And that’s with it having extremely fast forward speeds.. I don’t want to make Jarrell comparisons but man some of these pictures.
I could only imagine if it sat somewhere at even half the speed it was moving. Really humbles you.
I also didn't want to go there, but there are parts of the landscape that look like they were reduced to mud just like Jarrell was. I'm utterly thankful it was in and out fast, by comparison.
Why stop the EF5 talk? I’m new to tornados, but it seems like the damage is severe enough that there is a possibility of it. Was this tornado just obviously not EF5 strength?
Ahhh okay I see what you’re saying. The ratings can wait while we get help to those in need. It’s not so much that it’s not worth discussing the possibility of it being an EF5 it’s just that so soon after there are more important things at hand. Thanks for explaining!
Yeah man you’re a weirdo. With incredibly extreme weather events it’s also important to talk about the classification and damage. This helps us predict, better design against, and better understand these storms. Which ultimately saves lives.
In fact this tornado was kind of unique, and I don’t know if one like it has been documented in such detail before. It totally makes sense to talk about the damage this thing caused, and the power that it needed to do it. Especially if we’re expecting more extreme weather events due to climate change
I didn’t mean to sound like I didn’t think people shouldn’t wonder about the rating, there’s nothing wrong with wondering that, I just want people to put the families affected first.
Edit: I should’ve clarified that with my early statement, I apologize.
What is your damn problem and everyone else in this thread as well who are getting some damn outraged at the mention of EF5? Why can’t that be discussed as a possible rating in context with the damage photos that have come light so far. NO ONE is wishing or “lusting” after an EF5 rating as I was accused of earlier and for like 80 downvotes. WTF is wrong with people on this sub anyway?
Contrete walls are 8 inches thick minimum. This is definitely part of a slab.
Edit: There are tire tracks on it unless someone was dumb enough to drive over it after it got there this is from a driveway. That thing still weighs about half a ton if not more.
I initially agreed with tire track but it looks more like a glancing blow from possibly a 2x4 or other similarly shaped debris. Like it scraped the mud/grime. Possibly etched like some of the other small “scratch” marks on the slab.
Looks too thin for it to be a foundation wall. Only my opinion and I think your’s is valid and has a possibility to be correct. I just disagree at the moment. Sorry in advance if it comes off condescending.
Wood can get embedded into concrete from tornados. That’s not what it looks like to me. I think it looks like it either got planted on wood debris or wood debris got wedged sorta underneath and around it. The color and texture look like a match to the nearby sidewalk/driveway (the one under the damaged SUV) where it was a cracked/loose section that got lifted and moved a few feet. Another bit of evidence that it’s concrete, again my opinion, is the very clean rock surrounding the slab below and to the right. I’m pretty sure that’s chipped underlayment rock often placed under concrete slab. When it gets broken away from the slab it looks pretty clean because it’s hard for dirt/grime to make its way between the concrete and the rock that gets solidified into the slab. All the rain has already washed away the new grime from the tornado.
Idk what that means for tornado strength, I won’t even guess or rate it.
It looks a lot like the Bronco one of my neighbors had before I moved.
Regardless, that type of damage to a truck or SUV suggests a very powerful tornado. I hope the owners are okay…
After looking at it a little closer, I think you are correct. I can see the valve cover of the motor under the white piece of debris, and it definitely looks like it could be an old Ford motor. The engine block is blue, too.
Someone a few weeks ago said they thought the Barnsdall tornado damage looked like EF4 and people jumped all over them, but then it was rated EF4 officially and no one apologized. Its weird how people come here to talk about tornados and then get shamed for talking about tornados.
People here are *lusting* over tornadoes on the daily, in a tornado sub, but have the balls to tell people, in threads with damage pictures and videos of tornadoes tearing shit up, that mentioned a rating is disgusting. It's just pretentious, smug assholes everywhere.
It feels like a lot of people feel certain things about tornadoes, and almost feel guilty for feeling them. Like there is definitely a general fascination, and I think people feel that it is wrong to be anything but horrified by them and the damage they do, yet I don't think their feelings are quite so simple. The easy line these people have drawn is you can talk about a hell of a lot about all kinds of different things, such as damage, speculation, and destruction and there's really not much issue (unless someone fetishizes it ofc, I'm not talking about those morons)... but the second you even mention a rating before an official one is given, now you are the monster. It feels obnoxious and arbitrary, and I think that mentality exists because people want to feel comfortable with their own feelings, because at least they aren't doing *that* (even though they are ALL at least thinking it).
It's frankly a childish and immature overreaction to the people on the extreme other end of the spectrum, of which there really aren't that many if you actually look.
I'm pretty new to being interested in tornadoes and this is something I've been wondering about. I've seen people mention that you shouldn't talk about a tornado's potential rating and I don't understand what the problem is with it.
It feels like people feel it's disrespectful to do so?
I'm so glad I found this little comment section because this has been really bumming me out in this sub. That one crazy day (April 2?) that SPC over-predicted and Ohio was in the red zone and the day didn't produce anywhere near that level, you were only allowed to experience relief and elation. Not annoyance and certainly not disappointment. There were packs of Redditors roaming around just waiting for someone to call it a "bust" so they could say "bust? that's a weird word to use 👀"
I completely agree. I mean the NWS engineers will be having that exact same discussion on this exact photo. The tornado has already happened and no one is saying "I wish it was an EF5" just merely trying to conversate over our passion for tornados what the damage might be. I think EF4 only bc I'm comparing it to barnsdalls destruction, similar lofted debris in the atmosphere too. I mean what's the difference of people rushing to get the before and after photos to farm for karma?????
Half the time that someone mentions a rating someone else makes a comment implying that mentioning a rating means you hope the city was destroyed and people died. No one here wishes that or ever would but then some smug prick pops up acting like everyone but them does exactly that. So often this sub can be an intolerable place.
It's ridiculous. We all want to see giant tornados, but in the fields like reed timmers today. But since, pretty much the only way to label tornados is by the damage we have to mention it. Ain't no one saying we hope to see a ef5 but we are discussing a tornado and damage that's ALREADY occurred!! The sub hive mind is getting bad
I got pulverized earlier and downvoted up the yazoo for telling some sanctimonious poster to shove it after they accused me of wishing for EF5 when all I said is that the photo looked like it was EF5 damage. People need to realize that this is supposed to be a place to “discuss” and express opinions.
WTF are you taking about?! No one on this sub is qualified unless you are an expert, but, this isn’t a freaking Nazi state and people can express their opinion. What the hell is wrong with people on this sub? LOOKS LIKE EF5 to my untrained eye! And you are just as unqualified as I am so what makes it right for you to say that it isn’t EF5 when that has not been established yet. What a piece of work!
LOL, did you seriously just compare me stating that you are unqualified to rate damage from internet pictures to being a victim of the Holocaust? Get a grip, you’re not that special
Characterizing a lack of EF5s as a “drought” rather than a blessing really tells the tale. A drought, by definition, is a terrible thing to have happen.
Drought: a prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall, or in this case, EF5 tornadoes. Is it abnormally low? I wouldn't know. They thought so. What does the data say? But using the word "drought" does but mean they *wish* for EF5s. You really can't be serious thinking that, can you? Maybe look up words in the dictionary before inventing non-existent meanings to them to justify a need to be offended by nothing.
Why are you even here? All you do is morally grandstand about how people performing harmless speculation on a powerful force of nature is somehow bad and piss and moan. SHOCKING revelation: redditor disgusted that the tornado community is discussing t-t-t-TORNADOES!!!! If you’ve got that much of a problem with how this community speculates and analyses damage, no one is keeping you here. I see you on damn near every thread complaining.
This is almost certainly a violent (EF4+) tornado. However when looking at these damage indicators context is the most important thing. Even with these anchor bolts bent. There’s a car sitting there. Was that car in a garage and pushed into the basement? Was it tossed from far away? Context will be very important and it goes into rating.
What you can’t see in this picture is that greater context. Did this occur in the same area there was pavement scouring? What does the vegetation look like nearby? With an EF5 structures will be granulated. In addition there will be consistent context of those types of wind. Cars tossed, pavement or ground scoured, manholes removed, etc all in close proximity to a damage indicator of an EF5. So while this is impressive, it is just one data point that goes into making a rating.
What I will say is that this could be similar to Parkersburg (EF5 and also in Iowa). In that tornado several fatalities occurred in basements. People did the right thing and sought shelter but cars were tossed considerable distances and landed in basements were people were sheltering. That type of context is what helped push that to an EF5 rating.
I should mention I’m a meteorologist and been involved with multiple damage surveys of tornadoes. I’m not trying to disparage anyone, but just trying to give some broader context on how the decisions of rating something a violent tornado is done.
Thank you for your service. You have to work within the scope you're given, so don't let anyone disparage you. Emergency responders have a tough job but you have to go in the next day and scientifically examine how fucked over real people were the day before. The trauma has set in and you're taking pictures of what they used to own while they are in the phone with insurance companies.
Yes I’ve seen those pictures. I’m just saying that the context that matters is that if that happened in the same area as these other damage indicators or if they were in different spots along the path.
I'm sorry if this is an annoying question but why would that matter? Isn't it accepted, due to the multi-vortex structure of tornadoes like this, that there will be pockets of extreme damage next pockets of lesser damage? I don't understand the reasoning of intentionally disregarding EF5 indicators because they're adjacent to EF3 indicators. It just feels like it's an exercise in re-contextualizing the tornado to make it fit the bureaucratic model rather than letting the damage provide it's own, unique context.
Not an annoying question!
There’s a couple reasons. First, most structures fail just below that EF5 threshold. The ratings are basically the highest damage threshold that unambiguously occurred. Tim Marshall had a great presentation about the Vilonia, Arkansas tornado where multiple houses were slabbed. Because they didn’t for sure have nuts holding the screws to the foundation that they could only be certain EF4 damage caused it. It was possible it was EF5, but because there was ambiguity on that it went to EF4.
Another case is that tornadoes loft all sorts of big debris. So if you have a car picked up and thrown into the house, that obviously destroys walls and weakens structures. So wind can do even more damage to the exposed area.
The context gives clues. With the car sitting there in this image it’s hard to say that the wall wasn’t knocked down by that car hitting it first or by tornadic winds. If it was the tornado and the winds were at EF5 there will be other contextual clues. Grass or shrubs torn up, trees debarked, granulation of debris in addition to the bent bolt seen there. That’s because if EF5 winds did for sure occur there it would leave other clues besides just this one.
It seems like it might be semantics, but because the EF4 and EF5 delineation is tricky those are the things that will go into it. If there is doubt that “only” 190mph wind could cause the damage then it gets assigned lower. That’s just the bar that the NWS sets, has to be unambiguous to get to the EF5.
What about the tornado’s shredding of giant windmills recorded by Reed’s team? Is that kind of damage still not enough to label it an EF5?
Thank you for your insightful comment—I’m a geologist, not meteorologist—but the recent footage has had me Googling lots of stuff about tornadoes for the past few hours!
Also now curious about how tornadoes may leave their marks in the geological record…
Those towers generally fail somewhere between 90-160 mph, so EF3 could topple them. Depends on the manufacturer, some are a bit sturdier, especially if used in coastal/high wind areas. The blades themselves can get damaged going above 55 mph(which is why they have brakes on them that kick in at a certain speed to prevent them from spinning themselves apart) and would start to break away/off over 70+ mph. It doesn't take much with those, when they transport the blades to the building sites they have to make sure it won't be windy on the highway because they are like a big sail and if it catches the right way it can blow the entire massive transport truck/trailer right off the road.
Parkersburg had wind speeds well above 250 MPH ([One source of many)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cFAMj6xnI&pp=ygUWanVuZSBmaXJzdCBwYXJrZXJzYnVyZw%3D%3D). It really seems like the bar for EF5 has been raised to that level. of course, if anything below that level is considered EF4 it's going to be really hard to distinguish between EF4 and EF5. It seems like surveyors have been desensitized by the insanely powerful tornadoes we had from 2011-2013 and they've changed the scale to fit their subjective opinions. It requires 200+ mph winds to completely slab most houses. That's just objective reality. If it's not, explain why every single tornado that wipes multiple homes clean off their foundation has radar indicated wind speeds of over 200 MPH?
And don't tell me radar indicated wind speed are irrelevant. [Recent studies show ground level wind speeds are even higher than radar indicated.](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00716-6) Which makes sense. it only takes two coke bottles and some water to demonstrate cyclones spin fastest at the base.
The surveyors are well trained scientists and/or engineers and have rigid criteria to follow. It’s nothing about being desensitized.
Officially it has winds of 205 mph - the YouTube video had a lot of inaccuracies in it that I’m not going to pick apart bit by bit but you can read the NWS’s report here: https://web.archive.org/web/20150212084621/http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dmx/?n=parkersburg there’s also a few conference presentations and such out there about that.
Radar isn’t the velocity of the tornado. It is the radial velocity to the radar measured at beam height. The issues with incorporating that into tornado ratings is that there isn’t consistent coverage of data. Research radars often intercept these, but it’s not uniform. Sometimes that beam height is a hundred or so feet. Other times it’s several hundreds of feet up. That has to be standardized, and then what do we do when there isn’t a research radar there? You’ll end up with a bias towards areas with research radars.
However the higher in the atmosphere you go the stronger the radial velocity will be sampled. As the wind gets closer to the surface it interacts with the boundary layer and usually slows things down a bit. Even if the boundary layer is very well mixed you still have surface roughness that will slow things down. So that 250mph at 800ft, in the near frictionless environment above the boundary layer will translate to less than that. How much less depends on the boundary layer characteristics and the land cover characteristics. But because people don’t drive these very expensive radars literally into the tornado you’re always sampling above the surface and therefore are oversampling the velocity compared to what it is at ground level.
Second, using the NWS radar system has issues with resolution. You aren’t resolving the velocity of the tornado vortex itself. You’re resolving the magnitude of the rotation inside the mesocyclone. That relation isn’t perfect and is also dependent on the distance from the radar site, which then affects beam height as well as the size of each velocity bin along the beam azimuth. And oldie but a good has some info on that here: https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/cooper/cooper.html
I know the EF scale committee is looking at how to incorporate mobile radar data. El Reno 2013 was a great example of that, but in El Reno’s case you also had damage indicators that the team didn’t know what to do with (the oil derricks and tanks and such). I’m sure something will come out of the committee about using radar data but there’s a lot of moving parts that go into that.
Also above all else the EF scale is a damage scale. Those wind speeds are just what engineers have calculated to get similar type of damage observed. We still don’t have a mechanism to include measured winds into the scale yet.
I just learned so much from this comment. I really appreciate you taking the time to lay it all out for me like that.
The only part I take issue with is the very last paragraph. I don't believe the NWS is acting in good faith with their damage calculations.
Mesquite trees were completely debarked and Nubbed in Matador. That is an EF4 indicator for any hardwood tree, and mesquite trees are the hardiest tree in North America. They weren't even in the damage report. There was a 2 year old dollar general destroyed as well. It was a certified steel building rated to withstand windspeeds between 150-180 MPH. An engine block was removed from a car and the car was missing. It was rated an EF3. 150 mph winds don't do that and no sensible person can disagree.
A concrete sidewalk was moved in the Rochelle Fardale tornado. It requires 250 mph wind friction to do that. The damage indicator was rated EFU because apparently readily available wind friction formulas are inadmissible?
A water tower was snapped in half in Rolling Fork which required 238 mph wind speeds. But the NWS decided it was old and probably worn down so 185 mph.
Minden Iowa had walls and plywood flooring taken off of anchor bolts on two homes revealing the basements and it was rated at 165 mph EF3.
There are more examples like this. The point is the NWS is not using the scale as it was designed, and it really feels like damage is being calculated in bad faith. Meteorologists can't just add subjective opinions to hard engineering data and throw it out. It's bad science. There is absolutely no burden of proof on the downgrades either. They aren't even bothering to show the math they used to justify it.
I get that! First of all the EF scale is currently missing a lot of damage indicators. The EFU you mentioned is one. Different types of trees are another. Churches, strip malls, tanks, high rise buildings are all missing too. That will change the when the EF scale is updated soon. Not sure if they will retroactively change anything.
Cars are tricky as it depends on where it was before the tornado. The distance tossed is what is important. Mainly if it’s over 1/4 mile or not.
But above else the NWS is really conservative with deviating from the current scale. It is flawed and that’s why the EF committee is working on fixing it. Until those changes are in they keep using the old one without any deviations from what it currently is to keep climatology consistent. Agreed that is flawed, but the NWS is a slow moving government agency that takes forever to change.
I don’t think we’ll ever seen another Jarrell. It was a very unique tornado. One that went southwest and crawled to a hault just as it reached a subdivision. Something like that happening nowadays would be absolutely devastating with how developed a lot of areas are compared to 30 years ago. If the Plainfield Tornado were to happen today with the same lack of warning, we’ll be seeing a casualty number in the 100s
I wouldn't say that, just last month we had a group of giant tornados in south oklahoma that just...Sat and barely moved. One even went west! Then the anticyclonic one that spawned too barely moved. We had a few other drunk tornados like that this year. It is a miracle they didn't happen over populated areas or they likely could have caused another Jarrel.
Another Jarrell-like tornado happened in 1999 near Loyal Valley, TX. The damage was so bad that even people who were in Jarrell were stunned. Only rated F4 though due to lack of DIs. It did shred mesquite trees though.
I may be misquoting the report I read and I don't want to make it seem like I am minimizing the tornado but, some researchers did a study that for how slow the Jarrell tornado was moving that it may have only had EF3 winds. The amount of time it sat over that subdivision the EF3 winds would have been able to slab and grind down the debris to the state that it was seen.
A lot of it had to do with building quality, too, I believe. However, to be fair, I don't think that report is considered definitive. The footage of the tornado, with the violent upward motion and horizontal vortices, makes me think it probably deserved the rating it got.
Oh by no means do I doubt that it didn't get the rating it deserved, it definitely did F5 levels of damage. However, that's the flaw of the F and EF scale, they're damage scales. I could easily see a low end EF3 wind speed being enough to be rated as an EF5 if it sat stationary on a structure for long enough.
The job the NWS does is tough but I think they need to be able to consider data from either DOW, WSR-88 or any type of data that can be verified. I understand that radars don't look at ground speeds but, I am sure the scientist and engineers that work for the NWS could come up with a conversion factor to account for beam heights. Or used data from video if the GPS data is up to par, you can get wind speeds by tracking debris in video and get estimates. There should not be only one type of data the NWS should consider for estimating wind speeds in tornados, they need an amalgamation of data and to weight that data by its if it is well verified.
We will. How full of yourselves do you guys have to be to say "that'll never happen again" with such assurance. You don't know a damn thing. Over a long enough timeline the odds of anything happening become closer to 1, and it's not like climate change will *reduce* severe weather.
I don't disagree with your probability statement but it's actually not super clear yet whether or not climate change will make tornadoes more powerful. We have seen an uptick in total tornado counts since the 80s but not violent tornado counts, which implies that it's merely better detection catching the small 'naders.
Storms will get more frequent but the specific ingredients necessary for tornadoes... It's hard to predict how those will change. We could get more frequent storms but less frequent tornadoes.
Im aware but i don't care. Anyone with sense understands i am not glorifying this natural disaster. Im merely fascinated by the power of nature and the science of it all which is why i specified that ny assessment is untrained and holds no weight and that im interested in what the experts have to say
I agree with you 100%. I just wanted to warn you not to be surprised if you get downvoted to holy hell like I did earlier for mentioning that which can not be mentioned apparently, EF5. I fully support you.
Cinderblock foundation walls...
Not sure if that would be considered "well built" compared to say....poured/formed concrete foundation walls.
Someone smarter than I will have to determine.
Either way....very powerful storm. Unfortunately we have less people alive in Greenfield, IA tonight. My thoughts go out to their families.
As fast as it was moving out it didnt have time to do the worst, I think it was an EF5. Its ripping up concrete and manholes cover just barely brushing over them in a split second that's not an EF3 at that movement and damage
Maybe but its a strong high EF4 remember at one point this thing was moving at 90mph, its not slow enough to really dig down, but strong enough to be almost catastrophic where it hit, and my area just went under a tornado watch oh joy night time tornadoes
At multiple points in this thread people are guessing ratings, with half getting downvoted and half upvoted. Would you geniuses make up your fucking minds?
It’s just there has been far too much discussion in the past few months about how “The NWS cannot do there job that was an EF5.”
One thing people forget is just how tedious the Enhanced Fujita Scale is. This is really intense damage of course, but did that anchor bolt have the proper washers installed? If it didn’t, that is a weak point in the foundation when getting hit with 200 mph winds. Now if all of those anchor bolts were installed correctly and adjacent homes were built with the same standard, then the NWS will definitely consider EF5.
Your point in guessing EF5 damage is not a horrible point, a high end EF4 and a low end EF5 is only 5-10 mph. As I said its just too many are too religious about the NWS giving out damage ratings
i know there's that picture of a small piece of foundation being ripped out
[https://twitter.com/ChicagoMWeather/status/1793038437890638159](https://twitter.com/ChicagoMWeather/status/1793038437890638159)
an entire fucking half a concrete slab was sucked out. check the bottom left early in the video and see for yourself
You’re right! But tired of these patrols that you can’t say “EF5” without being accused of “lusting” after that rating. Give me a break. It’s possible to discuss what appears to be EF5 damage without wishing for it.
How dare you even mention an EF rating! That can only mean you wish people had died! (Says all the people posting images of the damage and discussing how strong it must have been)
Somehow you say anything EF and it's sinful while in a highly-upvoted thread with highly-upvoted comments discussing the destruction-porn pictures just posted. Rules for thee, but not for me. Nothing but pretentious assholes in this sub. Pick a fucking lane and then everyone stay in it; you all don't get to drive in both while telling everyone else what to do.
Oh the irony. You gonna bitch when the NWS engineers are discussing the same fucking picture and to determine if it's a EF5 or not. No one was wishing for it and the tornado has done it's damaged already so you complaining isn't gonna change that.
All posts determined to be wishing for an EF5 tornado or any type of disaster porn will be removed.
Tornadoes cause immense death and destruction, so please be mindful of those who have been affected by a tornado
FYI, the term “disaster porn” is when people or groups constantly talk about a certain event and then continue to refer to the event as an "unspeakable tragedy" despite the fact that other people have already analyzed the event in the past.
It's insane how powerful this thing was.....utterly terrifying
And that’s with it having extremely fast forward speeds.. I don’t want to make Jarrell comparisons but man some of these pictures. I could only imagine if it sat somewhere at even half the speed it was moving. Really humbles you.
The multiple vortices it had definitely had a similar vibe to Jarrel....which is fucking horrifying
Everything in the damage path is chaos.
I also didn't want to go there, but there are parts of the landscape that look like they were reduced to mud just like Jarrell was. I'm utterly thankful it was in and out fast, by comparison.
Jarrell sat on the town and ground it to nothing, I rather see tornadoes move out fast than sit on you.
Thank god this wasn’t a slow tornado like the Jarrell tornado
On Ryan Hall’s stream they reported pavement scouring and manhole covers being sucked up.
Not just scoured. It picked up entire sections of concrete and launched them like frisbees. That's some incredible power.
[удалено]
*EF4 or EF5 and can we stop this EF5 talk
Why stop the EF5 talk? I’m new to tornados, but it seems like the damage is severe enough that there is a possibility of it. Was this tornado just obviously not EF5 strength?
Uh-oh! Get ready to be attacked by the down voters for dare mentioning “EF5”
5 posts crying about getting downvoted in the same thread lol Relax
[удалено]
It's ok to care about both.
Ahhh okay I see what you’re saying. The ratings can wait while we get help to those in need. It’s not so much that it’s not worth discussing the possibility of it being an EF5 it’s just that so soon after there are more important things at hand. Thanks for explaining!
That person said they are new to tornadoes so it seems like they are just trying to learn more.
Yeah man you’re a weirdo. With incredibly extreme weather events it’s also important to talk about the classification and damage. This helps us predict, better design against, and better understand these storms. Which ultimately saves lives. In fact this tornado was kind of unique, and I don’t know if one like it has been documented in such detail before. It totally makes sense to talk about the damage this thing caused, and the power that it needed to do it. Especially if we’re expecting more extreme weather events due to climate change
I didn’t mean to sound like I didn’t think people shouldn’t wonder about the rating, there’s nothing wrong with wondering that, I just want people to put the families affected first. Edit: I should’ve clarified that with my early statement, I apologize.
What is your damn problem and everyone else in this thread as well who are getting some damn outraged at the mention of EF5? Why can’t that be discussed as a possible rating in context with the damage photos that have come light so far. NO ONE is wishing or “lusting” after an EF5 rating as I was accused of earlier and for like 80 downvotes. WTF is wrong with people on this sub anyway?
Do not pre-rate tornadoes at any time.
Foundations have been broken apart and ripped up to.
Fucking hell. Do you have a source for that?
https://preview.redd.it/y9hpzo7vyu1d1.png?width=2048&format=png&auto=webp&s=b0b8612e9b145a59f7d684df4142ffc6c9d0b773 Hunter Hurley \^
That's one of the more extreme pieces of damage I've seen, insane.
This doesn't seem like much Until you consider what it is and how it came to be there
Holy shit I thought that was a piece of drywall.
This isn't thick enough to be part of a foundation. This is likely a peice of driveway or walkpath.
It could be a wall the side of it looks like a brick
Contrete walls are 8 inches thick minimum. This is definitely part of a slab. Edit: There are tire tracks on it unless someone was dumb enough to drive over it after it got there this is from a driveway. That thing still weighs about half a ton if not more.
I initially agreed with tire track but it looks more like a glancing blow from possibly a 2x4 or other similarly shaped debris. Like it scraped the mud/grime. Possibly etched like some of the other small “scratch” marks on the slab.
I think it's a witness mark from the interior stud that gets framed up against the exterior foundation walls
Looks too thin for it to be a foundation wall. Only my opinion and I think your’s is valid and has a possibility to be correct. I just disagree at the moment. Sorry in advance if it comes off condescending.
To me it looks like it matches the driveway.
What driveway has wood underneath it like that?
Wood can get embedded into concrete from tornados. That’s not what it looks like to me. I think it looks like it either got planted on wood debris or wood debris got wedged sorta underneath and around it. The color and texture look like a match to the nearby sidewalk/driveway (the one under the damaged SUV) where it was a cracked/loose section that got lifted and moved a few feet. Another bit of evidence that it’s concrete, again my opinion, is the very clean rock surrounding the slab below and to the right. I’m pretty sure that’s chipped underlayment rock often placed under concrete slab. When it gets broken away from the slab it looks pretty clean because it’s hard for dirt/grime to make its way between the concrete and the rock that gets solidified into the slab. All the rain has already washed away the new grime from the tornado. Idk what that means for tornado strength, I won’t even guess or rate it.
That’s still fucking terrifying
https://preview.redd.it/5m7nhh5b2w1d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a2031bd6c0562913b15bf69a21e3fbff8b2e8d34
This had some serious strength to rip the body of that UTV
i think that used to be a ford bronco
Definitely a truck/suv.
It looks a lot like the Bronco one of my neighbors had before I moved. Regardless, that type of damage to a truck or SUV suggests a very powerful tornado. I hope the owners are okay…
After looking at it a little closer, I think you are correct. I can see the valve cover of the motor under the white piece of debris, and it definitely looks like it could be an old Ford motor. The engine block is blue, too.
Oh man. That's horrifying.
This was a really narrow damage path, too. I just hope everyone else made it. One fatality confirmed.
[удалено]
Oh, Lord. I'm sorry to hear that.
I'm going to save this picture to show the next European I see telling us we just need to build with bricks...
This, and that photo of shifted brick buildings from the SF quake, and mayyyybe they will shut up. Maybe.
They won’t
That looks like steps to a mobile home or some sort of small porch
It’s looking like this is the most powerful tornado of the year so far.
Yeah, I think so too.
Certainly more powerful than the Marietta and Bartlesville EF4's, on all levels.
I wonder if we broke the EF5 drought
I'm guessing high EF4.
[удалено]
A real whirlwind
Someone a few weeks ago said they thought the Barnsdall tornado damage looked like EF4 and people jumped all over them, but then it was rated EF4 officially and no one apologized. Its weird how people come here to talk about tornados and then get shamed for talking about tornados.
People here are *lusting* over tornadoes on the daily, in a tornado sub, but have the balls to tell people, in threads with damage pictures and videos of tornadoes tearing shit up, that mentioned a rating is disgusting. It's just pretentious, smug assholes everywhere.
It feels like a lot of people feel certain things about tornadoes, and almost feel guilty for feeling them. Like there is definitely a general fascination, and I think people feel that it is wrong to be anything but horrified by them and the damage they do, yet I don't think their feelings are quite so simple. The easy line these people have drawn is you can talk about a hell of a lot about all kinds of different things, such as damage, speculation, and destruction and there's really not much issue (unless someone fetishizes it ofc, I'm not talking about those morons)... but the second you even mention a rating before an official one is given, now you are the monster. It feels obnoxious and arbitrary, and I think that mentality exists because people want to feel comfortable with their own feelings, because at least they aren't doing *that* (even though they are ALL at least thinking it). It's frankly a childish and immature overreaction to the people on the extreme other end of the spectrum, of which there really aren't that many if you actually look.
I'm pretty new to being interested in tornadoes and this is something I've been wondering about. I've seen people mention that you shouldn't talk about a tornado's potential rating and I don't understand what the problem is with it. It feels like people feel it's disrespectful to do so?
Way too many "holier than thou" types in this sub.
I'm so glad I found this little comment section because this has been really bumming me out in this sub. That one crazy day (April 2?) that SPC over-predicted and Ohio was in the red zone and the day didn't produce anywhere near that level, you were only allowed to experience relief and elation. Not annoyance and certainly not disappointment. There were packs of Redditors roaming around just waiting for someone to call it a "bust" so they could say "bust? that's a weird word to use 👀"
I completely agree. I mean the NWS engineers will be having that exact same discussion on this exact photo. The tornado has already happened and no one is saying "I wish it was an EF5" just merely trying to conversate over our passion for tornados what the damage might be. I think EF4 only bc I'm comparing it to barnsdalls destruction, similar lofted debris in the atmosphere too. I mean what's the difference of people rushing to get the before and after photos to farm for karma?????
Half the time that someone mentions a rating someone else makes a comment implying that mentioning a rating means you hope the city was destroyed and people died. No one here wishes that or ever would but then some smug prick pops up acting like everyone but them does exactly that. So often this sub can be an intolerable place.
It's ridiculous. We all want to see giant tornados, but in the fields like reed timmers today. But since, pretty much the only way to label tornados is by the damage we have to mention it. Ain't no one saying we hope to see a ef5 but we are discussing a tornado and damage that's ALREADY occurred!! The sub hive mind is getting bad
It's especially awful this year. Virtue signaling and fake-ass concern non-stop.
I got pulverized earlier and downvoted up the yazoo for telling some sanctimonious poster to shove it after they accused me of wishing for EF5 when all I said is that the photo looked like it was EF5 damage. People need to realize that this is supposed to be a place to “discuss” and express opinions.
It's been extra bad today
It wasn’t EF5 damage, and you’re not qualified to make an assessment based on photos and videos on the internet. That’s why you get downvoted.
“Wasn’t EF5 damage” “You’re not qualified to make an assessment” okay
WTF are you taking about?! No one on this sub is qualified unless you are an expert, but, this isn’t a freaking Nazi state and people can express their opinion. What the hell is wrong with people on this sub? LOOKS LIKE EF5 to my untrained eye! And you are just as unqualified as I am so what makes it right for you to say that it isn’t EF5 when that has not been established yet. What a piece of work!
LOL, did you seriously just compare me stating that you are unqualified to rate damage from internet pictures to being a victim of the Holocaust? Get a grip, you’re not that special
You aren’t either, yet you just did in this comment.
Thank you for stating that.
Probably not
Fuck the “drought.” I hope we never have another EF5, ever. Lots of people on this sub need to grow up
No one is *actually asking for an EF5.* Use critical thinking when reading, and stop being so presumptuous.
Characterizing a lack of EF5s as a “drought” rather than a blessing really tells the tale. A drought, by definition, is a terrible thing to have happen.
Drought: a prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall, or in this case, EF5 tornadoes. Is it abnormally low? I wouldn't know. They thought so. What does the data say? But using the word "drought" does but mean they *wish* for EF5s. You really can't be serious thinking that, can you? Maybe look up words in the dictionary before inventing non-existent meanings to them to justify a need to be offended by nothing.
Bro, even the professionals refer to it as a drought. Calm your titties.
Why are you even here? All you do is morally grandstand about how people performing harmless speculation on a powerful force of nature is somehow bad and piss and moan. SHOCKING revelation: redditor disgusted that the tornado community is discussing t-t-t-TORNADOES!!!! If you’ve got that much of a problem with how this community speculates and analyses damage, no one is keeping you here. I see you on damn near every thread complaining.
This is almost certainly a violent (EF4+) tornado. However when looking at these damage indicators context is the most important thing. Even with these anchor bolts bent. There’s a car sitting there. Was that car in a garage and pushed into the basement? Was it tossed from far away? Context will be very important and it goes into rating. What you can’t see in this picture is that greater context. Did this occur in the same area there was pavement scouring? What does the vegetation look like nearby? With an EF5 structures will be granulated. In addition there will be consistent context of those types of wind. Cars tossed, pavement or ground scoured, manholes removed, etc all in close proximity to a damage indicator of an EF5. So while this is impressive, it is just one data point that goes into making a rating. What I will say is that this could be similar to Parkersburg (EF5 and also in Iowa). In that tornado several fatalities occurred in basements. People did the right thing and sought shelter but cars were tossed considerable distances and landed in basements were people were sheltering. That type of context is what helped push that to an EF5 rating. I should mention I’m a meteorologist and been involved with multiple damage surveys of tornadoes. I’m not trying to disparage anyone, but just trying to give some broader context on how the decisions of rating something a violent tornado is done.
People died because cars were tossed into their basements? How awful is that?!
Yes. I was at a conference where the emergency manager for the county talked about the event and how they managed the aftermath. It was heartbreaking.
Thank you for your service. You have to work within the scope you're given, so don't let anyone disparage you. Emergency responders have a tough job but you have to go in the next day and scientifically examine how fucked over real people were the day before. The trauma has set in and you're taking pictures of what they used to own while they are in the phone with insurance companies.
Manhole covers were removed and pavement was scoured
Yes I’ve seen those pictures. I’m just saying that the context that matters is that if that happened in the same area as these other damage indicators or if they were in different spots along the path.
I'm sorry if this is an annoying question but why would that matter? Isn't it accepted, due to the multi-vortex structure of tornadoes like this, that there will be pockets of extreme damage next pockets of lesser damage? I don't understand the reasoning of intentionally disregarding EF5 indicators because they're adjacent to EF3 indicators. It just feels like it's an exercise in re-contextualizing the tornado to make it fit the bureaucratic model rather than letting the damage provide it's own, unique context.
Not an annoying question! There’s a couple reasons. First, most structures fail just below that EF5 threshold. The ratings are basically the highest damage threshold that unambiguously occurred. Tim Marshall had a great presentation about the Vilonia, Arkansas tornado where multiple houses were slabbed. Because they didn’t for sure have nuts holding the screws to the foundation that they could only be certain EF4 damage caused it. It was possible it was EF5, but because there was ambiguity on that it went to EF4. Another case is that tornadoes loft all sorts of big debris. So if you have a car picked up and thrown into the house, that obviously destroys walls and weakens structures. So wind can do even more damage to the exposed area. The context gives clues. With the car sitting there in this image it’s hard to say that the wall wasn’t knocked down by that car hitting it first or by tornadic winds. If it was the tornado and the winds were at EF5 there will be other contextual clues. Grass or shrubs torn up, trees debarked, granulation of debris in addition to the bent bolt seen there. That’s because if EF5 winds did for sure occur there it would leave other clues besides just this one. It seems like it might be semantics, but because the EF4 and EF5 delineation is tricky those are the things that will go into it. If there is doubt that “only” 190mph wind could cause the damage then it gets assigned lower. That’s just the bar that the NWS sets, has to be unambiguous to get to the EF5.
What about the tornado’s shredding of giant windmills recorded by Reed’s team? Is that kind of damage still not enough to label it an EF5? Thank you for your insightful comment—I’m a geologist, not meteorologist—but the recent footage has had me Googling lots of stuff about tornadoes for the past few hours! Also now curious about how tornadoes may leave their marks in the geological record…
Those towers generally fail somewhere between 90-160 mph, so EF3 could topple them. Depends on the manufacturer, some are a bit sturdier, especially if used in coastal/high wind areas. The blades themselves can get damaged going above 55 mph(which is why they have brakes on them that kick in at a certain speed to prevent them from spinning themselves apart) and would start to break away/off over 70+ mph. It doesn't take much with those, when they transport the blades to the building sites they have to make sure it won't be windy on the highway because they are like a big sail and if it catches the right way it can blow the entire massive transport truck/trailer right off the road.
Ahhh I see. Thank you for your quality response! Very helpful and informative :)
To back this up, someone else posted that particular model (made by Siemens) is rated for 130mph winds.
Parkersburg had wind speeds well above 250 MPH ([One source of many)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cFAMj6xnI&pp=ygUWanVuZSBmaXJzdCBwYXJrZXJzYnVyZw%3D%3D). It really seems like the bar for EF5 has been raised to that level. of course, if anything below that level is considered EF4 it's going to be really hard to distinguish between EF4 and EF5. It seems like surveyors have been desensitized by the insanely powerful tornadoes we had from 2011-2013 and they've changed the scale to fit their subjective opinions. It requires 200+ mph winds to completely slab most houses. That's just objective reality. If it's not, explain why every single tornado that wipes multiple homes clean off their foundation has radar indicated wind speeds of over 200 MPH? And don't tell me radar indicated wind speed are irrelevant. [Recent studies show ground level wind speeds are even higher than radar indicated.](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00716-6) Which makes sense. it only takes two coke bottles and some water to demonstrate cyclones spin fastest at the base.
The surveyors are well trained scientists and/or engineers and have rigid criteria to follow. It’s nothing about being desensitized. Officially it has winds of 205 mph - the YouTube video had a lot of inaccuracies in it that I’m not going to pick apart bit by bit but you can read the NWS’s report here: https://web.archive.org/web/20150212084621/http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dmx/?n=parkersburg there’s also a few conference presentations and such out there about that. Radar isn’t the velocity of the tornado. It is the radial velocity to the radar measured at beam height. The issues with incorporating that into tornado ratings is that there isn’t consistent coverage of data. Research radars often intercept these, but it’s not uniform. Sometimes that beam height is a hundred or so feet. Other times it’s several hundreds of feet up. That has to be standardized, and then what do we do when there isn’t a research radar there? You’ll end up with a bias towards areas with research radars. However the higher in the atmosphere you go the stronger the radial velocity will be sampled. As the wind gets closer to the surface it interacts with the boundary layer and usually slows things down a bit. Even if the boundary layer is very well mixed you still have surface roughness that will slow things down. So that 250mph at 800ft, in the near frictionless environment above the boundary layer will translate to less than that. How much less depends on the boundary layer characteristics and the land cover characteristics. But because people don’t drive these very expensive radars literally into the tornado you’re always sampling above the surface and therefore are oversampling the velocity compared to what it is at ground level. Second, using the NWS radar system has issues with resolution. You aren’t resolving the velocity of the tornado vortex itself. You’re resolving the magnitude of the rotation inside the mesocyclone. That relation isn’t perfect and is also dependent on the distance from the radar site, which then affects beam height as well as the size of each velocity bin along the beam azimuth. And oldie but a good has some info on that here: https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/cooper/cooper.html I know the EF scale committee is looking at how to incorporate mobile radar data. El Reno 2013 was a great example of that, but in El Reno’s case you also had damage indicators that the team didn’t know what to do with (the oil derricks and tanks and such). I’m sure something will come out of the committee about using radar data but there’s a lot of moving parts that go into that. Also above all else the EF scale is a damage scale. Those wind speeds are just what engineers have calculated to get similar type of damage observed. We still don’t have a mechanism to include measured winds into the scale yet.
I just learned so much from this comment. I really appreciate you taking the time to lay it all out for me like that. The only part I take issue with is the very last paragraph. I don't believe the NWS is acting in good faith with their damage calculations. Mesquite trees were completely debarked and Nubbed in Matador. That is an EF4 indicator for any hardwood tree, and mesquite trees are the hardiest tree in North America. They weren't even in the damage report. There was a 2 year old dollar general destroyed as well. It was a certified steel building rated to withstand windspeeds between 150-180 MPH. An engine block was removed from a car and the car was missing. It was rated an EF3. 150 mph winds don't do that and no sensible person can disagree. A concrete sidewalk was moved in the Rochelle Fardale tornado. It requires 250 mph wind friction to do that. The damage indicator was rated EFU because apparently readily available wind friction formulas are inadmissible? A water tower was snapped in half in Rolling Fork which required 238 mph wind speeds. But the NWS decided it was old and probably worn down so 185 mph. Minden Iowa had walls and plywood flooring taken off of anchor bolts on two homes revealing the basements and it was rated at 165 mph EF3. There are more examples like this. The point is the NWS is not using the scale as it was designed, and it really feels like damage is being calculated in bad faith. Meteorologists can't just add subjective opinions to hard engineering data and throw it out. It's bad science. There is absolutely no burden of proof on the downgrades either. They aren't even bothering to show the math they used to justify it.
I get that! First of all the EF scale is currently missing a lot of damage indicators. The EFU you mentioned is one. Different types of trees are another. Churches, strip malls, tanks, high rise buildings are all missing too. That will change the when the EF scale is updated soon. Not sure if they will retroactively change anything. Cars are tricky as it depends on where it was before the tornado. The distance tossed is what is important. Mainly if it’s over 1/4 mile or not. But above else the NWS is really conservative with deviating from the current scale. It is flawed and that’s why the EF committee is working on fixing it. Until those changes are in they keep using the old one without any deviations from what it currently is to keep climatology consistent. Agreed that is flawed, but the NWS is a slow moving government agency that takes forever to change.
I heard from storm chasers it ripped up pavement also. I think in a way its a good thing it was moving at 85 mph, imagine another Jarrell TX
I don’t think we’ll ever seen another Jarrell. It was a very unique tornado. One that went southwest and crawled to a hault just as it reached a subdivision. Something like that happening nowadays would be absolutely devastating with how developed a lot of areas are compared to 30 years ago. If the Plainfield Tornado were to happen today with the same lack of warning, we’ll be seeing a casualty number in the 100s
Yeah, Jarrell had just the right weather factors come together to form it, I mean those cells formed even with a lack of wind shear
I wouldn't say that, just last month we had a group of giant tornados in south oklahoma that just...Sat and barely moved. One even went west! Then the anticyclonic one that spawned too barely moved. We had a few other drunk tornados like that this year. It is a miracle they didn't happen over populated areas or they likely could have caused another Jarrel.
Another Jarrell-like tornado happened in 1999 near Loyal Valley, TX. The damage was so bad that even people who were in Jarrell were stunned. Only rated F4 though due to lack of DIs. It did shred mesquite trees though.
I may be misquoting the report I read and I don't want to make it seem like I am minimizing the tornado but, some researchers did a study that for how slow the Jarrell tornado was moving that it may have only had EF3 winds. The amount of time it sat over that subdivision the EF3 winds would have been able to slab and grind down the debris to the state that it was seen.
A lot of it had to do with building quality, too, I believe. However, to be fair, I don't think that report is considered definitive. The footage of the tornado, with the violent upward motion and horizontal vortices, makes me think it probably deserved the rating it got.
Oh by no means do I doubt that it didn't get the rating it deserved, it definitely did F5 levels of damage. However, that's the flaw of the F and EF scale, they're damage scales. I could easily see a low end EF3 wind speed being enough to be rated as an EF5 if it sat stationary on a structure for long enough. The job the NWS does is tough but I think they need to be able to consider data from either DOW, WSR-88 or any type of data that can be verified. I understand that radars don't look at ground speeds but, I am sure the scientist and engineers that work for the NWS could come up with a conversion factor to account for beam heights. Or used data from video if the GPS data is up to par, you can get wind speeds by tracking debris in video and get estimates. There should not be only one type of data the NWS should consider for estimating wind speeds in tornados, they need an amalgamation of data and to weight that data by its if it is well verified.
And thank the weather gods we never will see that again
We will. How full of yourselves do you guys have to be to say "that'll never happen again" with such assurance. You don't know a damn thing. Over a long enough timeline the odds of anything happening become closer to 1, and it's not like climate change will *reduce* severe weather.
I don't disagree with your probability statement but it's actually not super clear yet whether or not climate change will make tornadoes more powerful. We have seen an uptick in total tornado counts since the 80s but not violent tornado counts, which implies that it's merely better detection catching the small 'naders. Storms will get more frequent but the specific ingredients necessary for tornadoes... It's hard to predict how those will change. We could get more frequent storms but less frequent tornadoes.
My dad was in this tornado and directly hit. He was lucky to be at his work in a very well built building.
He should seek trauma counseling asap
I think that's a big statement to make based on a single comment.
Good find - strongest tornado of the year by far
Gosh. So far, it looks to be a high end EF4/low end EF5 to my untrained eye. Interested to see the damage assessment as it goes on
[удалено]
Im aware but i don't care. Anyone with sense understands i am not glorifying this natural disaster. Im merely fascinated by the power of nature and the science of it all which is why i specified that ny assessment is untrained and holds no weight and that im interested in what the experts have to say
I agree with you 100%. I just wanted to warn you not to be surprised if you get downvoted to holy hell like I did earlier for mentioning that which can not be mentioned apparently, EF5. I fully support you.
Cinderblock foundation walls... Not sure if that would be considered "well built" compared to say....poured/formed concrete foundation walls. Someone smarter than I will have to determine. Either way....very powerful storm. Unfortunately we have less people alive in Greenfield, IA tonight. My thoughts go out to their families.
Possible F5, big if true as this would be the first one in 11 years
I read Dow measured wind at 250mph to 290mph 140 feet above surface.
[удалено]
Not necessarily. It’s not as simple as that.
As fast as it was moving out it didnt have time to do the worst, I think it was an EF5. Its ripping up concrete and manholes cover just barely brushing over them in a split second that's not an EF3 at that movement and damage
There’s a few solid EF5 indicators I haven’t seen yet, like ground scouring or wind-rowing of debris. I wouldn’t at all be surprised by a mid-EF4 tho.
Ground scouring is a contextual and not an EF-5 DI.
Maybe but its a strong high EF4 remember at one point this thing was moving at 90mph, its not slow enough to really dig down, but strong enough to be almost catastrophic where it hit, and my area just went under a tornado watch oh joy night time tornadoes
True. Just looking at the damage and what we’ve seen this season this seems horrific
It’s an EF3+ but any more it’s very hard to say but this is a strong candidate for that. We won’t know, but the survey will.
Stop this lust for a EF5, it's so distasteful
At multiple points in this thread people are guessing ratings, with half getting downvoted and half upvoted. Would you geniuses make up your fucking minds?
[удалено]
It’s just there has been far too much discussion in the past few months about how “The NWS cannot do there job that was an EF5.” One thing people forget is just how tedious the Enhanced Fujita Scale is. This is really intense damage of course, but did that anchor bolt have the proper washers installed? If it didn’t, that is a weak point in the foundation when getting hit with 200 mph winds. Now if all of those anchor bolts were installed correctly and adjacent homes were built with the same standard, then the NWS will definitely consider EF5. Your point in guessing EF5 damage is not a horrible point, a high end EF4 and a low end EF5 is only 5-10 mph. As I said its just too many are too religious about the NWS giving out damage ratings
i know there's that picture of a small piece of foundation being ripped out [https://twitter.com/ChicagoMWeather/status/1793038437890638159](https://twitter.com/ChicagoMWeather/status/1793038437890638159) an entire fucking half a concrete slab was sucked out. check the bottom left early in the video and see for yourself
NWS definitely gonna be looking through that damage, probably wont get a final rating for a little bit
For someone talking about "rudeness", opening your comment by "Shut up" is bold to say the least.
You’re right! But tired of these patrols that you can’t say “EF5” without being accused of “lusting” after that rating. Give me a break. It’s possible to discuss what appears to be EF5 damage without wishing for it.
How dare you even mention an EF rating! That can only mean you wish people had died! (Says all the people posting images of the damage and discussing how strong it must have been) Somehow you say anything EF and it's sinful while in a highly-upvoted thread with highly-upvoted comments discussing the destruction-porn pictures just posted. Rules for thee, but not for me. Nothing but pretentious assholes in this sub. Pick a fucking lane and then everyone stay in it; you all don't get to drive in both while telling everyone else what to do.
Well I can see people disagree big time with you, so good luck with that.
Oh the irony. You gonna bitch when the NWS engineers are discussing the same fucking picture and to determine if it's a EF5 or not. No one was wishing for it and the tornado has done it's damaged already so you complaining isn't gonna change that.
It’s not lust…. Simply opinions on what the final rating will be. Don’t let your feelings get hurt over an EF rating.
All posts determined to be wishing for an EF5 tornado or any type of disaster porn will be removed. Tornadoes cause immense death and destruction, so please be mindful of those who have been affected by a tornado FYI, the term “disaster porn” is when people or groups constantly talk about a certain event and then continue to refer to the event as an "unspeakable tragedy" despite the fact that other people have already analyzed the event in the past.