Oof
I’ve had to make so many corrections to his wiki edits. All I’ll say on that.
There’s a full write-up on the NWS page and they went from a range (155 to 165) to a single wind speed (165). Based on past experience, once those two things are done, it usually means they’re about to finalize the rating,
The last tornado to be rated EF4 in the US was March 31st of last year and the last tornado to be rated EF5 was on May 20, 2013. I am really getting sick and tired of these NWS offices refusing to rate a tornado as violent is ridiculous. I don't care about interior walls as it is a poor excuse to underrate an expensively bolted Taco Bell to the foundation and mostly swept away is only high-end EF3 damage. The complete destruction of a restaurants expected value is 167 mph which is low-end EF4. For the past 20 or so years I have been studying tornado damage, these so called professionals have nit picked the F-SCALE and EF-SCALE.
I am sick and tired of hearing high-end EF3. I hate that rating so much that it shouldn't even exist.
Please shut up
NWS of Indianapolis has made it extremely clear that this rating is being extensively looked at in review. There is a rating problem but it's much deeper than just "Oh These NWS refuse to rate anything this!!!" All in All don't be surprised if this tornado doesn't get the EF4 rating because at the location the contextual damage doesn't match up well. There's no reason to be this mad on social media on something that's completely out of your control, step back, and take a chill pill. I heavily suggest if you want to make a difference, is to understand why you believe what you believe and how you can support your argument. Talk to actual engineers and mellow out.
Contextual damage may not always happen because of multiple vortices. I don't necessarily think that lack of context doesn't always mean it was poorly built or poorly anchored. It is weird how the Taco Bell ordering board stayed there but most of the building was slabbed. I feel like these engineers would rate a well-built hous completely swept away at very high-emd EF4 intensity because of lack of context. It brings into question then do these engineers really know what they are doing because it sounds like they must have the context as well as the well-built home being swept away to be rated EF5?
The biggest main issue was an issue I touched upon in a twitter thread. I really don't think SPC forecasters were really paying attention to the surface observations. The rapid destabilization of the environment after the MCS came through was loosely recognized in an MCD, but it's extent wasn't realized. Significant tornadoes were practically ignored in MCDs until a storm that produced a tornado in Arkansas became elevated (thus got a significant tornado MCD). On top of the last MCD that got issued (claimed that the environment was becoming increasingly stable) however, the 00Z observed Wilmington sounding and a few more tornadoes from ongoing supercells begged to differ.
It's right it's not fair that smaller and tighter vortexes get discriminated against compared to broader vortexes, you are right, however, it's just how things are. Structures aren't perfect and in most tornadoes, surrounding damage not remotely matching the particular damage point is a sign that maybe it failed at a far lowered windspeed than what would be expected. It's not perfect and does have its flaws in cases like these if the surveyors don't have a background with tighter damage gradients, however, it's better than going off a static scale in a country where construction varies pretty considerably.
I think it may vary but I think it is possible or even likely that small tighter multiple vortices are more powerful than broader multiple vortices.
There are times where they do screw it up big time, and this doesn’t look to be one of those times. Contextual evidence is needed for an upgrade, and just because you can’t understand that doesn’t make you correct. It makes you ignorant. Nobody is calling this one into question besides you, and that’s not because everyone is wrong, but because you don’t know what you’re talking about and have a weird emotional investment in seeing higher-end ratings. That’s all there is to it.
Yeah, but why would you want to torture yourself like that?
Well that doesn't necessarily mean I am completely clueless either. I just can't understand these more strict policies on rating tornadoes. For instance there was a house in the Moore 2013 tornado that was rated EF5 that I could easily could pick down to a high-end EF4 because there was still a fair amount of debris concentrated near the slab.
Another thing why do these NWS do not stay consistent with the actual value of a DOD. In this case a small retail building. LB is 143 mph, EXP. Is 167 mph, and UB is 193 mph. If there is a lack of interior walls or the context is lacking shouldn't they stick closer to the lower bound? Maybe this isn't the case but it seems like a number of NWS offices have abused the 165 mph EF3.
