• 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

Significant Tornado Events

andyhb said:
That tree is not "untouched" lol, objectively.

View attachment 28662

I forget whether this was the same home or if it was the other one on E Wicker Street that was obliterated, but the "untouched trees in the area" narrative really falls apart if you look in the background there.
Click to expand...
Untouched was a poor choice of words yeah, this is the same home. Tbh I can see it hitting a EF-5 rating, even if it is low end. Vilonia is one that proved it's intensity in contextuals as well. Even replicating that Moore feat with the tank but to an even greater degree.
 
andyhb said:
That tree is not "untouched" lol, objectively.

View attachment 28662

I forget whether this was the same home or if it was the other one on E Wicker Street that was obliterated, but the "untouched trees in the area" narrative really falls apart if you look in the background there.
Click to expand...
It's the same home. I have not seen any photos of the other Wicker Street house apart from distant aerial.
 
Juliett Bravo Kilo said:
So today's the 34th anniversary of the Stratton, NE F4 that was clearly an F5. Two videos on YT from Cosgrove, he finally uploaded this stuff to the public after all these years:




Click to expand...

Yeah I was just thinking about thar earlier. Yes, that damage is also no brainer F5. I have seen a picture of the tornado when it was really wide and was probably at least 1.5 to 2.0 miles-wide.
 
Last edited:
A Guy said:
1: why the caps lock?
2: people overestimate the width of the actual funnel/debris cloud
Click to expand...
Have you read any of my posts before. I have a bad habit of posting in all capital letters because I chat with someone and we use all capital letters. Also since you know everything you tell me how wide the Culbertson tornado was. I would certainly trust Dean Cosgrove over you
 
We know that Greenfield tornado this year was extremely violent, very likely with EF5 strengths and got DOW readings as high as 290mph when it's in town.
But the comparison below can show how strong Vilonia really was. In terms of the granulation and scouring in the pic, they are just not on the same level.(the first pic was most likely the place where 290mph winds occurred)
SAVE_20240606_233147.jpgREU-USA-TORNADOWEATHER-112.jpg
 
Sawmaster said:
Therein lies the problem. Going stringently by the criteria will lead to inaccurate results in times where other evidence beyond that listed and categorized as criteria indicates stronger has happened. If a tornado like Vilonia which everyone agrees is EF-5 instead struck only one solitary very well-built house and wiped the slab clean of debris it wouldn't be allowed as an EF-5 rating. Yet that very same house placed among a few similar ones which experienced similar destruction is now somehow allowed to achieve EF5 rating when it's the very same house in the very same winds. Clearly the logic of the engineers involved with these matters is at best suspect, and their assertions and conclusions need to be held accordingly.
Click to expand...
It bothers me a lot as well. Seriously it has been more than 11 years since the last tornado was rated EF5. Stop this stringent crap as I find it to be LA king common sense when rating tornadoes. No high-end EF3 tornado can strip a vehicle down to its chassis. Tim Marshall seems to ignore non DI'S in favor of well-built building crap and it is flat out annoying. I know the Marietta tornado form this year was rated EF4 by him but to be honest I am was more impressed with some of the damage from the other tornadoes that day that were slapped with high-end EF3 ratingd.
 
pohnpei said:
We know that Greenfield tornado this year was extremely violent, very likely with EF5 strengths and got DOW readings as high as 290mph when it's in town.
But the comparison below can show how strong Vilonia really was. In terms of the granulation and scouring in the pic, they are just not on the same level.(the first pic was most likely the place where 290mph winds occurred)
View attachment 28664View attachment 28665
Click to expand...
It seems like certain windspeeds may cause extreme damage and other times the same extreme winds not so much. With 250 to 290 mph winds I would think everyone of these homes would have been completely swept away from their slabs and extreme grass and vegetation scouring would have occurred.
 
HAwkmoon said:
That is the thing you cant, the homes in Moore had toenailed wall studs and properly managed bolts, The condition of the washers are extremely poor in Chapman. Vilonia had trees within a metre of the home left untouched and in this image we can see bolt spacing was rather inconsistent in the floorboards.

View attachment 28659
Click to expand...
i like how they use a tree 100 yards away for the reason to not rate it EF5 , however there's a tree a few feet away they ignore..... one thing is for sure there data is very poor, and they need to fix there past survey , hackleburg has so much issues that there part of the tornadoes core that goes out of the survey path with EF5 contextual damage.
 
Shakespeare 2016 said:
It seems like certain windspeeds may cause extreme damage and other times the same extreme winds not so much. With 250 to 290 mph winds I would think everyone of these homes would have been completely swept away from their slabs and extreme grass and vegetation scouring would have occurred.
Click to expand...
With winds between 250mph-290mph level Spencer and Greenfield did very similar things.(high EF4 to broadline EF5) Not much scouring made by each of them.
And for tornados with high DOW recordings and not that violent damage, I now tend to assume that it's mainly due to they dont have a tiny enough intense inner core near the surface. Every tornado with that incongruity I can think of had a core large core with large RMW like Sulphur, Mulhall and El Reno 2013 while Bridge Creek, El Reno 11 tend to have a much smaller core near the surface.

Actually you will found at least 90% of tornados did high end damage tend to have a small inner core near the surface. (the tornado itself can be very large btw)

There were three features about these tornados with a tiny intense inner core near the surface:
1 it's hard for almost any radar to sample that core below inflow layer including DOW
2 it's easier to made stronger damage than a large core due to extreme pressure gradient and much quicker change of wind direction and corner flow confined into a small area
3 it may have different vertical profile than a tornado with large core(the reason why vertical profile is opposite between hurricanes and tornados)
 
jiharris0220 said:
All this debating shows is the utter state that the ef scale is in, there shouldn’t be this much confusion and differing opinions on ratings, but here we are.

The SSHWS hardly has any of these kinds of debates because again, it’s a mostly objective scale that uses physical data in the form of wind measurements from dropsondes and weather stations.

I’m truly hoping the new scale takes into account contextuals a lot more and balances meteorology and engineering to the get the most accurate rating possible.
Click to expand...
well cars are going to be added... but ironicly its poorly done.... theres no lower or higher bound for cars.... theres no EF4 damage for cars.... theres 3 110 mph EF1 DOD ratings..... for stuff that should be lower or higher....
1718503582104.png
imagen this.... Dominator 3 gets a DOD 4 of 110 mph , and then a very large light weight vehicle gets flipped (DOD 2) and has a 110 mph rating.....

the new EF scale is 9 steps forward , 2 steps back , and 2 steps sideways (both good and bad)
and car di and tree di are both the things i say are both a step sideways for the EF scale

Trees are improved in every spot... however they removed tree debarking.

Cars have a DI now ... so its official ... however its the only one that's so poorly made and makes no sense at all.
 
joshoctober16 said:
well cars are going to be added... but ironicly its poorly done.... theres no lower or higher bound for cars.... theres no EF4 damage for cars.... theres 3 110 mph EF1 DOD ratings..... for stuff that should be lower or higher....
View attachment 28666
imagen this.... Dominator 3 gets a DOD 4 of 110 mph , and then a very large light weight vehicle gets flipped (DOD 2) and has a 110 mph rating.....

the new EF scale is 9 steps forward , 2 steps back , and 2 steps sideways (both good and bad)
and car di and tree di are both the things i say are both a step sideways for the EF scale

Trees are improved in every spot... however they removed tree debarking.

Cars have a DI now ... so its official ... however its the only one that's so poorly made and makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...
There should be EF4 ratings for vehicles. No there going to stick to the 165 mph high-end EF3 bulls**t rating just like they do houses. I doubt there will ever be an EF5r again.
 
Last edited:
Shakespeare 2016 said:
There should be EF4 ratings for vehicles. No there going to stick to the 165 mph high-end EF3 bulls**t rating just like they do houses. I doubt there will ever an EF5 ever again.
Click to expand...
theres also no common expected EF5 damage in the future EF scale as of now (theres still 2 to 3 common di not shown but still unlikely)
1718504500758.png
1718504410927.png
the missing common ones are
1718504452289.png
1718504476462.png

while the full list of DI are shown , the list of DOD has not yet.

the highest typical resistance wind speed is 200 mph from (DI 2 - Wood-Framed Residences (WFR))
EF0-EF4 have at least one common typical resistance damage.

EF5 should
a:be removed
b:be lowered too 200 mph

and should not be
stuck in a no typical resistance from a common di limbo.
 
Shakespeare 2016 said:
There should be EF4 ratings for vehicles. No there going to stick to the 165 mph high-end EF3 bulls**t rating just like they do houses. I doubt there will ever an EF5 ever again.
Click to expand...
a other problem for the new EF scale (one of my 2 main true negative) is EF5 tornadoes migth... be impossible if one rule is how i think it will be....
they never explain in what way this will effect the rating however.....
they state if its not in a hurricane prone area it wont get the highest wind speed.

1718504870377.png
meaning one of 2 things....
a:a 240 mph damage out of a hurricane prone area would be changed to 235 mph
b:a 240 mph damage out of a hurricane prone area would be changed to 200 mph

its hard to tell what one they mean by this....

its to note.... there is a map they made for what counts as a hurricane prone area..... if they choose option b , it would mean evrey single past F5/EF5 would not be EF5 on the new scale. there has been 0 EF5/F5 in the hurricane prone area they showd
1718505019556.png
the second full negative is because they are forcing every mph to end with a 0 or 5 mph.... like hurricanes .... the big problem with this is they stated they did this so they would stop having a tornado be rated 1 mph off from the next EF rating...... but..... the problem is .... that's only going to make it worse as that's going to make every tornado be off by 1 mph.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top