Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[CheeselandSkies]

I've got a bunch of tornado wind studies I found in the significant tornado thread I still need to read through. I don't know what type of winds are required to lift a whole house "Wizard of Oz" style, but I hope to find the answers there. I can share what I have downloaded if anyone else would be interested in reading them! If I find anything concrete I'll share it in here, even if it contradicts my current beliefs.

At one point I ran across a video showing what appeared to be a whole house being launched, largely otherwise intact, out of the funnel of the main Pilger 2014 EF4. Unfortunately the original upload was removed from YouTube.

The same moment is at roughly 0:48-0:49 in this video (close to the ground, not the big piece of debris that flies around higher up a few seconds earlier), but I could swear the one I saw before showed it from closer and in better quality.

 

[buckeye05]

I don't doubt that OUN is one of the WFO's that has the potential to end the EF5 drought, and that their survey of the Moore 2013 tornado is pretty much a perfect model of what exactly damage surveys should look like.

Still, 5/24/2011 isn't the only time they've screwed up...

Coincidentally, today is the 10th anniversary of one of those occasions - the 2015 Moore tornado they not only failed to issue a warning for, but gave a 115MPH EF2 rating. Even worse, they gave this DI a whopping 113MPH wind speed estimate. Come on... this is at least high-end EF2 damage, probably minimal EF3.

And enter the 2023 Cheyenne tornado, which produced impressive contextual damage - a mobile home was obliterated with its frame mangled and debris scattered long distances, trees were denuded with some spotty debarking and even some ground scouring occurred. What rating did they give it? High-end EF2.

Yeah true those are both admittedly head scratchers.

When it comes to Moore 2015, I thinks it’s literally a case of trying to downplay and save face after getting caught with their pants down so to speak. I specifically remember how the narrative shifted from “it was straight-line wind damage” to “it was straight line wind damage with some gustnado activity” to “straight-wind damage with intermittent weak tornadic spinups” to “it was an intermittent low-end EF2”. The reality of the situation is that a strong tornado hit Moore while unwarned, and it wasn’t really low-end. That’s a tough pill to swallow.

For Cheyenne? Yeah I have no idea. Even the “good ones” aren’t always perfect, and I’m just glad it’s not the norm with that office. Even JAN, who I generally trust, has made a couple of calls that left me thinking “hmmmmm, I don’t know about that” (Louisville and Columbia, both in 2014).

 

[joshoctober16]

just posting this here

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

just posting this here

Josh Wurman went from "making his own scale" in his last weather channel interview, and constantly talking about tornado wind speeds being underrated, to practically endorsing the current system in this interview. It's like the constant rage on Twitter is making experienced scientists entrench themselves in defense of bad science. Surely, it's possible to see the current outrage, and do some reflection on where it's originating from? Right?!

Such a disappointing interview from my favorite tornado scientist. Especially for all the weather enthusiasts and students who have been putting in the ground work and spreading the word to try and influence some positive change. If the internet actually mattered I sure would feel like I just got sold out... In terms of things that matter, it feels like we just went from being a year away from a serious tornado survey/rating overhaul, to still being several years away.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Is this what personal responsibility looks like from someone who just got called out for spreading false information, and being cruel to tornado victims? Oh wait, I guess Tim Marshall is the victim now.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

And lastly, I'm dumbfounded photogrammetry is still not on the table! It's literally the original way we tried to deduce tornado winds in the 70s, and its results are conclusive. I can not wrap my mind around the dismissiveness and aversion to it as a viable solution to the gridlock engineers, scientists, and meteorologists are currently stuck in with the new scale. It was originally set to release in 2018. It's 6 years behind schedule and still changing dramatically with every new draft.

This is an excerpt from Randy Zisper's. explanation for why photogrammetry isn't used anymore. Randy was "very active in photogrammetic studies during the 1970s, and originally co-created the Storm-Track newsletter".






So let me get this straight:

1. We don't use photogrammetry anymore because it's too.... good?
2. People just accept that tornado wind speeds don't exceed 350 MPH, because some guys at Texas Tech said so... without any objective proof?
3. Fujita's camp was overridden because of some "gut feelings"?
4. Wurman's research is adequate enough to draw conclusions about maximum possible tornado wind speeds, but not... tornado wind speeds?

Every argument is a contradiction of itself! How is this acceptable!? Bu$t out the damn cameras already!

Sorry for the word vomit guys. I'm really angry!

 

[buckeye05]

Is this what personal responsibility looks like from someone who just got called out for spreading false information, and being cruel to tornado victims? Oh wait, I guess Tim Marshall is the victim now.

View attachment 37292

I mean like him or not, he’s not wrong there, because he does repeatedly get blamed for bad ratings that he did not assign. Anyone in that position would do what they can to set the record straight, and rightfully so. There’s a lot of frustration surrounding ratings right now, and it can only become productive if it’s directed towards the people actually making the bad calls, and towards the biased “how low can we go?” mindset that has overridden reasonable, objective surveying at multiple NWS offices across the US. If all that energy gets taken out on a scapegoat, it doesn’t exactly make the dissenting side look credible or well-informed.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

I'm a professional videographer. I use the best commercially available software everyday. Photogrammetry is the one thing on this site that is in my realm of expertise. I can 100%, undeniably, without one shred of doubt say that the claim "photogrammetry derived wind speeds can be determined with a high degree of accuracy in seconds by computers with the right analytical software." Is complete bull sh**. The right software doesn't exist. Object tracking is a major hurdle software engineers have been trying to overcome for forever. It's why we don't have self driving cars or gesture controlled screens. Major strides are being made currently, but it certainly isn't being used by the NWS to analyze tornado wind speeds at scale.

I mean like him or not, he’s not wrong there, because he does repeatedly get blamed for bad ratings that he did not assign. Anyone in that position would do what they can to set the record straight, and rightfully so. There’s a lot of frustration surrounding ratings right now, and it can only become productive if it’s directed towards the people actually making the bad calls, and towards the biased “how low can we go?” mindset that has overridden reasonable, objective surveying at multiple NWS offices across the US. If all that energy gets taken out on a scapegoat, it doesn’t exactly make the dissenting side look credible or well-informed.

The real, valid "dissenting side" isn't on Twitter screaming at meteorologists. They're on campuses, in these small communities, and weather offices having data driven discussions about systemic problems. The word is spreading, and the ignorant masses are jumping onboard, but it's just a symptom of bad actors acting bad for way too long. We've seen this outrage almost every tornado season for 5 years straight now (and plenty more before that). These recent surveys didn't cause a random outburst. It's just been steadily growing each year. The correct response isn't to double down and dismiss the dissenters (AGAIN)! Tim's recent Facebook posts really looked like doubling down, and trying to embarrass surveyors that dissented. There's zero excuse for the false info Marshall has been spreading this week. He gets zero sympathy from me.

 

[andyhb]

The Bakersfield MO tornado on 3/14 is quickly climbing up my list of poor surveys given more and more analysis of it.

 

[buckeye05]

I'm a professional videographer. I use the best commercially available software everyday. Photogrammetry is the one thing on this site that is in my realm of expertise. I can 100%, undeniably, without one shred of doubt say that the claim "photogrammetry derived wind speeds can be determined with a high degree of accuracy in seconds by computers with the right analytical software." Is complete bull sh**. The right software doesn't exist. Object tracking is a major hurdle software engineers have been trying to overcome for forever. It's why we don't have self driving cars or gesture controlled screens. Major strides are being made currently, but it certainly isn't being used by the NWS to analyze tornado wind speeds at scale.



The real, valid "dissenting side" isn't on Twitter screaming at meteorologists. They're on campuses, in these small communities, and weather offices having data driven discussions about systemic problems. The word is spreading, and the ignorant masses are jumping onboard, but it's just a symptom of bad actors acting bad for way too long. We've seen this outrage almost every tornado season for 5 years straight now (and plenty more before that). These recent surveys didn't cause a random outburst. It's just been steadily growing each year. The correct response isn't to double down and dismiss the dissenters (AGAIN)! Tim's recent Facebook posts really looked like doubling down, and trying to embarrass surveyors that dissented. There's zero excuse for the false info Marshall has been spreading this week. He gets zero sympathy from me.

I mean yeah I hear you, but none of the above addresses the main point: which is that he didn’t swoop in and assign all these controversial ratings, and many people think he did. His statement addresses a collective misunderstanding, and you can’t really argue with him saying “I didn’t assign those ratings, the NWS did” because that’s just a fact. There’s nothing invalid about setting the record straight, regardless of anyone’s personal opinion of Tim Marshall. If anything, I’m surprised he didn’t say something like that sooner.

 

[buckeye05]

The Bakersfield MO tornado on 3/14 is quickly climbing up my list of poor surveys given more and more analysis of it.

NWS Springfield for you. I’ve seen them apply ratings as low as EF2 or even high-end EF1 to destroyed full-size frame homes. They’re one of the most unreasonable offices imo.

Also curious what else has surfaced that you’ve found?

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

I mean yeah I hear you, but none of the above addresses the main point: which is that he didn’t swoop in and assign all these controversial ratings, and many people think he did. His statement addresses a collective misunderstanding, and you can’t really argue with him saying “I didn’t assign those ratings, the NWS did” because that’s just a fact. There’s nothing invalid about setting the record straight, regardless of anyone’s personal opinion of Tim Marshall. If anything, I’m surprised he didn’t say something like that sooner.

He's just repeatedly proven himself to be the type of guy who wants all of the credit, but none of the blame. I can understand why some people respect him, but I don't.

 

[CheeselandSkies]

Based on that paper that was released earlier this year, it's probably a safe assumption that at least half of all 190 MPH or greater EF4s are "EF5 candidates" (or would have been rated F5 from the '70s through the '90s).

My top five in order are:
Vilonia 4/27/14 (natch)
Chickasha 5/24/11
Goldsby 5/24/11
Rochelle 4/9/15
Rolling Fork 3/24/23

Honorable mentions go to Tuscaloosa 4/27/11 and Western KY 12/10/21; Rolling Fork edged one of those out of my top five (not sure which, they're about even in terms of damage and radar signatures).

Add to that Chapman (180 MPH). Matador IMO like most of these tornadoes probably reached EF5 windspeeds, and with complete destruction of at least one frame home coupled with multiple instances of clearly violent contextual damage, should have at least been rated EF4.

 

[AJS]

Based on that paper that was released earlier this year, it's probably a safe assumption that at least half of all 190 MPH or greater EF4s are "EF5 candidates" (or would have been rated F5 from the '70s through the '90s).

My top five in order are:
Vilonia 4/27/14 (natch)
Chickasha 5/24/11
Goldsby 5/24/11
Rochelle 4/9/15
Rolling Fork 3/24/23

Honorable mentions go to Tuscaloosa 4/27/11 and Western KY 12/10/21; Rolling Fork edged one of those out of my top five (not sure which, they're about even in terms of damage and radar signatures).

Add to that Chapman (180 MPH). Matador IMO like most of these tornadoes probably reached EF5 windspeeds, and with complete destruction of at least one frame home coupled with multiple instances of clearly violent contextual damage, should have at least been rated EF4.

In my opinion, I would’ve replaced Mayfield with Rolling Fork due to the damage in Bremen. The damage in Bremen contextually wise was about as classic as EF5 damage gets.

I never really saw much exceptional EF5 contextual type damage with Rolling Fork, but the vehicle damage and debris granulation was pretty damn impressive. The debarking was pretty insane too.

 

[ColdFront]

Josh Wurman went from "making his own scale" in his last weather channel interview, and constantly talking about tornado wind speeds being underrated, to practically endorsing the current system in this interview. It's like the constant rage on Twitter is making experienced scientists entrench themselves in defense of bad science. Surely, it's possible to see the current outrage, and do some reflection on where it's originating from? Right?!

Such a disappointing interview from my favorite tornado scientist. Especially for all the weather enthusiasts and students who have been putting in the ground work and spreading the word to try and influence some positive change. If the internet actually mattered I sure would feel like I just got sold out... In terms of things that matter, it feels like we just went from being a year away from a serious tornado survey/rating overhaul, to still being several years away.

I think you may be reading too much into this one. What I’m thinking has happened is Wurman has been given a bigger seat at the table on the EF Scale revision. He can’t go on TV and eviscerate engineers, especially if some of them were around on the original EF scale development, and then a week later go set down with them on a committee and try and convince them to adopt some of his proposals. Or take his point of view into account.

I actually thought he articulated his point concisely. We know tornadic storms have had wind speeds > 200 MPH because of his team’s work. He pretty much says the scale needs a lot of work.

The EF scale update was always going to go at a glacial pace. No one officially owns the EF scale, so there isn’t a governmental entity pushing this to be done quicker. Couple that with getting hundreds of scientists, engineers, and experts in one room for a meeting has to be hard. Then getting them to agree on something with each person feeling like their point of view has been taken into account, I’m honestly not shocked the delivery date isn’t early 2030s.

 

[AJS]

To anyone who has not seen this video, I highly recommend checking it out. It flies the whole 165 miles of the path from the Mayfield tornado. Just endless miles of destruction and intense damage.

@buckeye05 I think you’ll especially be interested in seeing how widespread the extreme contextual damage in Bremen was. I thought it was confined to that one area in Bremen, but throughout the whole path in Bremen, it shows remarkable ground scouring and tree damage.

 

[TH2002]

Came across an interesting and potentially underrated tornado from the 2011 Super Outbreak and it got me thinking about how aircraft behave in tornadoes. It struck the Potomac Airfield near Friendly, MD and damaged six small aircraft, with one Cessna 182 being thrown 125 feet and a Cessna 335 being tossed about 25 feet. It was given a rating of EF0.

Another example of such a tornado struck the Fairfield Co. Airport in SC on May 4, 2021, tossing a Beechcraft Sundowner 100 yards and ripping off one of its wings in the process. This storm was given an EF1 rating.


As far as larger aircraft go, a few obvious examples are the 1948 Tinker AFB tornadoes that "destroyed" B-54's, B-29's and DC-3's, but I don't know off the top of my head how many of those (if any) were actually moved/tossed a considerable distance in addition to the structural damage sustained. These tornadoes are rated F3.

The last example I'll touch up on is the 1979 Windsor Locks tornado. Don't know the exact aircraft type here, but this cargo plane reportedly weighed 100 tons and was actually flipped over and snapped into three pieces. Probably the most impressive of all the examples:

But that brings me back to my original question: were these tornadoes (particularly the 2011 and 2021 events) rated appropriately? Even general aviation aircraft are obviously not "light" per say (a Cessna 182 comes in at just over 1,600 lbs) but still weigh significantly less than an average car and are obviously designed to be aerodynamic, so they behave weirdly in tornadoes. Whether or not an aircraft is tied down might also make a difference, though in both the Potomac and Fairfield tornadoes they were and it obviously didn't help much.

Even the Tinker AFB tornado is a bit of a head-scratcher. The aforementioned large aircraft obviously weighed much more than an average car, but it's again a weird case due to how aircraft are designed, which theoretically may cause them to "catch" the wind with relative ease. Needless to say I don't disagree with the F3 ratings here, but the process of determining an F or EF rating using damage to aircraft is a process I don't understand tbh.

The one case I can confidently say is indicative of violent winds is the Windsor Locks tornado. Again, a plane is obviously going to be much more aerodynamic than something like a battle tank, but the fact that it weighed 100 tons and the fuselage was actually snapped in places - that's impressive stuff.

What are your guys' thoughts on this?

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Came across an interesting and potentially underrated tornado from the 2011 Super Outbreak and it got me thinking about how aircraft behave in tornadoes. It struck the Potomac Airfield near Friendly, MD and damaged six small aircraft, with one Cessna 182 being thrown 125 feet and a Cessna 335 being tossed about 25 feet. It was given a rating of EF0.

Another example of such a tornado struck the Fairfield Co. Airport in SC on May 4, 2021, tossing a Beechcraft Sundowner 100 yards and ripping off one of its wings in the process. This storm was given an EF1 rating.


As far as larger aircraft go, a few obvious examples are the 1948 Tinker AFB tornadoes that "destroyed" B-54's, B-29's and DC-3's, but I don't know off the top of my head how many of those (if any) were actually moved/tossed a considerable distance in addition to the structural damage sustained. These tornadoes are rated F3.

The last example I'll touch up on is the 1979 Windsor Locks tornado. Don't know the exact aircraft type here, but this cargo plane reportedly weighed 100 tons and was actually flipped over and snapped into three pieces. Probably the most impressive of all the examples:



But that brings me back to my original question: were these tornadoes (particularly the 2011 and 2021 events) rated appropriately? Even general aviation aircraft are obviously not "light" per say (a Cessna 182 comes in at just over 1,600 lbs) but still weigh significantly less than an average car and are obviously designed to be aerodynamic, so they behave weirdly in tornadoes. Whether or not an aircraft is tied down might also make a difference, though in both the Potomac and Fairfield tornadoes they were and it obviously didn't help much.

Even the Tinker AFB tornado is a bit of a head-scratcher. The aforementioned large aircraft obviously weighed much more than an average car, but it's again a weird case due to how aircraft are designed, which theoretically may cause them to "catch" the wind with relative ease. Needless to say I don't disagree with the F3 ratings here, but the process of determining an F or EF rating using damage to aircraft is a process I don't understand tbh.

The one case I can confidently say is indicative of violent winds is the Windsor Locks tornado. Again, a plane is obviously going to be much more aerodynamic than something like a battle tank, but the fact that it weighed 100 tons and the fuselage was actually snapped in places - that's impressive stuff.

What are your guys' thoughts on this?

Cessna 182 take off speed: 58 mph
Cessna 335 take off speed: 60-80 mph
Beechcraft Sundowner take off speed: 68 mph

B-29 take off speed: 80 mph
DC-3 take off speed: 97 mph
B-54 take off speed: Unknown and not listed anywhere

I was expecting a much faster take off speed to be the reason the military aircraft were rated higher, but was disappointed. This is one of those instances where it'd be really nice to have a physicist (like Ted Fujita!) in here.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

I have a question... When exactly did the NWS decide houses built out of CMU were weak, and why are concrete/masonry houses being rated the same or worse as wood frame houses, regardless of anchoring?



A well anchored wood frame house isn't even comparable to CMU or concrete... Yet, wood is the only DI houses have in the EF scale. Concrete and masonry construction were central pillars for uncovering F4 and F5 wind speed in the original scale, but in the EF scale they're not.



Here are all the major wood frame DIs and their maximum "expected" wind speeds (** - no concrete/CMU indicator):
1.** One or two family residence - 200 mph
2. Apt, condo, townhouse (3 stories or less) - 180 mph (top two stories destroyed)
3. Motels - 190 mph
4.** Small retail bldg. (fast food) - 167 mph
5.** Small professional (doctor office, branch bank) - 157 mph

Here are metal and steel frame buildings:
1.** Automobile showroom - 157 mph
2.** Warehouses, industrial facilities, arenas - 155 mph
3.** Large shopping mall - 204 mph
4.** Storage and Industrial buildings - 158 mph

Here are concrete/masonry/CMU buildings:
1. Masonry Apartments or Motels - 156 mph (top two stories destroyed) 180 mph (total destruction)
2. Strip mall - 171 mph
3. Large, isolated ("big box") retail building - 173 mph
4. Elementary School - 176 mph

Reinforced Concrete buildings
1. Junior and Senior High School - 192 mph
2. Low-rise (1-4 story)(reinforced concrete) - 188 mph
3. Mid-rise (5-20 story) - 210 mph
4. High-rise (over 20 stories) - 228 mph
5. Institutional bldg. (hospital, govt. or university) - 210 mph

So let me get this straight... DIs for the most common structures are all wood frame, have the higher expected wind speeds than concrete/masonry/CMU, and all the concrete/masonry/CMU DIs are reserved for only large open faced buildings?

I can't believe I've never seen this before. This scale is deliberately DESIGNED to fail at uncovering EF5 wind speeds. The average maximum exp windspeed for concrete/CMU is 169 MPH. For wood framed structures its 179 mph. Even steel framed buildings have a lower average than wood frame at 171 mph. It makes no sense. It's not even a good engineering scale. We haven't gotten lucky with "tornadoes missing strong structures". Tornadoes are hitting strong structures, but there isn't a way to measure it!!!

 

[AJS]

I have a question... When exactly did the NWS decide houses built out of CMU were weak, and why are concrete/masonry houses being rated the same or worse as wood frame houses, regardless of anchoring?

View attachment 37333

A well anchored wood frame house isn't even comparable to CMU or concrete... Yet, wood is the only DI houses have in the EF scale. Concrete and masonry construction were central pillars for uncovering F4 and F5 wind speed in the original scale, but in the EF scale they're not.

View attachment 37334

Here are all the major wood frame DIs and their maximum "expected" wind speeds (** - no concrete/CMU indicator):
1.** One or two family residence - 200 mph
2. Apt, condo, townhouse (3 stories or less) - 180 mph (top two stories destroyed)
3. Motels - 190 mph
4.** Small retail bldg. (fast food) - 167 mph
5.** Small professional (doctor office, branch bank) - 157 mph

Here are metal and steel frame buildings:
1.** Automobile showroom - 157 mph
2.** Warehouses, industrial facilities, arenas - 155 mph
3.** Large shopping mall - 204 mph
4.** Storage and Industrial buildings - 158 mph

Here are concrete/masonry/CMU buildings:
1. Masonry Apartments or Motels - 156 mph (top two stories destroyed) 180 mph (total destruction)
2. Strip mall - 171 mph
3. Large, isolated ("big box") retail building - 173 mph
4. Elementary School - 176 mph

Reinforced Concrete buildings
1. Junior and Senior High School - 192 mph
2. Low-rise (1-4 story)(reinforced concrete) - 188 mph
3. Mid-rise (5-20 story) - 210 mph
4. High-rise (over 20 stories) - 228 mph
5. Institutional bldg. (hospital, govt. or university) - 210 mph

So let me get this straight... DIs for the most common structures are all wood frame, have the higher expected wind speeds than concrete/masonry/CMU, and all the concrete/masonry/CMU DIs are reserved for only large open faced buildings?

I can't believe I've never seen this before. This scale is deliberately DESIGNED to fail at uncovering EF5 wind speeds. The average maximum exp windspeed for concrete/CMU is 169 MPH. For wood framed structures its 179 mph. It's not even a good engineering scale. We haven't gotten lucky with "tornadoes missing strong structures". Tornadoes are hitting strong structures, but there isn't a way to measure it!!!

If I recall, it was just after 2011.