- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This is why the tornado grading scale needs to be changed…
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:03 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:03 pm to RollTide1987
TIL there's a city of Chattanooga in Oklahoma
1
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:04 pm to RummelTiger
quote:
Playing devil's advocate, if the science community is in agreement with the ranking based on strength and destruction, then why change it just because there was a massive tornado that didn't damage anything?
I’ll continue to trust our OT Meteorologists when it comes to severe weather.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:31 pm to RollTide1987
quote:cuz equity... no tornado left behind. The "F" in EF is racist. Ranking them by numbers is also racist because the higher the number, the darker the cloud.
This is why the tornado grading scale needs to be changed…
Posted on 5/1/24 at 10:01 pm to RollTide1987
It was a beast... and slow moving. Marietta and Sulphar got it the day before.. These things are terrible...
Posted on 5/1/24 at 10:05 pm to RollTide1987
If they would stop fricking around with the weather then we would not be having this conversation. Oh, I must be crazy to think they frick with the weather on purpose - Dubai says “hold my beer”
Posted on 5/1/24 at 10:09 pm to RummelTiger
quote:
if the science community is in agreement
Does this ever happen? Haha there is often a prevailing majority, the entire community is pretty much never in agreement.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 10:19 pm to Pedro
You know what they say, if a tree doesn’t fall in the woods during a tornado, is it even a tornado?
Posted on 5/1/24 at 10:25 pm to RummelTiger
quote:
I get why he's saying it.
Playing devil's advocate, if the science community is in agreement with the ranking based on strength and destruction, then why change it just because there was a massive tornado that didn't damage anything?
It would seem to reason that giving the higher ranking due to devastation makes sense.
Why should a strong hurricane that stayed out in open water get the same ranking as a Labor Day, Camille, etc., that actually wrecked shite?
Its not a big deal to me personally. But let’s look at another angle. When looking backwards at data its important for current weather people to have data. You never know what or when that data is important but having it available can show trends.
So if you are researching how many tornadoes at F-3 and above happened in zone X, under current methods you would be missing possibly important info. Because those F3 and above in middle of nowhere were rated less and won’t show up.
With modern equipment they can determine much better the strength. With hurricanes even if one never hits land they can study the strength of each years and where/when since they rate by strength not destruction.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 10:36 pm to OU Guy
The difference with hurricanes is they’re able to fly planes and use dropsondes to accurately measure the storms intensity. Tornados are too small and happen too quickly to be able to do that. You can’t expect an Air Force plane to be up and ready to go for every tornado that happens like what happens with mesoscale features (like hurricanes). And, as was mentioned earlier, there’s too many radar gaps to count on radar alone. You have to have something that can be consistent from tornado to tornado. Hence damage. Is it perfect for every storm? No. But what does it matter if a tornado that hits nothing is rated Ef-1 instead of ef-0 or ef-5? The nerds like the boat, rummy, and rdsdc that really want to know and study it will anyway.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 10:43 pm to RollTide1987
I would've sucked to have been in the lone trailerhouse in the path of this beast. If you lived and when people ask you what size tornado you survived, all you could say is lame-arse EF1 and not "the most powerful tornado on record".
shite I'd say the latter
shite I'd say the latter
Posted on 5/1/24 at 11:22 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
The tornado had a gate-to-gate velocity reading of 260 MPH. Strong circulation could be detected up to 18,000 feet above ground level. Had this thing hit civilization it would have destroyed everything in its path. Thankfully it only damaged farmland. However, due to the way tornadoes are rated, this will only be an EF0/EF1.
There was nothing on the ground to get anywhere near a sigtor, much less a violent tornado.
This......
......is a problem and a huge red flag. The Velocity data on that storm has issues.
While true that this tornado did not hit a town, thankfully, there were plenty of DIs in the damage area to survey. None of them came close.
Brett Adair's damage video.
I've watched too many tornadoes on radar that I just "knew" were violent tornadoes only to see them produce no damage near violent limits. Radar is not the end all when it comes to tornadoes (or any storm). Wind may be the aspect that is lagging farthest behind in radar understanding as it relates to ground truth.
This wasn't a violent tornado, no matter what pixels anyone picks off of a frame.
ETA:
We can look at this another way, using another controversial tornado, the 2013 El Reno tornado. It didn't get an EF5 rating because when it was at its strongest it was in an actual open field. Yet, there were still enough DIs to give it an EF3 rating. This tornado seems to have had more opportunity to create damage than the 2013 El Reno tornado, but only managed EF1 damage.
This post was edited on 5/1/24 at 11:41 pm
Posted on 5/1/24 at 11:25 pm to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
quote:
Not everything needs an official ranking or a scale, it was a catastrophic storm and it’s very sad what happened
That storm/tornado wasn't catastrophic.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 11:28 pm to RollTide1987
the ef5 tornadoes that touched down in 2011 dug trenches 2 feet deep and ripped pavement from roads
that's how you can tell if a tornado was an ef5
that's how you can tell if a tornado was an ef5
Posted on 5/1/24 at 11:29 pm to OU Guy
quote:
They really need 2 scales. Damage scale and strength scale.
I don't think they necessarily do at this point in time. Until we get more radar coverage, or more DOWs in the mix, a strength scale is only going to muddy the waters for the majority of tornadoes. We just don't have perfect radar coverage for every tornado-prducing storm (we never will), so for many tornadoes a "strength scale" would be at best extrapolation, and at worst outright guesswork.
And as far as the screen grab you posted, it awesome. Some of the coolest radar clips I have seen and saved have been from "low-end" tornadoes.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 11:33 pm to BigBinBR
quote:
But yeah, since they can now measure the tornado then it would make sense to change the scale.
What if I told you that we can't accurately measure the majority of tornadoes using radar?
Posted on 5/1/24 at 11:59 pm to DVinBR
quote:
the ef5 tornadoes that touched down in 2011 dug trenches 2 feet deep and ripped pavement from roads
Jarrell did that, too. It ripped up yards of asphalt. This tornado was moving at a very similar speed as the Jarrell tornado.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 5:18 am to LegendInMyMind
They have gone too far with the “radar indicated” and “debris fields”. I watched the news one night tell me a “radar confirmed” tornado was passing right over my buddies shop. Didn’t even blow the lid off the trash can.
They are crying wolf too much.
They are crying wolf too much.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 5:40 am to Mr Clean
It passed through my back yard and wrecked shite
Posted on 5/2/24 at 5:52 am to Cuz413
quote:
TIL there's a city of Chattanooga in Oklahoma
There's also a city of Miami in Oklahoma, BUT it is pronounced My-am-uh.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 5:58 am to dukke v
quote:
by dukke v
Mother Nature at her worst
Uh, that was the day you were conceived
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News