They used both treeline damage and the damage to the RV. For the treeline, the lower bound 3-second gust estimate was still over 200mph. The RV was estimated to be 204-207mph by one researcher, and 210mph by another, bith 3-second sustained gusts. That's two DIs.
-
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
@Xyls
Monte Carlo aside, seriously, explain to me and expand on your statement that Enid “didn’t have” EF5 contextuals. That statement is beyond ridiculous. The only thing you can point out is western Oklahoma’s scour prone soil, but what Enid did goes above and beyond just some dirt streaking from powdery red clay soil getting kicked up. What it did to the grass surface layer and low lying shrubbery is something I have seen a small handful of times in 16 years of tracking tornado events. If you don’t recognize the significance of the contextual damage in Enid, then you don’t have the ability to recognize high-end contextual damage overall.
Monte Carlo aside, seriously, explain to me and expand on your statement that Enid “didn’t have” EF5 contextuals. That statement is beyond ridiculous. The only thing you can point out is western Oklahoma’s scour prone soil, but what Enid did goes above and beyond just some dirt streaking from powdery red clay soil getting kicked up. What it did to the grass surface layer and low lying shrubbery is something I have seen a small handful of times in 16 years of tracking tornado events. If you don’t recognize the significance of the contextual damage in Enid, then you don’t have the ability to recognize high-end contextual damage overall.
Last edited:
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Hey, get ready, it's that type of night again on the forum....
Ozonelayer
Member
There are actual EF-5s with less severe contextual damage, how the hell was it NOT an EF-5 in that regard? Are we going to just ignore the RVs and the insanity that was the ground scouring!?
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
All jokes aside, that was borderline one of the most ridiculous takes I've see since someone said Smithville was a overrated EF5 on this forum. I'm no damage expert, i don't claim to be, but that is...stupendous. Rest of his points are completely valid but that's just incredible to say.
I’d appreciate actual backing up of my statement from other knowledgeable users rather than a “watch Buckeye argue” session for personal entertainment. There is collective knowledge on this forum regarding this topic. Use it.
Edit: ok see people are and I appreciate it
Edit: ok see people are and I appreciate it
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Point taken. I only use humor to lighten the place up because in a way, you take a look outside of all of this and realize it's tornado damage that we get into debacles about. I'm not trying to use you for personal entertainment, or this type of "Hey, guys, watch Buckeye get into a terrific argument" so if it comes off that way, apologies. I'm not a very serious person.
You’re good. I guess I’m just sick and of saying the same thing over and over again to people making bold, confidently false claims about things they have only a skin deep understanding of. I’ve been studying contextual damage for 16 years, and I know what to look for. My understanding of it goes all the way down to variance in soil composition state to state. There’s a certain cluster of phenomena to look for, and Enid produced it, in a textbook manner to boot. It’s such a classic example.
And you know what? That’s not just my personal opinion. I’ve heard from EF scale experts on the matter of contextual damage, talked with NWS damage surveyors on the matter, and read every paper and presentation on the topic. Tim Marshall even put on a presentation outlining the specific things that qualify as EF5 supportive contextual damage, and the Enid tornado checked box after box save for maybe a couple. The accompanying power point for that presentation is still out there too, so what I’m saying is verifiably true and anyone who doubts my claims can easily see for themselves.
I mean heck, the remarkable contextual damage was the FIRST thing that everyone noticed about Enid, even those who are hard to impress. Contextual damage is the SOLE REASON why the Enid tornado worked its way into “was it an EF5?” conversations to begin with well before the NCEI release. Even Nick K came out and straight up said that he believed that Enid reached EF5 intensity just based on contextual/vegetation damage alone! That speaks volumes. What I’m trying to say is that the claim Enid didn’t have EF5 contextuals isn’t only an unpopular opinion, it’s factually false and not even a matter of opinion at all. There is published material defining EF5 contextual damage, and Enid checks multiple boxes. That’s all there is to it.
But don’t take my word for it, go read Tim Marshall’s power point.
And you know what? That’s not just my personal opinion. I’ve heard from EF scale experts on the matter of contextual damage, talked with NWS damage surveyors on the matter, and read every paper and presentation on the topic. Tim Marshall even put on a presentation outlining the specific things that qualify as EF5 supportive contextual damage, and the Enid tornado checked box after box save for maybe a couple. The accompanying power point for that presentation is still out there too, so what I’m saying is verifiably true and anyone who doubts my claims can easily see for themselves.
I mean heck, the remarkable contextual damage was the FIRST thing that everyone noticed about Enid, even those who are hard to impress. Contextual damage is the SOLE REASON why the Enid tornado worked its way into “was it an EF5?” conversations to begin with well before the NCEI release. Even Nick K came out and straight up said that he believed that Enid reached EF5 intensity just based on contextual/vegetation damage alone! That speaks volumes. What I’m trying to say is that the claim Enid didn’t have EF5 contextuals isn’t only an unpopular opinion, it’s factually false and not even a matter of opinion at all. There is published material defining EF5 contextual damage, and Enid checks multiple boxes. That’s all there is to it.
But don’t take my word for it, go read Tim Marshall’s power point.
Last edited:
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
I mean you're the guy on this forum that sniffs the excrement out all the time, i imagine the frustration facing confidently incorrect people all the time. I've met plenty online, Reddit and YouTube of the likes and it never ceases t amaze me how they won't back down from their point even if they're incorrect. Why can't people have a mindset of being open to being wrong? It seems that's always been the main issue around tornado damage viewpoints, and to try act like a expertise on the topic if you aren't sets you up big time. I don't comment on this thread often unless I feel that I actually have something worth of merit to add. This is slightly derailing (Enderlin pun by accident) the thread but I agree completely with you. I think the issue regarding viewpoints is that we allow too many people to roam on being confidently incorrect and that's how rumors spread of the likes and etc.
This is one of my main philosophies. I reject the notion that any statement, no matter how false, deserves to be heard out, and that the phrase “it’s just an opinion” makes any difference or absolves anything. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and when you are that’s usually worth pointing out. My core belief is that not everyone’s opinion is valid, and not everyone deserves to be heard out. Does that make me fun at parties? No, but I can definitely sus out bs and get to the bottom of things pretty effectively.
Anyway, won’t derail this further, but it’s just incredibly frustrating dealing with people who don’t have a firm grasp on something that you’ve amassed a very detailed understanding of, especially when they confidently assert their misunderstandings as fact.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
100%. I felt like this today on Reddit. We wouldn't have a problem if people were open to being wrong and weren't so focused on trying to make themselves act like expertise on the subject. It only makes them look like further fools and then they get outed for it. I appreciate people who are open to viewpoints, discuss them and learn and take that knowledge forward. That's HOW you become a expert on a subject you're passionate about. It's no fun arguing or making debacles out button that's the issue with tornado damage. Too many act superior and it clashes all together. That's me done on this subject. Apologies to all for bringing off topic.
BTW, speaking of EF scale ratings, today I (finally) found a link to one version of the spreadsheet that estimates rating probabilities based on vrot and debris signature height, after the work by Sam Emmerson (it was on Nick Krasznavolgyi's twitter).
This means that during future events anyone here who has the relevant radar tools and saves a copy should be able to produce more insight than 'oh my god' or 'there are no words'. Though I can only get it to work in my google drive, on desktop it produces an error I haven't yet fixed.
This means that during future events anyone here who has the relevant radar tools and saves a copy should be able to produce more insight than 'oh my god' or 'there are no words'. Though I can only get it to work in my google drive, on desktop it produces an error I haven't yet fixed.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Just seen a post on Twitter saying that Enderlin wasn't a EF5. Seems to be that people are pushing against the use of non traditional ways to achieve a EF5 rating. I agree inconsistency is frustrating when you consider the likes of Mayfield, Vilonia but why are we rejecting maths? The maths is based off damage so it goes hand in hand, no? We can't change the past but we can do better now.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
I don't think the issue lies with NWS Norman regarding this, at all. I think it's moreso the different standards + viewpoints conflicting with different offices and that's why non traditional DIs are such a controversy. They're not the norm when it comes to different offices, and i don't know how many offices would agree on using non traditional DIs for a upgrade. I think i consider Enid a EF5 in my own book after all of this but it definitely does bring more question. Does the Enderlin precedent hurt the scale or does it aid it?
Eoline
Member
The person who posted that comes from the TRX Discord, where it is a common belief that Enderlin’s calcs were botched and that the tornado is below EF5. Which, if you’ve looked into the calculations, is not a completely insane thing to say - the calculations are oversimplified for such a complex object and make several assumptions that may or may not be close to reality, rendering them more of an “if these things happened” rather than “these things did happen”. Not saying the tornado isn’t an EF5 but I’ve had several actual engineer friends mention how the calculations are more than likely off to a degree based off assumptions made in the calcs themselves such as the swirl ratio.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
makes sense because I believe TRX himself was initially a bit on the fence regarding the rating. The TRX discord is FULL of fake expertise who think they know their stuff by using "hot takes". Not that her points weren't wrong, in a way, she had a point about it but I thought it was rough to say it was way below EF5. Regarding how non traditional DIs are highly mixed, i agreed with her on that
Eoline
Member
See my edit to the post; I’ve added more as to why there is a genuine discussion to be had about the calculations.
As for Enid there are again things that they forgot to factor in that could significantly alter the final numbers such as the fact that the “EF5” RV was if I remember correctly either in or directly next to an MBS - that thing would’ve been stripped to solely it’s frame before even hitting the ground due to the sandpapering effect of sheet metal, making any sort of objective lofting calculation basically impossible unless you know exactly where it was ripped apart and the dynamics of the frame which I highly doubt they went that in-depth on. Additionally the treeline they used for the analysis regarding treefall is evidently sick per both ground and satellite photos and thus the wind resistance might be significantly lower depending on how affected the treeline is. As with Enderlin I’m not saying Enid wasn’t an EF5, just that I’m not confident that it should be upgraded if there are that many immediate questions being raised regarding the calculations used to get the final numbers. Tornado science is never going to be objective and will always rely on some degree of assumption but there’s just too many here.
Last edited:
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
I see your edit. That is interesting. Maybe I'll lean more into that insight in particular. I still am a believer it was of EF5 intensity and deserved its rating given the sandpapered trees at nature, but i do definitely agree it is one of the weakest basis for a EF5. I've stood by that since the rating. How many assumptions exist within the math for Enid?
Eoline
Member
See my above edit; quite a few unfortunately.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Alright, that gives me some reasons to lay back a bit on it deserving EF5 for sure based on that. Not as strong of a advocate as I was, well appreciated! I think you can make a argument but there may be too much variables in Enid's case. Would you say Enid has stronger basis than Enderlin given the math?