• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER

Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

tornado examiner said:
It is definitely a result of cleanup these images were taken in early may.
View attachment 34431
This is an image taken earlier and you can see that one home doesn't have all the dozer tracks around it here.
Click to expand...
My brother's house was at the bottom left of the picture. It's the only one that has any part of the home standing. There is a pool behind the house. Anyone at home who was not underground in that neighborhood died.
 
buckeye05 said:
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
Click to expand...
I think you’re onto something here.

The WFOs for the EF5s on 4/27/11 used a lot of context/precedent correctly in application of the scale (cited in Lyza’s recent research, specifically the use of context correctly). All the MICs in those offices were extremely experienced and have now retired so a new generation has taken their place without a lot of that institutional knowledge and prior experience.


Now, I know experience =/= competence,
like the case of Robinson.

It’s easy to forget damage surveys are just a tiny part of a NWS office’s responsibilities. There does seem to be numerous examples of instances where they aren’t aware of all the different precedents or reference points of EF scale application. Just like you cited in your anecdote.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
This is really disappointing from you. @TH2002. You've been here since the beginning of this thread but are making fun of one of its most valuable contributors. What kind of ego does it take to dismiss something that required as much research and work as his list did without providing anything yourself? Don't shoot the messenger just because he gathered accurate data and presented it to you, but you didn't like it.

My god, you guys sure are preachy about keeping things civilized, but have been doing nothing but provoking and poking fun at other users for at least the last 10 pages. I've ignored it up to this point, but teasing someone who has been nothing but respectful and thoughtful is a step too far.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't even be responding to this nonsense, but here I go...

First off, calling his list "accurate data" does not an argument make. I don't think I need to explain why, but apparently something as obvious as seeing tornadoes labeled "F6" goes over your head.

And if you want to talk about ego, maybe you should take a look at yourself in the mirror, because you've been provided with TONS of evidence and information refuting your viewpoint that the EF scale is fundamentally useless and beyond repair, yet all you can do is dig your heels in and subtly dismiss or gloss over any counter points made to you.

And I've been 'doing nothing' but provoking and making fun of people? Care to provide some other examples of this? I'll concede that I went a bit too far on page 59, but when I mentioned "certain posters", I did so without mentioning any names and to prove a point.

The bottom line - if you're unwilling to grow and learn, so be it. But if you don't like having your viewpoint challenged, don't post on the internet. Simple as that.
 
TH2002 said:
First off, calling his list "accurate data" does not an argument make. I don't think I need to explain why, but apparently something as obvious as seeing tornadoes labeled "F6" goes over your head.
Click to expand...

Even if you eliminate the errors you and Buckeye spotted, the list still points to the same conclusion. You can disagree with it, dismantle it, or call it irrelevant, but it is still a useful tool to show the faults in logic and total lack of consistency from the NWS. Which you both already agree exists. It also corroborates and gives clarity to June First's research.

1741063732850.png


Making fun of him was unnecessary and shows a clear lack of appreciation for "high effort" contributions to this debate. His other list with modified tornado ratings, while pretty out there, is still interesting and creative. The point system he created and amount of detail he put into it is commendable. The inclusion of F6 ratings, I assume, is because even Ted Fujita believed F6 tornadoes existed, and he originally wanted to give Xenia that rating. Fascination and dedication like his is the type of energy that advances science, and it should be nurtured. Especially in a place like this, where members pride themselves on being open and accepting.

I understand you both disagree, which you're free to do. Multiple other users and I, are just asking you to be more respectful.

TH2002 said:
And I've been 'doing nothing' but provoking and making fun of people? Care to provide some other examples of this? I'll concede that I went a bit too far on page 59, but when I mentioned "certain posters", I did so without mentioning any names and to prove a point.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about just you. I'm just seeing a lot of old debates being brought up on multiple different topics, making fun of users for their "outlandish" viewpoints. Just seems pointless and irrelevant, and contradictory to the claims that this is a website that accepts everyone.

I don't want to keep arguing about this. It's derailing the entire thread. I've agreed with all of your comments and your contributions are unmatched. I just saw my dude @joshoctober16 taking unnecessary (and serious) heat, and had to jump in to defend him. I have never once insinuated I don't like having my viewpoint challenged, I have been nothing but civil (other than my one comment blowing up at you two. Sorry about that), and I don't appreciate all the actual insults being slung my way in recent comments. It's taking concentrated effort to not address them. Please show me (and other users) the same courtesy.
 
Last edited:
Grand Poo Bah said:
Even if you eliminate the errors you and Buckeye spotted, the list still points to the same conclusion. You can disagree with it, dismantle it, or call it irrelevant, but it is still a useful tool to show the faults in logic and total lack of consistency from the NWS. Which you both already agree exists. It also corroborates and gives clarity to June First's research.

View attachment 34500


Making fun of him was unnecessary and shows a clear lack of appreciation for "high effort" contributions to this debate. His other list with modified tornado ratings, while pretty out there, is still interesting and creative. The point system he created and amount of detail he put into it is commendable. The inclusion of F6 ratings, I assume, is because even Ted Fujita believed F6 tornadoes existed, and he originally wanted to give Xenia that rating. Fascination and dedication like his is the type of energy that advances science, and it should be nurtured. Especially in a place like this, where members pride themselves on being open and accepting.

I understand you both disagree, which you're free to do. Multiple other users and I, are just asking you to be more respectful.



I wasn't talking about just you. I'm just seeing a lot of old debates being brought up on multiple different topics, making fun of users for their "outlandish" viewpoints. Just seems pointless and irrelevant, and contradictory to the claims that this is a website that accepts everyone.

I don't want to keep arguing about this. It's derailing the entire thread. I've agreed with all of your comments and your contributions are unmatched. I just saw my dude @joshoctober16 taking unnecessary (and serious) heat, and had to jump in to defend him. I have never once insinuated I don't like having my viewpoint challenged, I have been nothing but civil (other than my one comment blowing up at you two. Sorry about that), and I don't appreciate all the actual insults being slung my way in recent comments. It's taking concentrated effort to not address them. Please show me (and other users) the same courtesy.
Click to expand...
im not sure what is going on now but from what im getting is TH2002 finds fujita's rating bad or something? (sorry im tired so i might seem a bit confused right now)
EF5 NWS Bias issue.png
note here is the up to date version of this
Greensburg and phil campbell needed some change.
 
@Grand Poo Bah

Sit by the campfire because I'm gonna tell you a short story that is a personal admission on my end: People who know me superficially have always told me that I'm a nice guy. People who have lived with me have always told me I have a very hard personality to get along with. This is for a plethora of reasons - many of which I don't feel comfortable sharing on this thread, so feel free to PM me if you'd like. If I come across as arrogant in my posts, I'm honestly not trying to be, even if I admittedly have an attitude here and there.

I'll explain it one final time: that list of "why no EF5's would get that rating today" assumes that every NWS WFO applies Vilonia-style logic to their damage surveys, which is not true. Period.

Did I go a bit too far by making fun of @joshoctober16? Yes, I'll admit it, and I extend my apologies to him. Did his chart about modified tornado ratings probably take a long time to create, and is it creative and interesting? Also yes. But at the end of the day, it is not actual science and should not be presented as such. And if pseudoscience is posted anywhere on this site and presented as fact, expect to be called out for it. If said chart was something that was created by a team of actual meteorologists, engineers and others with the proper credentials, it would be a different story, but that is not what we're dealing with here.

I can argue till the cows come home that "I believe Smithville had over 300 mph winds based on the damage it did", but at the end of the day, I have to present that argument for what it is - my subjective opinion.

Regarding that comment where you blew up at me, apology accepted. I apologize for doing the same, and I know the both of us are ready to move on from this. Let me now say that you, me and everyone else who participates in this thread can have a seat at the dinner table, and go back to civil discussions about tornado ratings.
 
joshoctober16 said:
well near hospitals are a lot of cars , they would problobly say debris hitting the hospital is what made it seem more EF5
View attachment 34502
like how they rated this swept clean brick home as EF2 120-130 mph damage because debris MIGHT of hit it.
Click to expand...

It'd go a long way if leadership at the NWS and ASCE would show some accountability, and amend previous ratings in a more consistent manner. We've lost 11 years of good climate science and would essentially be flying blind if it weren't for the Doppler on Wheels team and NOAA's tremendous effort compiling 20 years of reliable data, to shine a spotlight on the truth of tornado wind speeds.

tornado examiner said:
In order for a tornado to receive an EF5 rating now its gonna have to be a hospital being leveled or something.
Click to expand...

My statements have been pretty misinterpreted, but this is essentially why I've called the EF scale useless. If tornadoes, which mostly occur in rural areas and small towns, have to hit a direct bullseye on an exceptionally well built structure AND meet a myriad of contextual standards to be accurately categorized, what's the point? Even if the scale was used purely as it's written (which it's not), and well built, slabbed homes received the maximum rating, regardless of context, that'd still leave the glaring issue that the estimated wind speeds are way too low. It'd be forgivable however, because at least ratings would be consistent and tornadoes would be categorized in a productive way.

The problem with the proposed solution of leaving everything pretty much as is, but with better educated surveyors, is it would exacerbate the issues we already have with NWS offices being understaffed and stretched thin. We just simply don't have the resources to conduct the type of in depth surveys that consider every little microscopic detail (Edit: especially considering they're being gutted as we speak). We need less specificity, not more.

Most of you are too young to remember that pretty much anyone used to be able to tell a tornado's rating just based on a few pictures.
- Missing roofs, and 2nd floor walls knocked down was F3
- Fully or Mostly collapsed houses was F4
- Clean Slabs was F5

It really was that simple for the most part (outside of a few stretches of increased/decreased strictness). Tornadoes were categorized in a consistent way that helped both community managers, and climate scientists. The problems with build quality that lead to the creation of the EF scale, were much less consequential (even trivial) compared the ones we have today. Genuine question, what's the WORST possible outcome of using more broad criteria, and potentially overrating a few tornadoes? How does that compare to the consequences of consistently underrating them by 20, 40, or even 100 mph?
 
Last edited:
Grand Poo Bah said:
Please don't. You insulted him, he got a little cheeky. It's a fair play. Leave it alone.
Click to expand...
...what?

I didn't think he was being cheeky, I was genuinely curious what he meant. Now you're just taking well meaning comments personal.

I'm really trying to be nice, but you continually snapping at me is wearing my patience thin.

Can we PLEASE go back to civil discussions about tornado ratings?
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
It'd go a long way if leadership at the NWS and ASCE would show some accountability, and amend previous ratings in a more consistent manner. We've lost 11 years of good climate science and would essentially be flying blind if it weren't for the Doppler on Wheels team and NOAA's tremendous effort compiling 20 years of reliable data, to shine a spotlight on the truth of tornado wind speeds.



My statements have been pretty misinterpreted, but this is essentially why I've called the EF scale useless. If tornadoes, which mostly occur in rural areas and small towns, have to hit a direct bullseye on an exceptionally well built structure AND meet a myriad of contextual standards to be accurately categorized, what's the point? Even if the scale was used purely as it's written (which it's not), and well built, slabbed homes received the maximum rating, regardless of context, that'd still leave the glaring issue that the estimated wind speeds are way too low. It'd be forgivable however, because at least ratings would be consistent and tornadoes would be categorized in a productive way.

The problem with the proposed solution of leaving everything pretty much as is, but with better educated surveyors, is it would exacerbate the issues we already have with NWS offices being understaffed and stretched thin. We just simply don't have the resources to conduct the type of in depth surveys that consider every little microscopic detail (Edit: especially considering they're being gutted as we speak). We need less specificity, not more.

Most of you are too young to remember that pretty much anyone used to be able to tell a tornado's rating just based on a few pictures.
- Missing roofs, and 2nd floor walls knocked down was F3
- Fully or Mostly collapsed houses was F4
- Clean Slabs was F5

It really was that simple for the most part (outside of a few stretches of increased/decreased strictness). Tornadoes were categorized in a consistent way that helped both community managers, and climate scientists. The problems with build quality that lead to the creation of the EF scale, were much less consequential (even trivial) compared the ones we have today. Genuine question, what's the WORST possible outcome of using more broad criteria, and potentially overrating a few tornadoes? How does that compare to the consequences of consistently underrating them by 20, 40, or even 100 mph?
Click to expand...
I guess you could say some consequences if they were underrated could be not taking tornadoes seriously? The younger generation (myself and others) are dependent to learn and study what the WFO’s are doing right now when it comes to rating tornadoes. It’s kinda a monkey see monkey do scenario. It baffles me that one meteorologist @buckeye05 mentioned didn’t even know about the 2011 El-Reno EF5. How are others going to know how significant tornadoes actually are if they don’t get the rating they deserve by the offices the younger generation is dependent on? How are you going to know how to rate a violent tornado if you don’t have a reference to see what a violent tornado truly is? How is the public who knows a little bit about tornadoes going to treat them if they get a lousy rating?

Some of the WFO actually know how to do a proper methodical rating when it comes to tornadoes. I’d much rather have a tornado that takes a couple months for their rating to be finalized than a tornado take 2 days and be much under its true and deserved rating. Rolling Fork for example, I just wonder if other WFO’s actually take notice on how they rated that tornado (I think it was Jackson? Correct me if I’m wrong.) There is definitely a psychological defect when it comes to rating tornadoes. I think someone mentioned it before how it’s almost like they know what the true rating is but they don’t want to be “the one” to rate a certain tornado an EF5. But this isn’t even about an EF5’s anymore. This is spilling into what’s a HE EF3 to a LE EF4. I can wish all I want, but I wish we could go back to rating storms with contextuals being included. It gives a us a much deeper and clearer understanding of tornadoes and it also helps us be able to rate them going forward.
 
TH2002 said:
@Grand Poo Bah

Sit by the campfire because I'm gonna tell you a short story that is a personal admission on my end: People who know me superficially have always told me that I'm a nice guy. People who have lived with me have always told me I have a very hard personality to get along with. This is for a plethora of reasons - many of which I don't feel comfortable sharing on this thread, so feel free to PM me if you'd like. If I come across as arrogant in my posts, I'm honestly not trying to be, even if I admittedly have an attitude here and there.

I'll explain it one final time: that list of "why no EF5's would get that rating today" assumes that every NWS WFO applies Vilonia-style logic to their damage surveys, which is not true. Period.

Did I go a bit too far by making fun of @joshoctober16? Yes, I'll admit it, and I extend my apologies to him. Did his chart about modified tornado ratings probably take a long time to create, and is it creative and interesting? Also yes. But at the end of the day, it is not actual science and should not be presented as such. And if pseudoscience is posted anywhere on this site and presented as fact, expect to be called out for it. If said chart was something that was created by a team of actual meteorologists, engineers and others with the proper credentials, it would be a different story, but that is not what we're dealing with here.

I can argue till the cows come home that "I believe Smithville had over 300 mph winds based on the damage it did", but at the end of the day, I have to present that argument for what it is - my subjective opinion.

Regarding that comment where you blew up at me, apology accepted. I apologize for doing the same, and I know the both of us are ready to move on from this. Let me now say that you, me and everyone else who participates in this thread can have a seat at the dinner table, and go back to civil discussions about tornado ratings.
Click to expand...
i don't even remember you making fun of me , i guess i just somehow glossed over it... (sleepy reason) anyhow for the EF5 chart thing that's the whole point of it its showing how much of charry picking the high end tornadoes have to go thru since 2014 , its also show that there are only 3 options if we want it to be very science base
1:keep it how it is and be very unscientific
2:all tornadoes have the same bias and we upgrade likely 12+ EF4 to EF5 (villonia gets EF5)
3:all tornadoes have the same bias and we downgrade 95% of all past F5/EF5 tornadoes (for villonia to stay to EF4)

remember if we want it to be science base then a rule that happens for upgrading or downgrading a tornado HAS to apply to all.
meaning if we don't use DOW like for el reno 2013 then we would have to downgrade the rozel EF4.
if a tree stands 50 yards is a reason to downgrade a tornado.... then sadly this has to go into effect for all... meaning most EF5 would be downgraded, like Rainsville 2011.

right now we are stuck with option number one ... the only one that will keep making a mess of the EF scale.

i find it embarrassing we call new Wren a EF3 and the Belmond October F5 as it is

its annoying for me to look at EF scale time tornadoes and go : wow that's very under rated
and its also annoying for me to look at tornadoes before 1990 and go: wow that's very over rated

i find both scales to be too much to one extreme

lets not find evrey reason to upgrade or downgrade a tornado but instead focus on the MOST likely? (mean or average) and not (MAX (F scale) or MIN (EF scale))

imagen scientist trying to measure star size and picking the smallest/largest 0.1 % chance size they can have.
 
Brice W said:
I guess you could say some consequences if they were underrated could be not taking tornadoes seriously? The younger generation (myself and others) are dependent to learn and study what the WFO’s are doing right now when it comes to rating tornadoes. It’s kinda a monkey see monkey do scenario. It baffles me that one meteorologist @buckeye05 mentioned didn’t even know about the 2011 El-Reno EF5. How are others going to know how significant tornadoes actually are if they don’t get the rating they deserve by the offices the younger generation is dependent on? How are you going to know how to rate a violent tornado if you don’t have a reference to see what a violent tornado truly is? How is the public who knows a little bit about tornadoes going to treat them if they get a lousy rating?

Some of the WFO actually know how to do a proper methodical rating when it comes to tornadoes. I’d much rather have a tornado that takes a couple months for their rating to be finalized than a tornado take 2 days and be much under its true and deserved rating. Rolling Fork for example, I just wonder if other WFO’s actually take notice on how they rated that tornado (I think it was Jackson? Correct me if I’m wrong.) There is definitely a psychological defect when it comes to rating tornadoes. I think someone mentioned it before how it’s almost like they know what the true rating is but they don’t want to be “the one” to rate a certain tornado an EF5. But this isn’t even about an EF5’s anymore. This is spilling into what’s a HE EF3 to a LE EF4. I can wish all I want, but I wish we could go back to rating storms with contextuals being included. It gives a us a much deeper and clearer understanding of tornadoes and it also helps us be able to rate them going forward.
Click to expand...

This is going to be an extremely controversial take in here (though it shouldn't be), and i'll preface by saying this is purely my personal opinion. If you want to learn how to properly rate tornadoes, ignore every survey from the last 15 years and start studying in the 90s. Not trying to be an old man shouting at clouds saying everything was better in the old days. It's just everyone was pretty much in agreement then. Tornado science was much more exciting, and the general public respected them so much more. Watch "Mr. Tornado" on PBS and "Storm Stories" by the weather channel (every episode is available on Youtube). You'll immediately notice a fascination and excitement with tornadoes that just doesn't really exist as much today. Context was used when adequate structures weren't present, and that was uncontroversial and fine. Hell, it was actually encouraged. It really feels like more veteran scientists and meteorologists decided we peaked in 2011 and we didn't really need to do anything else.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top