Shakespeare 2016
Member
The vegetation and ground scouring reminded me of tornadoes like El Reno 2011 and Moore 2013 but probably not quite as intense.
-
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
N0mz
Member
The train car being marked EFU gives me hope that they're thinking of properly rating it. I will say Ethan's calc on the train car at 246mph kinda just exposes how absurdly low the ef scale estimates are. 246 makes it seem like one of the most intense tornadoes OAT, because even the most intense tornadoes can barely scrape "205".
Lake Martin EF4
Member
Friendly word of advice: do not, ever, give a tornado an EF4 (or an EF anything) rating based solely off of monetary costs. Tornadoes are only rated using damage intensity and (preferably) windspeed.
Western_KS_Wx
Member
I wouldn’t say it was near the level of those two, but the things I saw along Gove County Rd Aa were truly incredible, and evidence of extreme wind velocities were quite prevalent. The harvested corn stalks from the field to the southwest literally being speared into the ditch, the smaller blades of grass embedded into the road, and then obviously the scouring to the healthy vegetation on either side of that road was remarkable. Another thing that really stuck out to me was just how defined the centerline and rowing of scoured vegetation was in that field, alongside the clumping of debris and the smaller trenches dug by multiple vortices really screamed “violent tornado” to me at least. I haven’t emailed the pictures to NWSGoodland as I thought they weren’t going to be much help, but I probably will either way at some point.
I’ve also never posted this before, but there was this mangled object that came from the farm visible in the distance of the photo that I was unable to identify. You can see it was pretty much packed with corn husks and plastered in mud.
That's why I said it was outside the box! And I wasn't rating solely off the monetary cost. There was also a small area of intense damage with severely damaged/destroyed masonry buildings, plus a destroyed strip mall in the same area. If we're talking about a damage scale, maybe it's not so wrong to consider all facets of damage? It'd be an especially interesting way of thinking if estimating the total kinetic output of a tornado ever became the goal. Is there a world where a damage scale rates mile-wide tornadoes with F3 winds the same as a a 300-yard-wide tornado with F5 winds? It's possible. It really depends on the purpose of the data, and what we're trying to derive from these measurements. As of right now we're literally deriving nothing from them. Not damage, energy, or wind speed. It's useless, frustrating, and impossible to study.
I'm not going to argue in favor of an EF4 rating for St. Louis, though. Just having some fun and throwing ideas around.
Last edited:
I really really think you should. I'm also willing to if you're busy.
If @NickKrasz_Wx has shown us anything, it's that a lot of offices are open to new information, and some have even responded enthusiastically enough to change their past ratings. I'm realizing we could really channel this community's energy and passion into something productive if enough people wanted to, or agreed on how to best go about it.
Honestly? Marion is probably the best answer. The structural integrity wasn’t there for a clear cut EF4 rating imo, let alone a high-end one, as the walls weren’t anchored with bolts. The tree damage and debris pattern seem to have been used as a partial basis for the violent rating, even though it wasn’t that crazy in terms of contextual evidence. Idk.
The difficulty in finding an example of a contextual based upgrade shows the problem regarding the bias that surrounds use of context by the NWS. They’re generally super eager to use it to downgrade, but extremely dismissive of it when it could be used to upgrade. That double standard will obviously skew survey results in a certain direction, and it doesn’t take a genius to see why that’s a problem.
Ps: one of those pics under Morganfield you posted is from Beauregard 2019.
Last edited:
I was scrolling through the mid may severe weather thread earlier today to find pics for my list and ran across these.
One of the reasons for the high rating is the walls were toe-nailed. This drastically increases the sheer resistance of the walls, and is considered "well-engineered" for houses with subfloor. This was also analyzed and confirmed by structural engineers.
Another reason for the high rating is the walls appear to be hand nailed with 16D nails, which also increases sheer resistance (compared to potentially over-driven and thinner nailgun nails) . According to @Sawmaster these nails provide about as much resistance as toe-nailing by itself. Both these factors combined is what gave them the confidence for a much higher rating. Hope that clears things up. As far as engineering for this type of home it was about the best it could be. Clips would have also raised the overall wind resistance, but maybe not as much in the shear department? idk. I'm sure if it had clips we'd be talking about a very legitimate EF5 candidate.
Last edited:
The before and after pic really gives a good indication of how badly the trees were mangled as well.
This explanation makes a ton of sense for why we never see EF4 tree damage by itself. I'm still wondering about the last time atypical indicators ( non-EF scale DIs) were used for an upgrade.
This explanation makes a ton of sense for why we never see EF4 tree damage by itself. I'm still wondering about the last time atypical indicators ( non-EF scale DIs) were used for an upgrade.
AJS
Member
It wasn’t quite at that level, but honestly, it’s pretty damn close to that level. Probably a notch below. If the tornado had hit Grinnell at peak strength, I genuinely think it could’ve produced EF5 damage.
Lake Martin EF4
Member
Speaking of strongest tornadoes: I've made the first change to my own list since originally posting it. Matador and the Bakersfield Valley/Stratton combo have swapped places. Matador is now #5, and the Bakersfield Valley/Stratton combo is now a tie for #4. Matador's slow movement speed, the larger number of mesquites vaporized in Bakersfield, and of course the oil tanks being rolled 3 miles uphill - along with Stratton's extraordinary vehicle damage - all ensured the placement change.
This is great info. I know you mentioned this earlier as a possibility, but I had no idea this was actually confirmed, so this changes things. More impressive than I initially gave it credit for. I can’t really call it a contextual upgrade given this information.
Happy to contribute! I thought I saw some comments from last year referencing a study that looked into the wind resistance of older well-built houses. I couldn't find the link anywhere, though. Do you recall anything about it? I'd be interested in reading it. Nail type, Plywood vs. OSB, and better lumber all apparently increase the frame's strength and wind resistance.
I'm crossposting this from the June 15-23 Severe thread to avoid an EF debate in the wrong spot.
In my opinion, the time between 2007-2013 was when the EF scale was applied most correctly compared to any other time period, outside of some bad under-ratings in 2011 (Goldsby, Chickasha, some other 4/27 tornadoes, etc). I also do agree that Tuscaloosa probably deserved an EF5 rating, based on context and Chastain manor apartments, etc.
But, if anything, not rating Enderlin a higher EF classification despite there being the incredibly prevalent instance of tossing an entire train car would be being more consistent with ratings rather than less consistent. Since Tuscaloosa's train car throwing feat was not rated, then Enderlin's shouldn't be rated either to stay consistent with how the EF scale should be applied, because that's how it worked in 2011. In fact, I don't think there's ever been a tornado rated based on throwing a train car (Please fact check me on this) That is my argument and if I claimed or implied otherwise in previous posts, then I misspoke. We are only going to rate such a feat if we switch to a new rating scale tomorrow, or if we add even more inconsistency to an already maddeningly inconsistent scale.
Yes, we should be striving to rate things more accurately. Yes, Enderlin was definitely a violent tornado. And in some previous posts I have made, I have highlighted the fact that I disagree with context not being incorporated more, like how it was before 2014. But this specific instance of damage has never been rated before, and it isn't something extremely slam dunk like El Reno 2011's oil rig obliteration. I can definitely see a tornado being weaker than EF5 and inflicting this damage. For the sake of consistency, this should not be rated EF5 based on this damage. If they do rate it, rate it an EF4 with no assigned windspeed, that would also be okay with me. Or 190. I don't know. But definitely not EF5.
It's similar to how I view the questions "Was this tornado an EF5?" versus "Does this tornado deserve an EF5 rating?" They're completely different questions. Enderlin could have very well been an EF5 tornado, but it absolutely doesn't deserve the rating.
I'm not entirely sure what the Mayfield tornado did exactly, just that I heard it echoed that it inflicted some pretty impressive damage to a rail car or something. I automatically assumed that to be lofting (not super extreme or anything either, but still lofting) so I stand corrected on that.
In my opinion, the time between 2007-2013 was when the EF scale was applied most correctly compared to any other time period, outside of some bad under-ratings in 2011 (Goldsby, Chickasha, some other 4/27 tornadoes, etc). I also do agree that Tuscaloosa probably deserved an EF5 rating, based on context and Chastain manor apartments, etc.
But, if anything, not rating Enderlin a higher EF classification despite there being the incredibly prevalent instance of tossing an entire train car would be being more consistent with ratings rather than less consistent. Since Tuscaloosa's train car throwing feat was not rated, then Enderlin's shouldn't be rated either to stay consistent with how the EF scale should be applied, because that's how it worked in 2011. In fact, I don't think there's ever been a tornado rated based on throwing a train car (Please fact check me on this) That is my argument and if I claimed or implied otherwise in previous posts, then I misspoke. We are only going to rate such a feat if we switch to a new rating scale tomorrow, or if we add even more inconsistency to an already maddeningly inconsistent scale.
Yes, we should be striving to rate things more accurately. Yes, Enderlin was definitely a violent tornado. And in some previous posts I have made, I have highlighted the fact that I disagree with context not being incorporated more, like how it was before 2014. But this specific instance of damage has never been rated before, and it isn't something extremely slam dunk like El Reno 2011's oil rig obliteration. I can definitely see a tornado being weaker than EF5 and inflicting this damage. For the sake of consistency, this should not be rated EF5 based on this damage. If they do rate it, rate it an EF4 with no assigned windspeed, that would also be okay with me. Or 190. I don't know. But definitely not EF5.
It's similar to how I view the questions "Was this tornado an EF5?" versus "Does this tornado deserve an EF5 rating?" They're completely different questions. Enderlin could have very well been an EF5 tornado, but it absolutely doesn't deserve the rating.
Last edited:
N0mz
Member
I agree it probably shouldn't be an EF5, but frankly I do not see an EF3 tornado doing anything close to that. EF4 isn't a sacred rating at all, so I would have no problem just conservatively calling it 170 or 180.
Aaron Rider
Member
This is kind of like when judges make a bad ruling on the basis of previous bad rulings (stare decisis). Eventually a judge will come along and say, "Hey, yes, we're supposed to take precedent very seriously, but this is horrendous precedent [often out of line with earlier precedent before the gunk got inserted] and we should alter the case law."
But much error can result in the meantime.
(This is not a political statement, by the way - this is an ancient sort of occurrence in the Anglo world)
I understand what you're saying and I don't even disagree with your reasoning. but it's time to toss this era of ratings history, in my opinion, and give Tuscaloosa and Enderlin a rating they truly deserve: one that ends with 5.
Last edited:
Lake Martin EF4
Member
Enderlin still too borderline to call but definitely at least EF4. Tuscaloosa I agree was EF5.
Fun fact: BMX was actually going to give it the 5 officially, as confirmed by Grazulis in his latest Significant Tornadoes book, but backed off for some reason despite demand for the higher rating. There was a grain of salt story that stated that Marshall literally walked into the office and singlehandedly got it downgraded, but I doubt the legitimacy of that.
Also, Grazzie apparently downgraded Rowlett 2015 to EF3. Why?
N0mz
Member
This makes me want a Tim Marshall tell-all deathbed confession book
- Messages
- 4,611
- Reaction score
- 9,504
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
I'm gonna run through these one by one:
Potosi: I'm honestly ok with top-end EF3, but low-end EF4 would have been just as appropriate. Either or, really.
Greenville: EF4, no way. 140-145MPH EF3 looks appropriate based on what I've seen. But in any case, EF2 is too low.
Selmer: I think high-end EF3 was the correct rating. The structures weren't well built and the contextual damage seemed consistent with a low-end EF4 at best.
Bakersfield: I would have been OK with high-end EF3 (the 145mph wind speed estimate was too low for sure) but no doubt it was violent based on contextuals.
Des Arc: I looked at all the photos of that one house on the DAT and pretty much all of the anchor bolts were missing nuts. Normally I would assume they got stripped off by the tornado, but the NWS uploaded a photo of sill plating still attached w/ no nut on the anchor bolt so I genuinely think a construction error happened here (much like the Deer Drive home from early in the Vilonia tornado's path). EF3 seems appropriate to me.
St. Louis: the homes that were leveled were old and frail. Masonry does not automatically equal better construction. As a matter of fact, the very photos you posted show trees and vegetation hardly disturbed right next to a leveled home, pretty much a dead giveaway that violent winds were not required to do that damage. EF3 is fine.
Grinnell and Plevna: gonna get these two out of the way at the same time. Regardless of construction quality, I agree that the biggest flaw with those surveys are two blatantly violent tornadoes rated below the violent threshold. Low-end EF3 for Grinnell especially doesn't sit well with me.
Morganfield: not overly familiar with it, but a quick look at the survey page didn't reveal anything that 100% screamed violent, at least to me.
Enderlin: fully expected this one to get slapped with a high-end EF3 rating. I'm honestly ok with that rating being applied to the homes it destroyed, but I do think a more detailed analysis needs to be done on the train car that was thrown.
For Lake City, Diaz, Larkin, Tylertown, Marion and London I obviously agree with their EF4 ratings, so no need to comment there.
- Messages
- 4,611
- Reaction score
- 9,504
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
No idea. And while we're on the topic of Tim Marshall, even he agrees that Rowlett was an EF4 based on the fact that it leveled well-built homes (as a matter of fact, 21 homes along the path were given EF4).
It also leveled an apartment building, another DI rated EF4.