224 mph EF-5 Max Recorded Winds 1 mile wide EF-3 Iowa Tornado

NWS mobile radar recorded 225 mph winds. Damage scale was EF-3
4-26-24. Time lapse wide angle view. Minden Shelby Iowa Int 80.

[@toscatattertail9813]

those tornado's last friday were gigantic, I don't think i have ever seen as many multi-vortex storms as i did that day.

[@TornadoCrewStormChasers]

The Enhanced Fujita Scale or EF Scale, which became operational on February 1, 2007, is used to assign a tornado a 'rating' based on estimated wind speeds and related damage. When tornado-related damage is surveyed, it is compared to a list of Damage Indicators (DIs) and Degrees of Damage (DoD) which help estimate better the range of wind speeds the tornado likely produced. From that, a rating (from EF0 to EF5) is assigned. The EF Scale was revised from the original Fujita Scale to reflect better examinations of tornado damage surveys so as to align wind speeds more closely with associated storm damage. The new scale has to do with how most structures are designed. The EF rating is used because most tornadoes it is the only way to estimate wind speeds. EF-0 65-85 mph EF-1 86-110 mph EF-2 111- 135 mph EF-3 136-165 mph EF-4 166-200 mph EF-5 200 plus mph

[@roseinwinter1]

Amazing footage!

[@fldon2306]

Was in Shelby, IA on Monday, 4/29 and didn’t see too much damage. Was visible where it crossed I-80; looks like it jumped over I-80 with only some small trees down on the north side.

[@nikkinicklus7587]

Awesome work as always!!! Keep it up and stay safe❤

[@user-uo5kp8nr7p]

EF-5 Wind speed.. Rated EF-3? That makes no sense...Mile wide, wiped out most of the town... crazy

[@yoshigaming33thebestgamerv32]

Remember, tornadoes are rated by the damage, not windspeeds

[@jmcsquared18]

@@yoshigaming33thebestgamerv32 right. El Reno 2013 was the same. Violent, enormous, but only EF3 because the 300mph winds didn't reach ground level and didn't cause catastrophic damage. But an EF3 is still capable of destroying towns, which this one in Iowa did.

[@boxsterman77]

I think they determine the ratings based on destruction. I also read somewhere that there are proposals to change that methodology and fold in the dynamic attributes of the tornado (read: wind speed).

[@LydiaStarz]

I thought like you too. I was told in Oklahoma that when buildings become RUBBLE that's an Ef5!

[@JaredMysko]

Invent/create an expanded fujita scale. EF5 Aloft EF3 Ground. Good idea to record this data and share it with future storm trackers to be able to compare major events like this. Thank you for staying safe and documenting this rare event.

[@johnnalley8809]

1999 Moore Oklahoma winds at surface 318 mph

[@NicholasOklahomanMeteorologist]

To be honest this is total Bull. We shouldn’t need to find “EF5 damage” to make it an ef5 winds from DoW should be good enough and other nearby radars :/ P.S the East Hollister Oklahoma tornado may have had winds up to 215 MPH

[@justprivate2333]

Using that logic, you'll have tornados rated EF-3s that only manage to roll a few trailers off their foundations. I fail to see any logic in that method. Ground level damage is used for this specific reason.

[@AlittleBaconOnTheCob]

We can't because we try to use the windspeeds from the ground.. So if a tornado is an EF5 and hit's nothing the only thing should be used for the estimate is probes, DOM, and if it does happen and intercept able DOW, because radars range's height increases the farther it goes so it means the EF5 windspeeds from the tornado might've been in the wall cloud, or the top base of the tornado, the tornado isn't spinning just at one windspeed it spins faster or slower in different locations, so the wall cloud might've had EF5 windspeeds all we know, the wall cloud before dropping was spinning super fast before dropping so maybe it was just the wall cloud. So in conclusion let me just say.. Ef5 windspeeds could be happening just not on ground level making it so the damage isn't EF5, and that makes me wonder what is the real highest windspeeds of a tornado that includes windspeeds above ground level?? It is just luck at this point that every single tornado isn't spinning at the same rate.. Maybe strong tornadoes would be less voilent.. Or some tornadoes will be 10x more violent then they were actually rated

[@CastleMc]

amazing video

[@TornadoCrewStormChasers]

Thank you

[@jerryrichmond4707]

I hate to see the damage and destruction left by tornados and yet, there is something mystifying, majestic, beautiful and alluring about tornados. We are inexplicably drawn to the power and danger of Mother Nature. I appreciate your clear video... there are many other chasers out there, but a lot of their videos are choppy and pixelated. This was excellent!

[@bonniemartenez5294]

Everyone be safe out there. Looks very scary.

[@derekbaker3279]

Fantastic video! BTW, those DOW winds would have been measured well above ground level (not at the surface, where the damage was being done..).

[@JimmyChewsShoes]

225 mph recorded at above ground level. So, ground level windspeed was lower. Plus, EF scale is based on the amount of damage a tornado does, not it's wind speed.

[@section8usmc53]

...and it's still stupid, because the damage estimates are literally based on wind speed, ground level or not. Just more government incompetence, which is sad because NOAA and the NWS are among the few things our government actually does well. If you have a recorded wind speed, regardless of where it is in the tornado, that should be the measurement. Even the NWS knows this is wrong, which is why they've been looking at redoing the scale and parameters yet again for several years. Damage should only be used to help assist when you don't have relatively accurate measurements. If it's and EF-3 at ground level based on damage, but it's measured an EF-5 above ground but didn't hit much, it's an EF-5. This idea that "well it was measured at almost 300 mph but didn't hit anything so..." is nonsense. "If a tree falls in the woods..." Instead we pretend it didn't happen. Makes as much sense as the Easter bunny and tooth fairy. So many people are bent by this, but somehow the government got it right? No. Also, this is a response to your explanation, not directed at you. You didn't make the system. You're just the messenger.

[@esagil_playz4334]

this scale looking for an upgrade to add more features

[@markwhite6782]

The El Reno tornado was rated an F-3 also but had winds over 300mph measured. Remember, if a 300 mph tornado goes through an open field hitting nothing, it's an EF-0.

[@TornadoCrewStormChasers]

Correct

[@captainconcernedsr.5360]

hence why the EF scale is currently stupid and in dire need of upgrades. A seperate scale maybe for the destruction severity.

[@confuseatronica]

@@captainconcernedsr.5360 we already have a scale for the destruction severity, it's called the Enhanced Fujita scale. We also already have a scale for wind speed, it's called "the wind speed". I don't know what you want to measure that isn't covered by those two.

[@AlittleBaconOnTheCob]

@@confuseatronica No he knows the ef scale he even said it in his post/reply, but we don't "record" windspeeds we use damage to make an estimate of what the windspeeds most likely would've been at ground level. The reason DOWS shouldn't be used for the damage indicators is because of how the Doppler works the farther it is from the tornado the higher it records so the farther it is away from the tornado the further the data is from ground level making them not the best. BUT if the DOW somehow in one world becomes an interceptor it should be used to detect winds from ground level. Yes tornadoes can theoretically be Ef5 down to ef1 at the same time, just it might've been where there was no damage or while it's doing damage but the real EF5 windspeeds were way above ground level. But with that we could wonder what was the real highest windspeeds were that wasn't on ground level? @captainconcernedsr.5360

[@angelaf5040]

Beautiful!

[@missyjanes71]

Where in Iowa are you?

[@000001willy]

The idea of being storm chasers is that you chase the storm to get as close as you can and still be safe.

[@farmcat3198]

Damn, what a nightmare.

[@MariktheWolf]

i think there are many more 200+mph tornadoes than we have recorded...no EF5s for almost 11yrs? thats far fetched...we need to have radar measurements and ground scouring included in the DIs...we also need a hell of a lot more radars to fill in all these holes we have so we can have better data and warnings...

[@pepsienjoyer17]

Looks like they pulled another El Reno

[@scarpfish]

No, looks like a bunch of bros don't understand how the Fujita scale works.

[@OriginalGaming_8_]

@@scarpfish What do you mean? The tornado recorded EF5 winds but it didn't hit any buildings at that strength, so on the enhanced fujita scale, which is a damage scale, not a windspeed scale, it was only ef3. The Fujita scale isn't even used anymore.

[@Strob_GD]

Not really, even though it had the wind speeds, think about the damage, it was not that bad compared to lets say, Newcastle Moore, which was an LOW end EF5, this had the winds but did EF3 dammage

[@justviscey]

They need to change up the Fujita Scale again. Make it so that velocity winds can work in parallel with damage to get a more accurate outcome.

[@Strob_GD]

@@justviscey They already have, its being implemented in 2027 and tested now on some ef2's this year

[@captainconcernedsr.5360]

This was visible all the way from irwin NE of harlan

[@katherinekoza6536]

Bloody hell. Heven help those under that

[@edtremblay6694]

My father fisher on Great Slave Lake around the same time the film was made. was

[@juancarloscampos-qn3xn]

Maes que fuerte el viento

[@sacongo1624]

Amazing video's your audio in spots sound like a aluminum can stuck in the front forks of a bicycle tire. Remember these monster's like reach out with their tentacles. Be safe 🇺🇸

[@TornadoCrewStormChasers]

It was my outside top camera protected in a waterproof case.

[@MattPiekarsky]

Someone likes to replace their wipers often.

[@zariqueen]

The NWS has been irking me with this 'damage only' reading of the scale. It ought to be a combination of different factors, like damage AND wind speeds. GAH! 😒

[@youtubegm8256]

What do you mean? EF-5 is just a part of distant meteorological folklore you silly goose . If that weren't the case, then Mayfield would have been rated an EF-5.

[@bubbawubba2307]

Think it was close to 290 mph winds radar indicated

[@michaelwthalman]

The Doppler on wheels truck measured winds around 225mph which obviously would be an EF-5 rating if it hit something.

[@derekbaker3279]

@@bubbawubba2307 The 290mph windspeed in the Mayfield EF-4 that you quoted was not at the surface, but a several hundred feet above the surface, which would be higher due to a lack of friction with the ground. FYI, there is no way to measure windspeeds in a tornado *at* the surface, where the damage is being done. That's why scientists have to rate a tornado based upon *the damage it does* , e.g. The Enhanced Fujita Scale. Furthermore, the EF-level of damage depends on whether or not the buildings/structures were built to code with proper materials & construction techniques, and whether or not buildings/structures were properly maintained & had not suffered deterioration due to water, previous storms, etc. (*) That is why damage assessment teams consist of people with degrees in Engineering, as well as Meteorologists....so unless you have observed the entire damage path & have a clear understanding of the strength of the structures impacted by the tornado, you will not be able to make an accurate assessment of the EF-scale, regardless of what the radar may have sampled well above the ground level. (*) unfortunately, it is quite common for buildings in traditional Tornado Alley & in Dixie Alley to not be built according to code & to be in less than ideal condition. This was especially the case along the damage paths of the May 2011 Joplin tornado, where there were no buildings/structures that could be used to prove EF-5 level damage. The ONLY piece of evidence that conclusively proved EF-5 level damage were some concrete dividers in a parking lot near the centre of the path, which were moved by the winds a good distance, despite being well-anchored & extremely heavy.

[@bubbawubba2307]

@@michaelwthalman was referring to the mayfield tornado

[@michaelwthalman]

@@bubbawubba2307 My bad, I got my wires crossed.

[@andacochran8703]

Watch Ryan Hall

[@sandicook10]

Great footage. At least you do not yell and scream like some other storm chasers. That is so annoying

[@mariadelfinafrelembo9468]

ой страшно. Спаси Бог от всего этого. в России таких конечно нет ураганов но у нас унесло один раз крышу.

[@darkjedi74]

Это был торнадо, а не ураган. Торнадо - очень распространенное явление на Среднем Западе Америки. Они намного меньше, но гораздо более интенсивны, чем ураган. Торнадо в этой части страны могут достигать скорости ветра до 512 км/ч.

[@mariadelfinafrelembo9468]

@@darkjedi74 ужас,это очень страшно.

[@darkjedi74]

@@mariadelfinafrelembo9468 Это было из штата Айова, где я родился и вырос. К ним привыкаешь. Большинство домов построены с подвалами или укрытиями от штормов, чтобы выдержать торнадо. Даже хорошо построенные кирпичные дома будут очищены от фундамента такими торнадо. Подземелье - ваше единственное настоящее убежище.

[@SodaFanmadesNOR]

В России есть Торнадо, вы просто не видели.

[@darkjedi74]

@@SodaFanmadesNOR Да, я слышал, что Россия время от времени их получает. Другие страны тоже их получают. Но ни одна нация на земле не имеет такого их количества и масштабов, как Соединенные Штаты Америки. Некоторые из них на Среднем Западе Америки достигают высоты более 3 км у основания и скорости ветра более 500 км/ч. Ничто над землей не выдержит такого шторма.

[@CameronMoore-mb7gs]

So at 4:24 on this video is a UFO flying into the area from the left of the screen and it goes around the funnel cloud..

[@IllisconsinSirens]

Can't be serious right!?

[@nappa3550]

Uh.. you are either off your rocker or got eagle eyes. I don't see anything

[@trashcompactorYT]

EF3*

[@TornadoCrewStormChasers]

But at different times it had ef5 wind speed. Lucky that was in open area where it didn't do damage so it received an ef3 rating.

[@trashcompactorYT]

@@TornadoCrewStormChasers There is no such thing as EF5 windspeed, only EF5 damage.

[@chriscurtis1578]

@@TornadoCrewStormChasers It's really kind of a flawed scale when it depends on what is in the path of a tornado and not the windspeed. I wonder if hurricanes are rated the same way. Every tornado scale I looked at said massive incredible damage will result from windspeeds over 200 mph. That tornado would have caused EF-5 damage if it would have hit a large, populated area but because it was out in the open it only received an EF3 rating. Whatever it hit I'm sure those who survived it will all agree that the storm was catastrophic. Great video!

[@TornadoCrewStormChasers]

​@@chriscurtis1578hurricane in open water is rated for windspeed.

[@TornadoCrewStormChasers]

​@@trashcompactorYTthe windspeed of an EF-5 is 200 mph or more. So they figure the damage and how much windspeed caused the damage. If a tornado had 300 mph winds but did 0 damage it would receive an ef-0 rating but still be the size of an ef-5 tornado.

[@malcolmwhitaker537]

These weather people have lost focus they don't know what they are doing anymore especially the weather channel

[@simonpoe2223]

what happened, no ef5s since 2013, now i think thats 2 in a year

[@trentandrew6726]

Turn off ur damn wipers when its not raining

[@TornadoCrewStormChasers]

Other than that how was the video?

[@RomanGameCool21]

@@TornadoCrewStormChasers great

[@janettavculek9308]

Turn you wipers off.

[@epicmelonman]

clickbait much?

[@TornadoCrewStormChasers]

How do you figure. The NWS stated max recorded winds from mobile radar unit was 224 and it was 1 mile wide. It got an ef-3 rating because of damage but was the size at times of an ef-5 rated tornado.

[@nikkinicklus7587]

Grow up troll

[@scarpfish]

​@TornadoCrewStormChasers Size does not equal rating. Neither does wind speed measured on a Doppler which may be well above the ground where it would impact people. Damage equals rating, and yes there are flaws in that, just like there are flaws in all rating systems we use to measure disaster impacts. Learn how the Fujita scale actually works instead of trying to mold it to your testosterone bro, "number go up is cool man" desires. Or maybe make your own scale and see if the masses adopt it. That's what Dr. Fujita did.

[@hellorandomperson6854]

This isn’t clickbait, the reason this tornado hasn’t been talked about much is because it wasn’t very visible at all and didn’t hit anything, at least when it was at peak intensity

[@Antares-rt5ub]

@@scarpfishImagine getting this triggered over pointing out a flaw of the EF scale. Imagine if we measured hurricane intensity based on the damage and not power. We can have 250+ mph hurricane but if it didn’t hit anything it would be a category 1. You see how flawed that kind of measuring system is. The EF scale is flawed and El Reno kind of proved that so much so that the scientists changed their rating of it despite being EF3 damage.

[@PatriciaLucious-ll2vm]

With the 400 yrs being up all i see r more homeless Esau ppl.

[@funkster007]

Lame

[@alphalima2004]

This title is literally just a lie lol

[@TornadoCrewStormChasers]

The DOW mobile radar truck recorded the windspeed max at 224mph. 200 plus tornado winds is an ef5. The damage the tornado did to objects was rated at 165 which is a strong ef3. It got an ef3 rating. If it hit a strong structure when it had 224mph winds it would have received an ef5 rating. So where is the lie? Other than that, how was the video? Did you like it?

[@AlittleBaconOnTheCob]

It isn't even it was rated EF3 somewhere in the tornado had EF5 windspeeds maybe for a second, or it was just the super fastly spinning wall cloud. So since the Dow wasn't scarily in the tornado depending on where they are it would be above ground level, so yes it was an Ef5.. I don't know that much but I don't think tornadoes spin very perfectly at the same windspeed so in that case it could've been an Ef5 just not at ground level, so no it wasn't a lie, in order to see the ground level windspeeds we would need something like a probe that measures windspeeds, and the DOM. So it is clear to say it was an EF5, just the only thing we don't know is where it rotated that violently

[@jaywinters2483]

Not gonna subscribe because music ruined it.

[@chrismccutcheon6721]

There was no music...

[@TornadoCrewStormChasers]

I feel like I'm being punished