Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[buckeye05]

To switch gears a bit and get back to the topic at hand, I think one of the biggest issues for NWS damage surveyors is no formal education on tornado rating history. What I mean is, I strongly feel that there should be some training that involves “Here are some EF4 and EF5 tornadoes, and here is the reasoning behind the ratings”. It would include things like contextual factors, cases involving unusual DIs, and so on. I bet you could line up a bunch of random NWS employees and ask them about the rationale and reasoning behind previous EF5 ratings, and I really doubt you’d get detailed satisfactory responses from all but a few, if that. For example, a NWS buddy of mine who is incredibly intelligent and has conducted surveys himself was talking with me about the most violent tornadoes in recent memory. I brought up El Reno 2011 and he seemed perplexed, and asked if I meant 2013. It became apparent that he had never heard of the 2011 event at all. I mentioned the oil rig and tanker truck and he was quite skeptical, until I specifically sent him the photos, presentations, and survey info. He was completely floored by the insane damage, yet had never heard about it until that moment. Crazy right?

That’s just one person, and that to me is extremely concerning. If NWS employees don’t know the specific reasoning behind previous EF5 ratings, then EF5 damage will always be this ambiguous, unobtainable concept for them. Surveyors need reference points, precedent, and examples to base things off of, and there is no formal part of their training that provides that as far as I know. I truly believe it would fix so much, because they aren’t sitting around like us doing deep dives into past EF5s and the rating process behind each one.

EDIT: This contains some pretty personal anecdotes so I might delete it later, but it’s a real life example that proves my point

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

To switch gears a bit and get back to the topic at hand, I think one of the biggest issues for NWS damage surveyors is no formal education on tornado rating history. What I mean is, I strongly feel that there should be some training that involves “Here are some EF4 and EF5 tornadoes, and here is the reasoning behind the ratings”. It would include things like contextual factors, cases involving unusual DIs, and so on. I bet you could line up a bunch of random NWS employees and ask them about the rationale and reasoning behind previous EF5 ratings, and I really doubt you’d get detailed satisfactory responses from all but a few, if that. For example, a NWS buddy of mine who is incredibly intelligent and has conducted surveys himself was talking with me about the most violent tornadoes in recent memory. I brought up El Reno 2011 and he seemed perplexed, and asked if I meant 2013. It became apparent that he had never heard of the 2011 event at all. I mentioned the oil rig and tanker truck and he was quite skeptical, until I specifically sent him the photos, presentations, and survey info. He was completely floored by the insane damage, yet had never heard about it until that moment. Crazy right?

That’s just one person, and that to me is extremely concerning. If NWS employees don’t know the specific reasoning behind previous EF5 ratings, then EF5 damage will always be this ambiguous, unobtainable concept for them. Surveyors need reference points, precedent, and examples to base things off of, and there is no formal part of their training that provides that as far as I know. I truly believe it would fix so much, because they aren’t sitting around like us doing deep dives into past EF5s and the rating process behind each one.

EDIT: This contains some pretty personal anecdotes so I might delete it later, but it’s a real life example that proves my point

I think you're trying to find a solution within a framework that is fundamentally broken and encourages subjectivity. If the EF scale is truly a damage scale then damage alone should be rated. If there are contextual factors that skew the ratings, it needs to be specifically outlined in writing. Rate the damage in a consistent way, regardless of any external factors because that's the entire point of a damage scale. Maximum damage to a home, needs to receive the maximum damage rating.

If we're rating tornadoes based on potential wind speeds., contextual indicators need to be clearly outlined and CONSISTENTLY included in surveys. As of now, the only time ground scouring and debarking are considered, is when it's missing. It is entirely ignored in the context of upgrading wind speeds. If ground scouring and full debarking of trees is an indicator of extreme winds, every tornado that has done it needs to receive a higher rating, regardless of what structures it hit.

Ultimately, you're failing to acknowledge that your perspective is anchored within the bounds of the current system without acknowledging how the system is fundamentally useless without a clearly defined objective. Your solution still only benefits tornado enthusiasts and surveyors, because we're the only ones who understand it, and it does nothing for climate science or risk mitigation. Why does it matter if surveyors understand past EF4s and EF5s when the way those tornadoes were measured is broken? The only way it could work is if previous failed ratings were corrected so that all the ratings are consistent across the board.

 

[buckeye05]

I think you're trying to find a solution within a framework that is fundamentally broken and encourages subjectivity. If the EF scale is truly a damage scale then damage alone should be rated. If there are contextual factors that skew the ratings, it needs to be specifically outlined in writing. Rate the damage in a consistent way, regardless of any external factors because that's the entire point of a damage scale. Maximum damage to a home, needs to receive the maximum damage rating.

If we're rating tornadoes based on potential wind speeds., contextual indicators need to be clearly outlined and CONSISTENTLY included in surveys. As of now, the only time ground scouring and debarking are considered, is when it's missing. It is entirely ignored in the context of upgrading wind speeds. If ground scouring and full debarking of trees is an indicator of extreme winds, every tornado that has done it needs to receive a higher rating, regardless of what structures it hit.

Ultimately, you're failing to acknowledge that your perspective is anchored within the bounds of the current system without acknowledging how the system is fundamentally useless without a clearly defined objective. Your solution still only benefits tornado enthusiasts and surveyors, because we're the only ones who understand it, and it does nothing for climate science or risk mitigation. Why does it matter if surveyors understand past EF4s and EF5s when the way those tornadoes were measured is broken? The only way it could work is if previous failed ratings were corrected.

Other than the fact that there should be more, there is nothing wrong with the reasoning behind the handful of official EF5 rated tornadoes since 2007, and they make good reference points. That’s the meat of my statement. Yes there’s issues across the board, but at this point you’re using any prompt to assert your previously discussed viewpoint about the whole scale being useless as fact, and go on tangents about a broader topic not directly related to what I’m talking about, and it’s drenched in self importance, so dial it back.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Other than the fact that there should be more, there is nothing wrong with the reasoning behind the handful of official EF5 rated tornadoes since 2007, and they make good reference points. That’s the meat of my statement. Yes there’s issues across the board, but you’re using any prompt to assert your previously discussed viewpoint as fact and go on tangents not directly to what I’m talking about, and it’s drenched in self importance, so dial it back.

I'm trying to make the point that there is no way to salvage the EF scale in any meaningful way that solves the disconnect from reality we've been seeing. Not trying to sound smug, it just feels like I'm taking crazy pills trying to make people see it. I definitely respect your expertise and knowledge on the topic.

If the current scrutiny was applied to all past EF5s the only tornado that would still receive that rating is Parkersburg. What it means is that there is no clearly defined reason those tornadoes received their EF5 rating. It's not that surveyors are uninformed, it's that they're misinformed and misguided. NWS Little Rock, Tulsa, Des Moines, Chicago, Paducah, Jackson, Topeka, Birmingham, Lubbock, Memphis, and Fargo just off the top of my head are all guilty of egregiously underrating violent tornadoes. It's a systemic problem. Most of those offices have been involved with surveying F5 and EF5 tornadoes in the past too, so they had precedent to work with, and are no longer using it. The problem isn't that they need more training. They need a new system, and new leadership to implement it.

 

[TH2002]

Speaking of which… where are Shakespeare and tornado examiner lmao

Shakespeare is a good friend of mine and he's fine, just busy with college classes lately. Not sure about tornado examiner, but I'm sure he's still lurking...

Though in any case I'd be lying if I said I condone his posts in the Matador thread lol

 

[buckeye05]

I'm trying to make the point that there is no way to salvage the EF scale in any meaningful way that solves the disconnect from reality we've been seeing. Not trying to sound smug, it just feels like I'm taking crazy pills trying to make people see it. I definitely respect your expertise and knowledge on the topic.

If the current scrutiny was applied to all past EF5s the only tornado that would still receive that rating is Parkersburg. What it means is that there is no clearly defined reason those tornadoes received their EF5 rating. It's not that surveyors are uninformed, it's that they're misinformed and misguided. NWS Little Rock, Tulsa, Des Moines, Chicago, Paducah, Jackson, Topeka, Birmingham, Lubbock, Memphis, and Fargo just off the top of my head are all guilty of egregiously underrating violent tornadoes. Most of those offices have been involved with surveying F5 and EF5 tornadoes in the past too, so they had precedent to work with, and are no longer using it. The problem isn't that they need more training. They need a new system, and new leadership to implement it.

Parkersburg??? I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but that’s not a fact, but an assumption with nothing tangible to support it beyond your own personal interpretation of the situation. You have absolutely no objective way of knowing what would happen. It would be reasonable to infer that Rainsville, El Reno-Piedmont, and Philadelphia may end up on the chopping block due to use of non established DIs, but every other tornado produced the simple textbook definition of EF5 damage: Well-built structures slabbed with extreme contextual damage to support it. That’s what I go by, that’s what everyone else on this forum who is interested in this topic goes by, and is still the most agreed-upon definition of EF5 damage. To suggest Smithville wouldn’t make the cut, yet Parkersburg would is a show of subjectivity and overconfidence in your own personal viewpoint, period.

You’re entitled to your opinions, but to confidently say “this is what would happen” is asserting that your opinion and any prediction you base it off of is fact, which it isn’t. You’re blurring the line between personal opinion and fact, repeatedly.

 

[TH2002]

Let me just say that this page of the thread now reminds me of a previous skirmish between buckeye and another certain poster - albeit more civil this time, thankfully.

@Grand Poo Bah, not accusing you of doing this, but being closed-minded is detrimental if you're trying to make an argument. The "certain poster" I'm referring to went as far as to make up things about the Mayfield tornado that weren't true in order to further dig in to his "nah I'm right" approach, even when provided with evidence to the contrary.

Don't be like that guy.

(and @buckeye05 probably knows who I'm referring to...)

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Parkersburg??? I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but that’s not a fact, but an assumption with nothing tangible to support it beyond your own personal interpretation of the situation. You have absolutely no objective way of knowing what would happen. It would be reasonable to infer that Rainsville, El Reno-Piedmont, and Philadelphia may end up on the chopping block due to use of non established DIs, but every other tornado produced the simple textbook definition of EF5 damage: Well-built structures slabbed with extreme contextual damage to support it. That’s what I go by, that’s what everyone else on this forum who is interested in this topic goes by, and is still the most agreed-upon definition of EF5 damage. To suggest Smithville wouldn’t make the cut, yet Parkersburg would is a show of subjectivity and overconfidence in your own personal viewpoint, period.

You’re entitled to your opinions, but to confidently say “this is what would happen” is asserting that your opinion and any prediction you base it off of is fact, which it isn’t. You’re blurring the line between personal opinion and fact, repeatedly.

Here's what I was referencing in regards to my Parkersburg comment (from 6:08 to 9:33). I forgot this point is more well known on Reddit than here so that's why I didn't share the source with my last comment. I understand you disagree with me, but it's not fair to say I'm pushing opinion as fact, or act like I'm blowing hot air. I've shared several sources to back up my viewpoints, including pictures, NWS training modules, and multiple peer reviewed, published studies.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Let me just say that this page of the thread now reminds me of a previous skirmish between buckeye and another certain poster - albeit more civil this time, thankfully.

@Grand Poo Bah, not accusing you of doing this, but being closed-minded is detrimental if you're trying to make an argument. The "certain poster" I'm referring to went as far as to make up things about the Mayfield tornado that weren't true in order to further dig in to his "nah I'm right" approach, even when provided with evidence to the contrary.

Don't be like that guy.

(and @buckeye05 probably knows who I'm referring to...)

I know what you're referring to because I read all 38 pages of this thread before making my first comment. I'll continue being civil and not making claims without evidence. I'm also open to changing my views if provided evidence or a solid argument in opposition of them.

 

[buckeye05]

Sorry, but that changes nothing. To confidently say that Parkersburg would be the proverbial last man standing upon 2020s reanalysis standing is still a huge, sweeping, ill-informed, subjective assumption, period. I’m specifically talking about that, and I don’t event want to be. A YouTube video that cherry picks and extrapolates bad decisions from specific problematic WFOs, and presents them as one homogeneous standard does not bolster your stance either. You’re taking a YouTuber’s analysis of the status quo as fact, and not factoring in the variance of EF scale application among WFOs, which is a problem in itself. So yeah, sorry, that is absolutely some hot air being blown here because it is a mix of cherry picking, and broad extrapolation. You simply can’t assert “this is definitely what would happen” based on that video. You just don’t know, and guess what, neither do I! The most reasonable inference that can be made is that some EF5 ratings based on non-traditional DIs might not make the cut. Anything beyond that is opinion-based prediction, and that’s the bottom line.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Sorry, but that changes nothing. To confidently say that Parkersburg would be the proverbial last man standing upon 2020s reanalysis standing is still a huge, sweeping, ill-informed, subjective assumption, period. I’m specifically talking about that, and I don’t event want to be. A YouTube video that cherry picks and extrapolates bad decisions from specific problematic WFOs, and presents them as one homogeneous standard does not bolster your stance either. You’re taking a YouTuber’s analysis of the status quo as fact, and not factoring in the variance of EF scale application among WFOs, which is a problem in itself. So yeah, sorry, that is absolutely some hot air being blown here because it is a mix of cherry picking, and broad extrapolation. You simply can’t assert “this is definitely what would happen” based on that video. You just don’t know, and guess what, neither do I! The most reasonable inference that can be made is that some EF5 ratings based on non-traditional DIs might not make the cut. Anything beyond that is opinion-based prediction, and that’s the bottom line.

Alright, then we can agree to disagree and i'll drop it. However, I will say you're definitely under selling June First, and the thoroughness of his research, plus his contributions to tornado/engineering education. He's done more research than most people on the topic, and his claims have complete merit, plus my full respect, even when I disagree with some of his conclusions.

 

[buckeye05]

Let me just say that this page of the thread now reminds me of a previous skirmish between buckeye and another certain poster - albeit more civil this time, thankfully.

@Grand Poo Bah, not accusing you of doing this, but being closed-minded is detrimental if you're trying to make an argument. The "certain poster" I'm referring to went as far as to make up things about the Mayfield tornado that weren't true in order to further dig in to his "nah I'm right" approach, even when provided with evidence to the contrary.

Don't be like that guy.

(and @buckeye05 probably knows who I'm referring to...)

Update on that:

Did some DMing and I figured it out. Turns out the guy lived near the Mayfield-Bremen path, and immediately became enthralled with the idea that “his” tornado was an EF5 and being able to boast that he surveyed EF5 damage, and when that didn’t pan out, he couldn’t accept it and kinda went loopy, making an ExtremePlanet/Stormstalker type blog and vandalizing Wikipedia repeatedly to further his agenda, despite him not really knowing what he was talking about, and his motives being rooted in a really weird personal investment in the rating of that specific tornado. When I confronted him about that he basically deflected and indirectly admitted that was the case. He also said that “my” EF4 in Dayton was “weak sauce” or something weird and childish like that, which gives a glimpse into his mindset. Dude just had a childish obsession with that tornado because he saw it as “his”, and falsely assumed that I also had a strange investment in tornadoes in my locale, which gives quite a bit of insight. Its just immaturity and coping,

In reality, I care about the ratings of all tornadoes equally, be it in my backyard or on the other side of the globe.

 

[AJS]

Update on that:

Did some DMing and I figured it out. Turns out the guy lived near the Mayfield-Bremen path, and immediately became enthralled with the idea that “his” tornado was an EF5 and being able to boast that he surveyed EF5 damage, and when that didn’t pan out, he couldn’t accept it and kinda went loopy, making an ExtremePlanet/Stormstalker type blog and vandalizing Wikipedia repeatedly to further his agenda, despite him not really knowing what he was talking about and having a really weird personal investment in that tornado because it was “local”. When I confronted him about that he basically deflected and indirectly admitted that was the case. He also said that “my” EF4 in Dayton was “weak sauce” or something weird and childish like that, which gives a glimpse into his mindset. Dude had a weird obsession with that tornado because he saw it as “his”, and falsely assumed that I also had a strange investment in tornadoes in my locale, which gives quite a bit of insight. Its just immaturity and coping,

In reality, I care about the ratings of all tornadoes equally, be it in my backyard or on the other side of the globe.

If I recall, he said the Dayton tornado was “ extremely mid. “

Maybe that’s how we should rate tornadoes from now on lol.

 

[buckeye05]

If I recall, he said the Dayton tornado was “ extremely mid. “

Maybe that’s how we should rate tornadoes from now on lol.

Yup that’s what it was. When I DMed him about my suspicion, all he could do was make fun of the Dayton tornado. It was genuinely bizarre.

 

[AJS]

Yup that’s what it was. When I DMed him about my suspicion, all he could do was make fun of the Dayton tornado. It was genuinely bizarre.

Some people are strange.

 

[AJS]

I actually found the Dayton tornado to be quite interesting. Upon looking at the damage present from the tornado, I was a bit shocked to see it got an EF4 rating. From what i’ve heard, it was due to some heavily damaged apartment buildings. But also due to some truly intense tree damage near the river.

 

[buckeye05]

I actually found the Dayton tornado to be quite interesting. Upon looking at the damage present from the tornado, I was a bit shocked to see it got an EF4 rating. From what i’ve heard, it was due to some heavily damaged apartment buildings. But also due to some truly intense tree damage near the river.

I was pretty surprised myself. There was a relatively small area of violent looking tree damage by the river, but I never expected the apartment building damage to be rated any higher than EF3.

 

[AJS]

I was pretty surprised myself. There was a small area of violent looking tree damage by the River, but I never expected the apartment building damage to be rated any higher than EF3.

I actually am fascinated with that whole outbreak sequence. I mean, from what I can remember, a 2 week period filled with pronounced tornadic activity with I believe well over 300 tornadoes was truly remarkable. I do believe some tornadoes from that sequence get overlooked. One being the Laverne, Oklahoma tornado. This tornado caused immense damage to vehicles and from what I can recall, produced some severe tree damage consistent with a violent tornado.

 

[AJS]

Oh btw since i’m feeling nostalgic, I might as well tell y’all remember a user named speedbump something, that was me on my old account lol. I was scrolling through the old pages of significant tornado events and my gosh I never realized how scatterbrained and hyper I was. I’m surprised I actually didn’t get banned for posting too much!

 

[TH2002]

Oh btw since i’m feeling nostalgic, I might as well tell y’all remember a user named speedbump something, that was me on my old account lol. I was scrolling through the old pages of significant tornado events and my gosh I never realized how scatterbrained and hyper I was. I’m surprised I actually didn’t get banned for posting too much!

Ok now I'm beyond curious... if you don't mind me asking, how old were you when you were using that account?

I first joined this forum when I was 18, and let me just say that some of my old posts are cringeworthy to read now lol