Enderlin, ND Deadly Tornado (2025-06-20)

[Mike Smith]

non traditional DIs have been totally ignored for the last 12 years... Why change things now?

While I agreed with the change, the NWS -- ten years after the storm -- upgraded Andrew from a Cat 4 to Cat 5 based on zero new evidence.

For science organizations, the NWS and NOAA often work in mysterious ways-- to the detriment of all.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

Admittedly I haven't paid much attention to this other than seeing everyone and their dog post about it. The hype is real and this designation obviously carries a lot of weight in the community.

But, NWS needs to be careful in what they are using to determine ratings going forward because if they aren't using consistent criteria (or how they measure the criteria) the rating can become very subjective, if it isn't somewhat already, especially if they aren't being transparent as Dan mentioned.

It can undermine every single previous rating, and some of the questions in this very thread are evidence of that, and are quite valid.

Side question: I wonder if they feel some sort of pressure from the weather community when it comes to ratings. Kind of like referees in sports do.

 

[William Monfredo]

Next time you go chasing, bring an engineer, or at least carry along TM's public notes, above (Manistee News Advocate.)
But no, I don't think the National Weather Service will go back and check a whole bunch of previous tornadoes.

 

[Randy Zipser]

To add another media story (with pretty good video!) to the pile of information already appearing here, this FOX Weather story was posted on October 6th about the Enderlin tornado EF5 upgrade:

MSN

 

[Dan Robinson]

I think I can agree with the train case being something that can be derived with a fairly simple (subjectively speaking) mathematical calculation as opposed to the arguably less-straightforward available evidence we have in the other cases with nonstandard DIs.

The only question I have about the grain cars here is do we know they were toppled by the wind alone? Train couplers are strong enough that if a lightweight car is blown over, it can pull down a heavier car or even a locomotive coupled to it in a domino fashion. I believe that happened with the Hyannis, NE tornado this year. That was a much lighter weight double-stack container train, but a locomotive was overturned there presumably from its coupling to the string of blown-over cars. The other issue, is it known if those trains were moving? Overturning a derailed car or locomotive is fairly easy if the train is moving.

Either way, the lofted tank car is pretty open-and-shut in terms of definitive EF5 windspeeds, maybe one of the best you'll ever see.

 

[Mike Smith]

The other issue, is it known if those trains were moving?

I can answer that from aerial photos of the site: it was stopped. We know that because there is always major track damage in a tornado situation if the train is moving. It is almost certain (at night) the train was stopped due to one of my former employer's storm warnings.

If there is sufficient time, they will allow a train to exit the tornado warning (which are issued by railroad mileposts such as MP 100 to MP 115) if it is near the edge and traveling in the right direction. Otherwise, they stop the trains for the safety of the crew and to mitigate damage.

 

[Clayton k Cross]

Not really sure what I think of this. The upgrade to EF5 is based on a 2024 study by the NTP creating a workable formula to estimate wind speeds required to loft and throw various large compact objects (link). I think this is very sound science, and I don't doubt that the Enderlin tornado reached EF5 strength. My main concern is that non traditional DIs have been totally ignored for the last 12 years... Why change things now? There have been a number of other tornadoes which almost certainly deserved this rating based on more traditional DIs, like Vilonia and Mayfield. Is the NWS going to go back and reassess these events? I am left feeling very underwhelmed that this is the tornado that breaks the drought.

I completely agree with you, Peter.

 

[Dan Robinson]

This is a great interview with Tim Marshall on the Enderlin upgrade and some of the EF scale controversy. I was impressed with how competent the interviewer is with tornado science, it makes for better discussion!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1975405182356787652

 

[JamesCaruso]

Of all the chasing and severe weather topics I’m interested in, EF rating controversy is probably near the bottom of my list, just ahead of light bars on chaser vehicles.

Which is not to say it doesn’t interest me at all. I guess my question is, why can we take something like a train car and say “hey, guess what, that was moved this many feet so the winds had to be X mph,” but can’t do the same with an actual measured wind speed (e.g., mobile Doppler at El Reno 2013) ? Perhaps this view is contingent upon whether the train car is considered a non-traditional damage indicator, which I think the post by @Peter MacDonald is getting at (forgive me if I’m misinterpreting).

Although it took months for this rating, it’s worth mentioning that @John Farley in his OP suggested this might end up an EF-5.

Awesome video in the link posted by @Randy Zipser . That looks like the same doorbell cam still capture posted earlier. Amazing though - I love how it’s a shot of the whole wall cloud and meso instead of just the tornado. Looks like a giant vacuum cleaner scouring the land - which unfortunately is pretty much what it was.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

I watched the video Dan posted and the fact that there was a train involved was a bit opportunistic in being able to measure this tornado, whereas maybe in the past there wasn't as much to go on. This would suggest that the parameters on how to determine an EF rating are open ended, and as long as the opportunity is there to calculate it, they'll use it.

It does make you wonder if they don't trust wind measurements using doppler radar, or maybe there's just too many variables that could affect measurements which could reduce the overall level of confidence.

Although the question of going back and re-rating tornadoes keeps coming up (especially in the interview), I'm with William. They'll never go back and re-rate them. It would be pointless.

 

[Mike Smith]

A comment: the railroad industry has done a tremendous amount of wind tunnel work and wind research regarding railcars.

They conducted that research to cut down on the wind resistance of their trains and to learn the wind speeds that make newer railcars (double stack, autoracks and trailer on flat cars) vulnerable to wind. I have absolutely no doubt that this extensive knowledge was drawn upon in this instance.

The automobile industry has not done "blowover" research unfortunately so they cannot use automobiles as a DI like they can railcars.

Addition: the aerowedge is one of several experimental designs to cut down on wind resistance.