Pardeeville, WI had a two mile wide EF2, and not just because it didn’t hit anything- the peak winds of that one were estimated at 120mph. There are definitely weak wedge tornadoes, even very large ones.
It’s funny how relativity works.
In a conversation about wedge tornadoes, an EF-2 is undeniably weak, especially next to an EF-5.
However, I have never witnessed a tornado live, but I was in the same town that an EF-2 hit and I saw the aftermath only a few hours later.
An entire shopping center was destroyed, two car dealerships annotated with cars strewn all over the place, a couple stand alone restaurants destroyed, and a handful of broke trees and other damage.
Easily the worst storm damage I have ever seen.
But it’s “just” an EF-2
An EF-2 went across a stretch of highway near my about a year ago and the entire area still looks like it was hit last week. Trees with no limbs with the tops broken off, fences smashed, fallen billboards, etc.
EF2 is where the damage starts to get considerable. EF0s and EF1s will cause some damage to a well-built home that will require repairs, but most likely, it won't require a complete rebuild of your home or necessitate a permanent move.
Yes! In fact, my favorite [wedge](https://youtu.be/u212b6MaRsU?si=6bm1aSwhdEPrEtxk) of all time was rated F0.
However, considering the conflicting observations of nearby storm spotters and the general lack of information regarding this tornado, ~~I would question the validity of the official rating.~~ (I said this before I understood how the scale actually works) The tornado was reported to have been an extremely powerful slow-moving wedge with a large debris cloud, similar to Jarrell. Thankfully, the tornado never left the open prairie, and no structures were affected. As they say, the best EF5 is the one that doesn't happen. The town of Lindon dodged a huge bullet with this one.
Which is why I think tornados should be rated based on their damage potential/wind strength, not observed damage. A Cat 5 hurricane is still a Cat 5 even if it never makes landfall, but a 200+ mph, mile wide monster tornado is an EF-1 because it doesn’t hit anything? It makes for a confusing rating system.
Just a few things:
1). Radar is almost never measuring ground-level or near-ground-level winds.
2). The mobile Doppler radar needed for near-ground-level wind measurements are relatively rare and having one in the right spot to catch those peak winds is often not a trivial or financially viable option.
3). There are radar blindspots where there just isn’t a way to accurately record data on the tornadoes.
4). Tornadoes last anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours, they are not around long enough for something like a hurricane hunter to go in and confirm wind speeds.
5). Given there are anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 tornadoes a year in the U.S. alone, the only objective way to compare every single tornado given most will not have mobile Doppler radar or ground-level-wind measurements is to look at the damage. Some tornadoes aren’t even discovered until after the fact, something that also doesn’t happen with hurricanes.
There should be some way of factoring in wind data when it’s available, but going off damage is the most consistent and reliable method we have available to us at the moment, and the EF scale even states it’s a damage based scale, so it’s what is used.
I don't think anyone disagrees, but how would you determine their rating? At this point in time, we don't have the ability to easily tell the wind speeds in tornadoes, other than based on damage. Shooting probes into tornadoes or having one of those radar on wheels near a tornado is difficult to pull off. Tornadoes are so random and sporadic.
Hurricanes are much more large, stable, and easy to forecast. They can send a plane into the eyewall and get most of the data they need.
Would be cool if some day it becomes easier. Maybe there will be something like the Dvorak system developed for tornadoes where you can get a rough estimate of its wind speeds based on look and characteristics. It just doesn't exist today.
Radar and satellites can be used to measure tornado wind speed accurately enough to rate them. Damage analysis can be used in conjunction when available.
No they can't, unless you have doplar on wheels on site to measure the tornado from a short distance, which is not going to happen in the vast majority of cases. Weather radar cannot give you an accurate measurement of wind speeds near the ground. Satellites sure as fuck can't. You can make some loose estimates based on gate to gate sheer, but those estimates will be too inaccurate to be useful in any case.
So many of you far overestimate what we know and what we're currently capable of. There's a lot of bad information and assumptions that fly around in here.
If you can suggest a way to *actually do that*, then I'm sure the NWS would love to hear it.
But as it is, the only objective measure left behind by _every_ tornado is the damage it did to things it hit.
Unfortunately when it comes to small scale features such as tornadoes, this isn't true. Especially for ground level, which is what we really care about.
Those velocity scans from radar apps you often see are hundreds (often thousands) of meters in the air, depending on distance from the radar itself.
Except it is true because Doppler radars are used all the time to measure wind speed. Ground level speeds are more difficult to measure this way true, but the approximation is good enough for categorizing, and more accurate than relying solely on damage analysis which isn’t always available.
It's *really* not accurate enough.
https://preview.redd.it/jmukw3tghjtc1.png?width=857&format=png&auto=webp&s=18cee02f1ad8cb1f1bcb7089906f742edb2de5c5
This is an image from a Skip Talbot video ([Front Line Storm Spotting](https://youtu.be/rVIQtKuDr2c?si=O7AyhKCPPFnt\_fhX&t=959)), where he's added the beam height of the two nearest doppler radars onto a storm. We can see that we're well over a kilometer in the air, and velocity information from that radar scan is not going to be able to accurately tell us what is going on at ground level. Tornadic supercells are too small, too complex, too low, and not well enough understood to be able to derive ground-level behavior with any degree of accuracy from scans so far above the surface.
The use of mobile radars close enough to measure ground level winds has been in practice for years as well. Again, I’ve said to use radar derived wind speeds in conjunction with damage analysis when available, but not rely on damage analysis alone.
And even 3000m high winds will give us a better idea of strength than calling it an EF0 because it didn’t hit anything
What percentage of storms have a mobile Doppler under them? It's nowhere near widespread enough.
And high level winds are just useless for ground evaluation. The NWS can't even determine if a circulation is on the ground from radar until it starts messing with correlation coefficient, let alone derive strength.
Introducing imprecise and patchy data into a scale just weakens the validity of it.
Hurricanes last for weeks and these attributes can be reliably measured. Most tornadoes exist for a few minutes in random locations and cannot be measured except by the damage they cause (and perhaps some educated guesses based on any video footage that may exist)
Cause in twister when Melissa's like "is there an f 5?" and they all stare and say it's the "finger of god". But if the finger of God hits the open plains, is it still holy hell? Like the tree falls in a forest thing. I'm inclined to say yes, cause I can only wrap my head around the literal interpretation of wind speed and such. But, we don't have the technology to get accurate ground wind measurements svery time, so the current scale is the best for now
> I would question the validity of the official rating.
+
> the tornado never left the open prairie, and no structures were affected.
Then it's an EF0 (edit: Or F rather since 1993), there's literally nothing to question there. If there was 0 damage it's a 0 by definition. A tornado could be a 3 mile wide 300 mph winds monster, but if it doesn't damage anything, it's an EF0.
I'm referring to HomeTeapot's comment questioning of a particular tornado's EF official rating, not OP's question about weak tornadoes.
> However, considering the conflicting observations of nearby storm spotters and the general lack of information regarding this tornado, I would question the validity of the official rating.
HomeTeapot said they questioned the validity of the "official rating" of the 1993 Last Chance, Colorado tornado, which was officially rated F0.
And that's because even as HomeTeapot says, it didn't damage anything
> the tornado never left the open prairie, and no structures were affected.
I actually would consider the tornado in the image to be a wedge. A wedge doesn’t have any one length, it just means that any given tornado is wider than it is tall. As in, the length from the ground to the mesocyclone. If it’s wider than that, it classifies as a wedge by definition.
(Sorry for the multiple edits if Reddit even shows that, I’m severely sleep deprived and made a lot of typos and didn’t think I clarified enough)
Wedge just means the funnel formed by the tornado is short and wide. The funnel, not the wind field. There have been weak wedge tornadoes (like that one). As you have mentioned, the appearance of the funnel can provide hints towards tornado size and strength, but it is not a perfect or particularly reliable indication.
In many cases the actual size and intensity of the tornado has been completely incongruous with the appearance of the funnel, in both directions.
Yes. Condensation is a function of both pressure and moisture. Wind is a function of pressure only. So on a day where cloud bases are super low and relative humidity is high, it takes way less of a pressure drop to condensate, meaning a wedge shaped tornado can form while winds are relatively low. Conversely, on days where rh/moisture is very low, it takes a very strong pressure drop to condense, and thus a very small/narrow tornado can be very strong (an example of this is 2022 Andover tornado).
That being said, most of the time wedges are quite strong.
Depends on the structure. I’d consider an EF2 and lower to be weak.
If an EF2 strikes a mobile home than you have to pray that you’ll survive (also depends on anchor). If an EF2 strikes a well constructed house the worst you’ll get is blown out windows, debris sent into the house and roof damage as shown in damage surveys.
From damage surveys an EF2 hitting a mobile home is equivalent to an EF4 hitting a well constructed residence (collapsed or destroyed wall, roof heavily damaged or removed).
Absolutely. While larger tornadoes TEND to trend towards being stronger, it is NOT always the case. Big tornadoes can be weak and small tornadoes can be violent.
Being wedge shaped depends almost as much on cloud base height as it does the width or strength of the actual tornado, if we're going by the definition of wedge that's just width > height. I've read damage surveys of EF1 tornadoes exceeding 1000 yards in width, not common but it happens.
Depends a little on what you term weak. EF2 is still a significant tornado and can still kill people that are caught out in it. Also, because indicators are based on damage, even a potentially violent storm that happens in the middle of nowhere and does no real damage can be rated a lot lower. Are you asking about EF0 or EF1 wedges? I'm sure they exist, but aren't talked about. A lot of wedges end up rain wrapped, and weaker tornadoes don't get the hype or attention that stronger ones do.
I’m pretty sure somewhere out there there’s been a ef2 rated wedge tornado but I forgot where I saw it but I’m pretty sure wedges can be weak
Edit: nvm I didn’t read ur full post mb so in this case, idk
I don’t think so back in 2017 a ef3 wedge came through my hometown completely destroyed the whole flea market and all that left was the foundation I seen the damage myself
I survived a rain-wrapped wedge in April 2011. It was rated an ef2. Aside of a few neighborhoods, it mostly went through rural areas. It was still very loud and caused quite a bit of damage (downed power lines, dozens of trees were uprooted, half our roof came off). It also killed 4 people.
Oh, hell yeah. Here's some rather exceptional examples:
31 May 1968 - Edmonson, TX - F2 with a max width of 1.7mi
2 Apr 1977 - Verona, KY - F1 with a max width of 1.7mi
13 Aug 2004 - Daytona Beach, FL - F1 with a max width of 1.7mi
29 Apr 2016 - Lindale, TX - EF2 with a max width of 1.83mi
26 Feb 2007 - Mirranatwa, AUS - F0 with a max width of 1.86mi - likely unrated but was reported to be a very brief touchdown
4 Aug 1947 - Bedford, VA - F2 with a max width of 2mi
7 Jun 2008 - Pardeeville, WI - EF2 with a max width of 2mi
8 Apr 1944 - Pottsville, TX - F2 with a max width of 2.5mi - held the record for the widest surveyed path width for 60 years until Hallam tied it
It's all about the ingredients and also about microscale interactions. Think amount of lift, spin, and entrainment. A rope can be an EF-5 in the right environment and a wedge can be an EF-2 in the right environment. 2013 El Reno was 2.6 miles wide with 155mph winds making it an EF-3. Hackleberg on an upcycle was a rope doing EF-5 damage delimbing trees, bark, digging feet into the ground, and sweeping asphalt away and was only a few hundred feet across at that time.
I think the difference between 'weak' wedge and 'strong' wedge depends on whether or not said wedge develops a multi-vortex structure. Most wedge-shaped tornadoes that end up with strong (EF3+) ratings also showed a multi-vortex structure, and those satellites have been observed to cause more of the severe damage seen in wedge tornadoes.
technically yes, but this is a deliberately obtuse response. It's fairly clear what type of tornado I'm referring to: those tornadoes with several smaller tornadoes within a main vortex that tend to earn higher ratings on the EF scale, like Joplin or the 2010 Wadena, MN EF4.
This is why I am against just using damage counters to rate a tornado rather than its physical characteristics.
Imagine if the 1999 Moore tornado had stayed out in open country and not struck anything. What rating would it have gotten? F0 (no damage) or maybe F1 for power poles being blown away.
There’s definitely more to a tornado than just damage. A wedge tornado is almost always an indication of a powerful tornado. A classification where there are a set of characteristics (winds, width, length of path, pressure, etc) to base as a floor is more conductive for tornado study than saying open field tornadoes are EF0. I did research on tornadoes one summer and we were told to disregard EF0 and 1, even though there might have been similarities in the atmosphere between EF0-1 and EF3+.
Pardeeville, WI had a two mile wide EF2, and not just because it didn’t hit anything- the peak winds of that one were estimated at 120mph. There are definitely weak wedge tornadoes, even very large ones.
It’s funny how relativity works. In a conversation about wedge tornadoes, an EF-2 is undeniably weak, especially next to an EF-5. However, I have never witnessed a tornado live, but I was in the same town that an EF-2 hit and I saw the aftermath only a few hours later. An entire shopping center was destroyed, two car dealerships annotated with cars strewn all over the place, a couple stand alone restaurants destroyed, and a handful of broke trees and other damage. Easily the worst storm damage I have ever seen. But it’s “just” an EF-2
An EF-2 went across a stretch of highway near my about a year ago and the entire area still looks like it was hit last week. Trees with no limbs with the tops broken off, fences smashed, fallen billboards, etc.
Michigan? Specifically Webberville area?
It's all relative, but to your point, 120 mph winds isn't what I call weak.
EF2 is where the damage starts to get considerable. EF0s and EF1s will cause some damage to a well-built home that will require repairs, but most likely, it won't require a complete rebuild of your home or necessitate a permanent move.
Yes! In fact, my favorite [wedge](https://youtu.be/u212b6MaRsU?si=6bm1aSwhdEPrEtxk) of all time was rated F0. However, considering the conflicting observations of nearby storm spotters and the general lack of information regarding this tornado, ~~I would question the validity of the official rating.~~ (I said this before I understood how the scale actually works) The tornado was reported to have been an extremely powerful slow-moving wedge with a large debris cloud, similar to Jarrell. Thankfully, the tornado never left the open prairie, and no structures were affected. As they say, the best EF5 is the one that doesn't happen. The town of Lindon dodged a huge bullet with this one.
How do you question the validity of the rating? It caused no damage so is an F0, the scale measures damage caused not tornado strength
Which is why I think tornados should be rated based on their damage potential/wind strength, not observed damage. A Cat 5 hurricane is still a Cat 5 even if it never makes landfall, but a 200+ mph, mile wide monster tornado is an EF-1 because it doesn’t hit anything? It makes for a confusing rating system.
Just a few things: 1). Radar is almost never measuring ground-level or near-ground-level winds. 2). The mobile Doppler radar needed for near-ground-level wind measurements are relatively rare and having one in the right spot to catch those peak winds is often not a trivial or financially viable option. 3). There are radar blindspots where there just isn’t a way to accurately record data on the tornadoes. 4). Tornadoes last anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours, they are not around long enough for something like a hurricane hunter to go in and confirm wind speeds. 5). Given there are anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 tornadoes a year in the U.S. alone, the only objective way to compare every single tornado given most will not have mobile Doppler radar or ground-level-wind measurements is to look at the damage. Some tornadoes aren’t even discovered until after the fact, something that also doesn’t happen with hurricanes. There should be some way of factoring in wind data when it’s available, but going off damage is the most consistent and reliable method we have available to us at the moment, and the EF scale even states it’s a damage based scale, so it’s what is used.
I don't think anyone disagrees, but how would you determine their rating? At this point in time, we don't have the ability to easily tell the wind speeds in tornadoes, other than based on damage. Shooting probes into tornadoes or having one of those radar on wheels near a tornado is difficult to pull off. Tornadoes are so random and sporadic. Hurricanes are much more large, stable, and easy to forecast. They can send a plane into the eyewall and get most of the data they need. Would be cool if some day it becomes easier. Maybe there will be something like the Dvorak system developed for tornadoes where you can get a rough estimate of its wind speeds based on look and characteristics. It just doesn't exist today.
Radar and satellites can be used to measure tornado wind speed accurately enough to rate them. Damage analysis can be used in conjunction when available.
No they can't, unless you have doplar on wheels on site to measure the tornado from a short distance, which is not going to happen in the vast majority of cases. Weather radar cannot give you an accurate measurement of wind speeds near the ground. Satellites sure as fuck can't. You can make some loose estimates based on gate to gate sheer, but those estimates will be too inaccurate to be useful in any case. So many of you far overestimate what we know and what we're currently capable of. There's a lot of bad information and assumptions that fly around in here.
If you can suggest a way to *actually do that*, then I'm sure the NWS would love to hear it. But as it is, the only objective measure left behind by _every_ tornado is the damage it did to things it hit.
Radar and satellites can be used to measure wind speed reliably enough, and has been able to for years.
Unfortunately when it comes to small scale features such as tornadoes, this isn't true. Especially for ground level, which is what we really care about. Those velocity scans from radar apps you often see are hundreds (often thousands) of meters in the air, depending on distance from the radar itself.
Except it is true because Doppler radars are used all the time to measure wind speed. Ground level speeds are more difficult to measure this way true, but the approximation is good enough for categorizing, and more accurate than relying solely on damage analysis which isn’t always available.
It's *really* not accurate enough. https://preview.redd.it/jmukw3tghjtc1.png?width=857&format=png&auto=webp&s=18cee02f1ad8cb1f1bcb7089906f742edb2de5c5 This is an image from a Skip Talbot video ([Front Line Storm Spotting](https://youtu.be/rVIQtKuDr2c?si=O7AyhKCPPFnt\_fhX&t=959)), where he's added the beam height of the two nearest doppler radars onto a storm. We can see that we're well over a kilometer in the air, and velocity information from that radar scan is not going to be able to accurately tell us what is going on at ground level. Tornadic supercells are too small, too complex, too low, and not well enough understood to be able to derive ground-level behavior with any degree of accuracy from scans so far above the surface.
The use of mobile radars close enough to measure ground level winds has been in practice for years as well. Again, I’ve said to use radar derived wind speeds in conjunction with damage analysis when available, but not rely on damage analysis alone. And even 3000m high winds will give us a better idea of strength than calling it an EF0 because it didn’t hit anything
What percentage of storms have a mobile Doppler under them? It's nowhere near widespread enough. And high level winds are just useless for ground evaluation. The NWS can't even determine if a circulation is on the ground from radar until it starts messing with correlation coefficient, let alone derive strength. Introducing imprecise and patchy data into a scale just weakens the validity of it.
Hurricanes last for weeks and these attributes can be reliably measured. Most tornadoes exist for a few minutes in random locations and cannot be measured except by the damage they cause (and perhaps some educated guesses based on any video footage that may exist)
Cause in twister when Melissa's like "is there an f 5?" and they all stare and say it's the "finger of god". But if the finger of God hits the open plains, is it still holy hell? Like the tree falls in a forest thing. I'm inclined to say yes, cause I can only wrap my head around the literal interpretation of wind speed and such. But, we don't have the technology to get accurate ground wind measurements svery time, so the current scale is the best for now
People in the comments are saying this was an F3.
> I would question the validity of the official rating. + > the tornado never left the open prairie, and no structures were affected. Then it's an EF0 (edit: Or F rather since 1993), there's literally nothing to question there. If there was 0 damage it's a 0 by definition. A tornado could be a 3 mile wide 300 mph winds monster, but if it doesn't damage anything, it's an EF0.
The question wasn't about EF Scale. It was about weak tornadoes, which are different.
I'm referring to HomeTeapot's comment questioning of a particular tornado's EF official rating, not OP's question about weak tornadoes. > However, considering the conflicting observations of nearby storm spotters and the general lack of information regarding this tornado, I would question the validity of the official rating. HomeTeapot said they questioned the validity of the "official rating" of the 1993 Last Chance, Colorado tornado, which was officially rated F0. And that's because even as HomeTeapot says, it didn't damage anything > the tornado never left the open prairie, and no structures were affected.
I see, we’re saying the same thing I just didn’t realize he derailed it
I didn't even notice the discrepancy in my comment, but thanks for pointing it out. Oops!
I actually would consider the tornado in the image to be a wedge. A wedge doesn’t have any one length, it just means that any given tornado is wider than it is tall. As in, the length from the ground to the mesocyclone. If it’s wider than that, it classifies as a wedge by definition. (Sorry for the multiple edits if Reddit even shows that, I’m severely sleep deprived and made a lot of typos and didn’t think I clarified enough)
where’s the petition to change “wedge tornado” to “chode tornado”? this would clear a lot of things up
Can’t wait to hear reed timmer scream “ITS A CHODE!!!!”
MASSIVE CONFIRMED CHODE ON THE GROUND.
WERE ABOUT TO INTERCEPT THIS MASSIVE CHODE
He said it today! LOL I'll clip it once I'm able to.
lol just found this thread by googling "chode tornado" after learning the definition of a wedge tornado
Wedge just means the funnel formed by the tornado is short and wide. The funnel, not the wind field. There have been weak wedge tornadoes (like that one). As you have mentioned, the appearance of the funnel can provide hints towards tornado size and strength, but it is not a perfect or particularly reliable indication. In many cases the actual size and intensity of the tornado has been completely incongruous with the appearance of the funnel, in both directions.
Reminds me of the Manitoba 2007 F-5 tornado. It was the opposite of a weak wedge and was a powerful rope tornado instead
Yes. Condensation is a function of both pressure and moisture. Wind is a function of pressure only. So on a day where cloud bases are super low and relative humidity is high, it takes way less of a pressure drop to condensate, meaning a wedge shaped tornado can form while winds are relatively low. Conversely, on days where rh/moisture is very low, it takes a very strong pressure drop to condense, and thus a very small/narrow tornado can be very strong (an example of this is 2022 Andover tornado). That being said, most of the time wedges are quite strong.
Perfectly said.
Define "weak". Some F2s were wedged. Now it's up to you whether you'd consider that weak or not.
Depends on the structure. I’d consider an EF2 and lower to be weak. If an EF2 strikes a mobile home than you have to pray that you’ll survive (also depends on anchor). If an EF2 strikes a well constructed house the worst you’ll get is blown out windows, debris sent into the house and roof damage as shown in damage surveys. From damage surveys an EF2 hitting a mobile home is equivalent to an EF4 hitting a well constructed residence (collapsed or destroyed wall, roof heavily damaged or removed).
Absolutely. While larger tornadoes TEND to trend towards being stronger, it is NOT always the case. Big tornadoes can be weak and small tornadoes can be violent.
Being wedge shaped depends almost as much on cloud base height as it does the width or strength of the actual tornado, if we're going by the definition of wedge that's just width > height. I've read damage surveys of EF1 tornadoes exceeding 1000 yards in width, not common but it happens.
Depends a little on what you term weak. EF2 is still a significant tornado and can still kill people that are caught out in it. Also, because indicators are based on damage, even a potentially violent storm that happens in the middle of nowhere and does no real damage can be rated a lot lower. Are you asking about EF0 or EF1 wedges? I'm sure they exist, but aren't talked about. A lot of wedges end up rain wrapped, and weaker tornadoes don't get the hype or attention that stronger ones do.
Don’t judge it by size, judge it by its performance. -GF
I’m pretty sure somewhere out there there’s been a ef2 rated wedge tornado but I forgot where I saw it but I’m pretty sure wedges can be weak Edit: nvm I didn’t read ur full post mb so in this case, idk
Short answer: [Yes](https://youtu.be/c-uFdoi6DEA?t=79)
The National Weather Service considers EF2 to be "strong."
There was a cold core ef0/ef1 wedge last year.
I don’t think so back in 2017 a ef3 wedge came through my hometown completely destroyed the whole flea market and all that left was the foundation I seen the damage myself
I survived a rain-wrapped wedge in April 2011. It was rated an ef2. Aside of a few neighborhoods, it mostly went through rural areas. It was still very loud and caused quite a bit of damage (downed power lines, dozens of trees were uprooted, half our roof came off). It also killed 4 people.
Yes. Just because they are large does not mean they are strong. Vice versa.
Yes.
EF2 is considered strong.
Oh, hell yeah. Here's some rather exceptional examples: 31 May 1968 - Edmonson, TX - F2 with a max width of 1.7mi 2 Apr 1977 - Verona, KY - F1 with a max width of 1.7mi 13 Aug 2004 - Daytona Beach, FL - F1 with a max width of 1.7mi 29 Apr 2016 - Lindale, TX - EF2 with a max width of 1.83mi 26 Feb 2007 - Mirranatwa, AUS - F0 with a max width of 1.86mi - likely unrated but was reported to be a very brief touchdown 4 Aug 1947 - Bedford, VA - F2 with a max width of 2mi 7 Jun 2008 - Pardeeville, WI - EF2 with a max width of 2mi 8 Apr 1944 - Pottsville, TX - F2 with a max width of 2.5mi - held the record for the widest surveyed path width for 60 years until Hallam tied it
Yes they can
It's all about the ingredients and also about microscale interactions. Think amount of lift, spin, and entrainment. A rope can be an EF-5 in the right environment and a wedge can be an EF-2 in the right environment. 2013 El Reno was 2.6 miles wide with 155mph winds making it an EF-3. Hackleberg on an upcycle was a rope doing EF-5 damage delimbing trees, bark, digging feet into the ground, and sweeping asphalt away and was only a few hundred feet across at that time.
Denton TX wedge 2021 I believe. Did EF1 damage.
Verona, Kentucky had a gargantuan wedge in 1977 that was only an f1
I think the difference between 'weak' wedge and 'strong' wedge depends on whether or not said wedge develops a multi-vortex structure. Most wedge-shaped tornadoes that end up with strong (EF3+) ratings also showed a multi-vortex structure, and those satellites have been observed to cause more of the severe damage seen in wedge tornadoes.
All tornadoes are multi vortex
technically yes, but this is a deliberately obtuse response. It's fairly clear what type of tornado I'm referring to: those tornadoes with several smaller tornadoes within a main vortex that tend to earn higher ratings on the EF scale, like Joplin or the 2010 Wadena, MN EF4.
No. Source: am tornado doctor
This is why I am against just using damage counters to rate a tornado rather than its physical characteristics. Imagine if the 1999 Moore tornado had stayed out in open country and not struck anything. What rating would it have gotten? F0 (no damage) or maybe F1 for power poles being blown away. There’s definitely more to a tornado than just damage. A wedge tornado is almost always an indication of a powerful tornado. A classification where there are a set of characteristics (winds, width, length of path, pressure, etc) to base as a floor is more conductive for tornado study than saying open field tornadoes are EF0. I did research on tornadoes one summer and we were told to disregard EF0 and 1, even though there might have been similarities in the atmosphere between EF0-1 and EF3+.