Lake Martin EF4
Member
Yup. It sure did. I also used to think Saloma and Bowling Green were EF5 too, though.........
Off topic: 100 pages!
-
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 -
Current Tropical Systems Erin
Off topic: 100 pages!
AJS
Member
Saloma in my opinion was the second most violent of the outbreak.Yup. It sure did. I also used to think Saloma and Bowling Green were EF5 too, though.........
Off topic: 100 pages!
Central Ohio Wx
Member
NWS Wichita. They rated a completely destroyed home as being 62 mph damage earlier today. The issue wasn’t the bad rating, it was the incredibly lowballed wind speeds with zero explanation.
Last edited:
Umm... what?
tornado examiner
Member
Still zero EF3 di’s in grinnel
Central Ohio Wx
Member
Apparently this is mid-end EF2 damage!
AJS
Member
If Grinnell is rated EF2, it’s going on my list of the worst tornado damage surveys of not just this year, but of all time. No way on gods green earth can an EF2 cause that amount of damage.
This is eerily similar to the Delmont, SD tornado. An EF2 rated tornado that caused HE EF3 to mid range EF4 damage.
Below are some images of the damage in Delmont. Like I said, eerily similar
This is eerily similar to the Delmont, SD tornado. An EF2 rated tornado that caused HE EF3 to mid range EF4 damage.
Below are some images of the damage in Delmont. Like I said, eerily similar
Attachments
Central Ohio Wx
Member
What’s weird is that they give in-depth reasoning for every DI, which makes it seem thought out. But when you look at the actual DI stats, it makes no sense. For example, a grain cart thrown 1,000 yards by the tornado apparently was a “snapped tree” at EF1 intensity.
AJS
Member
What a joke of a survey. That kind of surveying is just not okay.
Central Ohio Wx
Member
Yea, it’s laughable. I still don’t know how they can clearly lowball a rating and just not fix it. Do they have a grudge against EF4 tornadoes?
If Plevna, Kansas was in Dodge City’s WFO bounds, I think it would’ve been rated EF4. Same with Grinnell.
AJS
Member
Plevna most likely won’t be rated EF4 just because of how little it hit.
Central Ohio Wx
Member
I still don’t know why they can’t rate tree damage EF4, and no explanation will make it make more sense.
tornado examiner
Member
AJS
Member
I’ll give them props for rating some contextual damage. Still, their whole survey has been a pretty poor job.
tornado examiner
Member
I really wanna see what they mean by “high tension power lines thrown several hundred yards.” From the London survey.
I hope they upload the full survey tomorrow.
I hope they upload the full survey tomorrow.
My brain always disregards this image. It's automatic.
Subconsciously, I'm just like, "There's gotta be something else going on here!" "This isn't real."
You almost have to remind yourself that it is, in fact, real. The fact it legitimately doesn't seem physically possible, doesn't change its realness. Which begs the question, how TF tornado do that?!
Last edited:
Ok, this is a new one. Holy $hit. This isn't the only instance of concrete damage in the city either.
@Lake Martin EF4 you said this is going on your list of EF5s right?
Last edited:
The perfectly rated high-end EF4s we've gotten this year made me shrug off a few questionable calls up to this point, but this last outbreak has laid these systemic problems out as plainly as can be.
It might be time to throw in the towel on this one. There is no fixing this system. Idk what the solution is any more. Have tornado ratings ever been in a worse place than they are right now? Genuine question. Because I not only think we're currently in the worst period of ratings ever, I don't think it's even close.
2003-2007 is #2, but it's important to remember, this Texas Tech, Engineering Czar, rudderless group of morons (respectfully) was responsible for that period as well. The EF scale was literally invented to solve the problems THEY created in those years.
Edit:
I have more to say.
Why are EF5 ratings hidden away by things that NEVER happen? Seriously, it's like if hurricanes could ONLY be rated Category 5 if they hit Cuba. Then people defend it by saying "Well 150 mph+ hurricanes very likely still happen, they just haven't hit the right country! It's an unfixable flaw, but it's the best we can do."
It. makes. no. f*cking. sense. Why aren't surveyors just using their eyeballs? You can't just cover your eyes and ignore ground scouring and tree damage this significant. A swath of Grinnell was grinded into powder, but the absence of anchor bolts makes that unquantifiable? This tornado probably had 300 mph+ winds in certain areas, but 140 mph is the highest it can be rated because of "the scale", and surveyors apparent lack of a third grade logic. How did they make it through college?!
While I'm at it, I'm so sick of terrible science constantly being waved off as "the scale's" fault. You're an adult with a PHD! Use your brain!
.....*sighs*.... ok, i'm done. Thanks guys. I needed that.....
It might be time to throw in the towel on this one. There is no fixing this system. Idk what the solution is any more. Have tornado ratings ever been in a worse place than they are right now? Genuine question. Because I not only think we're currently in the worst period of ratings ever, I don't think it's even close.
2003-2007 is #2, but it's important to remember, this Texas Tech, Engineering Czar, rudderless group of morons (respectfully) was responsible for that period as well. The EF scale was literally invented to solve the problems THEY created in those years.
Edit:
I have more to say.
Why are EF5 ratings hidden away by things that NEVER happen? Seriously, it's like if hurricanes could ONLY be rated Category 5 if they hit Cuba. Then people defend it by saying "Well 150 mph+ hurricanes very likely still happen, they just haven't hit the right country! It's an unfixable flaw, but it's the best we can do."
It. makes. no. f*cking. sense. Why aren't surveyors just using their eyeballs? You can't just cover your eyes and ignore ground scouring and tree damage this significant. A swath of Grinnell was grinded into powder, but the absence of anchor bolts makes that unquantifiable? This tornado probably had 300 mph+ winds in certain areas, but 140 mph is the highest it can be rated because of "the scale", and surveyors apparent lack of a third grade logic. How did they make it through college?!
While I'm at it, I'm so sick of terrible science constantly being waved off as "the scale's" fault. You're an adult with a PHD! Use your brain!
.....*sighs*.... ok, i'm done. Thanks guys. I needed that.....
Last edited:
N0mz
Member
There's been a shift in culture to following the letter of the law on the EF scale, much more than the F scale for some reason. I think a bunch of this fiasco could have been/could be averted if there were just more DIs for more common objects. I'm sure there could be a DI for ground scouring, even if there are many different types of dirt, just like there are many different types of houses.
Also whats the tea about Texas Tech? pretty newbie wx enthusiast
Lake Martin EF4
Member
Ethan Moriarty posts about Rochelle: He doubles down on EF4, and states that 200 mph was an overestimation and the true winds were about 170-180 mph. Looks like Rochelle is rapidly exiting the "universally recognized EF5 candidate" category - which is a shame because it absolutely was an EF5. Oh well.