• 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)

TH2002 said:
Pardon my ignorance, but I'd need to see some sources to confirm Enid is being considered for a windspeed upgrade, let alone to EF5.

I would be highly surprised if that one home on Ridgeway Dr was upgraded from 175MPH all the way up to low-end EF5.
Click to expand...
"My thinking" aka my personal opinion. I didn't say an upgrade was being considered, simply that I interpret the recent DAT updates as them possibly gearing up for one.
 
Shakespeare 2016 said:
The problem is when you have these stupid engineers running the game stuff like this happens. If you want to blow up on me I don't care. The EF-SCALE is supposed to be a damage scale not a construction scale. Standard Non DI'S should be considered when factoring in the rating.
Click to expand...
I agree, although I would wait a bit longer before becoming very angry about it because this could just be them editing some stuff before making a final call.
 
I find it highly likely they’re gearing up for an upgrade… let’s not jump to conclusions until they make a definitive statement. I’ve been on the train of this deserving at least 190 EF4 based on the RV/contextuals for a while now. If there’s a shot that a home could receive a UB slab swept clean rating, too, that adds even more argument to this receiving EF5.

Literally everyone is impressed by the damage this tornado did - the surveyors, the meteorologists, even the traditionally and infamously conservative minded people who know what they’re talking about when it comes to tornado damage, both inside and outside of this forum. I see no reason for them to rationally stick with a low end EF4 rating here, it goes against every hint they’ve given. You can tell they really want to upgrade this and they’re looking for a reason why. I would be completely mindblown if they didn’t eventually do it. Wouldn’t be surprised if it took a while, though.
 
Last edited:
slenker said:
I find it highly likely they’re gearing up for an upgrade… let’s not jump to conclusions until they make a definitive statement. I’ve been on the train of this deserving at least 190 EF4 based on the RV/contextuals for a while now. If there’s a shot that a home could receive a UB slab swept clean rating, too, that adds even more argument to this receiving EF5.

Literally everyone is impressed by the damage this tornado did - the surveyors, the meteorologists, even the traditionally and infamously conservative minded people who know what they’re talking about when it comes to tornado damage, both inside and outside of this forum. I see no reason for them to rationally stick with a low end EF4 rating here, it goes against every hint they’ve given. You can tell they really want to upgrade this and they’re looking for a reason why. I would be completely mindblown if they didn’t eventually upgrade this. Wouldn’t be surprised if it took a while, though.
Click to expand...
Probably not today though.
 
Shakespeare 2016 said:
The problem is when you have these stupid engineers running the game stuff like this happens. If you want to blow up on me I don't care. The EF-SCALE is supposed to be a damage scale not a construction scale. Standard Non DI'S should be considered when factoring in the rating.
Click to expand...
You’re objectively wrong, just straight up. The EF scale is not supposed to be a “damage scale”, and that is the go-to mantra of people who think they know what they’re talking about but don’t when it comes to the EF scale. It is an INTENSITY scale BASED on damage, which is adjusted based on CONSTRUCTION. You have a lot of gall calling engineers “stupid” when it’s apparent that you still don’t have a clue how any of this works after many years on these forums.

Also the Enid tornado hasn’t been “downgraded to 170 MPH”. It’s been sitting at a low-end EF4 placeholder the entire time, and the only downgrade was a house that was swept off its subfloor and had missing washers (dropped from 170 to 160).

Just an absolute barrage of misinformation. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t post.
 
buckeye05 said:
You’re objectively wrong, just straight up. The EF scale is not supposed to be a “damage scale”, and that is the go-to mantra of people who think they know what they’re talking about but don’t when it comes to the EF scale. It is an INTENSITY scale BASED on damage, which is adjusted based on CONSTRUCTION. You have a lot of gall calling engineers “stupid” when it’s apparent that you still don’t have a clue how any of this works after many years on these forums.

Also the Enid tornado hasn’t been “downgraded to 170 MPH”. It’s been sitting at a low-end EF4 placeholder the entire time, and the only downgrade was a house that was swept off its subfloor and had missing washers (dropped from 170 to 160).

Just an absolute barrage of misinformation. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t post.
Click to expand...

Not defending the comment you're replying to, but this is the first time i've ever seen it called an "intensity scale." That's a good way of putting it, but definitely not an official description. The creator's of the scale and its users have always called it a damage scale, which is the main retort when people criticize it for wind speed not being the main consideration.
 
buckeye05 said:
You’re objectively wrong, just straight up. The EF scale is not supposed to be a “damage scale”, and that is the go-to mantra of people who think they know what they’re talking about but don’t when it comes to the EF scale. It is an INTENSITY scale BASED on damage, which is adjusted based on CONSTRUCTION. You have a lot of gall calling engineers “stupid” when it’s apparent that you still don’t have a clue how any of this works after many years on these forums.

Also the Enid tornado hasn’t been “downgraded to 170 MPH”. It’s been sitting at a low-end EF4 placeholder the entire time, and the only downgrade was a house that was swept off its subfloor and had missing washers (dropped from 170 to 160).

Just an absolute barrage of misinformation. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t post.
Click to expand...
Whatever I have been doing this stuff for 25 years.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
Not defending the comment you're replying to, but this is the first time i've ever seen it called an "intensity scale." That's a good way of putting it, but definitely not an official description. The creator's of the scale and its users have always called it a damage scale, which is the main retort when people criticize it for wind speed not being the main consideration.
Click to expand...
But the problem is when people hear “damage scale”, they misunderstand it. It makes them think it’s intended to purely measure of either the visual appearance of the damage, or how destructive the tornado was overall, when neither are true. No matter how flawed it is, at the end of the day it is solely intended to measure tornado intensity, hence the wind speeds attached each rating. If it was a “damage scale”, it would simply come down to the monetary cost of the damage or the volume/number of destroyed buildings. But that’s not how it works.

It’s is a damage-based intensity scale, and calling it a “damage scale” is a vast oversimplification and the source of lots of misunderstandings.
 
Shakespeare 2016 said:
Whatever I have been doing this stuff for 25 years.
Click to expand...
I don't think you've learned much over 25 years, if I being honest when you call engineers stupid and still stick to your bizarre overfueled hatred of the EF scale. It really isn't that deep. I care about accurate ratings but the majority of your comments are essentially WXTwitter weenie level, and perhaps even worse than that sometimes. You're not a expert on this subject at all, and you just spout self-entitled nonsense because you believe you're right.

I don't know why you have such a reaction towards high end events like these being, according t your tone, not rated properly but I think you tend to be the root of many of these damage debates on here that derive into total chaos. You can discuss these tornadoes without getting unnecessarily angry for no reason. You can have opinions, but you're essentially spouting yours as fact and that's the ick I'm getting here.
 
buckeye05 said:
To boil down, the word “damage” in the phrase “damage scale” is emphasizing the BASIS of measurement, not what the scale is actually measuring.
Click to expand...
The more I think about it, the less I agree that the EF scale in it's current state is an intensity scale, but I also think you might be onto something with the concept. Think about it. Wouldn't an intensity scale have rated Matador much higher than EF3, or Greenfield (300 foot wide 300 mph drillbit) higher than EF4?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top