Tornadoes that should have been rated F5/EF5

[Pete Kustra]

I thought I'd put together a list of tornadoes that probably should have been rated F5 or EF5, mostly due either to extreme recorded winds or to inconsistent or overly conservative ratings. I'm almost certainly missing some, so feel free to add to the list:

NOTE: List is ongoing, will add more tornadoes later

Mayflower, Arkasnsas - April 27, 2014
El Reno, Oklahoma - May 31, 2013 - based on extreme peak winds
Bennington, Kansas - May 28, 2013 - based on extreme peak winds
Goldsby, Oklahoma - May 24, 2011
Blanchard, Oklahoma - May 24, 2011
Tuscaloosa, Alabama - April 27, 2011
Dunlap, Tennessee - April 27, 2011
Bowdle, South Dakota - May 22, 2010 - based on extreme peak winds
Mulhall, Oklahoma - May 3, 1999
Loyal Valley, Texas - May 11, 1999
Kellerville, Texas - June 8, 1995
Pampa, Texas - June 8, 1995
Red Rock, Oklahoma - April 26, 1991 - based on extreme peak winds
Bakersfield Valley, Texas - June 1, 1990
Daullatpur-Saturia, Manikganj District - April 26, 1989**
Saragosa, Texas - May 22, 1987

**I know that the area was basically slums and wilderness, but apparently the tornado debarked trees and demolished houses within a 6 square kilometer radius of the funnel - this thing should have been rated F5 for sure.

 

[Raymond Mason]

The thing is scientists give the rating based on damage alone because they need a constant way to give those ratings. Would be nice if they would allow to give measured wind speeds a say in what to give a tornado in its rating.

The Mayflower tornado was not given an EF-5 rating because it was found out the house that was reduced to a concrete slab was not secured with nuts and washers. Plus the cars close to the house where not moved and thus it was given a lesser intensity rating.

The El Reno tornado was mostly over land that had little to no structure. Thus it was just given that EF 3 rating.

Maybe we should have a different scale based on measured wind speed and radar intensity? Not to replace the EF scale but something to work with it. A scale that gives a tornado a damage POTENTIAL rating.

 

[rdale]

There is a big EF-scale rewrite effort in place now - one of the suggestions was to add more info into the database so radar-based winds, non-normal damage, etc. can be listed.

 

[Matt Sellers]

I'll give a nod to the Saragosa, TX tornado. Not sure too many of today's chasers have been to Saragosa - I have - but there are not very many sturdy structures in that area and I'm sure they weren't too much more sturdy in 1987. A slow-moving strong tornado like that in a more populated area could have likely inflicted EF-5 damage upon further survey and keep in mind we know a hell of a lot more in 2015 than we did 28 years ago in that regard.

Rob - I'd love to see that once finished. I'm sure we all will at the same time, but hopefully they will include real-time data in their final conclusions/revisions as you listed.

 

[Doug Crisp]

I have always thought the Emporia Kansas tornado of 1974 should have been a F-5 /EF-5

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[Wesley Luginbyhl]

Another to add to that list from June 8, 1995 would be the Allison tornado, which looked like the entire meso lowered to the ground. Tim Marshall's video of that thing is terrifying.

 

[John Olexa]

La Plata, Maryland - April 28 2002. The tornado wiped out 65% of the town. One house was complety leveled and left nothing but the foundation, but was found to have been not anchored down properly. First it was given an F-4 rating than raised to F-5 But later it was officially rated F-4 even though some sites still list it as an F-5.

 

[rdale]

John - if it wasn't anchored down properly, why would you say it's worthy of a 5?

 

[Simon Andersen]

-- June 8, 1995 would be the Allison tornado, which looked like the entire meso lowered to the ground.

Size has nothing to do with the rating.

 

[John Olexa]

Winds were believed to have reached F-5 briefly and the National Weather Service initially rated the tornado an F5 but, subsequent surveys of the damage by structural engineers ( including Tim Marshall) believed the destruction was "more consistent " with F4 damage even though wind speeds may have exceeded 260.. at one point, but yeah I guess you're right. Given the old F scale, by damage I'm sure they got it right. I remember there was quite the back & forth over this for some time though!

 

[Jonathan Beeson]

Have any info on the Dunlap tornado? I've heard case after case as to why Tuscaloosa should be rated EF5 but I've heard very little about Dunlap from 4/27/11.

 

[Shane Adams]

Is this thread based on the desire to have measured winds be a part of the rating process? If so, I was unaware that many tornadoes had been sampled. Or, is this just disagreement with the assessment of the professionals who are the world's leading experts at rating tornado damage?

 

[Jeff Duda]

I'm curious as to what the purpose of this thread is. The aim of the science of using the (enhanced) Fujita scale to rate tornadoes is to estimate the wind speeds in the tornado by sampling damage produced by the tornado. The obvious issues with the EF scale include 1) there need to be sufficiently strong DIs as to bound the damage produced by the tornado, and 2) the tornado must actually impact DIs. Barring the few recent tornadoes in which mobile Doppler radar measurements indicated EF5+ winds within the tornado, why do you think there exists a list of "should be" EF5s? Are you saying you think NWS personnel who rate tornadoes intentionally reduce the final released EF-scale rating? I know there has been some controversy lately with the policy of incorporating mobile radar observations into EF-scale ratings, but to my knowledge, the database of tornado ratings has been rather consistent over time. Keep in mind that the official measurement for observed wind speeds in tornadoes is the maximum 3-second gust at 10 m AGL. While no one would reasonably argue against the fact that there were winds well in excess of 200 mph in the 31 May 2013 El Reno tornado, those measurements were not taken at 10 m AGL; rather they were obtained higher up. So really, the EF3 rating that tornado received is really the best anyone can do with the current state of the science.

Perhaps instead of referring to these tornadoes as "should have been EF5s" we could call them tornadoes that likely had EF5 wind speeds near the surface.

 

[rdale]

PS Great talk at #NWAS15 today on ways to improve the tornado survey recordkeeping in DAT.

 

[Tommy Scanlan]

I think the EF scale is just fine the way it is. Jeff hit the nail on the head with this one. That being said, any time a violent tornado goes through a populated area it's tragic no matter what it's rated. It's something that shouldn't even be debated when lives are lost. EF-0 or EF-5. WHO CARES? Some people give chasers crap for seeing a birdfart, but sometimes those birdfart tors can cause some serious damage, and loss of life. Sometimes there's huge wedges that don't touch a damn thing. It's all the same. A tornado is a tornado.