussion I'm seeing around the extreme contextual evidence. We've been going crazy about that in the EF thread for as long as I can remember. @buckeye05 has had some excellent posts about it recently as well.
I think @buckeye05's comment influenced things tbh. He was frustrated but definitely right on Vilonia.
Hey guys had a busy day, sorry about the late reply.
Here’s my two cents. Contextually, everything about this screams EF5. When you have grass scoured down to bare soil, shrubbery completely debarked, and vehicles stripped down to their chassis, you are almost certainly dealing with an EF5 intensity event. The problem is I don’t think that relativity small metal building is going to be enough for EF5 due to the scale’s upper bound only going to EF4 for that type of structure. Now with that said, a metal framed industrial building was rated EF5 in Parkersburg, but it was a considerably larger structure. Overall I think high-end EF4 is going to be the highest they can go here. If there was a large bolted home slabbed in place of that small metal building, then I think we’d have a solid chance of EF5.
Now with that said, I’m a little confused and frustrated about why suddenly this type of contextual damage (extreme grass scouring mainly) is suddenly seen for what it really is now that Nick says it’s very significant. I swear a few months ago, we were inundated with discord kids dismissively spewing “grass scouring doesn’t mean anything” “an EF3 can scour grass” “cows can eat grass so it’s not impressive” (seriously) type rhetoric. This frustrates me a lot because I have been essentially screaming to the world for years “Extreme grass scouring that leaves flat, bare soil exposed is the strongest, most significant high-end violent contextual indicator, and usually signifies EF5 intensity!!! Do not be dismissive of it because it is strongly statistically correlated with extreme intensity events, and there are no real outliers to this!” I feel like I have been spelling this out for years, but nobody’s been listening outside of this forum. Then there’s Vilonia, which produced this EXACT level of contextual damage and grass scouring, if not worse, yet the whole “discord kid” sect of this community has been dismissive of that tornado, with Nick himself recently calling it not an EF5 but a “very high-end EF4”. How is Vilonia any less contextually impressive than this? You’ve all seen the pics and it’s not really up for debate.
So It’s nice to see the thing I’ve been saying for years validated, and it’s great to see NWS Norman really looking at contextual damage for what it is (they’re a truly great survey team these days). But with that said, I can’t help but feel a little bitter about how some people have brushed off what I have been saying about grass scouring for years, but suddenly it gets taken seriously once the “right people” point it out. I don’t know everything, but I’ve been studying contextual damage for over a decade, and I do know a thing or two. I just wish more people would really hear me out and take me seriously I guess.
Here’s my two cents. Contextually, everything about this screams EF5. When you have grass scoured down to bare soil, shrubbery completely debarked, and vehicles stripped down to their chassis, you are almost certainly dealing with an EF5 intensity event. The problem is I don’t think that relativity small metal building is going to be enough for EF5 due to the scale’s upper bound only going to EF4 for that type of structure. Now with that said, a metal framed industrial building was rated EF5 in Parkersburg, but it was a considerably larger structure. Overall I think high-end EF4 is going to be the highest they can go here. If there was a large bolted home slabbed in place of that small metal building, then I think we’d have a solid chance of EF5.
Now with that said, I’m a little confused and frustrated about why suddenly this type of contextual damage (extreme grass scouring mainly) is suddenly seen for what it really is now that Nick says it’s very significant. I swear a few months ago, we were inundated with discord kids dismissively spewing “grass scouring doesn’t mean anything” “an EF3 can scour grass” “cows can eat grass so it’s not impressive” (seriously) type rhetoric. This frustrates me a lot because I have been essentially screaming to the world for years “Extreme grass scouring that leaves flat, bare soil exposed is the strongest, most significant high-end violent contextual indicator, and usually signifies EF5 intensity!!! Do not be dismissive of it because it is strongly statistically correlated with extreme intensity events, and there are no real outliers to this!” I feel like I have been spelling this out for years, but nobody’s been listening outside of this forum. Then there’s Vilonia, which produced this EXACT level of contextual damage and grass scouring, if not worse, yet the whole “discord kid” sect of this community has been dismissive of that tornado, with Nick himself recently calling it not an EF5 but a “very high-end EF4”. How is Vilonia any less contextually impressive than this? You’ve all seen the pics and it’s not really up for debate.
So It’s nice to see the thing I’ve been saying for years validated, and it’s great to see NWS Norman really looking at contextual damage for what it is (they’re a truly great survey team these days). But with that said, I can’t help but feel a little bitter about how some people have brushed off what I have been saying about grass scouring for years, but suddenly it gets taken seriously once the “right people” point it out. I don’t know everything, but I’ve been studying contextual damage for over a decade, and I do know a thing or two. I just wish more people would really hear me out and take me seriously I guess.
Last edited:
Another silver lining: I think if we have some clear cut EF5 house damage in the NWS Norman WFO in the future, we will see an EF5 rating. The Goldsby days are long gone and I think they really just “get it” now, especially after Moore 2013. Also notice how there wasn’t any hemming and hawing, no long term 165 MPH EF3 placeholder while the QRT scrutinizes everything to oblivion? Just a quick, “at least EF4” from the very get go. That’s a confident, assertive WFO that knows exactly what they’re dealing with and aren’t going to be overly pedantic.
Operating strictly within the confines of the EF scale, probably not. The only DI's that could apply all max out at ef3-low end ef4 range. However, A certain event from last year has shown that there are WFOs open to using unconventional DI's to upgrade a tornado, and NWS Norman did it with El reno 2011, so the chance is not completely miniscule.
tornado examiner
Member
we might still see NWS Norman release their new survey update for the Enid tornado. But it is pretty late so idk.
slenker
Member
I’d prefer they take their time with it, increases the chances we see a windspeed upgrade to 190, which I think they should do. A context based high end rating is 100% necessary for this one.
tornado examiner
Member
Well they don’t really need a week to decide that. And I saw some say they may release a new public information statement tonight. Here’s to hoping.
N0mz
Member
Let's say my eyebrow is certainly raised
Perhaps they're doing an in-depth survey like what was done with Enderlin last year? If that's the case, then I wouldn't be all that surprised if more information came out a few months from now.
(That's not to say it could end up with an EF5 rating; more suggesting that they could be trying to be thorough on this particular event.)
(That's not to say it could end up with an EF5 rating; more suggesting that they could be trying to be thorough on this particular event.)
slenker
Member
If it’s going to be months before any new info comes out, I fully believe this is getting an EF5 rating. They may be looking into the 15k lb RV DI or something.
DanLarsen34
Member
I could see the contextuals helping bump up the rating to a higher-end EF-4, but I’m very skeptical it would be enough to get us to EF-5 even if they clearly suggest that the tornado was one. I know it’s ancient history now, but if we didn’t get EF-5 ratings for two of the 5/24/2011 tornadoes that had similar extreme contextual damage that impacted more substantial structures (Goldsby and Chickasa), I don’t know if we’d get one here.
Also, they should really revisit and revise those ratings, even if it’s 15 years later.
slenker
Member
I’d agree with you if it was a year ago, today: But, with the context of the Enderlin upgrade, and Marshall/LaDue’s more open mindset on giving EF5 ratings (as evidenced in LaDue’s presentation that came with discussion about giving EF5 ratings to homes that aren’t fortresses) and Lyza’s work that seemed to be well-received by the scientific community, I really think this has a great shot at it. A couple months is what it took Enderlin to get the rating. I’m very strongly convinced what they’re looking at is the RV DI, and perhaps they are running the Monte Carlo windspeed calcs to see what numbers they get. Definitely not a lock for EF5 per se, they could still end up not giving this a higher rating at all. But IMO they’re definitely going to give this at least a 185-190 mph EF4, and EF5 is certainly now on the table more than it ever was. I’m going to make a prediction and say this is going to get an EF5 rating, though.
Also, yes, they need to re-rate Chickasha and Goldsby badly. That was a different NWS Norman though. They’re more liberal now than they were back then.
DanLarsen34
Member
You were right to be calling this out for so long. I know I’m not a met, but as someone who’s been fascinated with violent tornadoes since I was a kid and has dived into many of these higher-end tornadoes, it always seemed intuitive to me that this kind of contextual damage clearly indicated a violent tornado occurred regardless of the structures it impacted.
I think I’ve said this in this forum before that it should be a focus area of an in-depth study if it isn’t already being looked at. We have enough cases of it happening that I suspect that you would at least find a statistical correlation between the two, especially when it’s matched up to tornadoes that were actually rated EF-4+ based on structural impacts. I imagine for more modern cases that you could also match it up with DOW data or radar data in general?