Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Yeah I'm relatively conservative with tornado ratings but the NWS in the last four years or so has gone from "reasonable conservativism" to "looking for any excuse to give the tornado the lowest rating possible". That looks like pretty solid EF3 damage.
Honestly, for most events that aren't devastating and widespread, 135mph EF2 seems to be the upper limit. I know we've had years of discussions over why EF5 seems to be an impossible standard, but now it seems that even EF3 is a difficult threshold to reach without leveling half a town and killing half a dozen or more.
Obviously, construction quality is the limiting factor and as someone who helps build and renovate I can vouch for the dreadful construction quality of an alarming percentage of American single family homes, but the throwing of cars that far at the very least could make the case for being underrated. My fear, unfounded as it may be, is that surveyors seem to be defaulting to the lowest possible estimate for the DOD in nearly every instance. That's standard procedure for substandard construction, but it seems there is always a technicality that prevents a higher rating in the last half decade or so, even when construction quality is found to be adequate. And I absolutely believe that even at the best of times there is a slight degree of office-to-office bias in ratings. FFC vs BMX, as a notable local example.
This is solid EF3 damage if the house is well constructed, so either there were serious construction deficiencies and the tossing of vehicles that distance is not seen as valid secondary evidence, or EF2 is too low. But unfortunately, I do not make that call.
I've honestly been getting that impression as well. In the past four years alone there have been hordes of officially-rated EF2 tornadoes that could have been rated EF3 pretty comfortably, several official EF3 tornadoes which could have been rated EF4, and at least two EF4 tornadoes* which probably could have been rated EF5.My fear, unfounded as it may be, is that surveyors seem to be defaulting to the lowest possible estimate for the DOD in nearly every instance. That's standard procedure for substandard construction, but it seems there is always a technicality that prevents a higher rating in the last half decade or so, even when construction quality is found to be adequate.
I'm no structural engineer, but I know a thing or two and just from the images I can say with some confidence that that looks like a fairly well-built house. Probably relatively new, and doesn't look like the structure was compromised in any obvious way before the tornado. The only explanation for the lack of an EF3 rating that the NWS seems to give is "overall context" which actually appears very much in favor of an EF3 rating.This is solid EF3 damage if the house is well constructed, so either there were serious construction deficiencies and the tossing of vehicles that distance is not seen as valid secondary evidence, or EF2 is too low. But unfortunately, I do not make that call.
Confirmation bias with warning decisions plays a role as well I believe... Louisville dropped the ball with their lack of an adequate warning. It's very possible they kept it below "significant" to avoid a bad look if they were slow to act on an EF-3+