Why We'll Never See Another EF5 Tornado

It has been over 11 years since the last EF5 rated tornado, the longest drought of the highest possible tornado rating. There has been much debate and controversy behind this topic in the weather community, and I decided to get to the bottom of it.

FOLLOW JUNE FIRST:

SUPPORT JUNE FIRST:

JOIN our DISCORD SERVER:

JUNE FIRST PODCAST:

#Tornado #EF5 #Weather #Moore #Greensburg #Parkersburg #Hackleburg #Smithville #Rainsville #Philadelphia #Joplin #Piedmont #Fujita

[SkywarnMN]

Great video Ethan, really like the things you bring up in this video. I also agree with the fact that instead of people arguing over a rating, we should focus more on the lives affected.

[tornadotrx]

Ted Fujita really developed one of the most accurate scales before tons of tech like mobile radars and wind probes.. He was just the goat.

[christopherabernathy]

It could easily be argued that Greenfield, IA this year could be classified as an EF-5. A slabbed house with yielded, inch-thick anchor bolts is absolutely no joke.

[kaalen]

The wind blew a semi into my home. “Well it was the semi that did most of the damage, not the wind”. And why exactly was the semi, you know, FLYING?

[clutchthecinnamonsergal]

I'm glad you mentioned Parkersburg being undoubtably the most undeniable of all the EF5’S with basically zero allowance for surveyors to poke holes in the rating.

[clutchthecinnamonsergal]

The worse of the controversy is the actual damage survey’s where surveyors nitpick the crap out of high end tornado damage scraping for any excuse possible to rate it lower than what is obvious.

[Coolishstuff]

It is almost unfathomable how much damage a tornado would need to cause to earn an ef5 rating right now. It would take rows upon rows of slabbed houses for the nws to even consider it. Thats a problem, the scale says that only a single well built home needs to be slabbed for an ef5 rating, not 20

[tcp]

I think the most frustrating part is the seeming lack of consistency, and the fact that the NWS seems more interested in precisely defining the forces that caused the damage than focusing on the fact that the damage occured in the first place. If a sill plate is missing and the anchor bolts are stripped, then a sill plate is missing and the anchor bolts are stripped. It doesn't matter if that was caused by a flying truck or pure wind speed; the thing is still gone. If you're going to have a purely damaged-based scale, then quit nitpicking over the minutiae and call it what it is.


*Edit* I think the best summation of my thoughts here are this: I believe ratings should focused more on the fact that "This tornado did this amount of damage", not "this level of damage was caused by so-and-so wind speed." Perhaps the best solution is a two-part rating that covers both the measured speeds and the damage done.

I don't know. The whole thing is more irritating than it should be.

[notsilvr]

Everybody gangsta until an EF5 comes out of nowhere next spring

[Nicolas-gpbr]

What I still find absolutely ridiculous about the EF scale is that there are 200 mph damage indicators that will grant a tornado an EF4 rating, but at 201 mph it would be considered an EF5 tornado. The EF scale is basically saying "I am absolutely certain that the wind speeds must have been at least 200 mph but definitely not more than 201 mph, so the rating must be EF4 and there is no reason to consider it to be an EF5". How does that even begin to make sense? There is no way we can judge the wind speed that well by only relying on damage alone.
I really hope there will be no such nonsense in the new scale they are working on.

[kimkahndashian]

The stupid indicator that nullifies damage from a house bc some trees around are still up is actually so stupid, the rainsville ef5 had some of the worst tornado damage of all time and some sites where it hit had trees that were unscathed around demolished homes. They are actually just trying to do anything to not give an ef5 rating

[reaIixx]

The only way I see an EF5 rating being given before the new scale in a few years is an extremely violent (250mph+) tornado directly impacting the downtown of a major town or city.

[dancline]

Im a storm spotter and chaser in the midwest. It sounds like the NWS is contradicting itself. They would have been better to keep the old original scale. As far as the trees and poles, a semi can cause massive damage to a car, but not as much to the semi. But a semi can hit a tree, completely tearing a semi up, but the tree will still be damaged but not severely and still standing

[dannymorgan]

They keep moving the goal posts with ratings… something stinks. Inconsistent qualifications and inspections and the like. Meanwhile we have mobile doplar that can accurately measure internal wind speeds

[ProffesionalZombie]

Your final point is why I don't go out of my way to argue over tornado ratings. I come from Oklahoma, my entire extended family lives there and I've seen the worst damage of arguably the most infamous F5 in history--the May 3rd, 1999 Bridge Creek-Moore tornado--because I was *in Moore* when it hit. Listen: YOU DO NOT WANT AN EF5 TORNADO ON EARTH. This isn't some game where you root for a tornado to be an EF5, this is REAL LIFE. What I saw that day in Moore spurred my interest in tornadoes, but also keeps me humble about just how devastating to communities these things are.

Sure I have my own opinions, I believe that the Greenfield, IA tornado should be considered an EF5. But you're right, at the end of the day none of that matters to those impacted by the tornado. Really, the only argument for more accurate ratings is more comprehensive data for building safer communities. But we shouldn't consider this an "EF5 drought", we should consider it an "EF5 break" that I should hope never ends.

[CarmenPalermoStorms]

The only way I can see a tornado getting an EF5 rating right now is for a violent tornado to hit a populated area like Moore did. Even Moore only had about 6-7 homes that received EF5 rating out of thousands that were destroyed

[TheCloudhopper]

The question for me "Why do you want an EF5?" What is the purpose? If we want to classify a Tornado by its raw meteorological power, which would make the most sense to me, the primary measurement has to be wind speed. Damage could be an assisting factor, but if damage becomes the defining factor, then we see issues like with El Reno, Rolling Fork and Greenfield.
The latter stands out for me here, with doppler measured speeds that by far exceed that of the Bridgecreek-Moore tornado.

Let me put it this way: If we classify Tornadoes by the amount of mounting bolts they leave in a foundation and how deep they scour a corn field, we have to classify Hurricanes by how high the storm surge is and how much sand they deposit. It makes no sense, thats why we classify Hurricanes by wind speeds. And same should apply for tornadoes.

[ceeinfiniti]

We'll see them again no doubt, especially once the scale is updated.

The Greenfield, Iowa Tornado qualifies as an IF5 due to windspeed.

[Dennyh]

If damage is the only factor then don't send people out to rate tornados that go only over fields, waste of time. These lower ratings are just making people think tornados are becoming weaker, when in fact it's the opposite.

It just doesn't make sense to have a scale 1 through 5 based on wind if it isn't going to followed. If a mobile dopplar radar data records wind speeds 200+ then it should be rated an EF5. It almost feels like they don't really believe the data from the DOW trucks. I know it shouldn't matter, but for some reason it just bugs me that the scale is wind based, but don't really follow it.

[MMRBKane-CH]

They should make a rating system where a tornado would have 2 ratings, one for damage, one for windspeed.

Like for example, if the scale I propose was used on El Reno, the tornado would be WR (wind rating) 5, while it would get the damage rating of DR-3.