• 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
  • April 2024 Weather Video of the Month
    Post your nominations now!
Logo 468x120
Messages
165
Reaction score
118
Location
Indonesia
Only know of like, one other copy that anyone has talked about in the last decade or so but at least a few exist, randomly found it on Amazon



I'm not noticing any rating changes, seems the expansion is mostly just documentation (with many full color photos) and the occasional opinion on tornadoes that hit very little but were probably much stronger; Vilonia is listed as EF4, the only opinion being some homes in Parkwood Meadows had questionable anchoring



Looks like all the original 1974 ratings are intact, a few new photos (including from Jasper pretty close to home, interesting to see) but not seeing significant changes
Anything on Harper and Marion 2004? Does he have a different rating for Westminster 2006?
 

joshoctober16

Member
Messages
173
Reaction score
150
Location
Canada New brunswick
I have no desire to purchase the SIGNIFICANT TORNADOES update, as it seems like he isn't really changing all that much. Apparently he's going with EF4 for Vilonia, I mean, really?
he did list it as EF5 ... but then something nws said made him put it to EF4 , stating it had EF5 winds for sure , but couldn't rate it EF5....
 
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
2,882
Location
Missouri
View attachment 22192 View attachment 22193View attachment 22194
i feel like there needs to be a study on what past F5 would be kept as EF5 today and what post 1999 tornadoes would be rated F5 in the past ...
EF5 winds, EF4 damage....
Chapman 2016 had something similar happen, with 200mph listed in NWS.
I really wonder what made Grazulis change his mind.
It's a shame, because he could've set the record straight with not just Vilonia but Chapman, Goldsby, Chickasha, and (maybe) Tuscaloosa-Birmingham.
 

pohnpei

Member
Messages
991
Reaction score
2,041
Location
shanghai
EF5 winds, EF4 damage....
Chapman 2016 had something similar happen, with 200mph listed in NWS.
I really wonder what made Grazulis change his mind.
It's a shame, because he could've set the record straight with not just Vilonia but Chapman, Goldsby, Chickasha, and (maybe) Tuscaloosa-Birmingham.
He literary just used official rating for EF scale era tornados except for very few case(several downgraded) in his new book. So it's not just for Vilonia or Chickasha or Tuscaloosa etc, it's his choice to reject any major change to official rating and I can only assume that he really satisfied with rating system nowadays.

But also, understandably, I do have question whether he has that energy to dive deep into every single significant tornados in recent years, at his age.Thanks to internet, destructive tornados nowadays have more more information and pics compared with tornados decades ago. Even we here spent many years and 500 pages discussion to finally find out the true strengths of tornados like Greensburg, vilonia, New Wren erc. And there are many people here and in tornadotalk team and other places make contributions together. It's really hard for only one person, at his age, having a whole picture of all significant tornados and reasonablely rated them. Maybe it's just me opinion.
 
Last edited:

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,712
Reaction score
6,238
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
He literary just used official rating for EF scale era tornados except for very few case(several downgraded) in his new book. So it's not just for Vilonia or Chickasha or Tuscaloosa etc, it's his choice to reject any major change to official rating and I can only assume that he really satisfied with rating system nowadays.

But also, understandably, I do have question whether he has that energy to dive deep into every single significant tornados in recent years, at his age.Thanks to internet, destructive tornados nowadays have more more information and pics compared with tornados decades ago. Even we here spent many years and 500 pages discussion to finally find out the true strengths of tornados like Greensburg, vilonia, New Wren erc. And there are many people here and in tornadotalk team and other places make contributions together. It's really hard for only one person, at his age, having a whole picture of all significant tornados and reasonablely rated them. Maybe it's just me opinion.
Him simply not having enough energy at his age to do a deep dive into literally every single significant tornado listed in his new book does explain why he overlooked or simply wasn't aware of some tornadoes lesser known for being potentially underrated (hell, there are at least 10 I can think of from 2011 alone) but it still doesn't explain why he chose to do nothing with more well known and egregious under-ratings he was fully aware of.
 

joshoctober16

Member
Messages
173
Reaction score
150
Location
Canada New brunswick
He literary just used official rating for EF scale era tornados except for very few case(several downgraded) in his new book. So it's not just for Vilonia or Chickasha or Tuscaloosa etc, it's his choice to reject any major change to official rating and I can only assume that he really satisfied with rating system nowadays.

But also, understandably, I do have question whether he has that energy to dive deep into every single significant tornados in recent years, at his age.Thanks to internet, destructive tornados nowadays have more more information and pics compared with tornados decades ago. Even we here spent many years and 500 pages discussion to finally find out the true strengths of tornados like Greensburg, vilonia, New Wren erc. And there are many people here and in tornadotalk team and other places make contributions together. It's really hard for only one person, at his age, having a whole picture of all significant tornados and reasonablely rated them. Maybe it's just me opinion.
ya but i don't think tornadotalk can get there good finding out as official, honestly if the stuff tornadotalk was allowed to be put as offical i would be happy.

right now it almost feels like its NWS only that can be official ... but there's way too much under rating and almost no over rated tornadoes , its to skewed on the low side, it would be nice to have a other team that isn't nws be allowed to have a official say in the rating.

i herd in a video by nws , i cant find it but im sure some one in here can find it , that they state el reno 2011 would not be rated EF5 today ... and i herd phil campbell almost didn't get rated EF5.

a other thing i wish to know about the ef scale is , while im not sure about EF0 to EF4 i do know they raised the bar for EF5 , they even stated this , i just don't know by how much, they stated they didn't want to make frame houses swept clean as EF5 compared to the past .... but what wind speed would a tornado have to have a past F5 rating? is it 200 mph? 196 mph? 195 mph? or 190 mph? What would the weakest true F5 in the past be rated today? and what tornadoes in the past would be rated EF5 still today?
 

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,712
Reaction score
6,238
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
i herd in a video by nws , i cant find it but im sure some one in here can find it , that they state el reno 2011 would not be rated EF5 today ... and i herd phil campbell almost didn't get rated EF5.
If you're referring to that "confidence builders" slide in Rick Smith's El Reno 2011 presentation, whoever tweeted that slide misinterpreted it. It was meant to illustrate how the surveyors did give it an EF5 rating when there were no 'traditional' EF5 candidate structures along the path. But yeah, that tornado wouldn't be rated EF5 today because of its rating being based on irregular, non-traditional DI's and Phil Campbell wouldn't get rated EF5 today because almost all of the structures it hit were poorly built.

a other thing i wish to know about the ef scale is , while im not sure about EF0 to EF4 i do know they raised the bar for EF5 , they even stated this , i just don't know by how much, they stated they didn't want to make frame houses swept clean as EF5 compared to the past .... but what wind speed would a tornado have to have a past F5 rating? is it 200 mph? 196 mph? 195 mph? or 190 mph? What would the weakest true F5 in the past be rated today? and what tornadoes in the past would be rated EF5 still today?
The current lack of consistency seems to affect all levels of the EF scale (e.g. the 2011 Sedalia EF2 that should have been EF3 and the rather lenient EF4 ratings applied to Rozel and Woodbury 2013)
 

csx1985

Member
Messages
22
Reaction score
24
Location
Mobile, Alabama
The NWS has turned the current scale into “how well was a home built” scale. Unfortunately, it seems like 2011 was the last year that the scale was used as it was intended to be used. I’m not saying that ALL their post 2011 EF4/5 survey results are incorrect, but several definitely stand out as questionable.

I agree that other reputable outfits such as TornadoTalk should have an input on ratings but that’ll never be allowed.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
2,882
Location
Missouri
The NWS has turned the current scale into “how well was a home built” scale. Unfortunately, it seems like 2011 was the last year that the scale was used as it was intended to be used.

I agree that other reputable outfits such as TornadoTalk should have an input on ratings but that’ll never be allowed.
At this point I'll trust TornadoTalk more than NWS and their complete jokes of "damage surveys".
 

csx1985

Member
Messages
22
Reaction score
24
Location
Mobile, Alabama
On the bright side, at least the NWS hasn't drank the paywall koolaid - yet...
As I’m sure you know, the NWS is an agency of our federal government meaning it’s funded by us tax payers. So you’re basically already paying for it. TornadoTalk is a private entity that needs funds for research, traveling, etc. to provide their members a service (hence the paywall).

I’ll happily support them for $2.95 a month.
 

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,712
Reaction score
6,238
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
As I’m sure you know, the NWS is an agency of our federal government meaning it’s funded by us tax payers. So you’re basically already paying for it. TornadoTalk is a private entity that needs funds for research, traveling, etc. to provide their members a service (hence the paywall).

I’ll happily support them for $2.95 a month.
My point being that in the world of tornado damage analysis, the whole "you'll get what you pay for" scenario applies. NWS articles are free to access, but the quality of the research you get from them is completely hit or miss between WFO. TornadoTalk always does a fantastic job, but you have to pay them to access much of their work.

(But like you said, since the NWS is funded by our tax dollars, I guess we're technically not getting what we're paying for? Anyhow, off topic.)
 

Western_KS_Wx

Member
Messages
230
Reaction score
646
Location
Garden City KS
I really respect TornadoTalk and their ability to find very obscure information on tornadoes, when I read their 2011 Super Outbreak summaries in every article there were damage feats I’ve never heard mentioned before even on detailed weather forums. I was a little hesitant about paying for the summaries but it was definitely worth it imo.

Their summaries also show that in a lot of these underrated tornadoes and even some of the more well known violent tornadoes when you really dig deep you can uncover some remarkable stuff that’s otherwise gone completely under the radar, or just unnoticed (mainly because of NWS surveyors overlooking it or flat out missing them completely).

Take for example as I kept doing more and more research on the Greensburg tornado the more numerous extreme damage feats I uncovered that I’ve never heard mentioned anywhere, and especially not mentioned by any surveyors on that event. Just some examples scratching the surface include a Frito-Lay semi-truck shredded down to nothing more than a warped and completely bent steel frame, postal office vehicles also being reduced to steel frames or just entirely missing, small farm implements and equipment from the countryside well south of Greensburg landing in random spots in town, and pieces of metal and wood, license plates, mile marker signs, literal kitchen utensils being embedded into trees, many so forcefully they couldn’t be extracted even with machinery. Then the bizarre, like bedsprings being tightly wrapped around a tree while simultaneously speared to the tree trunk by a 2x4, and a gym wrestling mat from the highschool being stuffed in someone’s truck cab a 1/2 mile away.

Makes me wonder how many other violent tornadoes have produced incredible instances of damage that just simply went unnoticed due to lack of documentation from surveyors or media.
 
Last edited:

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,712
Reaction score
6,238
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
I really respect TornadoTalk and their ability to find very obscure information on tornadoes, when I read their 2011 Super Outbreak summaries in every article there were damage feats I’ve never heard mentioned before even on detailed weather forums. I was a little hesitant about paying for the summaries but it was definitely worth it imo.

Their summaries also show that in a lot of these underrated tornadoes and even some of the more well known violent tornadoes when you really dig deep you can uncover some remarkable stuff that’s otherwise gone completely under the radar, or just unnoticed (mainly because of NWS surveyors overlooking it or flat out missing them completely).

Take for example as I kept doing more and more research on the Greensburg tornado the more numerous extreme damage feats I uncovered that I’ve never heard mentioned anywhere, and especially not mentioned by any surveyors on that event. Just some examples scratching the surface include a Frito-Lay semi-truck shredded down to nothing more than a warped and completely bent steel frame, postal office vehicles also being reduced to steel frames or just entirely missing, small farm implements and equipment from the countryside well south of Greensburg landing in random spots in town, and pieces of metal and wood, license plates, mile marker signs, literal kitchen utensils being embedded into trees, many so forcefully they couldn’t be extracted even with machinery. Then the bizarre, like bedsprings being tightly wrapped around a tree while simultaneously speared to the tree trunk by a 2x4, and a gym wrestling mat from the highschool being stuffed in someone’s truck cab a 1/2 mile away.

Makes me wonder how many other violent tornadoes have produced incredible instances of damage that just simply went unnoticed due to lack of documentation from surveyors or media.
I don't like paywalls in general, but in hindsight TornadoTalk's decision to introduce a paid membership was an understandable one; they're certainly not the equivalent of a massive mainstream media outlet that already gets boatloads of revenue from online and television advertisers. Still, my biggest gripe from back when they first rolled out the change is that they put summaries which were previously free behind the paywall.

Regarding Greensburg, the more I hear about it, the more impressed I am by the fact it was already weakening as it passed through town. By this point I'm more or less convinced it would have caused West Frankfort or Smithville tier damage had it hit Greensburg at full-on intensity.
 

joshoctober16

Member
Messages
173
Reaction score
150
Location
Canada New brunswick
I don't like paywalls in general, but in hindsight TornadoTalk's decision to introduce a paid membership was an understandable one; they're certainly not the equivalent of a massive mainstream media outlet that already gets boatloads of revenue from online and television advertisers. Still, my biggest gripe from back when they first rolled out the change is that they put summaries which were previously free behind the paywall.

Regarding Greensburg, the more I hear about it, the more impressed I am by the fact it was already weakening as it passed through town. By this point I'm more or less convinced it would have caused West Frankfort or Smithville tier damage had it hit Greensburg at full-on intensity.
ya i semi agree, theres kind of 3 articles that kind of felt like a rude move.... (smithville, marion county F4, Pampa) pampa in particular because now there's no true data for pampa at all.... nws messed up the pampa data and it wont show up correctly, so how can we learn about pampa if theres no nws data, the wiki has nothing , and tornadotalk has it paywalled? there needs to at least be a easy free way to get pampa info (as in part start, death, injury, Width, comments).
 

csx1985

Member
Messages
22
Reaction score
24
Location
Mobile, Alabama
Wasn’t Smithville one of the events that the NWS lost a lot of info on? It was some sort of website revamp that they did if I remember correctly. That is one of the tornadoes of 4/27 that I wish had been more thoroughly surveyed.

TornadoTalk’s article is pretty good but I still think there are several damage feats and unanswered questions that we may never know about or the answers to.
 
Back
Top