tornado examiner
Member
somebody compile a bunch of clear EF-5 damage from the mayfield tornado so we can start ranting again about how bad the EF-scale is lol.
-
Current Severe Weather Discussions: Live Mode Enabled for Members May 8, 2023 Outbreak -
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 -
April 2024 Weather Video of the Month Post your nominations now!
CheeselandSkies
Member
I just have a hard time fathoming how things have gone so far south in the last 10 years or less. I had some hope when the EF-scale was introduced, and Greensburg happened shortly after. It takes some flack now for being "less impressive" for some reason, and I suppose by the unattainable EF5 standards of 2021 it was, but it clearly produced what would have been F5 damage under the old scale, and thus it made sense that it should be rated EF5 since the public was told that the scales would be applied in the same way even though the estimated wind speeds associated with each rating had changed.
Then a year later Parkersburg happened, and it was obvious by any measure that it had been an exceptionally violent tornado; with extreme debris granulation, fatalities even among people who had sheltered in their basements, among other indicators.
Two years passed without any EF5 rankings, but that didn't seem too unreasonable at the time. Then we had the atmospheric insanity that was 4/27, the bloodbath of Joplin (ASCE be damned, a tornado simply does not kill >150 people in this day and age without being exceptionally violent unless it does something like move right down a freeway at rush hour). Two days later, possibly the first hint of trouble coming as three tornadoes produced very strong cases for EF5 damage, but only one was actually rated as such.
Two years later, Moore II, and then...what, exactly?
Then a year later Parkersburg happened, and it was obvious by any measure that it had been an exceptionally violent tornado; with extreme debris granulation, fatalities even among people who had sheltered in their basements, among other indicators.
Two years passed without any EF5 rankings, but that didn't seem too unreasonable at the time. Then we had the atmospheric insanity that was 4/27, the bloodbath of Joplin (ASCE be damned, a tornado simply does not kill >150 people in this day and age without being exceptionally violent unless it does something like move right down a freeway at rush hour). Two days later, possibly the first hint of trouble coming as three tornadoes produced very strong cases for EF5 damage, but only one was actually rated as such.
Two years later, Moore II, and then...what, exactly?
- Messages
- 3,452
- Reaction score
- 5,518
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
tornado examiner
Member
YEP....that about covers it.
tornado examiner
Member
anyone who wants to defend this things ef4 rating can be easily ignored and mocked if you're that kind of person.......
- Messages
- 3,452
- Reaction score
- 5,518
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
I do really want to know if this large house was leveled or swept off its concrete foundation. If it was actually swept away by the tornado, it could certainly be EF5 damage, but to the surprise of no one at this point it has no DI. It is, however, very near the houses where a house with probable mid EF1 damage got a low end EF3 rating and a completely leveled/partially swept clean house got a high end EF3 rating. One of the worst damage surveys of all time?
Also BS that not a single DI in Dawson Springs proper is rated above EF3.
Also BS that not a single DI in Dawson Springs proper is rated above EF3.
tornado examiner
Member
their public kmz file is a more complete survey than whats on the DAT...(face palm) yeah...its bad...like really bad. it may be preliminary but come on. its been over a week the surveys should be complete by now.I do really want to know if this large house was leveled or swept off its concrete foundation. If it was actually swept away by the tornado, it could certainly be EF5 damage, but to the surprise of no one at this point it has no DI. It is, however, very near the houses where a house with probable mid EF1 damage got a low end EF3 rating and a completely leveled/partially swept clean house got a high end EF3 rating. One of the worst damage surveys of all time?
Also BS that not a single DI in Dawson Springs proper is rated above EF3.
tornado examiner
Member
i really want to gain access to a high res satellite map of the damage tracks. does anyone have something that doesnt require an account and isnt locked behind a paywall?
i really wish that google would do something for this event. like how they got the moore 2013 tornado damage in google earth pro along with many others.
i really wish that google would do something for this event. like how they got the moore 2013 tornado damage in google earth pro along with many others.
- Messages
- 3,452
- Reaction score
- 5,518
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
Would have been much preferred IMO if NOAA's National Geodetic Survey had taken Emergency Response Imagery. It's not locked behind a paywall but they only do it a few times a year for select high-impact disasters (which I feel like this one would qualify, but oh well).
tornado examiner
Member
yeah like joplin and april 27 2011..........which is surprising....because how the heck did the fairdale tornado qualify? thats like your average violent tornado....(which also should have been rated EF-5) but whatever.
tornado examiner
Member
we can just all agree that the mayfield tornado was an EF-5. and is up there as one of the strongest tornadoes ever. with calculated winds of 284 mph.
Last edited:
Shakespeare 2016
Member
The Bowling Green tornado was at lesst a mid to high-end EF4 IMO!!
Shakespeare 2016
Member
EF0...<85 MPH
EF1...86 TO 112 MPH
EF2...113 TO 146 MPH
EF3...147 TO 187 MPH
EF4...188 TO 235 MPH
EF5...>235 MPH
This is just an estimate from me.
Shakespeare 2016
Member
If the Smithville tornado did indeed reach windspeeds around 347 mph then this tornado probably had windspeeds of over 320 mph.
tornado examiner
Member
CREDIT TO joshoctober16 on reddit/twitter. this is some impressive work here. and i agree with it.
Lmao. Just stop. Yeah it was an EF5, but pulling bogus wind speed estimates out of thin air is just plain silly. That tweet you are referencing has zero credibility (the listing of F6 should have been your first hint), and reeks of “a teenage weather geek with zero actual expertise made this for weather Twitter”.
tornado examiner
Member
there not BOGUS when they're calculated using all availible scources.
Yeah I just checked where you got this from. Random Twitter account with zero credibility, and no insight into how these bogus “calculations” were ascertained. The person who made this is clearly a kid, and does not have the skills or know how to even begin making calls like that. You can’t “calculate” anything using damage photos. This is like, YouTube comments section ridiculous, and is dragging this thread down into absurd social media pseudo-science territory. Stuff like this does not belong here.
Shakespeare 2016
Member
Well I am not a kid and I must also be bogus since I do agree with a number of EF5 tornadoes likely had windspeeds of over 300 mph at the surface.
My god. You are completely missing the point. Do some EF5s have 300 MPH winds? Absolutely.
That isn’t the point. The point is, even if you’re right, it’s still just guess work, and adding bs “science-y” terms like “calculations” does not change the fact that the table above is nothing but guesswork made by somebody with no actual data besides damage photos and their own opinion. Putting pseudo-science in a table format does not suddenly make it valid.
Stuff like this hurts credibility. Keep it off this thread.
Last edited:
