wolfywise
Member
It lofted a truck nearly 2 miles and did extreme forest damage. Swept away several homes whose build quality is unknown because they weren't surveyed.
-
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 Melissa
Central Ohio Wx
Member
ACT, at face value, doesn't say anything about anchor bolts. "Total destruction of top two stories" is close to what happened here, and given the buildings were completely destroyed I'd apply EXP-UB. Regardless, that's in the 180-205 range. The "typical construction" expected of an ACT-applied building also doesn't mention bolts. Maybe they teach surveyors to factor in that, but if they have that's not something they've publicly written down.
Central Ohio Wx
Member
Eh, vehicle lofting isn't really a solid indicator on it's own to suggest EF5 intensity. The rest I'll look into.
Aaron Rider
Member
Again, the extremely thorough tornado talk article is very persuasive as to the upper echelon stature of this tornado. Link for those with subscriptions.
Patreon Only – Tornado Talk
www.tornadotalk.com
wolfywise
Member
simply lofting a vehicle, no. Lofting it for two miles without putting it down? Undoubtedly.
Central Ohio Wx
Member
I usually take TornadoTalk with a grain of salt, as I think the whole image fiasco is enough to dampen their credibility to some degree. I've also looked at the author's qualifications and I wouldn't call any subject experts.Again, the extremely thorough tornado talk article is very persuasive as to the upper echelon stature of this tornado. Link for those with subscriptions.
Patreon Only – Tornado Talk
Central Ohio Wx
Member
How do we know it was never put down? Unless that's something the NWS directly said in their quasi-survey.
I’m pretty sure it’s been discussed by surveyors as being lofted in a single toss. New Wren was honestly likely well into the EF5 range based on things I’ve heard online about it, I believe the tornado talk article states it slabbed two well built homes with appropriate imagery. It also did the vehicle lofting feat and did some particularly extreme ground scarring. It was also the same cell that produced Smithville, and the environment it was operating in was the most upper echelon tornado environment we’ve probably ever seen (that had a cell actively moving through it, to be specific). I believe it was absolutely an EF5 and may have a case for being more violent than some of the other infamous tornadoes from that day.
Last edited:
Aaron Rider
Member
Yeah, well, common sense kinda wins out in the case of New Wren. It lofted a truck over 2 miles. Without interruption.
- Messages
- 4,600
- Reaction score
- 9,478
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
re: New Wren.
tornado examiner
Member
Another EF4-EF5 candidate already being potentially looked at for an upgrade in Canada. But it's a fire tornado…and it was anti cyclonic.
Wat?
I’m really confused and honestly disagree with some of the shade being thrown at TornadoTalk now. That’s not unique to this site either.
Was the “Don’t reshare these public images” a bad look? Maybe? I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I’ve only seen people make a big deal out of that here and on Reddit. Which Reddit is a dumpster fire any way, but that’s beside the point.
I don’t think their credibility should be questioned over how they were treating shared images. Seems like people that already had an ax to grind with TornadoTalk are using that as a cudgel. I also have zero issue paying for their patreon. Their team goes to all these locations and does the research. That’s not cheap. Jen Narramore is a meteorologist and mainstay on Spann’s WeatherBrains podcast and is the site founder. To me, they have plenty of credibility, and have always called a spade a spade in their articles with no “hype” or unnecessary hyperbole.
Was the “Don’t reshare these public images” a bad look? Maybe? I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I’ve only seen people make a big deal out of that here and on Reddit. Which Reddit is a dumpster fire any way, but that’s beside the point.
I don’t think their credibility should be questioned over how they were treating shared images. Seems like people that already had an ax to grind with TornadoTalk are using that as a cudgel. I also have zero issue paying for their patreon. Their team goes to all these locations and does the research. That’s not cheap. Jen Narramore is a meteorologist and mainstay on Spann’s WeatherBrains podcast and is the site founder. To me, they have plenty of credibility, and have always called a spade a spade in their articles with no “hype” or unnecessary hyperbole.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
I completely agree here. I don't agree with the image debacle they caused, but saying Jen Narramore isn't well versed in tornadoes and writing articles is a bit questionable when you have far less credibility and you're saying it on a forum. There's two things i don't agree with them with, but you didn't hold a grudge with their articles before either so why now?
Lake Martin EF4
Member
I've said it before - violent fire tornadoes exist. It happened (IMO) in Redding in 2018, and it happened here.
joshoctober16
Member
joshoctober16
Member
differences can be found here, for anyone wondering..
tornado examiner
Member
I wonder if we’ll soon see Di’s retroactively added to the Philadelphia survey.
Because Reanalysis is already going on in several area’s of tornado surveying.
Tanner
Member
I think TornadoTalk is more trustworthy than a good chunk of the keyboard warriors on this forum and on X. Jen works incredibly hard to find her information; that site doesn't deserve to be downplayed.
tornado examiner
Member
After 14 years the Philadelphia EF5 has now had an increase to its track length. Up to 32 miles from 28.
Again, while I don’t trust every single claim posted on Tornado Talk (especially some of the Smithville stuff), gathering detailed publicly available information and developing a reasonably clear idea of a tornado’s intensity based on that information is not something experts are only privy to. Like I said earlier, it’s not this insanely convoluted process of analysis that only a select few can objectively understand. There’s healthy skepticism, and then there’s being unreasonably dismissive of anything that isn’t backed by the NWS.
The facts are that the MEG survey of New Wren tornado missed miles of damage path, and that missed segment contained incredibly intense EF5 candidate damage. That isn’t really up for debate.
Last edited: