June 21st 2023 Matador TX Tornado Discussion

[TH2002]

Probably gonna regret getting this thread going again, but:

I know some users here mentioned the probability that Texas Tech was working behind the scenes in the Matador survey, as they were during the survey of the 2006 Westminster "F3", and were one of the reasons for the low rating. Directly quoting NWS Lubbock:

"Peak wind gusts corresponding to the observed damage were estimated to be in the 145 mph to 165 mph range, resulting in an EF-3 rating. This rating was determined through consultation with engineers from the Texas Tech University National Wind Institute, who also performed a damage survey in Matador."

Yep, there you have it. I guess this was NWS Lubbock's "official" excuse for not calling in the QRT to go above EF3, because they had their own engineering alternative to hone in on the lowest possible wind speeds the structures in Matador could have failed at, all the while completely disregarding all the contextual damage.

I can accept that this tornado didn't hit any structures well constructed enough to support an EF5 rating. But from my understanding, if you have incredible contextual damage but the construction quality isn't sufficient to go EF5, you go EF4. Isn't that how the scale is supposed to work, at least in its current implementation? Taking a look at a proper survey (the Old Kingston tornado from earlier this year) isn't that essentially what happened? They surveyed an area with poor construction (mobile homes) but violent contextual damage, and actually took that contextual damage into consideration for the final rating. BMX even accompanied this with an explanation acknowledging the tornado may have had stronger winds in that area, but they could only go EF3 based on the DI's that were present.

Another example of a good survey would be the Pembroke, GA tornado from last year. They had well-built homes slabbed (which is normally HE EF4 or EF5 damage) but contextual damage indicative of nothing more than maybe a low-end EF4, so they went 185MPH EF4 which was a decent middle-ground.

Also, some questions I have to ask: Have either Marshall or LaDue made ANY statements about the rating of the Matador tornado? Have they given any hints they may have come to a different conclusion, backed up the official rating, or even said anything at all beyond those initial posts from Marshall?

 

[tornado examiner]

Probably gonna regret getting this thread going again, but:

I know some users here mentioned the probability that Texas Tech was working behind the scenes in the Matador survey, as they were during the survey of the 2006 Westminster "F3", and were one of the reasons for the low rating. Directly quoting NWS Lubbock:

Yep, there you have it. I guess this was NWS Lubbock's "official" excuse for not calling in the QRT to go above EF3, because they had their own engineering alternative to hone in on the lowest possible wind speeds the structures in Matador could have failed at, all the while completely disregarding all the contextual damage.

I can accept that this tornado didn't hit any structures well constructed enough to support an EF5 rating. But from my understanding, if you have incredible contextual damage but the construction quality isn't sufficient to go EF5, you go EF4. Isn't that how the scale is supposed to work, at least in its current implementation? Taking a look at a proper survey (the Old Kingston tornado from earlier this year) isn't that essentially what happened? They surveyed an area with poor construction but violent contextual damage, and actually took that contextual damage into consideration for the final rating. BMX even accompanied this with an explanation acknowledging the tornado may have had stronger winds in that area, but they could only go EF3 based on the DI's that were present.

Another example of a good survey would be the Pembroke, GA tornado from last year. They had well-built homes slabbed (which is normally HE EF4 or EF5 damage) but contextual damage indicative of nothing more than maybe a low-end EF4, so they went 185MPH EF4 which was a decent middle-ground.

Also, some questions I have to ask: Have either Marshall or LaDue made ANY statements about the rating of the Matador tornado? Have they given any hints they may have come to a different conclusion, backed up the official rating, or even said anything at all beyond those initial posts from Marshall?

tell me about it…

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

Probably gonna regret getting this thread going again, but:

I know some users here mentioned the probability that Texas Tech was working behind the scenes in the Matador survey, as they were during the survey of the 2006 Westminster "F3", and were one of the reasons for the low rating. Directly quoting NWS Lubbock:

Yep, there you have it. I guess this was NWS Lubbock's "official" excuse for not calling in the QRT to go above EF3, because they had their own engineering alternative to hone in on the lowest possible wind speeds the structures in Matador could have failed at, all the while completely disregarding all the contextual damage.

I can accept that this tornado didn't hit any structures well constructed enough to support an EF5 rating. But from my understanding, if you have incredible contextual damage but the construction quality isn't sufficient to go EF5, you go EF4. Isn't that how the scale is supposed to work, at least in its current implementation? Taking a look at a proper survey (the Old Kingston tornado from earlier this year) isn't that essentially what happened? They surveyed an area with poor construction but violent contextual damage, and actually took that contextual damage into consideration for the final rating. BMX even accompanied this with an explanation acknowledging the tornado may have had stronger winds in that area, but they could only go EF3 based on the DI's that were present.

Another example of a good survey would be the Pembroke, GA tornado from last year. They had well-built homes slabbed (which is normally HE EF4 or EF5 damage) but contextual damage indicative of nothing more than maybe a low-end EF4, so they went 185MPH EF4 which was a decent middle-ground.

Also, some questions I have to ask: Have either Marshall or LaDue made ANY statements about the rating of the Matador tornado? Have they given any hints they may have come to a different conclusion, backed up the official rating, or even said anything at all beyond those initial posts from Marshall?

I am not sure how myself but the Matador tornado left vehicle damage on par with the 1991 Andover tornado and we accept it to be an F5 on the F-SCALE. I seriously wonder how many tornadoes in the past like 1950S-1980S would even receive an EF5 rating today. There are a number of tornadoes from that period in which I don't think we have enough evidence to make a claim that these tornadoes did F5 damage on the F-SCALE That it must be a well-built well-anchored house. Most of the giveaway for most tornadoes rated F5 on the F-SCALE tends to be mostly based on the the extreme contextual damage they caused. So with that given I really doubt that most past F5 tornadoes would be given an EF5 rating on the EF-SCALE.

 

[UK_EF4]

I am not sure how myself but the Matador tornado left vehicle damage on par with the 1991 Andover tornado and we accept it to be an F5 on the F-SCALE. I seriously wonder how many tornadoes in the past like 1950S-1980S would even receive an EF5 rating today. There are a number of tornadoes from that period in which I don't think we have enough evidence for make a claim that these tornadoes did F5 damage on the F-SCALE That it must be a well-built well-anchored house. Most of the giveaway for most tornadoes rated F5 on the F-SCALE tends to be mostly the extreme contextual damage they caused. So with that given I really doubt that most past F5 tornadoes would be given an EF5 rating on the EF-SCALE.

Agreed. I (and I'm pretty sure most here!) honestly think almost all F5s and a large majority of F4s would not get the equivalent ratings if they happened today...

 

[TH2002]

I am not sure how myself but the Matador tornado left vehicle damage on par with the 1991 Andover tornado and we accept it to be an F5 on the F-SCALE. I seriously wonder how many tornadoes in the past like 1950S-1980S would even receive an EF5 rating today. There are a number of tornadoes from that period in which I don't think we have enough evidence to make a claim that these tornadoes did F5 damage on the F-SCALE That it must be a well-built well-anchored house. Most of the giveaway for most tornadoes rated F5 on the F-SCALE tends to be mostly based on the the extreme contextual damage they caused. So with that given I really doubt that most past F5 tornadoes would be given an EF5 rating on the EF-SCALE.

With the Andover tornado it's obviously not just the vehicle damage that leads credence to the F5 rating, though vehicular damage is definitely another 'piece of the puzzle' that can be used to help determine a tornado's intensity.

Should also make these notes though:

• There are a number of F-scale era F4 tornadoes like Pearsall 1973, Mannsville 1974 and Kennard 1974 that mangled vehicles in a 'Bridge Creek-esque' fashion, but their ratings generally aren't considered questionable.
• Like pavement scouring, vehicles are also not exactly a reliable DI, as past examples can point out: tornadoes like Jonesboro 2020 and the Deer Park tornado from earlier this year mangled vehicles in a violent fashion while causing EF2-EF3 level structural damage, meanwhile one of the more impressive instances of vehicle damage from the Greensburg tornado was a truck that originated from the driveway of a house that sustained EF3 damage.

HOWEVER, it's not really debatable that vehicle damage of the caliber which occurred in Matador is essentially only seen in violent tornadoes.

With that said, between the vehicle mangling, hardwood debarking, ground scouring and structural debris patterns in Matador I can pretty confidently say it would have gotten an F4 or F5 rating on the old scale, but on the EF scale a HE EF4 rating is as high as one would be able to go based on the differences in how the latter scale works. It's a shame that the EF scale doesn't put nearly as much weight on contextual damage as the original scale, and that there are only a select few WFO's willing to go the extra mile when surveying, but that's just the reality of what we have to deal with as far as tornado damage surveying goes. And even more unfortunately, you and @UK_EF4 are probably right - based on how the EF scale is currently applied, pretty much all past F5's and probably a good number of past F4's would not receive equivalent ratings today.

 

[ColdFront]

Probably gonna regret getting this thread going again, but:

I know some users here mentioned the probability that Texas Tech was working behind the scenes in the Matador survey, as they were during the survey of the 2006 Westminster "F3", and were one of the reasons for the low rating. Directly quoting NWS Lubbock:

Yep, there you have it. I guess this was NWS Lubbock's "official" excuse for not calling in the QRT to go above EF3, because they had their own engineering alternative to hone in on the lowest possible wind speeds the structures in Matador could have failed at, all the while completely disregarding all the contextual damage.

I can accept that this tornado didn't hit any structures well constructed enough to support an EF5 rating. But from my understanding, if you have incredible contextual damage but the construction quality isn't sufficient to go EF5, you go EF4. Isn't that how the scale is supposed to work, at least in its current implementation? Taking a look at a proper survey (the Old Kingston tornado from earlier this year) isn't that essentially what happened? They surveyed an area with poor construction (mobile homes) but violent contextual damage, and actually took that contextual damage into consideration for the final rating. BMX even accompanied this with an explanation acknowledging the tornado may have had stronger winds in that area, but they could only go EF3 based on the DI's that were present.

Another example of a good survey would be the Pembroke, GA tornado from last year. They had well-built homes slabbed (which is normally HE EF4 or EF5 damage) but contextual damage indicative of nothing more than maybe a low-end EF4, so they went 185MPH EF4 which was a decent middle-ground.

Also, some questions I have to ask: Have either Marshall or LaDue made ANY statements about the rating of the Matador tornado? Have they given any hints they may have come to a different conclusion, backed up the official rating, or even said anything at all beyond those initial posts from Marshall?

On your bolder area from NWS Lubbock: I’d be very interested in what their definition of “consultation” would be. Our government agencies love to outsource work to private firms/educational institutions. Not saying that’s the case here, but it very well could be a case of TTU coming in and saying here’s our rating and findings, and NWS Lubbock just using that as a template.

 

[tornado examiner]

People still think the rating of this tornado is preliminary and will be upgraded…

I highly doubt that it will myself

 

[JPWX]

People still think the rating of this tornado is preliminary and will be upgraded…

I highly doubt that it will myself

That's hilarious. It's already official

 

[TH2002]

Don't know how much credibility this has, but *allegedly* this person is referring to Tim Marshall:

edit: Woops. Didn't see who he was replying to until after I posted the link - and I can't seem to show only the tweet in question. But according to the poster, Tim Marshall stated the damage to the Dollar General store in Matador was consistent with 190MPH winds.

 

[tornado examiner]

Don't know how much credibility this has, but *allegedly* this person is referring to Tim Marshall:

edit: Woops. Didn't see who he was replying to until after I posted the link - and I can't seem to show only the tweet in question. But according to the poster, Tim Marshall stated the damage to the Dollar General store in Matador was consistent with 190MPH winds.

Ah yeah. So if only the nws would have listened to their “top” minds on the survey and rated the tornado that, nobody would be complaining then.

 

[TH2002]

Update: I talked with Tim Marshall regarding the Matador tornado and he didn't give any indication he said the destruction of the Dollar General store was consistent with 190MPH winds, so I think we can conclude that's just a baseless rumor. He did, however, acknowledge that the contextual damage in Matador likely pointed to a higher rating than what was assigned.

The poor construction quality was obviously the main driving force behind the rating, though I never got an explanation to why that one house on the north side of town wasn't rated EF4. I can only assume that Tim wasn't the one responsible for assigning the rating to it.

 

[JBishopwx]

 

[tornado examiner]

Can we call matador a mesoscale accident?

 

[SwollenHeart]

Greensburg, KS 2007...205 mph
Parkersburg/New Hartford, IA 2008...205 mph
Philadelphia, MS 2011...205 mph
Smithville, MS 2011...205 mph
Phil Campbell/Hackleburg, AL 2011...210 mph
Rainsville/Sylvania, AL 2011...>200 mph
Joplin, MO 2011...>200 mph
El Reno, OK 2011...215 mph
Moore, OK 2013...210 mph

I recall reading somewhere that Joplin was estimated by some to be upwards of 225mph.

 

[tornado examiner]

this tornado is easily the third strongest tornado of the year if not the second strongest.

Rolling fork
Keota
And matador

 

[CheeselandSkies]

this tornado is easily the third strongest tornado of the year if not the second strongest.

Rolling fork
Keota
And matador

What about Robinson-Sullivan? There seems to be a pretty strong consensus on here that it was also deserving of EF4 (or at least that section of damage path showing leveled frame homes deserved closer examination than an "oh well, we can't access it, EF3 it is").

 

[UK_EF4]

What about Robinson-Sullivan? There seems to be a pretty strong consensus on here that it was also deserving of EF4 (or at least that section of damage path showing leveled frame homes deserved closer examination than an "oh well, we can't access it, EF3 it is").

I'd have to agree that the Robinson tornado and perhaps a view others including Keota which has already been mentioned - e.g: that one in Tennessee, were very likely violent and also contenders for strongest of the year. I remember seeing some quite impressive damage from S Tennessee of a brick home with anchor bolts completely swept though it never made any appearance on DAT or in official surveys (surprise surprise), another reminder of how poorly done the 3/31 surveys were (though somewhat understandable given the number of tornadoes that occured) though this is quickly becoming a separate discussion. To be honest I think this year has a whole has had quite a significant number of likely violent and even high end tornadoes, despite just two being rated as such.