But the scale is blame in that it doesn't require adequate consideration and mandatory use of contextuals. It is, after all, a tool used to assess damage levels and contextuals, which even though inexact, can be far more important than noting that plates weren't bolted or someone forgot a nail somewhere. You have to require the use of intelligence and common sense or it usually doesn't happen.
Highlighting by me. That quite well shows that whoever is doing the surveying shouldn't be. This is not a question of how strictly scales and 'rules' are adhered to, but a question of "How fast were the winds here as best we can tell, even if that's inexact"
Yeah, there have been at least a half dozen times that has happened since Moore 2013.
The Matador tornado was significantly stronger than the Alberta tornado.
The following is just my thoughts, but having seen enough of life I'd make a large wager they're right.
If was at least as strong the Rolling Fork, MS tornado from this year and possibly even stronger. I would rate it at least a 195 or 200 mph EF4. EF5 is also definitely on the table. This attitude from NWS offices that well-built homes even with extreme context nearby cannot be rated EF5 or mediocre built homes with extreme contextual damage can only be rated high-end EF3 needs to stop.
Someone probably said something similar to this. Rating tornadoes like this give the ratings a bad name for theirselves. Someone curious about tornadoes and storms, will look at these tornadoes and think that’s how they should be rated. Therefore, it will cause a domino effect and the accuracy of the ratings will get worse and worse.
I have been studying tornado damage for 20+ years and I think I know what violent contextual tornado damage looks like. Even you young newbies seem to know quite well what violent contextual damage looks like and even as much as I do. Does it really take a rocket scientist to be able to rate violent contextual tornado damage?
Some people on Twitter were calling the damage from the Matador tornado as low as high-end EF2 or possibly low-end EF3. I was just totally dumbfounded. The same can also be said for the recent Didsbury, Alberta tornado that of course was rated EF4 and IMO was a decent rating.
I appreciate and respect Ethan due to the fact that the same weather event got is into the passion to study it in the first place, but I didn't feel informed at all watching the Matador video. If anything, it felt kind of like a slap in the face, because the common message that he sent was "it's within the confines of the scale." I do appreciate his mention of the new ef-scale updates though. As an engineer you have to be able to raise questions about "what kind of velocity would inflict *that* damage," but I feel like most engineers ignore that when surveying and let their trained eye focus on only the system that's presented in front of them, which explains the inconsistencies we've seen.
You can tell he's very passionate about what he does, which is definitely a trait that's worthy of respect, no doubt.
Agreed. I think one thing in the video which raised questions again (and one reason I sent it, aside from being generally interesting to see another perspective) was the way (without trying to blame this person in particular since they put lots of time and effort into those videos) that the engineering community in general seems to try and find almost *every* single reason why X Structure failed and cant be rated at the EXP windspeed: "It was old, the connections were not proper, anchor bolts weren't placed at regular intervals, foundation CMU" etc etc.
Didn't NWS Jackson, MS rate ground scouring as an EF4 with an unassigned windspeed for the recent Rolling Fork EF4 tornado?
