Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[slenker]

Let’s not get too emotional here, we’re all just debating a scale used to rate tornadoes. No need to hurl insults around or type unprofessionally. Let’s all take a chill pill.

Also, if Elie would have received an EF5 rating today, I would be absolutely mindblown. (Without the video evidence of the home launching occurring, that is. That was the reason it received an F5 rating). The contextuals around the home are nowhere near as impressive as a lot of other HE EF4’s from nowadays and even in the past.

i cant remember what it was rated off the top of my head, but it would be on the DAT

while oil rigs getting hit again is probably pretty likely, the chance of tornados strong enough to cause significant damage to the oil rig itself is unlikely. due to the construction of the rigs, its kinda hard to assign different degrees of damage to it, its either destroyed or not destroyed. also like i said, its just not worth the resources.

i agree with most of ur third paragraph, and i agree contextuals should be used more. it feels like they are only used to prevent higher ratings. that being said, i dont think joplin and rainsville are the best examples of ur point. iirc joplin had 22 EF5 DIs, while i know confidently some of them were underserved ratings, i find it hard to believe there wasnt at least one EF5 DI that would stand up today. also philadelphia was a terrible use of contextuals being used to upgrade tornados imo, trenching is just about the most inconsistent contextual, especially with the circumstances of that day, the tree damage was mostly unimpressive compared to most other violent tornados from that day, and vehicle damage doesnt suggest EF5 intensity. i agree it likely reached EF5 intensity for a brief period as it did some real scouring at points in its path, but there is many many many more tornados from that day that were either stronger or deserved an EF5 rating more.

i think a better example of contextuals being used to upgrade a tornado is rainsville, and i think the logic used in rainsville should be applied to most tornados, although maybe a little stricter. rainsville had some impressive structural damage, impressive enough for a high end ef4 rating, and at certain points, it was contextually EF5. the problem in rainsville is that the areas with the most impressive structural damage didnt exactly have clear EF5 contextuals, and the areas with EF5 contextuals didn't have impressive structural damage. the logic they used, examining damage, especially contextuals, in the context of the tornados entire track, makes a lot more sense to me. if a tornado has high end ef4 damage in places that are clearly not its peak intensity, and has clear EF5 contextuals in other locations, i think that should be enough to verify EF5 intensity

I was referring to the study that was published attempting to downgrade Joplin to EF4 intensity, even though it clearly was not due to damage indicators that were most definitely pointing to EF5. NWS Springfield justified Joplin remaining EF5 intensity due to the debris granulation, manhole covers missing, parking stops being hurled, the hospital, and also pavement scouring, iirc.

And yes, we see that “trench scouring” with a handful other tornadoes in the past, and it doesn’t always correlate the storm with an extreme intensity. However, Philadelphia was most definitely very, very violent at the point where it was inflicting that damage, and it is completely valid. Debris was most certainly not causing that trenching, a very large tree in the path was entirely uprooted, debarked and tossed over 40 yards in a single piece, and Smithville caused similar (arguably less intense) trenching w/o debris before it pulverized the town, which sets a completely valid precedent when rating the Philadelphia storm.

Rainsville is a more relevant one to discuss when talking strictly about what areas should be used to upgrade to EF5 based on contextuals mostly due to the area of EF4 damage northeast of the Robinson family home that was clearly and obviously EF5 level damage despite the homes not being that well built, I can agree with that.

Edit: Dome home was given 190 EF4.

 

[Sawmaster]

As an aside, the advocates of Dome homes today say that the Chickasha example was built to a lower weaker standard and use that to explain the damages. Domes are the best shape to resist winds and damage if built strongly. I wish more were done in places prone to tornadoes but costs and some impracticability in using the interior space are against them.

We now return you to the ongoing Rodney Dangerfield Hockey match

 

[joshoctober16]

its to also note but EF5 are the only rating that don't have a common average DOD , while EF0-EF4 do

what i mean is

separate rare DI from common and and then only look at the most likely wind speed (not lower bound or higher bound) you will notice the highest you can go is 200 mph there is no 201+ mph average common di in existence

(orange common are the di that are helpful for intense tornadoes high EF3-EF5, and yellow are for EF0-EF3 only)

(note this is for the new EF scale) there's no 201+ mph typical common dod/di there is one semi common di that does go 210 (as in not rare but not common) but everything else is so rare its almost at the point its impossible to see it happen

then again there are 2 to 3 common di that never got shown yet so i hope there is one typical 201+ mph dod


anyways DI 6 is the only non rare di that has a typical resistance as a EF5 , interestingly if im correct its the only dod that has no wind speed in todays ef scale,
one tornado might of caused DOD10 and it was the Louisville EF4 , its to note it completely SWEPT the apartment away (then again this is a di that was split and merge so im unsure if the Louisville one would be DI5 or DI6 , but its one of them 2)

 

[TH2002]

"a contextual being added to the scale that can be used to assign an EF5 rating is massive progress in bridging the gap between tornado intensity and rating."

The. EF. rating. does. not. fucking. matter. It's a scale where the derived measurements are consistently off by orders of magnitude. It's the least accurate when its measurements are the most important (violent tornadoes). It's junk and needs to be trashed ASAP. Do you have any idea the amount of irreparable harm the NWS has done to tornado research with this scandal? We've lost years of progress. 17 years to be exact. An entire generation of false information. I hope NOAA has enough sense to reach the same conclusion, remove those responsible, and reimplement the Fujita scale until a suitable replacement is created..

First off, please watch your language. I'm pretty sure swearing goes against the ToS.

Second, as other users have pointed out, I think you're being a bit dramatic. Is the EF scale flawed? Absolutely. Unless I missed something, I don't think anyone is denying that. But the fact that it's flawed doesn't mean it's "junk" and that 'we've lost 17 years of progress', especially since the scale itself is only part of the problem. It doesn't matter how perfect the scale is if there are surveyors that are just too lazy (or stubborn, like Robinson) to do their jobs right, because they're not gonna get it right no matter what accommodations are handed to them.

Look at many tornado ratings from 2003-2006. Lowballed. Because of the F-scale itself? No.
Look at many tornado ratings from 2014-present. Lowballed. Because of the EF scale itself? In some cases, yes. In other cases like Goldsby, Vilonia and Chapman, no.

 

[joshoctober16]

First off, please watch your language. I'm pretty sure swearing goes against the ToS.

Second, as other users have pointed out, I think you're being a bit dramatic. Is the EF scale flawed? Absolutely. Unless I missed something, I don't think anyone is denying that. But the fact that it's flawed doesn't mean it's "junk" and that 'we've lost 17 years of progress', especially since the scale itself is only part of the problem. It doesn't matter how perfect the scale is if there are surveyors that are just too lazy (or stubborn, like Robinson) to do their jobs right, because they're not gonna get it right no matter what accommodations are handed to them.

Look at many tornado ratings from 2003-2006. Lowballed. Because of the F-scale itself? No.
Look at many tornado ratings from 2014-present. Lowballed. Because of the EF scale itself? In some cases, yes. In other cases like Goldsby, Vilonia and Chapman, no.

talking about eras i feel like 1990-1999 had the right balance of having tornadoes being over rated and under rated.

would be nice if they could just ... re rate tornadoes .... i mean how can the new wren EF3 not be rated EF4-EF5 base on all the evidence ... i think i herd some NWS offices have started to do that, but none were they really need too areas.

 

[TH2002]

would be nice if they could just ... re rate tornadoes ....

They do. Elkhorn was upgraded months after it happened, and some of the 2010 Arizona tornadoes were upgraded in 2020.

 

[joshoctober16]

They do. Elkhorn was upgraded months after it happened, and some of the 2010 Arizona tornadoes were upgraded in 2020.

how long did it take to upgrade elkhorn? i thought i herd after 3 months they will not upgrade a tornado on average (not sure where i herd this but it was something related with el reno 2013) so when im saying they need to upgrade past tornadoes i mean by more then 3 months ago

 

[TH2002]

how long did it take to upgrade elkhorn? i thought i herd after 3 months they will not upgrade a tornado on average (not sure where i herd this but it was something related with el reno 2013) so when im saying they need to upgrade past tornadoes i mean by more then 3 months ago

It was upgraded just over three months after the tornado.

Also, that deadline you're speaking of is when an event's entry is finalized in the NCEI database. That *usually* means the rating won't change, but exceptions can still be made.

 

[slenker]

The biggest issue with upgrades is that surveyors are relying on not being present at a scene of damage anymore, and cleanup happened a while ago. It makes it very difficult to upgrade a past tornado, unlike NOAA conducting a past analysis on hurricanes, which rely on objective wind measurements that can be analyzed in a plethora of ways post-season.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

First off, please watch your language. I'm pretty sure swearing goes against the ToS.

Second, as other users have pointed out, I think you're being a bit dramatic. Is the EF scale flawed? Absolutely. Unless I missed something, I don't think anyone is denying that. But the fact that it's flawed doesn't mean it's "junk" and that 'we've lost 17 years of progress', especially since the scale itself is only part of the problem. It doesn't matter how perfect the scale is if there are surveyors that are just too lazy (or stubborn, like Robinson) to do their jobs right, because they're not gonna get it right no matter what accommodations are handed to them.

Look at many tornado ratings from 2003-2006. Lowballed. Because of the F-scale itself? No.
Look at many tornado ratings from 2014-present. Lowballed. Because of the EF scale itself? In some cases, yes. In other cases like Goldsby, Vilonia and Chapman, no.

Sorry about that. You're right, it was excessive. Was just trying to emphasize my point.

However, I don't think anything I've said is dramatic. According to the NWS 200 mph winds have not existed on earth for 11 years. 300 mph winds have not existed ever (they have literally denounced the original F ratings as inaccurate and an overestimation). Anecdotally, I have a friend who moved to tornado alley from Hawaii and was joking about chasing tornadoes in a boat like he did hurricanes. The average person under 30 has no idea the danger tornadoes pose. We have been incredibly lucky these big outbreaks the last few years have happened in open fields, but someday our luck is going to end. It's a mathematical certainty.

2011 was our chance to improve building codes and prepare for the next bad season. It was the year of 14 F5s. Thanks to the EF scale, we haven't. For almost 2 decades building codes have been informed with false information. Apartments, retails stores, houses. All built with the assumption 200 mph winds are impossible. I'd agree i'm being dramatic if the NWS was off by 20 MPH. But they're not. They're off by 100 MPH. A tornado hitting urban Chicago could kill 4,500 people or 45,000 people. The longer the NWS keeps lying to people the more the scale tips toward the latter. That's the truth.

And Crosby, who is clearly close with the NWS and the people within has this to say about it:
"Anyone who knows enough about tornados to know about how they are surveyed knows enough about tornados to not get killed by them."

Absurd. The only silver lining is that when the EF scale is inevitably thrown out, we can just transfer the EF ratings back to F ratings and the gap will (mostly) be rectified. Too bad we can't change the building codes of all the constructed buildings of the last 20 years.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Large tornado outbreaks are getting more common and more severe. Here's a chart showing every outbreak of 100+ tornadoes divided into 4 year periods. I chose this method because we're only 4 years into this decade and the last 44 years are divisible by 4. I also believe in order to get an idea of the climatology of tornadoes we should try to group years in similar patterns to other weather phenomena (like El Nino and Nina)




This second chart is breakdown of 100+ tornado events that occurred in less than 5 days. This shows outbreaks are getting more severe.



It's also worth noting 3 of the top 5 biggest 24 hour outbreaks have occurred in the 2020s. If you exclude the extreme outliers of 2011 and 1974, it's the top 3.



It sure is a shame we can't even remotely compare the intensity of the tornadoes in any of these outbreaks because they've been deliberately underrated for 20 years, and even moreso the last 10. Like I said, the EF scale is the least accurate when its measurements are the most important.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Here's the data used. Every outbreak with 100 or more tornadoes. 2 of the top 10 biggest have happened in 2024. Here's where I pulled the data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks

Event	# of tornadoes	Year	Duration
2003 tornado Outbreak (May 3-11)	401	2003	9
2019 Tornado Outbreak (May 17-30)	400	2019	14
2004 Tornado Outbreak (May 21-31)	389	2004	11
2011 Super Outbreak (April 25-28)	360	2011	4
1995 Tornado Outbreak (May 5-27)	351	1995	23
2011 Tornado Outbreak (May 21-26)	239	2011	6
2024 Tornado Outbreak (May 19-27)	238	2024	9
2008 Tornado Outbreak (June 3-11)	192	2008	9
1962 Tornado Outbreak (May 14-31)	188	1962	18
2024 Tornado Outbreak (May 6-10)	179	2024	5
2011 Tornado Outbreak (April 14-16)	178	2011	3
2008 Great Plains Outbreak (May 22-27)	173	2008	6
1992 Tornado Outbreak (June 14-18)	170	1992	5
2024 Tornado Outbreak (April 25-28)	164	2024	4
1983 Tornado Outbreak (May 12-23)	157	1983	11
1999 Oklahoma Outbreak (May 2-8)	152	1999	7
1974 Super Outbreak (April 3-4)	148	1974	2
2023 Tornado Outbreak (March 31 - April 1)	146	2023	2
1973 Tornado Outbreak (May 22-31)	145	1973	10
2020 Tornado Outbreak (April 12-13)	141	2020	2
2011 Outbreak (April 19-24)	134	2011	6
2013 Tornado Outbreak (May 26-31)	134	2013	6
2017 Tornado Outbreak (May 15-20)	134	2017	6
1999 Tornado Outbreak (January 21-23)	128	1999	3
2015 Tornado Outbreak (May 5-10)	127	2015	6
2003 South Dakota Outbreak (June 21-24)	125	2003	4
2007 Tornado Outbreak (May 4-6)	123	2007	3
2004 Hurricane Ivan Outbreak (September 15)	120	2004	1
2021 December Outbreak (December 15)	120	2021	1
1967 Hurricane Beulah Outbreak (September 18-24)	120	1967	7
2023 Tornado Outbreak (June 20-26)	117	2023	7
1996 Tornado Outbreak (April 19-22)	117	1996	4
1957 Tornado Outbreak (April 18-27)	117	1957	10
2012 Tornado Outbreak (April 13-16)	113	2012	4
2004 Tornado Outbreak (November 22-24)	104	2004	3
2004 Hurricane Frances Outbreak (September 4-5)	103	2004	2
2005 Hurricane Rita Outbreak (September 22-26)	101	2005	5
1994 Tornado Outbreak (April 25-27)	101	1994	3
1954 Tornado Outbreak (April 25 - May 3)	100	1954	10

 

[TH2002]

Sorry about that. You're right, it was excessive. Was just trying to emphasize my point.

However, I don't think anything I've said is dramatic. According to the NWS 200 mph winds have not existed on earth for 11 years. 300 mph winds have not existed ever (they have literally denounced the original F ratings as inaccurate and an overestimation). Anecdotally, I have a friend who moved to tornado alley from Hawaii and was joking about chasing tornadoes in a boat like he did hurricanes. The average person under 30 has no idea the danger tornadoes pose. We have been incredibly lucky these big outbreaks the last few years have happened in open fields, but someday our luck is going to end. It's a mathematical certainty.

2011 was our chance to improve building codes and prepare for the next bad season. It was the year of 14 F5s. Thanks to the EF scale, we haven't. For almost 2 decades building codes have been informed with false information. Apartments, retails stores, houses. All built with the assumption 200 mph winds are impossible. I'd agree i'm being dramatic if the NWS was off by 20 MPH. But they're not. They're off by 100 MPH. A tornado hitting urban Chicago could kill 4,500 people or 45,000 people. The longer the NWS keeps lying to people the more the scale tips toward the latter. That's the truth.

And Crosby, who is clearly close with the NWS and the people within has this to say about it:
"Anyone who knows enough about tornados to know about how they are surveyed knows enough about tornados to not get killed by them."

Absurd. The only silver lining is that when the EF scale is inevitably thrown out, we can just transfer the EF ratings back to F ratings and the gap will (mostly) be rectified. Too bad we can't change the building codes of all the constructed buildings of the last 20 years.

I see a point there, but to be honest, it should be common knowledge that one should ideally be underground or in a purpose built storm shelter to survive a direct hit from an EF4-5 tornado. That's what the general public needs to be educated on. It's likely not physically (and certainly not economically) feasible to build widespread above ground structures that can survive a direct hit from 300+mph winds, unless every single existing structure is torn down and replaced with properly reinforced monolithic domes... and what if they don't survive after all?

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

I see a point there, but to be honest, it should be common knowledge that one should ideally be underground or in a purpose built storm shelter to survive a direct hit from an EF4-5 tornado. That's what the general public needs to be educated on. It's likely not physically (and certainly not economically) feasible to build widespread above ground structures that can survive a direct hit from 300+mph winds, unless every single existing structure is torn down and replaced with properly reinforced monolithic domes... and what if they don't survive after all?

The 4,500 to 45,000 number in the study I shared was derived from theoretical 170 MPH winds. It's really the 170-200 MPH tornadoes that matter. The 200 MPH+ ones will destroy everything regardless. Outside of hurricane zones, nothing is being built to withstand 170 MPH.

>20% of tornadoes have 170-200 MPH winds.
>5% have 200 MPH+.
According to the NWS it's 1% and 0%.

The NWS's official stance is that only tornadoes like Greenfield, Vilonia, Mayfield, Rolling Fork, Goldsby, Elkhorn, etc. have 170 MPH+ speeds. Not even Matador, New Wren, or Sulphur make the cut. Someone really needs to put a study together with some error corrected F ratings ASAP. Kinda crazy to think the 250 MPH+ tornadoes are the only ones getting correctly labeled as 170 MPH+, and we've been flying blind.

Side note: I hope Josh Wurman wins a nobel prize for his DOW research someday. I believe the work he's doing is that important.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

this is just objectively wrong lol, elie would get rated F/EF5/IF5 on any scale. it was likely the best constructed home ever hit by an EF5 tornado, and its damage gradients are obviously easily explainable due to its width compared to larger wedges. this is such a flawed argument lmao

This tornado was rated to have 140 MPH wind speeds, and none of the 3 houses it carried away even have pictures in the damage assessment toolkit lmao. The tornado hit like 10 houses and all the rest have pictures. Go ahead and note the telephone pole being ripped straight out of the ground and levitating for a full second before being tossed like a toothpick. 140 MPH, dude. indefensible.

If Eli Manitoba happened today we wouldn't know how well constructed the homes were. The survey team wouldn't document it. This thread contains proof that the same thing happened with Vilonia, Matador, Rolling fork, Mayfield, Goldsby, Greenfield, and so many others.

@slenker here's some good footage for your low pressure tornado research. Notice how the entire earth underneath and surrounding the houses begins to bulge upwards starting around 0:09. If you don't see it watch it on a computer monitor or blown up on your phone. it's wild. Maybe trenching has something to do with these quick pressure changes. Like the wind behaves with the physics of a shockwave? Or maybe it's just like vacuuming a big rug and the suction is doing all the work lol.

 

[TH2002]

The 4,500 to 45,000 number in the study I shared was derived from theoretical 170 MPH winds. It's really the 170-200 MPH tornadoes that matter. The 200 MPH+ ones will destroy everything regardless. Outside of hurricane zones, nothing is being built to withstand 170 MPH.

>20% of tornadoes have 170-200 MPH winds.
>5% have 200 MPH+.
According to the NWS it's 1% and 0%.

The NWS's official stance is that only tornadoes like Greenfield, Vilonia, Mayfield, Rolling Fork, Goldsby, Elkhorn, etc. have 170 MPH+ speeds. Not even Matador, New Wren, or Sulphur make the cut. Someone really needs to put a study together with some error corrected F ratings ASAP. Kinda crazy to think the 250 MPH+ tornadoes are the only ones getting correctly labeled as 170 MPH+, and we've been flying blind.

Side note: I hope Josh Wurman wins a nobel prize for his DOW research someday soon. I believe the work he's doing is that important.

Off-topic joke incoming but...

Josh Wurman didn't use enough bombs to win a Nobel "Peace" Prize

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Off-topic joke incoming but...

Josh Wurman didn't use enough bombs to win a Nobel "Peace" Prize

LOL. Back on topic. Super serious. What do you think the chances are the new EF scale adds a DI for the "functionality of Jacuzzis"? @joshoctober16 here's another contextual for your list! I think Marshall is really onto something here.


Or how about the DI "literally rolled Ted Fujita over in his grave"? How many rotations for an EF5 rating?

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

LOL. Back on topic. Super serious. What do you think the chances are the new EF scale adds a DI for the "functionality of Jacuzzis"? @joshoctober16 here's another contextual for your list! I think Marshall is really onto something here. The surveyors could even get a nice warm "test bath" while they're failing at their jobs as scientists.
View attachment 30027

Or how about the DI "literally rolled Ted Fujita over in his grave"? How many rotations for an EF5 rating?

Lol what?

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Lol what?

Science. That's what. Science and hot tubs.

 

[joshoctober16]

The 4,500 to 45,000 number in the study I shared was derived from theoretical 170 MPH winds. It's really the 170-200 MPH tornadoes that matter. The 200 MPH+ ones will destroy everything regardless. Outside of hurricane zones, nothing is being built to withstand 170 MPH.

>20% of tornadoes have 170-200 MPH winds.
>5% have 200 MPH+.
According to the NWS it's 1% and 0%.

The NWS's official stance is that only tornadoes like Greenfield, Vilonia, Mayfield, Rolling Fork, Goldsby, Elkhorn, etc. have 170 MPH+ speeds. Not even Matador, New Wren, or Sulphur make the cut. Someone really needs to put a study together with some error corrected F ratings ASAP. Kinda crazy to think the 250 MPH+ tornadoes are the only ones getting correctly labeled as 170 MPH+, and we've been flying blind.

Side note: I hope Josh Wurman wins a nobel prize for his DOW research someday. I believe the work he's doing is that important.

i think i clearly remember from josh wurman finding that the EF3 wind speed is the most common one of the bunch compared to NWS EF0

This tornado was rated to have 140 MPH wind speeds, and none of the 3 houses it carried away even have pictures in the damage assessment toolkit lmao. The tornado hit like 10 houses and all the rest have pictures. Go ahead and note the telephone pole being ripped straight out of the ground and levitating for a full second before being tossed like a toothpick. 140 MPH, dude. indefensible.

If Eli Manitoba happened today we wouldn't know how well constructed the homes were. The survey team wouldn't document it. This thread contains proof that the same thing happened with Vilonia, Matador, Rolling fork, Mayfield, Goldsby, Greenfield, and so many others.

@slenker here's some good footage for your low pressure tornado research. Notice how the entire earth underneath and surrounding the houses begins to bulge upwards starting around 0:09. If you don't see it watch it on a computer monitor or blown up on your phone. it's wild. Maybe trenching has something to do with these quick pressure changes. Like the wind behaves with the physics of a shockwave? Or maybe it's just like vacuuming a big rug and the suction is doing all the work lol.

agree with vilonia but wait were goldsby survey missing stuff? also for that tornado video its clear the main core was slightly smaller then the whole house it self , showing the strongest damage can be sharp and it has nothing to do with quality difference but the tornado core size

LOL. Back on topic. Super serious. What do you think the chances are the new EF scale adds a DI for the "functionality of Jacuzzis"? @joshoctober16 here's another contextual for your list! I think Marshall is really onto something here.
View attachment 30027

Or how about the DI "literally rolled Ted Fujita over in his grave"? How many rotations for an EF5 rating?

i don't think its going to work if its pulled out of the plumbing .... its clearly misplaced so i don't think its usable ..... but it is in one piece i guess