andyhb Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share Posted May 19, 2015 It is a damage scale. Am I on the Weather side or at the Political Roundtable? Uh, ok. Some question the refusal to use scientific data for a scientific purpose. I don't see what is so strange about that. OUN tried to use it after the 2013 El Reno tornado but was ordered not to by HQ, in case you wanted to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrgjeff Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Understand. Rozel was rated EF-4 based on radar and the damage matched so it keeps EF-4. Bennington was downgraded just like El Reno. Agree or disagree, it is a damage survey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Understand. Rozel was rated EF-4 based on radar and the damage matched so it keeps EF-4. Bennington was downgraded just like El Reno. Agree or disagree, it is a damage survey. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the max damage they found from Rozel in the EF2 range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natester Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I heard that the DOW was on the Elmer tornado, hence they most likely recorded the winds in the tornado. HOWEVER, even if they found winds over 200, the rating would still be stuck at mid EF2 level. Logically, they should have downgraded the El Reno (2011) tornado to EF4 instead of EF5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrgjeff Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I actually agree in principle with Andy above, Howie Bluestein and Mike Smith in this article. http://www.kansas.com/news/article1123440.html Regarding Rozel, apparently they found EF-4 damage. I was sad to learn a house was nearly destroyed because we booked the Rozel tornado chasing. Fortunately nobody was seriously hurt though. Similar to other classics like Harper 2004, I suppose if nobody is hurt we can keep it as a fond memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye05 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I actually agree in principle with Andy above, Howie Bluestein and Mike Smith in this article. http://www.kansas.com/news/article1123440.html Regarding Rozel, apparently they found EF-4 damage. I was sad to learn a house was nearly destroyed because we booked the Rozel tornado chasing. Fortunately nobody was seriously hurt though. Similar to other classics like Harper 2004, I suppose if nobody is hurt we can keep it as a fond memory. Actually, thewxmann is correct. In terms of structural damage, the rating is highly debatable, if not downright questionable judging by the survey map/pics from NWS Dodge City. The home that sustained the worst damage from the Rozel tornado still had walls left standing. Here is a pic of it, and the supposed "EF4" damage. Honestly in my opinion, the most impressive damage from the Rozel tornado was a large, 1000-gallon metal propane tank that got ripped off of its concrete base and thrown a quarter-mile form its point of origin, and a dirt road that was deeply scoured near the beginning of the path. Even then, i'm not sure if that's a solid case for EF4. It was a weird survey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrgjeff Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I did not say the house was EF-4. Just commented on it. Perhaps it was the propane tank. Are you an engineer? I'm not either. Did you read the article? Believe frustration with chase season is devolving into Political Roundtable nitpicking. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share Posted May 19, 2015 I did not say the house was EF-4. Just commented on it. Perhaps it was the propane tank. Are you an engineer? I'm not either. Did you read the article? Believe frustration with chase season is devolving into Political Roundtable nitpicking. Good luck! Why are you getting so defensive? He gave you the facts of the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I did not say the house was EF-4. Just commented on it. Perhaps it was the propane tank. Are you an engineer? I'm not either. Did you read the article? Believe frustration with chase season is devolving into Political Roundtable nitpicking. Good luck! The discussion does need to be had at times, it is fine in an old thread that is away from current activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye05 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I did not say the house was EF-4. Just commented on it. Perhaps it was the propane tank. Are you an engineer? I'm not either. Did you read the article? Believe frustration with chase season is devolving into Political Roundtable nitpicking. Good luck! Whoa. I was just trying to clear up what exactly happened in terms of damage near Rozel and the resultant controversy. Interpret it how you wish. Let's not shoot the messenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo762 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Just wonder... But how can we have HOWIE BLUESTEIN one of the most renowned tornado researchers saying we should base ratings off of both radar data (especially DOW's and raxpol, which are within a close distance to the tornado) and damage to grade tornadoes... But the NWS/NOAA almost refuses to do this? They are fine with using all this "great" data from NEXRAD and DOW's for research related uses (which is very important) but not tornado ratings? Can someone explain this to me...? Sorry if this is off topic at all, but given all the discussion about tornado ratings, I was just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torchageddon Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Just wonder... But how can we have HOWIE BLUESTEIN one of the most renowned tornado researchers saying we should base ratings off of both radar data (especially DOW's and raxpol, which are within a close distance to the tornado) and damage to grade tornadoes... But the NWS/NOAA almost refuses to do this? They are fine with using all this "great" data from NEXRAD and DOW's for research related uses (which is very important) but not tornado ratings? Can someone explain this to me...? Sorry if this is off topic at all, but given all the discussion about tornado ratings, I was just wondering. I agree, I don't understand why when this new scale for tornadoes was made last decade, there was no additional clause about adding in further data from non-damage sources into the mix. As far as I'm concerned, I really dislike the idea of rating tornadoes solely based on damage because it really creates an inaccurate database and skews stats, and for me being a perfectionist its annoying. What would our reactions be if they rated the El Rino 2013 tornado an EF0 because it didn't hit anything? That would be far beyond ludicrous and for this day and age, an embarrassment. I love tornadoes far more than tropical cyclones but one thing TCs has sealed in that area of meteorology is accurate measurement of real winds (when landfalling and investigated with aircraft). In relation to what blackjack123 was asking (about extremely severe ground/vegetation scouring occurring in the El Reno tornado), I too have wondered this from day 1 and asked the same question about that Wichita supercell on April 14, 2012 that was incredibly powerful on velocity and likely EF4+ (officially rated EF3 for the damage)...what kind of vegetation disruption occurred and where is any of the data on it? It's unanswered and the same goes for dozens of seemingly mighty tornadoes. I'm late to this and haven't heard the updates since Saturday, but did I just read that the Elmer OK tornado was rated EF2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EquusStorm Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I'm late to this and haven't heard the updates since Saturday, but did I just read that the Elmer OK tornado was rated EF2? Unless they upgrade it later, that's what the survey teams have assigned it. Of course, we know via wind measurements that it was much stronger, but like so many others, survey teams found it hit surprisingly little at peak intensity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.