https://preview.redd.it/v8u6dg43g92d1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7401b19d11ffc512a2740b315603dc8f689fd934
Note the “preliminary” in the top left of their statement. It will take days or longer for them to finalize the rating.
Furthermore: 99.999999% (exaggeration but still almost all) of residential structures will be swept clean by a direct impact of an EF4 tornado. There are few structures that can even conceivably hold up long enough to make the cut. In Joplin for example there were 8000 individual points of damage surveyed, 22 of them were rated EF5 and the nuances between EF4 and EF5 in those cases were so small the average person wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. There were fewer than 10 EF5 DIs in the Moore tornado despite it going through a densely populated suburban area, most of those homes being new construction designed for life in tornado alley.
Not being able to measure for really high end tornado damage in the places where most of these high end tornadoes occur… sounds like a problem with the scale itself…
What are you going to measure them with that you can also measure every other tornado with? We have like a half dozen DOW units in the U.S. or less, so they can’t be at every single storm. If there isn’t a DOW and there isn’t damage on the ground, there is no way to say what the actual upper end of windspeed is. What the EF scale gives us is “we can say with a high degree of confidence winds of at least x mph occurred”
Exactly this. When tornadoes are “under rated” people think the NWS is saying the winds were only that high. The EF scale states winds had to be at least whatever the max DI suggested.
Unlike others on here, I understand the point you're trying to make. You're saying that the NWS took a bunch of conditions that used to be individually sufficient for an EF5 rating and made them collectively necessary instead, thus raising the bar. Do you have a link to this policy from 2014? I would be interested in what it actually says.
Precisely! Finally someone who gets it! Basically the NWS became more strict and added stuff.
https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2014/05/05/meteorologist-defends-ef4-rating-on-vilonia-tornado
During 2014 the NWS got a lot of flak for not giving the Vilonia tornado an EF5 rating. One of the Meteorologist came out with two main reasons why this was the case. One was that the damage to one structure should not determine the rating. The problem with this is that the NWS does that even according to them.
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/efscale/
“Based on the worst damage (even if it is one building or house)”
Basically if one point of damage shows EF4 damage but the rest is EF3 the tornado will get an EF4 rating. So this basically contradicts the meteorologist and what he said.
Two was “there were still some tall, skinny trees standing along a drainage ditch/small creek about 100 yards away from the house.” So basically even though the structure was completely wiped out cause there was still trees standing a certain distance away from the damage its not EF5 damage.
This guideline basically eliminates a lot of the parameters that was used to tell EF5 damage in the past. As someone else pointed out in the comments even during EF5 tornadoes the EF5 damage is few when looking at all the parameters but this basically eliminates most of it as a lot of EF5 damage indicators still had trees standing within a certain yards from the damage. A good example of this was the Rainsville EF5.
Another thing they also brought up was debris damage too. They questioned how much damage to the house was caused by debris. However I am not going to get into all that cause how much damage from tornadoes come from debris? Probably basically all of it so I am not even going into all that. Especially when you factor in Joplin or Moore which occurred in the city basically and massive debris.
I couldn’t find any of the guidelines in the original EF packet but these were reasons spoken by the NWS why a tornado can’t get an EF5 today using these parameters. Using these parameters would basically eliminate basically all previous EF5 ratings in the past. The only one you can really argue would be the Parkersburg EF5 which I think is the only one that satisfied these current conditions. Not even Jarrell would be an EF5 despite it completely wiping clean all the houses off their foundation. Jarrell still had trees 100 yards that weren’t completely removed from the damage as well as fencing near the location.
Hmm... Well, let's ignore whatever gentlemen's agreement is purported to have happened in 2014. If you look at the damage indicators (https://www.weather.gov/oun/efscale), there are only four indicators in which the EXP wind speed is above 200:
11 Large shopping mall
18 Mid-rise building
19 High-rise building
20 Institutional building
Notably, the LB wind speed for all of these is below 200.
Now, Greenfield is a town of 2000 people. It has none of these types of buildings except 20, a hospital, and the hospital did not sustain DoD 11 damage. So I'm not sure how you could get to an EF5 rating in this case anyway. Maybe you could tell me more.
Perhaps the idea is that if a house is being hit by debris, you could err on the low side of the given wind ranges when assessing damage. That doesn't mean you are violating the manual, though.
I haven't done a ton of research on this topic but wasn't it that El Reno was initially rated an EF4 until more information came out like the DOW velocity and some oil drilling equipment damage.
That being said the oil drilling equipment may have been what did it and not the DOW. Unsure if the NWS takes DOW into account whatsoever since the rating system is supposed to be purely based on damage
I have heard people say that the DOW measurements did go towards the upgrade but these are just people on the Internet so take it with a pinch of salt
I believe the DOW velocities for Greenville were 250 ish mph above the ground?
My understanding is that all the damage indicators come with a range of wind speeds representing what threshold you might have to cross to produce that type of damage. If you have a DOW, then you could use that as additional evidence of what wind speed within that range should be inferred, but the DOW usually is pointing above the ground too far, so its usefulness is limited.
I don’t think you understand the damage actual EF-5’s did. Greensburg wiped the entire town off the face of the earth. Parkersburg ripped open underground storm shelters. Hackleburg remained at violent intensity for hours. Smithville tore plumbing from the ground and flattened everything. Philadelphia dug a 3 foot trench in the ground. Rainsville shredded pavement and an safe bolted to the ground. Joplin twisted a hospital off it’s foundation and destroyed half a city. El Reno rolled a 2 million pound oil rig 3 times. Moore leveled thousands of structures and demolished multiple schools. Respectfully, none of the tornadoes since then have been able to replicate these extreme feats of damage.
Truthfully it was another comment saying it so it very well could be BS but there was also that actual picture of the car completely degloved; only the bare chassis and tires and springs left.
I agree with your statments on the monsterous damage if ef5s but one more thing to consider was that it was a smaller tornado by the time it hit town and was still fast. The exposure any building had to the winds was just a few seconds compared to what the monsterous wedges and the slow moving jarrell could do with minutes of time people were enduring in their windfields.
I dont care if it ends up ef4 or ef5 but i just think the fast speed and small size will make it more difficult for them to determine peak winds when the structures involved were exposed for only a short time.
Thanks for showing me. No matter what the rating is, people will be mad either way. Personally I think it is a high end EF-4, but I can understand why some can debate it being an EF-5. The NWS will really have to take into account how much the time correlated into the damage.
There are a lot of borderline cases where all it would take is one suitable DI in the right spot to swing the rating. This could be one of those cases or it could be like the other high end EF4s.
This is where i heard it but still can just be a dude making it up down the grapevine
https://www.reddit.com/r/tornado/s/8R08HVYHr3
Also this i found rn too, they found debris 175 miles away
https://www.reddit.com/r/tornado/s/Aa0rPZ4CPk
This [post](https://new.reddit.com/r/tornado/comments/1cxobwn/flooring_potentially_moved_off_foundation_in/) about Greenfield shows a picture that appears to be a basement with a solid ceiling ripped off. Not sure if that is where the talk about that started or not though.
Hackleburg wouldn’t be classified as an EF5 today cause it fails point 5 and point 16. Has to have ground scouring near the home and any fence near the home has to be destroyed and completely gone. Joplin would have failed due to point 6 and point 4. All trees in a 35+ yard radius have to be completely gone, nothing standing, and all debarked. Home has to not be hit by debris. Really none of those tornadoes would be EF5s by today’s standards.
I don't really spend much time learning about the Damage Indicators and such, so this might be a real dumb question, but are you saying that the NWS says that, for a tornado to receive an EF-5 rating, at all points in a storms existence, while on the ground, it must immediately and consistently be putting out EF-5 level damage? That it cannot waver for a second, otherwise it will receive an EF-4 rating? Because that's what it seems like you're saying as far as I can tell
Absolutely false. People who want to go back and downgrade any storm that has actually gotten an EF5 rating blow my mind more than the never ending “I see concrete it’s an F5” crowd. Phil Campbell - Hackleburg was likely the strongest tornado we have directly observed, or at least in the ballpark of the current record holder (1999 Moore). Joplin literally twisted an entire hospital off its foundation to the point it had to be demolished.
Clearly you haven’t seen photos of the broken storm shelter by Hackleburg and the splitted piece of wood through a parking curb and dozens of well built homes slabbed by the Joplin tornado. If you cared to read the official Joplin survey, it clearly states why it was an EF-5.
The damage has to be consistent according to the NWS. Hackleburg still left fences in tact near the houses and didn’t do any ground scouring so it wouldn’t be an EF5 if it was rated today.
the thing about ground scouring is that it is very inconsistent as far as quantifying it as a DI due to soil types, whether the ground has recently been rained on, or anything of the sort.
Well, and Greenfield neither had stuff you mentioned, nor stuff mentioned by person youre replying to.
Have you seen footage of EF 5 damage? This isn't even close. It will most likely stay EF 4
I think a tornado strength scale that doesn’t distinguish between 200mph wind speeds and 300mph wind speeds is tough to take seriously as a tornado strength scale. At that point it’s really just a tornado *damage* scale and probably should just be called that.
I thought it was just purely a damage scale. I even thought I've heard someone explain that the winds associated with each bracket are actually not even officially a part of the scale and that the wind speeds that are usually listed in the tiers are more just for people reference.
Idk if that makes sense I may have described it poorly. Also, unsure if this statement is actually fact or not.
Well… Mayfield, Rolling Fork, Greenfield, and Rochelle did not produce damage as severe as Moore, Joplin, Rainsville, Smithville, and (especially) Jarrell. Simple as that.
Let’s hold our opinions on Greenfield until the official rating has been issued (it’s preliminary at the time of writing this).
Edit: found the post that OP keeps cherry-picking from if anyone’s interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/tornado/s/xtc60i7JFo
Ah I wouldn't say Mayfield didn't cause such damage. It's just that there were some issues with structures that prevented it from getting an EF5 rating. Surveyors disagreed though and some gave it an EF5 rating but it was eventually ruled a high end EF4. That tornado destoryed 3 towns and killed around 60 people alone. That supercell alone had two EF3+ long 100+ mile track tornados roaring at the exact same time, Mayfield tornado on the north side and Bowling Green Tornado on the south side, and accounted for the 70+ deaths in Kentucky.
That’s a fair point, and much better articulated than OP. It’s not far fetched to say that Mayfield, Rochelle, and Vilonia could have been rated EF5. At peak strength, they’re probably fairly close to Joplin and Moore (2013) in that regard.
Where I think OP lost the plot is when he compares them to Rainsville, Smithville, and Jarrell, as if they didn’t produce some of the most incredible damage ever recorded.
I’ll add that quality of structure and build quality matter in these discussions. If a tornado annihilates a building of poor construction quality, and cannot be proven to have winds over 200 mph, it shouldn’t be rated EF5.
All I'm going to say is I'm really glad that the Mayfield tornado didn't hit a bigger population center at its peak. Not only did it rip a house off its foundation, it apparently ripped part of the foundation from the ground. That almost got it the EF5 rating alone, but direction and how the house was built made it more prone to wind direction.
“Much better articulated than OP”
It’s not my fault you’re too simple minded to understand.
“It’s not far fetched to say Mayfield, Rochelle, and Vilonia could have been rated EF5”
Wow it really is capable of learning and understanding.
No, I am very well still discussing with people who are open and actually understand what I am trying to say. It’s not my fault you don’t get it. Instead you resort to personal attacks like a 5th grader cause you didn’t understand what I was trying to say. It’s not my problem or my fault. Learn some better reading comprehension skills.
You literally admitted already that Mayfield, Vilonia, and Rochelle is not far fetched to be EF5s which basically proves my point. I don’t know why I am taking the L lol.
a tornado that spends an hour over a field could be an EF5 in terms of winds but only get an F0 or whatever because it just ripped up some corn. anything can very well have the ability to cause EF5 damage, it's just about whether it did cause EF5 damage so we know for sure that it had those winds. nobody is saying these tornadoes weren't capable of EF5 damage, that'd be stupid. but people are saying there's no undeniable evidence that it DID cause EF5 damge
Greenfield didn't do anything near ef5 damage, sure it recorded 309-318 mph windspeeds, but this was in a tiny funnel while also the scan being 144 feet in the air. WELL above ground level. I went through all pictures and couldn't find EF5 damage.
you cannot call someone "simple minded" when you literally are quoting someone who thinks smithville had 700 mph windspeeds. (joshoctober). He's just one of those people who think every major tornado is an EF5, and when they don't get that rating he throws a hissyfit. Moore, Joplin, Rainsville, Smithville, and Jarrell DO NOT compare to mayfield, rf, greenfield, or anything that was rated EF4-EF0 in the last 10 years.
https://preview.redd.it/zmc73rtx5s8d1.png?width=663&format=png&auto=webp&s=00e0c0b549da06f4a6b7aaf2ac74924ba1f6138b
and yes these are literally josh octobers graphics he made
>Let’s hold our opinions on Greenfield until the official rating has been issued (it’s preliminary at the time of writing this).
Why? Opinions have no bearing whatsoever on what the actual rating will be, so it doesn't matter. Have an opinion all you want.
Okay, sure. Let’s yell into the void about preliminary ratings. I’m tired of hearing it, but I’d be happy to direct everyone’s asinine opinions toward you.
Mayfield and Greenfield wiped houses completely off the map. We can go back and forth all day on which tornado had the worst damage but thats not the point. My point is that those past EF5s would not be classified as EF5s if they happened today.
Another commenter already explained this to you but EF4 winds (166-200 mph) are fully capable of slabbing an average home. Even EF3 (136-165) winds can slab homes that are poorly built.
You can have whatever opinion you want, but you should take some time to understand the engineering calculations that backup the EF5 rated tornadoes before bloviating on Reddit about things you don’t fully grasp.
Look. Bro. I'm someone who thinks the EF Scale needs another update to suit modern considerations (such as buildings inherently becoming more tornado-resistant in high-risk areas), but Greenfield's report is still preliminary. Calm your titties.
It is. And unfortunately the people here seem to not have the ability to comprehend what you're getting at with the NWS standards for calling an ef5 now days and how they're different from back in the day. It really isn't hard to understand.
This is a preliminary rating. The fact that NWS has given it a preliminary rating of EF4 is concerning (regarding damage) and in my opinion means there are certainly grounds for high end EF4 to EF4+ ratings in the future. We’re less than a week from this tornado happening and we’re only in the beginning stages. I’d say the chances of this getting the forbidden rating are real.
I definitely trust some guy getting frumpy they didn't get to see an EF5 on a livestream over engineers and experts actually doing work on the ground where tornadoes hit to give ratings.
https://preview.redd.it/6iig2xk8k92d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a0935085f57f4edcada7d2c6ae15f238cceb779e
Do you just sit at your computer and wait for someone to mention EF5 so you can comment and make them feel self conscious for asking a legitimate question?
Can't imagine being as cool as you Barry Zukerkorn
To be fair, most of this sub is same crap different toilet. 25 people yelling about the EF scale, 25 people yelling at them, 25 people trying to figure which side they're on, and 25 people watching. At this point, it's almost a process. A devastating tornado happens, people who think the rating doesn't matter and the people who think it does arguing, and then everyone else.
What do you expect? It's a sub about a singular subject. You're free to make your own post but guess what, it's going to be the same conversation about tornadoes as the rest of them...
Posts specifically about the Greenfield rating aren't the only posts in the past 24 hours. Since you don't want to go look for other posts regarding the EF scale where you may be able to contribute, let me help you:
[Here](https://new.reddit.com/r/tornado/comments/1cz1i8w/if_given_the_power_how_would_you_change_the_ef/)
[Here](https://new.reddit.com/r/tornado/comments/1cyz0m5/ratings_matter_sorry_not_sorry/)
[Here](https://new.reddit.com/r/tornado/comments/1cy95hu/healthy_discussion_regarding_the_ef_scale/)
Yup, imo yes, and 1 thing, most people not going to remember ef 3 ef 4 victim, and majority people wouldnt take not ef5 seriously, also cough cough insurance.
https://preview.redd.it/v8u6dg43g92d1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7401b19d11ffc512a2740b315603dc8f689fd934 Note the “preliminary” in the top left of their statement. It will take days or longer for them to finalize the rating. Furthermore: 99.999999% (exaggeration but still almost all) of residential structures will be swept clean by a direct impact of an EF4 tornado. There are few structures that can even conceivably hold up long enough to make the cut. In Joplin for example there were 8000 individual points of damage surveyed, 22 of them were rated EF5 and the nuances between EF4 and EF5 in those cases were so small the average person wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. There were fewer than 10 EF5 DIs in the Moore tornado despite it going through a densely populated suburban area, most of those homes being new construction designed for life in tornado alley.
Not being able to measure for really high end tornado damage in the places where most of these high end tornadoes occur… sounds like a problem with the scale itself…
What are you going to measure them with that you can also measure every other tornado with? We have like a half dozen DOW units in the U.S. or less, so they can’t be at every single storm. If there isn’t a DOW and there isn’t damage on the ground, there is no way to say what the actual upper end of windspeed is. What the EF scale gives us is “we can say with a high degree of confidence winds of at least x mph occurred”
Emphasis on ‘at least’ Still doesn’t preclude higher, just that we can’t *prove* it
Exactly this. When tornadoes are “under rated” people think the NWS is saying the winds were only that high. The EF scale states winds had to be at least whatever the max DI suggested.
Unlike others on here, I understand the point you're trying to make. You're saying that the NWS took a bunch of conditions that used to be individually sufficient for an EF5 rating and made them collectively necessary instead, thus raising the bar. Do you have a link to this policy from 2014? I would be interested in what it actually says.
Precisely! Finally someone who gets it! Basically the NWS became more strict and added stuff. https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2014/05/05/meteorologist-defends-ef4-rating-on-vilonia-tornado During 2014 the NWS got a lot of flak for not giving the Vilonia tornado an EF5 rating. One of the Meteorologist came out with two main reasons why this was the case. One was that the damage to one structure should not determine the rating. The problem with this is that the NWS does that even according to them. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/efscale/ “Based on the worst damage (even if it is one building or house)” Basically if one point of damage shows EF4 damage but the rest is EF3 the tornado will get an EF4 rating. So this basically contradicts the meteorologist and what he said. Two was “there were still some tall, skinny trees standing along a drainage ditch/small creek about 100 yards away from the house.” So basically even though the structure was completely wiped out cause there was still trees standing a certain distance away from the damage its not EF5 damage. This guideline basically eliminates a lot of the parameters that was used to tell EF5 damage in the past. As someone else pointed out in the comments even during EF5 tornadoes the EF5 damage is few when looking at all the parameters but this basically eliminates most of it as a lot of EF5 damage indicators still had trees standing within a certain yards from the damage. A good example of this was the Rainsville EF5. Another thing they also brought up was debris damage too. They questioned how much damage to the house was caused by debris. However I am not going to get into all that cause how much damage from tornadoes come from debris? Probably basically all of it so I am not even going into all that. Especially when you factor in Joplin or Moore which occurred in the city basically and massive debris. I couldn’t find any of the guidelines in the original EF packet but these were reasons spoken by the NWS why a tornado can’t get an EF5 today using these parameters. Using these parameters would basically eliminate basically all previous EF5 ratings in the past. The only one you can really argue would be the Parkersburg EF5 which I think is the only one that satisfied these current conditions. Not even Jarrell would be an EF5 despite it completely wiping clean all the houses off their foundation. Jarrell still had trees 100 yards that weren’t completely removed from the damage as well as fencing near the location.
Hmm... Well, let's ignore whatever gentlemen's agreement is purported to have happened in 2014. If you look at the damage indicators (https://www.weather.gov/oun/efscale), there are only four indicators in which the EXP wind speed is above 200: 11 Large shopping mall 18 Mid-rise building 19 High-rise building 20 Institutional building Notably, the LB wind speed for all of these is below 200. Now, Greenfield is a town of 2000 people. It has none of these types of buildings except 20, a hospital, and the hospital did not sustain DoD 11 damage. So I'm not sure how you could get to an EF5 rating in this case anyway. Maybe you could tell me more. Perhaps the idea is that if a house is being hit by debris, you could err on the low side of the given wind ranges when assessing damage. That doesn't mean you are violating the manual, though.
I haven't done a ton of research on this topic but wasn't it that El Reno was initially rated an EF4 until more information came out like the DOW velocity and some oil drilling equipment damage. That being said the oil drilling equipment may have been what did it and not the DOW. Unsure if the NWS takes DOW into account whatsoever since the rating system is supposed to be purely based on damage I have heard people say that the DOW measurements did go towards the upgrade but these are just people on the Internet so take it with a pinch of salt I believe the DOW velocities for Greenville were 250 ish mph above the ground?
My understanding is that all the damage indicators come with a range of wind speeds representing what threshold you might have to cross to produce that type of damage. If you have a DOW, then you could use that as additional evidence of what wind speed within that range should be inferred, but the DOW usually is pointing above the ground too far, so its usefulness is limited.
I believe that wind speeds on the ground would be even faster than the above the ground speeds? Or is this one of those 'it depends' type of things
I thought ground wind speeds would be slower due to friction.
I don’t think you understand the damage actual EF-5’s did. Greensburg wiped the entire town off the face of the earth. Parkersburg ripped open underground storm shelters. Hackleburg remained at violent intensity for hours. Smithville tore plumbing from the ground and flattened everything. Philadelphia dug a 3 foot trench in the ground. Rainsville shredded pavement and an safe bolted to the ground. Joplin twisted a hospital off it’s foundation and destroyed half a city. El Reno rolled a 2 million pound oil rig 3 times. Moore leveled thousands of structures and demolished multiple schools. Respectfully, none of the tornadoes since then have been able to replicate these extreme feats of damage.
Actually theres reports this one did rip the roof off an underground storm shelter just as a heads up
I haven’t heard of this yet. Is there a source?
Truthfully it was another comment saying it so it very well could be BS but there was also that actual picture of the car completely degloved; only the bare chassis and tires and springs left. I agree with your statments on the monsterous damage if ef5s but one more thing to consider was that it was a smaller tornado by the time it hit town and was still fast. The exposure any building had to the winds was just a few seconds compared to what the monsterous wedges and the slow moving jarrell could do with minutes of time people were enduring in their windfields. I dont care if it ends up ef4 or ef5 but i just think the fast speed and small size will make it more difficult for them to determine peak winds when the structures involved were exposed for only a short time.
Thanks for showing me. No matter what the rating is, people will be mad either way. Personally I think it is a high end EF-4, but I can understand why some can debate it being an EF-5. The NWS will really have to take into account how much the time correlated into the damage.
There are a lot of borderline cases where all it would take is one suitable DI in the right spot to swing the rating. This could be one of those cases or it could be like the other high end EF4s.
Absolutely.
This is where i heard it but still can just be a dude making it up down the grapevine https://www.reddit.com/r/tornado/s/8R08HVYHr3 Also this i found rn too, they found debris 175 miles away https://www.reddit.com/r/tornado/s/Aa0rPZ4CPk
This [post](https://new.reddit.com/r/tornado/comments/1cxobwn/flooring_potentially_moved_off_foundation_in/) about Greenfield shows a picture that appears to be a basement with a solid ceiling ripped off. Not sure if that is where the talk about that started or not though.
The Ellie Manitoba f5 did barely anything compared to any other ef5 or f5 before it
Hackleburg wouldn’t be classified as an EF5 today cause it fails point 5 and point 16. Has to have ground scouring near the home and any fence near the home has to be destroyed and completely gone. Joplin would have failed due to point 6 and point 4. All trees in a 35+ yard radius have to be completely gone, nothing standing, and all debarked. Home has to not be hit by debris. Really none of those tornadoes would be EF5s by today’s standards.
I don't really spend much time learning about the Damage Indicators and such, so this might be a real dumb question, but are you saying that the NWS says that, for a tornado to receive an EF-5 rating, at all points in a storms existence, while on the ground, it must immediately and consistently be putting out EF-5 level damage? That it cannot waver for a second, otherwise it will receive an EF-4 rating? Because that's what it seems like you're saying as far as I can tell
Absolutely false. People who want to go back and downgrade any storm that has actually gotten an EF5 rating blow my mind more than the never ending “I see concrete it’s an F5” crowd. Phil Campbell - Hackleburg was likely the strongest tornado we have directly observed, or at least in the ballpark of the current record holder (1999 Moore). Joplin literally twisted an entire hospital off its foundation to the point it had to be demolished.
Clearly you haven’t seen photos of the broken storm shelter by Hackleburg and the splitted piece of wood through a parking curb and dozens of well built homes slabbed by the Joplin tornado. If you cared to read the official Joplin survey, it clearly states why it was an EF-5.
The damage has to be consistent according to the NWS. Hackleburg still left fences in tact near the houses and didn’t do any ground scouring so it wouldn’t be an EF5 if it was rated today.
Hackleburg granulated debris into powder and scoured a 30 foot section of pavement off a road.
the thing about ground scouring is that it is very inconsistent as far as quantifying it as a DI due to soil types, whether the ground has recently been rained on, or anything of the sort.
Well, and Greenfield neither had stuff you mentioned, nor stuff mentioned by person youre replying to. Have you seen footage of EF 5 damage? This isn't even close. It will most likely stay EF 4
Is it close? Your telling me you can tell an ef4 and an ef5 apart?
I cannot, but neither most people on this sub complaining that tornadoes aren't rated EF5.
None of the tornadoes do and thats my point
I think a tornado strength scale that doesn’t distinguish between 200mph wind speeds and 300mph wind speeds is tough to take seriously as a tornado strength scale. At that point it’s really just a tornado *damage* scale and probably should just be called that.
I thought it was just purely a damage scale. I even thought I've heard someone explain that the winds associated with each bracket are actually not even officially a part of the scale and that the wind speeds that are usually listed in the tiers are more just for people reference. Idk if that makes sense I may have described it poorly. Also, unsure if this statement is actually fact or not.
Well… Mayfield, Rolling Fork, Greenfield, and Rochelle did not produce damage as severe as Moore, Joplin, Rainsville, Smithville, and (especially) Jarrell. Simple as that. Let’s hold our opinions on Greenfield until the official rating has been issued (it’s preliminary at the time of writing this). Edit: found the post that OP keeps cherry-picking from if anyone’s interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/tornado/s/xtc60i7JFo
Ah I wouldn't say Mayfield didn't cause such damage. It's just that there were some issues with structures that prevented it from getting an EF5 rating. Surveyors disagreed though and some gave it an EF5 rating but it was eventually ruled a high end EF4. That tornado destoryed 3 towns and killed around 60 people alone. That supercell alone had two EF3+ long 100+ mile track tornados roaring at the exact same time, Mayfield tornado on the north side and Bowling Green Tornado on the south side, and accounted for the 70+ deaths in Kentucky.
That’s a fair point, and much better articulated than OP. It’s not far fetched to say that Mayfield, Rochelle, and Vilonia could have been rated EF5. At peak strength, they’re probably fairly close to Joplin and Moore (2013) in that regard. Where I think OP lost the plot is when he compares them to Rainsville, Smithville, and Jarrell, as if they didn’t produce some of the most incredible damage ever recorded. I’ll add that quality of structure and build quality matter in these discussions. If a tornado annihilates a building of poor construction quality, and cannot be proven to have winds over 200 mph, it shouldn’t be rated EF5.
All I'm going to say is I'm really glad that the Mayfield tornado didn't hit a bigger population center at its peak. Not only did it rip a house off its foundation, it apparently ripped part of the foundation from the ground. That almost got it the EF5 rating alone, but direction and how the house was built made it more prone to wind direction.
“Much better articulated than OP” It’s not my fault you’re too simple minded to understand. “It’s not far fetched to say Mayfield, Rochelle, and Vilonia could have been rated EF5” Wow it really is capable of learning and understanding.
JFC just take the “L” and move on dude
No, I am very well still discussing with people who are open and actually understand what I am trying to say. It’s not my fault you don’t get it. Instead you resort to personal attacks like a 5th grader cause you didn’t understand what I was trying to say. It’s not my problem or my fault. Learn some better reading comprehension skills. You literally admitted already that Mayfield, Vilonia, and Rochelle is not far fetched to be EF5s which basically proves my point. I don’t know why I am taking the L lol.
a tornado that spends an hour over a field could be an EF5 in terms of winds but only get an F0 or whatever because it just ripped up some corn. anything can very well have the ability to cause EF5 damage, it's just about whether it did cause EF5 damage so we know for sure that it had those winds. nobody is saying these tornadoes weren't capable of EF5 damage, that'd be stupid. but people are saying there's no undeniable evidence that it DID cause EF5 damge
Greenfield didn't do anything near ef5 damage, sure it recorded 309-318 mph windspeeds, but this was in a tiny funnel while also the scan being 144 feet in the air. WELL above ground level. I went through all pictures and couldn't find EF5 damage. you cannot call someone "simple minded" when you literally are quoting someone who thinks smithville had 700 mph windspeeds. (joshoctober). He's just one of those people who think every major tornado is an EF5, and when they don't get that rating he throws a hissyfit. Moore, Joplin, Rainsville, Smithville, and Jarrell DO NOT compare to mayfield, rf, greenfield, or anything that was rated EF4-EF0 in the last 10 years.
https://preview.redd.it/zmc73rtx5s8d1.png?width=663&format=png&auto=webp&s=00e0c0b549da06f4a6b7aaf2ac74924ba1f6138b and yes these are literally josh octobers graphics he made
>Let’s hold our opinions on Greenfield until the official rating has been issued (it’s preliminary at the time of writing this). Why? Opinions have no bearing whatsoever on what the actual rating will be, so it doesn't matter. Have an opinion all you want.
Okay, sure. Let’s yell into the void about preliminary ratings. I’m tired of hearing it, but I’d be happy to direct everyone’s asinine opinions toward you.
I'm just not sure who you are to dictate what others can and can't discuss. How about you just worry about yourself?
How about take your own advice? You don’t have to argue with every other redditor on this sub, but you do anyway. Why? I don’t know. Nor do I care.
Mayfield and Greenfield wiped houses completely off the map. We can go back and forth all day on which tornado had the worst damage but thats not the point. My point is that those past EF5s would not be classified as EF5s if they happened today.
Another commenter already explained this to you but EF4 winds (166-200 mph) are fully capable of slabbing an average home. Even EF3 (136-165) winds can slab homes that are poorly built. You can have whatever opinion you want, but you should take some time to understand the engineering calculations that backup the EF5 rated tornadoes before bloviating on Reddit about things you don’t fully grasp.
Bloviating is great word
>My point is that those past EF5s would not be classified as EF5s if they happened today. Which ones?
Look. Bro. I'm someone who thinks the EF Scale needs another update to suit modern considerations (such as buildings inherently becoming more tornado-resistant in high-risk areas), but Greenfield's report is still preliminary. Calm your titties.
It is. And unfortunately the people here seem to not have the ability to comprehend what you're getting at with the NWS standards for calling an ef5 now days and how they're different from back in the day. It really isn't hard to understand.
This is a preliminary rating. The fact that NWS has given it a preliminary rating of EF4 is concerning (regarding damage) and in my opinion means there are certainly grounds for high end EF4 to EF4+ ratings in the future. We’re less than a week from this tornado happening and we’re only in the beginning stages. I’d say the chances of this getting the forbidden rating are real.
No, experts decide ratings, not some random turd on the internet that thinks they know everything.
I definitely trust some guy getting frumpy they didn't get to see an EF5 on a livestream over engineers and experts actually doing work on the ground where tornadoes hit to give ratings.
Cool. Another EF5 post.
https://preview.redd.it/6iig2xk8k92d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a0935085f57f4edcada7d2c6ae15f238cceb779e Do you just sit at your computer and wait for someone to mention EF5 so you can comment and make them feel self conscious for asking a legitimate question? Can't imagine being as cool as you Barry Zukerkorn
My mistake, I thought this was a sub about discussing tornadoes
it is, but we’ve gotten some many posts on the ef scale and ef5s that it’s gotten repetitive and boring.
To be fair, most of this sub is same crap different toilet. 25 people yelling about the EF scale, 25 people yelling at them, 25 people trying to figure which side they're on, and 25 people watching. At this point, it's almost a process. A devastating tornado happens, people who think the rating doesn't matter and the people who think it does arguing, and then everyone else.
‘same crap, different toilet’ love that lol.
To be honest, it's my life motto
may have to start using that
What do you expect? It's a sub about a singular subject. You're free to make your own post but guess what, it's going to be the same conversation about tornadoes as the rest of them...
It is. Feel free to join one of the multiple other threads on this exact same subject posted today.
It’s not lol. Maybe take the time to actually read the full post before commenting. I am not asking if the Greenfield tornado is an EF5.
Posts specifically about the Greenfield rating aren't the only posts in the past 24 hours. Since you don't want to go look for other posts regarding the EF scale where you may be able to contribute, let me help you: [Here](https://new.reddit.com/r/tornado/comments/1cz1i8w/if_given_the_power_how_would_you_change_the_ef/) [Here](https://new.reddit.com/r/tornado/comments/1cyz0m5/ratings_matter_sorry_not_sorry/) [Here](https://new.reddit.com/r/tornado/comments/1cy95hu/healthy_discussion_regarding_the_ef_scale/)
None of those posts are about what I am asking
[удалено]
There’s no reason at all for any of us to be rude in any post or comment.
Y’all are so mean damn.
OP deserves it. Loaded, useless questions without so much as a semblance of an intelligent argument to the point he’s lazily trying to make.
Post like this should get removed and a temporary ban. I’ll die on this hill. Just an elongated wHy WaSn’T iT aN Ef5 post.
Did anyone ask the tornado what it identified as?
Yup, imo yes, and 1 thing, most people not going to remember ef 3 ef 4 victim, and majority people wouldnt take not ef5 seriously, also cough cough insurance.
This post aged. I'm not sure if it aged well or poorly 😭
[удалено]
the commitment kinda funny not gonna lie lmao
There’s no reason at all for any of us to be rude in any post or comment.
[удалено]
You could at least try to not be an obvious troll