Really would like to see some other ratings changes coming not only for the highest end, but the categories below as well. There’s no real reason to abstain from reanalyzing.
-
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
Ozonelayer
Member
Tornadoes that could potentially be upgraded due to this brand new precedent:
Matador, TX 2023 (New: EF-5)
Little Rock, AR 2023 (New: EF-4)
Andover, KS 2022 (New: EF-4)
Mayfield, KY 2021 (New: EF-5)
Tri State AR-MO-TN 2021 (New: EF-5)
Bassfield-Soso MS 2020 (New: EF-5)
Chapman, KS 2019 (New: EF-5)
Vlionia, AR 2014 (New: EF-5)
Tuscaloosa, AL 2011 (New: EF-5)
New Wren, MS 2011 (New: EF-5)
The list goes on, the surface is barely touched of upgradable tornadoes.
Matador, TX 2023 (New: EF-5)
Little Rock, AR 2023 (New: EF-4)
Andover, KS 2022 (New: EF-4)
Mayfield, KY 2021 (New: EF-5)
Tri State AR-MO-TN 2021 (New: EF-5)
Bassfield-Soso MS 2020 (New: EF-5)
Chapman, KS 2019 (New: EF-5)
Vlionia, AR 2014 (New: EF-5)
Tuscaloosa, AL 2011 (New: EF-5)
New Wren, MS 2011 (New: EF-5)
The list goes on, the surface is barely touched of upgradable tornadoes.
tornado examiner
Member
Matador remains the most violent texas tornado since jarrell imo. With the other top contenders being westminster and the canton EF4.
If that thing doesn’t get reanalysis it's gonna be so, so dumb.
I’m metaphorically glaring at NWS Lubbock right now. However, did the debarking of mesquite trees in Matador occur before or after the tornado hit town? We have to keep in mind that “sandpapering” refers to particulate debarking, meaning debarking not caused by large pieces of debris. Regardless, I think they can at LEAST upgrade to EF4 now.
This opens up Buckeye, Bassfield, and Buttermilk, KS 2008 (obscure one but look it up in the database) for EF5 upgrades.
This opens up Buckeye, Bassfield, and Buttermilk, KS 2008 (obscure one but look it up in the database) for EF5 upgrades.
tornado examiner
Member
I'm pretty sure that the extreme damage too trees was throughout the entire last few miles of its life, alot of it far removed from any structures.
Can someone explain to me how we went from a proposal to remove debarking as DI altogether, and capping lofting of heavy objects at high end EF3, to using both of those phenomenon to justify EF5?
What the hell happened there? Not that it’s a bad thing at all, but it seems directly contrary to what we heard about the proposed EF scale update.
Edit: What was the actual source on removing debarking and capping object lofting at EF3? Was that just a bunch of BS being passed around as truth???
What the hell happened there? Not that it’s a bad thing at all, but it seems directly contrary to what we heard about the proposed EF scale update.
Edit: What was the actual source on removing debarking and capping object lofting at EF3? Was that just a bunch of BS being passed around as truth???
Last edited:
On debarking, I’m not sure. On heavy objects, Could have been the research published by the Northern Tornadoes Project engineers showing EF5 winds in the tossing of objects. The EF scale update still seems to be completely a work in progress. I watched Alan Gerard (former Jackson NWS MIC) interviewing Lyza and they both were discussing nearing a deadline to approve/deny a proposal or amendment since they’re both on the committee.
I also think Lyza’s paper went a long way behind the scenes in shining a light on how ridiculous the process has gotten. It’s pure conjecture, but I’d like to think that helped move things in the right direction.
Edit: just saw your edit, I saw the same thing on debarking and lofting, but didn’t put a lot of faith in it. We have a user on here that will have screenshots of what looks to be proposals and uses that as fact
Question from me as well: Was the fact that there wasn’t much in the way of official primary literature supporting this viewpoint up until Lyza’s first paper that gave them little confidence to give EF5s in the past?
I’m guessing that had something major to do with it. That, and the Canadian surveyor’s conclusions coinciding with each other definitely allowed for this sort of analysis to happen, at least to me. How much peer-reviewed primary literature was there that was at least adjacent to the views held by Lyza and others in their papers?
I’m guessing that had something major to do with it. That, and the Canadian surveyor’s conclusions coinciding with each other definitely allowed for this sort of analysis to happen, at least to me. How much peer-reviewed primary literature was there that was at least adjacent to the views held by Lyza and others in their papers?
I'm not 100% sure, but isn't the updated EF Scale coming out soon going to have updated the wind speeds for each level of the scale? If so, this could have implications for what tornadoes get rated EF5 or not (at least for that scale). Feel free to correct me, but its just something that I thought up.
Also, I think this also proves more credence that the original F-Scale had more accurate windspeeds than the current EF-Scale. If on the current scale large, compact objects being thrown over 50m constitutes an EF5 rating, then that means a lot of tornadoes that AREN'T of EF5 intensity will be overrated. Just another thought though.
Also, I think this also proves more credence that the original F-Scale had more accurate windspeeds than the current EF-Scale. If on the current scale large, compact objects being thrown over 50m constitutes an EF5 rating, then that means a lot of tornadoes that AREN'T of EF5 intensity will be overrated. Just another thought though.
I believe this is one of the last known drafts of the new EF scale. I can't find the presentation to confirm it's legit, but this is at least the source for the talk about it
The closest I could think would be Wurman’s research, however it isn’t exactly novel.
tornado examiner
Member
Pretty sure those objects have to be pretty heavy though.
Can you send a link of the revised EF Scale? Thanks
I think Josh Wurman's DOW study was the only one. It's all I had found up until Lyza's first paper. There were also papers stating that the strongest tornadic winds were at ground level, which gave more credence to the DOW findings. Considering Wurman's work has been referenced in every relevant study since, I'd guess it was more influential at the top levels of the NSSL and other science orgs than it was in the actual weather enthusiast community.
Even without that study the evidence was seriously piling up that tornado ratings had changed in a significant and counter productive way. I mean, this community had it pegged down in 2017 (when this thread was started). Mayfield was probably when some influential people started to really take notice. I can't imagine how long that Lyza radar study took to compile and analyze, but i'm sure this situation has been under serious review for years now.
Found it! Here's the original comment with the presentation.
and here's a screencap with the vehicle DI. Timestamp is around 40:45.
tornado examiner
Member
Still a fairly lazily put together DI proposal IMO. Why are they artificially limiting it to EF3 max when we know what EF4-5 vehicle damage looks like? Hopefully they change it before final rollout.
Ok that explains it. Apparently 165 MPH cap pertains to passenger vehicles. This EF5 upgrade entails tanker cars being tossed which is very different.
I’m still wondering about the whole “removing debarking as a DI” thing. Maybe they’ll still include non-debris debarking, or “sandpapering” as they called it.
I’m still wondering about the whole “removing debarking as a DI” thing. Maybe they’ll still include non-debris debarking, or “sandpapering” as they called it.
warneagle
Member
Rochelle should be an EF5 as well. I was going to say that we don't need to go back to the era where EF5 ratings were still a thing but I think Goldsby merits a second look.
AJS
Member
I think Chapman does too. So many tbh.