• 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)

Guys, hear me out on this. You’re not going to like it, but we also have to be prepared for the deeply frustrating possibility of no upgrade and a finalization of the rating at low-end EF4. Yes, it would be a terrible call that sets a terrible precedent, but we do have to brace for the possibility because it does exist. I personally have hope that NWS Norman is willing to be bold and go with some type of context based upgrade to at least high-end EF4. They’re generally a good office, but it’s no guarantee and we have to keep in mind that they have made occasional bad calls in the recent past. Remember the Cheyenne, OK tornado that was rated EF2 despite tree and contextual damage that easily supported EF3? That wasn’t really that long ago. Just saying…

(I really hope this post doesn’t get quoted in the middle of a forum-wide meltdown later on)
 
Last edited:
SweptSlab5 said:
Not him, but remember the “cows eat grass so all scouring is irrelevant” from a while ago?
Edit: The EF scale is technically a damage scale. It evaluates tornado damage to find intensity, not the other way around. An intensity scale would be better, but I don’t know how that would work.
Click to expand...
But what you’re describing still IS an intensity scale.

Why? Because the intensity is what is being graded/measured in the end, even if it’s derived from damage. You said it yourself, “to find intensity”. That is the goal of the scale. The phrase “damage scale” implies that grading/measuring the of visual extent of damage itself is the goal, and nothing further. This is precisely what causes the confusion and misunderstandings surrounding this topic.
 
Last edited:
buckeye05 said:
Guys, hear me out on this. You’re not going to like it, but we also have to be prepared for the deeply frustrating possibility of no upgrade and a finalization of the rating at low-end EF4. Yes, it would be a terrible call that sets a terrible precedent, but we do have to brace for the possibility because it does exist. I personally have hope that NWS Norman is willing to be bold and go with some type of context based upgrade to at least high-end EF4. They’re generally a good office, but it’s no guarantee and we have to keep in mind that they have made occasional bad calls in the recent past. Remember the Cheyenne, OK tornado that was rated EF2 despite tree and contextual damage that easily supported EF3? That wasn’t really that long ago. Just saying…

(I really hope this post doesn’t get quoted in the middle of a forum-wide meltdown later on)
Click to expand...
Actually, now that I recall, I feel Custer City and El Dorado 2024 were both somewhat lowballed. While isolated debarking is hard to back up I do think there were enough cases in both tornadoes to lend an upgrade. Combined with a lack of debris loading, that should've had them at around an ef3 rating.

Anyways, considering the unusual tree based indicators, the odds of Enid staying low ef4 are getting less and less likely.
 
Last edited:
eep said:
Actually, now that I recall, I feel Custer City and El Dorado 2024 were both somewhat lowballed. While isolated debarking is hard to back up I do think there were enough cases in both tornadoes to lend an upgrade. Combined with a lack of debris loading, that should've had them at around an ef3 rating.

Anyways, considering the unusual tree based 180 indicators (which imo instantly puts it at mid range ef4), the odds of Enid staying low ef4 are getting less and less likely.
Click to expand...
I wonder if they’ll go even higher using a multi-tree DI
If they are indeed using revised EF-scale DI’s now.
 
eep said:
Actually, now that I recall, I feel Custer City and El Dorado 2024 were both somewhat lowballed. While isolated debarking is hard to back up I do think there were enough cases in both tornadoes to lend an upgrade. Combined with a lack of debris loading, that should've had them at around an ef3 rating.

Anyways, considering the unusual tree based indicators, the odds of Enid staying low ef4 are getting less and less likely.
Click to expand...
Something tells me that NWS Norman has very recently adopted a more liberal approach to rating tree damage. Based on the number of EF4-rated tree damage points in Enid, examples like Cheyenne and the ones you listed would probably be rated higher had they occurred this year. EF4 rated tree damage is something that pretty much never happened about a decade ago and prior, but is gradually becoming more accepted as more and more damage experts like Jim LaDue recognize extreme stubbing and debarking as a phenomenon linked to violent tornadoes. Not all WFOs have caught on though and it’s still gaining traction.

But back to my main point, while I don’t think finalization at low-end EF4 is the most likely outcome, it’s still a possibility that remains on the table and is therefore still something we have to be mentally prepared for.
 
buckeye05 said:
Something tells me that NWS Norman has very recently adopted a more liberal approach to rating tree damage. Based on the number of EF4-rated tree damage points in Enid, examples like Cheyenne and the ones you listed would probably be rated higher had they occurred this year. EF4 rated tree damage is something that pretty much never happened about a decade ago and prior, but is gradually becoming more accepted as more and more damage experts like Jim LaDue recognize extreme stubbing and debarking as a phenomenon linked to violent tornadoes. Not all WFOs have caught on though and it’s still gaining traction.

But back to my main point, while I don’t think finalization at low-end EF4 is the most likely outcome, it’s still a possibility that remains on the table and is therefore still something we have to be mentally prepared for.
Click to expand...
It's possible but personally I don't think I could be as bothered about it, I think historically missing EF4 and EF5 ratings are much more problematic to the larger EF/F dataset than a somewhat lowballed rating, even if it would unfortunately set a bad precedent.
 
TH2002 said:
I feel so sorry for you right now lol

I don't know how you went from being confidently wrong and ridiculed all the time, to now being the one guy trying to restore a sense of normalcy to a thread that's gone off the rails...

Times do change lmao
Click to expand...
This is making me dying laughing right now. The guy was always in a position to be ridiculed and now he's on the opposite end of the rope, trying to keep the thread from going full blackout haha. @tornado examiner glad to see that you're contributing to these threads more positive now!,
 
buckeye05 said:
That’s a gutsy prediction. I really do think Enid reached EF5 intensity, but I just don’t know how they would justify such an upgrade, and I especially don’t know how they will get the ok from higher-ups within the NWS (which is gonna be the biggest hurdle to clear in my opinion). The Enderlin upgrade involved all kinds of red tape and bureaucracy, and only got the thumbs up thanks to undeniable physics-based calculations. So calling Enderlin a “context based” upgrade isn’t accurate in my opinion; I would call it a “calculation based” upgrade. I’d definitely classify it as a separate thing.

So with all of that said, how do you think they will justify Enid? Lofted RVs? The slabbed metal building? Tree/vegitation damage and scouring? Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely do like your optimism but I just don’t know how they’re going to pull it off. Now if the Enid tornado had lofted a massive multi-ton oil tank or something to that effect, I’d be singing a different tune.
Click to expand...
The RV is my strongest hope. I’m fairly sure it would fall under the EF5 criteria as described in Miller et al. 2026 - there is an issue with my belief though. The RV was stripped down to its chassis during the throw, so it had to have lost a substantial portion of its initial mass at some point in the toss. Due to the tornado’s slow forward speed, however, the RV likely completed at least one (maybe multiple) full orbits around the tornado. It’s unfortunate that we cannot know what it’s true trajectory was, so that likely cannot be factored into the final rating. The house damage that @Central Ohio Wx is talking about is something I am not quite sure about myself, but I trust their judgment.

I am very hopeful that NWS Norman will try to find a reason to bump this to EF5. I’m just gambling here, honestly I think it isn’t very likely overall. If they can’t, then a 190 EF4 is very, very likely IMO. I really think what happened last year is going to make a splash in how ratings are evaluated, at least to the WFOs that actually care.
 
Last edited:
slenker said:
@Central Ohio Wx is talking about is something I am not quite sure about myself, but I trust their judgment.
Click to expand...
If I ever say something related to damage never base an opinion off it; I am a high school student and the exact opposite of what you would consider an expert on the topic. Probably the only thing I say that genuinely holds weight anywhere are my connections to others lol.

I'm like 90% sure the only reason anything I say is taken seriously is how I type up my messages. Other than that meh.
 
WeathermanLeprechaun said:
This is making me dying laughing right now. The guy was always in a position to be ridiculed and now he's on the opposite end of the rope, trying to keep the thread from going full blackout haha. @tornado examiner glad to see that you're contributing to these threads more positive now!,
Click to expand...
Epic! Hope we get some nice updates today.
 
Now that images can be posted again:
1778505717494.png
Grayridge Subdivision with the probable track of the RMW. Convergent treefall seems to support this track.
 
slenker said:
The RV is my strongest hope. I’m fairly sure it would fall under the EF5 criteria as described in Miller et al. 2026 - there is an issue with my belief though. The RV was stripped down to its chassis during the throw, so it had to have lost a substantial portion of its initial mass at some point in the toss. Due to the tornado’s slow forward speed, however, the RV likely completed at least one (maybe multiple) full orbits around the tornado. It’s unfortunate that we cannot know what it’s true trajectory was, so that likely cannot be factored into the final rating. The house damage that @Central Ohio Wx is talking about is something I am not quite sure about myself, but I trust their judgment.

I am very hopeful that NWS Norman will try to find a reason to bump this to EF5. I’m just gambling here, honestly I think it isn’t very likely overall. If they can’t, then a 190 EF4 is very, very likely IMO. I really think what happened last year is going to make a splash in how ratings are evaluated, at least to the WFOs that actually care.
Click to expand...
I don't think the RV would do it. Far too many factors could play into it, as you've mentioned. I haven't read Miller et al. 2026, so I'll go do that after this post, but any windspeed calculations or estimates done for that RV would have to be highly idealistic and likely inaccurate because of how many factors and variables that would have to be considered, and we have no knowledge of them. Unless the damage feat is particularly extreme and hard to find winds under 200mph under even the most conservative estimates, or there are very few guesses needed for a calculation (Enderlin's train lofting/derailing calculations come to mind), those kinds of contextuals will not lead to an upgrade to EF5.

I do really think they are trying to upgrade it without stretching the EF scale too much, but I don't think it will get the EF5 rating in the end. I wouldn't mind being wrong in this prediction though.
 
Maxis_s said:
I don't think the RV would do it. Far too many factors could play into it, as you've mentioned. I haven't read Miller et al. 2026, so I'll go do that after this post, but any windspeed calculations or estimates done for that RV would have to be highly idealistic and likely inaccurate because of how many factors and variables that would have to be considered, and we have no knowledge of them. Unless the damage feat is particularly extreme and hard to find winds under 200mph under even the most conservative estimates, or there are very few guesses needed for a calculation (Enderlin's train lofting/derailing calculations come to mind), those kinds of contextuals will not lead to an upgrade to EF5.

I do really think they are trying to upgrade it without stretching the EF scale too much, but I don't think it will get the EF5 rating in the end. I wouldn't mind being wrong in this prediction though.
Click to expand...
As someone else mentioned, the RV likely was stripped as it traveled through the air, meaning it went from a heavy full vehicle to a bare chassis before it hit the ground. This would make an accurate calculation pretty much impossible.
 
Pecos Hank is one of the GOATs of chasing when it comes to consistently producing high-quality, long form tornado videos/more like documentaries. Appreciate him in an era dominated by live streams, shaky phone footage taken while driving, and lots of screaming/swearing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top