Shakespeare 2016
Member
Wow, that vehicle damage is incredible.
-
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
not to mention the extreme crumpling on both ends from colliding with the ground. This whole argument is silly and obvious engagement farming. Gonna make myself sound dumb here but who even is Roger Edwards?
He was a longtime SPC forecaster who retired this year. I’d say he’s had a pretty legendary career and has contributed a lot to the science of tornados. He and Rich Thompson, the current SPC lead forecaster, were very avid chasers. I may be wrong, but I think he was the one that coined the term “La Plata Syndrome”, which was the low ball ratings of tornados after the La Plata debacle. He and Rich both authored a lot of papers. If you’ve read his blog and his retirement post this year, he’s extremely opinionated with not much of a filter, to the point where he calls out his first boss at the SPC by name lol.
He also did a stint with the NHC
Western_KS_Wx
Member
Just noticed this, but yes. Now that I really look at it, there may actually be two vehicles that are crumpled/smashed together. Either way, this is another pretty extreme example of vehicle damage. You can see the big Doritos sign in the background that was on the side of the truck. Again, no idea where this truck came from.
Union
Member
No it isn't, the Tim Marshall estimate was 125 mph to tip an empty tanker (these were empty), to roll it yes is likely higher but it was definitely not EF5 to just tip the railcar, the loaded grain hopper yes came out to around 230mph, but that also had the assumption of completely static horizontal forces into the car, no rocking or anything which is not how tornadoes work, it would be unrealistic to try and factor in unknown forces back and forth but it is also good to note that the calculations (Tim Marshall) onto the grain hopper aren't even really factoring in how tornadoes actually work.
Union
Member
To be entirely fair though, those shrubs did get crushed by railcars and absolutely plastered in mud, that's even less reliable than debarking in super debris loaded areas imo
tornado examiner
Member
What does this mean For how impressive this feat is though?
Here's some examples of how I imagine the tanker was lofted based on the craters along its path.
It easily could've been suspended in the air, flipping end over end as it was carried in a semi-circle around the tornado. What blows my mind even more was how the tornado drug 5 connected cars until they were perpendicular to the track. It moved them like a 600,000 pound rope and then ripped off the 77,000 pound tip of the rope and carried it away.
It easily could've been suspended in the air, flipping end over end as it was carried in a semi-circle around the tornado. What blows my mind even more was how the tornado drug 5 connected cars until they were perpendicular to the track. It moved them like a 600,000 pound rope and then ripped off the 77,000 pound tip of the rope and carried it away.
Union
Member
You said it took EF5 winds to only push the tanker off the tracks, meaning it doesn't matter if it rolled or was lofted, that wasn't correct just wanted to point it out, I think it's incredibly plausible that the tanker is significantly lower than what was calculated. Not to say it's not EF5, though really we don't have a way to know now, but it's not 266mph either. For the grain car, the calculation was assuming the car never rocked back and forth even once while being hit by the winds and overturning, that is something that def did occur and likely helped it. Though there is no way to make an accurate calculation including the forces of it rocking, the version of it without those included is equally as possible to be inaccurate, tbf though I could still see that being EF5 but just idk about like 250mph or whatever he came up with.
Union
Member
I could see it but this is such a large scale with such a different setup that I don't think we can actually ever know for sure, dragging the other cars is impressive I'll say that but I'm more surprised at the fact that they stayed coupled together lol
Union
Member
Also just another thing I'm curious about, Marshall's calculations bring the grain hopper up well over EF5 threshold just to tip it off the tracks, Mayfield did this to a loaded coal hopper in Barnsley, KY, and even shoved it uphill a bit (albeit after losing a majority of its load as seen piled up next to the tracks), this train was analyzed much less thoroughly and rated EF2/125, nothing really about this area screams EF5 to me and IDK it just all seems weird this stuff is very confusing, coal has a similar weight/cu. ft as grain too, could technically even be upwards of 2x more dense depending on coal type, different hopper shape I understand but I feel like they would be somewhat similar.
tornado examiner
Member
Each new piece of info makes me question this and it's all so confusing. But unless something comes up that completely debunks the calculations being past the EF5 threshold it will stand.
tornado examiner
Member
I'm just gonna say it doesn’t need to change.
Union
Member
I'm just going off prior examples of similar damage, I feel like had this damage happened in an area with more *stuff*, not houses necessarily but like maybe some more trees around the track or just anything, we could get a better sense. There was some pretty bad tree damage around the general area of the tracks before/after I forgot, but not 266mph bad, even 240 bad, I think it could still definitely be an EF5 tornado but I think this rating is confusing and it's such a weird time to set this new rating standard of forensic analysis especially when similar situations have happened before, it's not like we're switching to a whole new scale rn, are those examples just gonna be left in this gray area of tornado damage history? Guess we're just gonna have to see. To me I think I'm kinda the same as you as to how I stand on the rating, but I have a little more "shouldn't be EF5" than "should be EF5"
There's a large camp in tornado research who believe Tornadoes can't possibly have winds too much higher than 200 MPH. No matter how much evidence is shown to them it will never change their mind, and they'll always find ways to confirm their biases. The levels of cognitive dissonance will always be wild to me.
It seems like every attempt to comprehensively analyze the topic always yields the same results (winds far higher than 200 mph existing), but is always subsequently tossed aside and ignored. Evidence clearly indicates the car was lofted. The burden of proof lies on the people who believe it rolled, and their evidence is extremely weak.
It seems like every attempt to comprehensively analyze the topic always yields the same results (winds far higher than 200 mph existing), but is always subsequently tossed aside and ignored. Evidence clearly indicates the car was lofted. The burden of proof lies on the people who believe it rolled, and their evidence is extremely weak.
tornado examiner
Member
I'm saying it should be EF5. The need to rate tornadoes accurately holds priority over consistency with the recent past.
Everything else lines up with enderlin being an EF5 calibre tornado in that area. The extreme plastering of mud and stubble. The mangled shrub. The windowed grain. The magnitude of the weight of those cars being dragged and likely lofted. The calculations were done. The fact nothing came up that would dispute such an unlikely Upgrade, cements it for me.
Enderlin is a certified EF5 and rightfully should be.
tornado examiner
Member
(a tornado in 2011 managed to topple an anchored to the ground object weighing over 2.5 million pounds, a heavily boxy object and rolled it three times. A feat that physically cannot be done by a tornado weaker than an EF5 with 295mph measured wind speeds.)
Please bring that up to them.
Union
Member
I don't think the evidence is weak at all, seems quite plausible that it was rolled out, the markings of the other derailed tankers are straight on without skipping, those were shoved/pulled through the mud without being lofted at all, the markings from the last tanker moved way far out look much more like it was being rolled, but bouncing up and down while rolling, not being consistently lofted until coming to a stop, the markings are there, doesn't really help that this was a muddied up field with absolutely nothing in it because this would be so much easier to determine if it were crops/grass like any other example I can think of with stuff being moved out long distances.
Nobody knows what winds are required to debark trees. Attaching wind speeds to it is just speculation. For all we know it requires 300 mph winds to entirely debark trees. The only way to estimate it is by association to other tornadoes that produced the same damage, and it's safe to say the accepted understanding of high end tornado wind speeds has come highly into question over the last few years.
tornado examiner
Member
Remember the video of the tiv2 intercepting a large tornado? I'm fairly certain Winds were measured over 180mph and after it passed the aftermath revealed that the nearby tree’s appear to be almost completely fine along with most of the rest of the vegetation around the tiv.