joshoctober16
Member
note that these are the older versions and the WFR is the only one to be seen in the more up to date version that i will post at a different post.
the full list of DI is known however not all of the DOD are known.
-
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
note that these are the older versions and the WFR is the only one to be seen in the more up to date version that i will post at a different post.
the full list of DI is known however not all of the DOD are known.
joshoctober16
Member
DI2 older version vs Newer version that was shown recently
its expanded to DOD13 base on the greenfield survey.
joshoctober16
Member
also if your wondering what each color on the top name is for.
any that have the orange are the most important to have.
any that have the orange are the most important to have.
AJS
Member
Finally, the damage in Bremen getting the credit it deserves.
tornado examiner
Member
It was undoubtedly EF5 intensity through there,
I will also say that some of the highest end damage was apparently near Ringo earlier in the damage path.
A very relevant video released by Jim LaDue today regarding calibration of 1-2 family residence (homes) DIs given the recent stirrings about the climatology being affected by (mis)application of the EF-scale.
He explicitly says to not go overly conservative and that a house need not be a fortress to get an EF5 rating, it just needs to have evidence that it was properly engineered with bolts/ideally continuous load paths/etc.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,553
- Reaction score
- 9,243
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
Here's a higher res version of the aerial, albeit it's cropped. One home at bottom center does seem to have been swept completely away:
A few more from my collection. Nothing explicitly screams F5-worthy, at least structurally, though part of this is likely due to the damage path not being especially well-documented. It was clearly a very violent tornado regardless.
Wonderful, incredible video. Jim is one of my favorite people in the damage surveying field, and this video shows why. You can tell he has a very reasonable, “no bs” approach these days. Here, he is really pushing back against the “how low can we go” mindset, and I love to see it. Everyone on this forum, PLEASE watch this video! You won’t regret it.
Video highlights:
-Pointing out that homes with post-Andrew hurricane codes will likely remain fully intact even if hit by an EF3. He uses the Cape Coral EF2 as an example, and basically says it was likely an EF3. This concept seems to be in practice now, as several homes hit by tornadoes during the Hurricane Milton outbreak received EF3 ratings despite being left intact.
-Explicitly gives an example of a house that was underrated by NWS Nashville following the Clarksville EF3. Nashville is one of the most problematic offices when it comes to damage surveys. Glad he had the guts to actually give a real-life example of a WFO playing it too conservative, rather than Tim Marshall’s typical “The NWS knows what they’re doing so don’t question them” attitude.
-His Elkhorn example (along with Marion this year) has obliterated a misconception I have carried for many years. What I used to dismiss as “subfloor sliders” can actually be EF4 candidates given enough contextual evidence. The walls were only straight nailed into the subfloor at the Elkhorn house he showed, yet it was a clean sweep, there was debarking nearby, and vehicles were lofted and thrown nearby (he didn’t mention the latter two details but I know this to be true from the DAT). So basically, a house swept from its subfloor can be rated EF4 as long as it’s of newer construction and there is contextual support. I didn’t know that until this year, and have perpetuated my misconception that this type of damage is automatically EF3 many times on this forum. For that, I apologize. I know a decent amount about damage surveying and construction, but I’m still wrong about things sometimes, and I still learn new things every year. Now here’s what’s really crazy. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like he essentially said that a clean subfloor can earn an EF5 rating if external sheathing (that light green covering you sometimes see on the exteriors of homes being built) is present or the wall studs are toe-nailed! That means a house can technically be rated EF5 WITHOUT ANCHOR BOLTS HOLDING THE WALLS DOWN!! That is an INCREDIBLE statement that significantly lowers the impossible to clear bar for EF5 house damage!
-He used Moore 2013 as an example to show that EF5 house damage is not this unobtainable thing, and that surveyors should not expect a “total fortress” for a home to deserve an EF5 rating. That is the exact thing so many of us have been saying for years, and for one of the leading experts in the EF scale application field to say that in a NWS presentation, is monumental and incredibly validating. He explicitly said to not play it too conservative. Awesome that one of the experts FINALLY said it!
We had Tony Lyza’s paper, then we had Enderlin, and now we have this video. On top of that, I have it on good authority that additional positive things that I can’t elaborate on are happening behind the scenes regarding ratings. I wish I could give more details, but let’s just say there is reason to be optimistic. All in all, it suddenly feels like things may finally be headed in the right direction. Let’s all hope this is the turning point!
Last edited:
tornado examiner
Member
Hope they spread the word and get this made final. “LOWER THE LUDICROUS EF4-5 STANDARDS” should be the new pushed hashtag towards the nws.
Last edited:
Aaron Rider
Member
The F5 contenders from 2000-06 seem to have been Van Wert, Roanoke, Marion, Harper, and Westminster.
Wow. This ultimately results in this current EF scale era past 2013 having probably the worst ratings ever (and 2002-2006), and I hope they really go back and re-evaluate tornado ratings from these times. The imagery is online and if Grazulis himself had enough patience to go back and re-rate hundreds of tornadoes, a team of experienced surveyors should definitely be able to re-rate imagery openly available online on the internet. I sincerely hope they do so considering the implications of this.
This all feels so strange to me, the fact that all of this stuff is happening at once the moment Enderlin gets rated EF5. It’s as if this discussion of the train tossing at the highest level really allowed them to objectively evaluate non-standard damage indicators in addition to thinking of home damage under a less conservative light. But it’s just so great to see, and again, I really hope they go back and give some well deserved EF5/EF4 ratings that many people have been vouching for for past storms, as well as paving a newer, better way of rating going forwards.
I’m curious, does this change your views on Gary? I know you got quite fired up about that storm. It’s one I was very confused about when I first saw the less violent damage than I expected after seeing such extreme motion in the vortex along with its ridiculous roar. I feel like it also completely reinforces Marion’s 190 MPH rating that I know many felt like was too high of an estimate for windspeeds.
After seeing this presentation, I feel like practically every single 190 MPH EF4 past 2013 as well as many from 2011 were absolutely EF5s (outside of Marion and maybe a few others that I’m forgetting) and there were a significant number more that were rated EF3 that should’ve been EF4+. I’m specifically glaring at Matador and TTU here, I feel like this presentation in conjunction with Enderlin’s EF5 rating and the tree damage being able to be rated EF5 now allows for an easy reclassification of Matador to EF5 considering the fact that it was probably the most violent tornado of the 2020s.
Done yapping though. I’m so happy to have seen this. I’m sure many of us feel a little relieved or maybe even vindicated now!
Central Ohio Wx
Member
AJS
Member
Is this regarding Mayfield?
N0mz
Member
Not specifically
Really not a fan of his opening statement.
"We've seen on the record, the evidence is mounting. We're seeing a reduction of strong and violent tornadoes at the expense of weaker ones, and we see that through multiple lines of evidence."
Sounds to me like he's defending the rating disparity and arguing against the points in Lyza's papers. I could be wrong though. Maybe I'm misinterpreting. It's also strange that he's saying subfloors with toe nails are well into the EF4 category now when the QRT he advises has rated plenty as EF3. He also says hurricane clips and anchored studs are enough for EF5, but we've definitely seen plenty of those over the last 12 years with no 5 rating.
He references the new modeling data as confirming the new points in his presentation, so it seems to me like recent studies have put the pressure on to make a hard pivot to try and salvage the reputation of the EF scale. I love to see the pivot, but where's the accountability? He can't just act like this is the way it has always been because that essentially closes the door on adjusting previous ratings with the new data.
I guess I'm just way more skeptical about this than you guys. Can't deny some already built bias on my part is pushing me in that direction. Just gotta keep gathering/sharing evidence and engaging in healthy discourse. That's the most productive way to keep this momentum going.
"We've seen on the record, the evidence is mounting. We're seeing a reduction of strong and violent tornadoes at the expense of weaker ones, and we see that through multiple lines of evidence."
Sounds to me like he's defending the rating disparity and arguing against the points in Lyza's papers. I could be wrong though. Maybe I'm misinterpreting. It's also strange that he's saying subfloors with toe nails are well into the EF4 category now when the QRT he advises has rated plenty as EF3. He also says hurricane clips and anchored studs are enough for EF5, but we've definitely seen plenty of those over the last 12 years with no 5 rating.
He references the new modeling data as confirming the new points in his presentation, so it seems to me like recent studies have put the pressure on to make a hard pivot to try and salvage the reputation of the EF scale. I love to see the pivot, but where's the accountability? He can't just act like this is the way it has always been because that essentially closes the door on adjusting previous ratings with the new data.
I guess I'm just way more skeptical about this than you guys. Can't deny some already built bias on my part is pushing me in that direction. Just gotta keep gathering/sharing evidence and engaging in healthy discourse. That's the most productive way to keep this momentum going.
Ozonelayer
Member
So they are at the least considering the idea.
These past 2-3 weeks have been great for the weather community. I am on the side that they should go back and r-evaluate some of the more controversial tornado ratings (Mayfield, Tuscaloosa, Vilonia, New Wren, Chickasha, Goldsby, Ringgold, Rochelle-Fairdale, Plausibly Rolling Fork, Maybe Bassfield-Soso could all be upgraded to EF-5 in my eyes), aswell as upgrading a few EF-3s to EF-4 (Gary, Lake City, Matador which could be rated EF-5, Bakersfield, maybe Andover '22 and Little Rock '23, and a few others).
I am back on board the train that Mayfield should have been rated EF-5. Thanks to Nick's tweet giving me the idea to take another look at the damage in Bremen and I now firmly believe that the home that was rated 190 MPH should have been rated as EF-5 damage, maybe the church in Mayfield aswell.
AJS
Member
I think one feat of damage from the Mayfield tornado that could potentially be used to help justify an upgrade would be the 18 ton tractor trailer that was hurled more than 1320 yards from the UK research center in Princeton.
tornado examiner
Member
The whole problem with the idea of re-rating past tornadoes is. Without extensive photography of an extreme damage feat that gives surveyors something specific too measure, how are they gonna be able to do so months after everything has been cleaned up and rebuilt? Are they just gonna take a less scientific approach and make changes based on feel, or what limited photo evidence they have?
It's gonna be very hard.
Because they still have to be somewhat objective with these things.
It's gonna be very hard.
Because they still have to be somewhat objective with these things.
All this talk of re analysis conversations "just beginning" makes me think that all the heated confrontations I (and others) have had with people here were kind of a reflection of the type of arguments that'll be happening internally at the NWS. Boy am I glad we made it through that stage already in this community lmao. Hopefully nobody over there is as hotheaded and cocky as i've been and has the tenure to actually act on it.