"Guessing" tornado intensity

[Chris McBee]

Here in Oklahoma, during tornadoes, the local media goes into a frenzy, regularly scheduled programming is pre-empted, helicopters are in the air, etc. But during the media circus, it is not uncommon to see media chasers just making a bold "guess" at the intensity of the tornado. They will do live reports, often saying things like "possible F3" or "likely an EF4."

A good example were the tornadoes on May 24 in northern Oklahoma. As I was filming the tornado, I had a news channel's live stream on my car radio, saying things like "mile-wide, May 3-style, probably F4..." I believe the tornado was rated an EF2. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

In some cases, from helicopter shots, destruction is immediately visible after the tornado, and some quick and dirty damage assessment might be possible, but it seems like chasers on the ground are just basing it on the width of the tornado or other perceived markers of intensity.

My question is, should we lend any credence to this?

 

[rdale]

Not at all, unless it comes from actual damage on the ground. While you can imply that a mile-wide tornado will be rated higher than a rope, it all depends on what it hits.

 

[Chris McBee]

Just to clarify, I know there are lots of media chasers who are ST members and I am certainly not singling anyone out. The main one I have in mind is with KFOR in Oklahoma City.

I just find it a little unprofessional to guess at intensity of a tornado. Granted, it might make some people take it a little more seriously and seek adequate shelter if they think the tornado is stronger than it really is, but the media is out there to report news, not speculate.

Am I totally off base here?

 

[Jerry Prsha]

Ok, if we can't figure out wind speed via radar then I'm confused. (insert sarcasm here) Why is the DOW supporting the TIV if you can't properly speculate what tornadoes the TIV should or should not enter?

 

[Andrea Griffa]

I prefer to trust myself as for the visual rating of the tornadoes.
As to me it's not a feat to realize what kind of tornado you have in front: the important is to use your mind and observe with critical spirit: you can get many informations from the shape, from the type of debris in the air, from the rotation velocity and so many others. Those elements are sufficient to understand if you have to do with a weak or strong or a violent tornado; it stands to reason that it's impossible to understand if a tornado is EF2 or EF1 or thereabouts.

 

[Jeff Smith]

Just to clarify, I know there are lots of media chasers who are ST members and I am certainly not singling anyone out. The main one I have in mind is with KFOR in Oklahoma City.

I just find it a little unprofessional to guess at intensity of a tornado. Granted, it might make some people take it a little more seriously and seek adequate shelter if they think the tornado is stronger than it really is, but the media is out there to report news, not speculate.

Am I totally off base here?

I remember that day, I heard a certain met/chaser screaming on a phoner "It's a mile wide, it's a mile wide!!" and arguing with the on-air met when he was told not to get too close....he kept saying, "I'm ok, I'm ok" then seconds later screaming in the phone "It's right in front of me!!!"....
....just about made me sick. I understand the adrenaline when you're close, but geez, think of the little old ladies in the rockers for cryin' out loud...they're probably freaking out! And the little kids watching!

 

[rdale]

Why is the DOW supporting the TIV if you can't properly speculate what tornadoes the TIV should or should not enter?

I'm confused - are you saying the TV mets that estimate EF scale based on how the tornado looks are actually using DOW data?

 

[Lanny Dean]

Here in Oklahoma, during tornadoes, the local media goes into a frenzy, regularly scheduled programming is pre-empted, helicopters are in the air, etc. But during the media circus, it is not uncommon to see media chasers just making a bold "guess" at the intensity of the tornado. They will do live reports, often saying things like "possible F3" or "likely an EF4."

A good example were the tornadoes on May 24 in northern Oklahoma. As I was filming the tornado, I had a news channel's live stream on my car radio, saying things like "mile-wide, May 3-style, probably F4..." I believe the tornado was rated an EF2. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.
quote]

It is important to remember just who you are dealing with, by that, I mean the media.
Having worked in the media for many years as a severe weather reporter/photographer, I understand first hand what ratings really mean, most particularly in a big weather market such as OKC.
There are a few months out of the year that are called "sweeps" or ratings months....May is one of them and probabably the biggest even for markets that might be metered such as OKC.
Weather plays a huge role in "sweeps" especially during the May book.
News directors are in such a frenzy to keep/get ratings up that in some cases it is understood that you will do what it takes to get the job done (get the story) and you will often go above and beyond what is verbally asked of you but more so expected. Much was the case for me while I was still at KAKE during the Greensburg event.
I am not making any excuses for the ignorance put forth by such people...hell I was one of those people, but to understand why they do what they do, you have to understand the media in general.
Of course not all markets are like this, conversley, not all News directors are like this but news is news and what all markets want are ratings.
If you have to slime and crime it to get some ratings then so be it....thats the thought process.
Just my two cents worth.

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

Yeah, this is one of the things that really does get to me too. You hear this pretty often, people, TV mets, chasers, etc rating tornadoes as they are going across some area. Any of us can say it is big, little, fat, etc, but not the EF ratings.
This makes as much sense as when you hear chasers saying:
"There is a tornado on the ground."
Where else is it going to be? If it is in the air, is it not a funnel?
It is only a tornado once it is on the ground.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

To go along with some people's tendency to over-rate tornadoes in real-time (i.e. "OMG, it's an F4 easy !!!!1!!ONE!!1"), I also find that many folks tend to stretch the meaning of "large". Heck, it seems like any tornado that's not a minuscule "rope" is reported as a "large" tornado by someone. I was just watching some vids on youtube from a popular OKC TV station, and one of their experienced chasers kept talking about how the tornado was a "large" tornado and quite violent. I was left scratching my head, as it looked nothing like more "large" tornadoes I've seen, nor did it look like a "violent" tornado. There is no set criterion for the diameter of a tornado in order for it to be called "large", but I think it should at least be >1/4 mile wide (if not >1/2 mile). Of course, some folks use the adjective "violent" not to directly refer to the EF4-EF5 ratings but to note that the winds are particularly strong (presumbly in comparison to most winds we see). We've also seen and heard the same thing on "Storm Chasers" in a couple of the recent episodes. Some folks seem much more liberal with their use of "violent" and "large" adjectives, and it doesn't speak well for credibility or non-sensationalism.

 

[Shane Adams]

It's pretty simple to visually assess whether a tornado is weak, strong, or violent. I've more or less dropped the F-scale from my vocabulary, because it really doesn't mean anything other than to insurance agents and engineers.

For my personal standards, I'd consider a 'large' tornado to be a 1/4 mile wide or wider, but that's just me. As for the media overhype, I don't even really hear the words they say anymore, because I know they will include "May 3", "half-mile-wide", and "violent". I just go by what I'm actually seeing as opposed to hearing.

Tornadoes, even weak ones, are an awesome sight in their own right, I've never understood the need to hype them up. Be like calling a 30ft wave 50ft. But then it's all about buzzwords.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

You know, this all soumds like there needs to be a standard "weather speak" here in the media/spotters to decribe accurately what they are seeing.
eg- low cloud base with wedge vs high cloud base stovepipe,
rain wrapped vs clear/visaible,
weakening vs strengthening, and more. It may help the NWS to get these verbal cues straight to understand for warning purposes, and the media can get better reports out to the public with a reasonable understanding of the sitution in question.

I've often wondered if a hand held radar unit (like the police use) could be used and modified so that a chaser/spotter could get the wind speed clocked - and that way it could give a reasonavle estimate for wind speeds at the 0-10m level - so that surface friction can be added for the final estimate...
Sorry for the ramble...

 

[Brian Stertz]

Large tornado means to me 1/4 mile wide or bigger. Always has and always will. The problem comes when dealing with those nutty egg-beater types multiple vortex tornadoes. Trying to maintain a clear head when calling those in. Is it a wedge in the making or just a couple dancing vortices that may never organize into a full fledged brush hog. Then there is the Xenia OH circa 1974 kind....

 

[STurner]

*** Yeah I have seen this on TV on several occassions where people saying its a mile-wide its got to be an F4 or F5 tornado even though the tornado ends up getting rated EF2 or EF3. Just recently a tornado hit somewhere in South Carolina and it was reported to NWS in Wilmington that two brick homes were totally destroyed. By hearing that description I thought maybe that could rate as an EF4 tornado. Come to find out the brick homes only had their roofs taken off and a couple walls missing and rated EF2. It seems that some people report things as gone when there actually heavily damaged. To me gone means there is very little or no trace of debris of what used to be there.

 

[Greg Higgins]

It seems that some folks are hung up on "wind speed" when in reality, the EF scale is based on "damage assessment". Based on todays building construction, or lack thereof, there have been several recent tornadoes that were rated fairly high at the time and then after the damage assessment was completed, downgraded considerably. One example is the Arlington, TX tornado of several years ago. The original rating was an F-3 (before the EF scale was in use). Several days later after the engineers, NWS staff, etc. reviewed the damage, it was downgraded to an F-1. Why? Because the construction of the homes was substandard! No brick ties, not enough fasteners in the slab and for the roof assembly, etc. Refer to papers / talks / presentations from Tim Marshall, a forensic engineer, meteorologist and respected storm damage evaluator (not to mention a "decent" chaser).

Greg Higgins