It is "very highly likely" that climate change is related to anthropogenic activity.
*grumbles*
*grumbles*
-
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
jiharris0220
Member
It would really help if the actual research papers for these studies were published, and that an official statement was put out following the process and eventual decision making.
But all of this discussion regarding the systematic process of finding strong evidence of EF5 winds and delivering your results to the higher ups is the root of problem in the first place.
Why do EF5 candidates need all of this processing to be verified? To get a rating of EF4, you simply call in the QRT and it’s done, the same should apply to EF5, like how it used to be before 2014.
The point Im getting at is that we’re technically still in a artificial EF5 drought, if we’re relying on random train lofting or other essentric non conventional DIs having to be well above 205mph to get the rating, then we’ve never actually made any progress.
But all of this discussion regarding the systematic process of finding strong evidence of EF5 winds and delivering your results to the higher ups is the root of problem in the first place.
Why do EF5 candidates need all of this processing to be verified? To get a rating of EF4, you simply call in the QRT and it’s done, the same should apply to EF5, like how it used to be before 2014.
The point Im getting at is that we’re technically still in a artificial EF5 drought, if we’re relying on random train lofting or other essentric non conventional DIs having to be well above 205mph to get the rating, then we’ve never actually made any progress.
Eoline
Member
As I saw on Discord a bit ago:
“A driver is going 100 miles per hour, sees he is going 100 miles per hour and six different speedometers all record him going 100 miles per hour. But then the police let him go because he was allegedly going 50 miles per hour the entire time, according to them.”
That’s how OUN’s thought process is coming off as. All the evidence is there for an upgrade, but they either are facing significant roadblocks or just don’t care enough to try.
“A driver is going 100 miles per hour, sees he is going 100 miles per hour and six different speedometers all record him going 100 miles per hour. But then the police let him go because he was allegedly going 50 miles per hour the entire time, according to them.”
That’s how OUN’s thought process is coming off as. All the evidence is there for an upgrade, but they either are facing significant roadblocks or just don’t care enough to try.
That’s a big issue that I often think about. There should be no stigma or extra hurdles attached to ratings. It should be completely objective. In my opinion, upgrading from EF4 to EF5 should carry no more weight or stigma that upgrading from EF0 to EF1.
jiharris0220
Member
Im gonna make a wild guess and say this whole systematic processing to rating a tornado EF5 started around 2014 (you know what I’m talking about).
It’s ironic because a lot of people like to say “why do you care wether it was an EF5 or not”, it looks like, every high ranking surveyor cares wether it was an EF5 or not otherwise we wouldn’t need an entire hierarchy to confirm it.
At this point, I don’t think anyone in the wether community amateur, enthusiasts, or professional mets/surveyors disagree that this “EF5 Drought” is artificial anymore, but it’s funny to see how many of them can look at the frequency of EF5s go from one per year to once per every 13 years apparently and be ok with it.
Considering that the 180 DI from this tornado was a house that any other WFO would rate 160 or less, anything other than external factors preventing them from upgrading Enid is “very highly UNlikely”. The way they’ve approached this survey from the get-go made it clear that if there was a way to get this rated EF5, they’d do it
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Caring about tornado ratings for me is simply due to accuracy in records. It's already been shown that the more we underrate tornadoes, moving the goalposts, it does nothing but damage that accuracy. I dislike the viewpoints people always assume about "nobody cares about the ratings"
There was one Mayfield resident confused at why their house wasn't rated EF5 if I remember correctly. People want to know the rating of tornadoes too, because it feels like they've survived something otherworldly. Imagine how any EF4+ survivor feels, they got hit by something extraordinary and lived to tell the tale.
There was one Mayfield resident confused at why their house wasn't rated EF5 if I remember correctly. People want to know the rating of tornadoes too, because it feels like they've survived something otherworldly. Imagine how any EF4+ survivor feels, they got hit by something extraordinary and lived to tell the tale.
Exactly, if a tornado had wind speeds in the EF5 range, and there’s enough reason to rate it as such, it should get an EF5 rating.
I think what adds another layer is forecast verification, especially with the new CIG system. If we can’t have accurate ratings, we’re loosing a chance to refine and improve on forecasts, especially with the system still being in its infancy.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
It seems that ever between El Reno and Vilonia, we overcomplicated the scale and how it should be and we forgot the basics. The mindset is how we can go AGAINST a higher end rating instead of FINDING ways to justify its genuine rating. This issue has calmed down over the recent years but situations like this remind me that it's still as stubborn and goalpost-moving as it's ever been. We mightve passed the drought of EF5s, but the drought of sensible thinking and sensible reasoning to upgrade/downgrade a tornado still remains.
tornado examiner
Member
That long track EF3 from may 6th in Mississippi has been upgraded to from 137MPH to 160MPH based on tree damage because NWS Jackson are the goat
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Jackson took their time with that survey. Tree damage really seems to be playing a key part in upgrades lately, take your Stinesville, IN tree eater with the 70 DBZ reflectivity debris ball as a example of such.
But tornadoes like this get upgraded ans yet point blank evidence of EF5 winds supported by maths + contextuals doesn't gather a single thought from the higher ups. The difference from a EF4-EF5 should just be like a EF0-EF1, EF1-EF2 and so on. Yeah, i found a way to complain about Enid still through using this LOL..
Well then that needs to go back to the people in the EF scale committee who thought that houses shouldn't be rated EF-5, even though the Fujita scale was based around houses. Attitudes militating against giving the highest rating are clearly well embedded in some areas.
Is it though? I do state that if we are talking about precedents I don't think there was any real basis for Enid getting an EF5 based on the Monte Carlo simulation of only in the low EF5 range. In the original study https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/mwre/152/8/MWR-D-23-0251.1.xml. The lofting was based on 3 tornadoes which were not ultimately EF5 rated: Scarth 2020, Didsbury 2023, and Alonsa 2018. These tornadoes respectively got EF3, EF4, and EF4 ratings. Now there has been some discussion that Alonsa may have exhibted EF5 contextuals - which Enid doesn't have - and it's thrown items were actually more impressive than what was done in Enid. If Enid wasn't passing Alona in intensity (like Enderlin did) than I don't see any reason why Monte Carlo would justify it getting EF5 if Alonsa didn't. This may actually be more of a... yes Enid did things which per the study suggest EF5 damage... but ultimately it didn't exceed Alonsa which only got an EF4 rating... therefore it can only at max get an EF4 rating...
Last edited:
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
I see your point but to say that Enid didn't have EF5 contextuals is mind boggling. There's clear evidence for such and I'll call @Western_KS_Wx in for that to prove it. I stand by what I said, regardless. Nothing really changes my mind on this, and I'm open to all ears but nobody's gonna convince ms otherwise that this didn't deserve it.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
There for the record to back up Enid having EF5 contextuals.
Oh, I'm not saying this is the scientifically correct thing to do. But if Alonsa was more intense based on the Monte Carlo and only got EF4 than the most we could say for Enid would be EF4. The issue here is most likely that Alonsa is underrated not that Enid is otherwise overrated. But this is consistent rating, but possibly not accurate. But the inaccuracy here starts with Alonsa.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Oh, i absolutely agree with your point. Aside from the contextuals bit, if Alonsa only got such, then that means Enid can only max out at EF4 which is unfortunate. Definitely a shame on that part.
Absolutely botched rating. NWS once again too hesitant to rate a tornado what it should be rated as. Guess Enderlin didn't break the stigma.
The only thing Enderlin did is it showed if you have an item that is indisuptably EF5 AND stronger than Alonsa 2018 then you could qualify for an EF5 rating. Enderlin still had more than 1 EF5 indicator as well.
What on earth are you talking about?
“EF5 contextuals - which Enid doesn't have”
Enid had absolutely textbook EF5 contextuals. While the rest of this is valid, and exactly why am keeping an open mind to a reasonable explanation for EF4, saying Enid didn’t produce EF5 level contextual damage is so wildly inaccurate I don’t understand how you could even assert something like that. On top of that, implying that Alonsa had more impressive contextual damage than Enid veers into truly asinine territory.
Last edited: