Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[Shakespeare 2016]

Yes Matador also produced that type of impressive scouring I was talking about in my second post above. Falls into the same category as Westminster, where the event was very high-end but was grotesquely underrated.

The Matador tornado is definitely another tornado that should have been rated at least high-end EF4.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Yes, the Mauk, GA EF1 produced that same deep, “chunky” type of ground scouring that is sometimes referred to as “trenching”. The Mauk tornado was not strong, with the remaining damage consisting of downed trees, destroyed outbuildings, and roof damage to homes. Yet it completely tore up the ground. I infer that the composition of the ground and its saturation level resulted in what we see below, rather than it being caused by extreme winds. Now just imagine if a high-end EF3 or EF4 tornado moved across this same field instead of an EF1.
View attachment 39630

Later that same year, a similar thing happened near Clarks, LA. This tornado was stronger, producing low-end EF3 damage as it snapped and partially debarked pine trees, and destroyed mobile homes. However it again, produced trenching in an open field, despite not being violent.
View attachment 39631

These two tornadoes have forced me to completely rethink my opinion on trenching. Not too long ago, I think I saw someone refer to deep trenching as one of the most reliable EF5 indicators. A couple years ago, I would have agreed. But now I can’t agree with that statement at all. Sometimes tornado damage proves you wrong and forces you to completely rethink long-held opinions.

While on the topic of certain tornadoes that forced me to rethink things, the 2024 Hancock County, WV has forced me to rethink the minimum possible intensity required to cause severe denuding and debarking. Typically, you only see significant debarking begin to occur in the high-end EF3 to low-end EF4 range. I used to challenge people to find me pics of severe debarking on properties where the structural damage was well below that intensity level. Then the Hancock County tornado happened and made me eat crow. It was an EF2. This is NOT the kind of tree damage that is typically associated with an EF2, but the this tornado proves that it can happen, even if it’s an exception to the norm.
View attachment 39632
View attachment 39633

These are really solid points... if you completely ignore the fact tornadoes can rapidly gain and lose intensity and can have severe damage gradients that defy explanation.

It's also very likely the tree in your first debarking pic was dead. It's one instance of this significant of debarking in a low end tornado when there are thousands of examples of them almost exclusively being present in violent tornadoes. I wouldn't exactly call it statistically significant.

The second denuding pic looks like a tornado that partially lifted from the ground. Notice how the roof of the house is missing but not the, likely much weaker, awning at ground level. You shouldn't eliminate logical beliefs held with strong evidence based purely on obvious outliers.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

These are really solid points... if you completely ignore the fact tornadoes can rapidly gain and lose intensity and can have severe damage gradients that defy explanation.

It's also very likely the tree in your first debarking pic was dead. It's one instance of this significant of debarking in a low end tornado when there are thousands of examples of them almost exclusively being present in violent tornadoes. I wouldn't exactly call it statistically significant.

The second denuding pic looks like a tornado that partially lifted from the ground. Notice how the roof of the house is missing but not the, likely much weaker, awning at ground level. You shouldn't eliminate logical beliefs held with strong evidence based purely on obvious outliers.

In fact, those kinda look like ash trees, which are currently being wiped out by the emerald ash borer, an invasive beatle that eats the tree away and causes the bark to fall off.




This is a map of their presence in the US from 2014. Notice how they're gaining a foothold in LA and GA.

 

[buckeye05]

These are really solid points... if you completely ignore the fact tornadoes can rapidly gain and lose intensity and can have severe damage gradients that defy explanation.

It's also very likely the tree in your first debarking pic was dead. It's one instance of this significant of debarking in a low end tornado when there are thousands of examples of them almost exclusively being present in violent tornadoes. I wouldn't exactly call it statistically significant.

The second denuding pic looks like a tornado that partially lifted from the ground. Notice how the roof of the house is missing but not the, likely much weaker, awning at ground level. You shouldn't eliminate logical beliefs held with strong evidence based purely on obvious outliers.

Nope. There’s nothing to suggest that those tornadoes suddenly reached EF5 strength over a single field. Quite the opposite in fact. Is such a thing impossible? No. Is it highly, HIGHLY unlikely given everything else I know about these two events? Yes. This makes the trenching an outlier in these two cases, and therefore questionable as an iron clad EF5 indicator. Especially Mauk, as the trenching was immediately proceeded and followed by minor tree damage!


That isn’t a coincidence; it’s contextual evidence suggesting that it didn’t just suddenly explode into an EF5 exclusively in that field while producing EF1 tree damage right before and after. By your logic, one could argue that every tornado that scoured pavement just happened to be extremely violent very briefly while crossing those particular roads, rather than taking the surrounding damage into account and accepting that pavement scouring sometimes occurs in tornadoes that aren’t particularly violent (Americus, GA, New Boston, TX, etc). The most logical conclusion is that certain pavements and soils, in certain conditions and circumstances, can be scoured or trenched by sub-violent tornadoes, even if these phenomenon are typically associated with violent tornadoes. It’s called an outlier, and @pohnpei explained it beautifully. But no, you want to go with the mental gymnastics route instead of accepting that outliers exist.

Also regarding Hancock County, no those trees weren’t dead (hint: dead trees aren’t bright pale yellow under the bark, they’re gray or light beige like in your 3rd ash tree pic) and I have seen closeups of them. They were very much alive and by all appearances healthy, and were around that same farmhouse. The two debarking photos are cropped from a single picture, both within immediate vicinity of that house. And come on, here’s nothing to suggest the tornado “lifted over the house”. There is NOTHING to suggest that. You’re again using mental gymnastics to cling onto a stance, and interpreting these debarking photos through the filter of a personal agenda that allows your viewpoints to remain unchanged and unchallenged. “The trees are dead!” and “The tornado was lifting!” is just grasping at straws without any evidence so you can draw up scenarios that allow you to circumvent accepting the existence and implications of contextual outlier cases. It shows a total lack of objectivity.

Besides, considering that you eviscerated your own credibility here within a matter of days by via a flood of false assumptions and confidently incorrect claims, combined with a constant lack of objectivity and an unwillingness to learn when presented with new information, I couldn’t possibly respect or value what you have to say on this particular topic any less than I do, or any for that matter.

 

[Maxis_s]

Honestly, after seeing the correlation between observed windspeeds (DOW) and observed damage, I'm beginning to wonder if Ted Fujita's estimates of windspeeds, and his original F-scale, is more accurate than the current EF-scale.
If hurricanes can reach sustained winds exceeding EF-3 windspeeds and gusts sometimes exceeding EF-5 windspeeds and not do similar damage to tornadoes with similar windspeeds, the only explanations I can think of are:
1. Tornadic windspeeds are greatly underestimated in the current EF-scale, or;
2. Tornadic damage is more caused by its inner mechanics (updraft, downdraft, pressure gradient, etc) than raw windspeed, or;
3. The DOW's measurements are incorrect due to either A. faulty/incorrect hardware; B. incorrect extrapolation of windspeeds from above ground level to the surface, or; C. something I'm not knowledgeable enough about.
Does anyone else feel this way, or am I getting something wrong?

 

[joshoctober16]

Honestly, after seeing the correlation between observed windspeeds (DOW) and observed damage, I'm beginning to wonder if Ted Fujita's estimates of windspeeds, and his original F-scale, is more accurate than the current EF-scale.
If hurricanes can reach sustained winds exceeding EF-3 windspeeds and gusts sometimes exceeding EF-5 windspeeds and not do similar damage to tornadoes with similar windspeeds, the only explanations I can think of are:
1. Tornadic windspeeds are greatly underestimated in the current EF-scale, or;
2. Tornadic damage is more caused by its inner mechanics (updraft, downdraft, pressure gradient, etc) than raw windspeed, or;
3. The DOW's measurements are incorrect due to either A. faulty/incorrect hardware; B. incorrect extrapolation of windspeeds from above ground level to the surface, or; C. something I'm not knowledgeable enough about.
Does anyone else feel this way, or am I getting something wrong?

its to note there was a mesonet in the EF0 damage part of the el reno 2011 tornado that had a 3 second 0 meter off the ground wind speed of 150-153 mph
edit here is the location

 

[joshoctober16]

This is an honest question from me: Why in the world is a tree standing within 100 yards(if not less) of violent damage justification to lower the rating of the violent damage? When it's been scientifically proven that subvortices contribute HEAVILY to localized areas of EF5 damage. It just has always felt very excusatory to me; if not semi-unscientific. Tornadic internal winds vary wildly and chaotically; only true slow moving "Grinders" tend to wipe out EVERYTHING in their windfield, or exceedingly rare tornadoes such as Bridgecreek 1999. I really cannot get why this is, but ive heard that Mayfield 2021 was heavily scrutinized for this, plus Goldsby 2011 had a fence cited for rating a home EF4 when it very well could've been EF5.
I get it, EF5 damage is supposed to be incredible, it is supposed to be exceedingly rare; but this does not justify these almost unscientific and random bits of scrutiny. I really would like some sort of explanation from someone who knows more than I. Like even confirmed EF5 tornadoes left trees intact in spots of extreme damages. I just am curious

about the whole bridgecreek tree standing part....


there main Solid EF5 damage image has the same situation as Vilonia ....
while they are mostly all debarked they are not ... gone per say or flatten

 

[NewFoundWeatherNerd]

With all that said, I do agree that Philadelphia, MS was extremely violent and very likely an EF5. It’s just that trenching can’t be used as a “slam dunk” EF5 indicator like previously thought.

When it comes to ground scouring, I have found that the type consistently associated with the most violent tornadoes is less dramatic in appearance. The kind I’m talking about is where all the grass and surface vegetation is cleanly removed, leaving a smooth swath of partially or completely bare soil. This type of scouring occurred in Bridge Creek-Moore, Moore, El Reno-Piedmont, Smithville, Chickasha-Blanchard, Rochelle, Vilonia, Guin, Jarrell, and several others, and I have never seen it happen with tornadoes that weren’t high-end events (with exceptions where the tornado was definitely underrated, like Westminster, TX 2006).

Westminster's scouring DEEEPLY intrigues me. I grew up right next to Collin County(heck I can drive there right now if I wanted); the soil around these parts is unique. Its in spots highly nutrient poor, hard, and unlike the red clay surrounding DFW. Red clay is "Goopy" when wet, its sticky and extremely squishy when saturated; this soil isnt. I suppose it's been deposited by the Trinity river over the Brazos or Red Rivers; which both take on a red-clay hue. This soil when saturated is lumpy, sticky like clay, but doesn't clump together like it; but what it will do, is stay in big blocks during the summer and form giant cracks (that can break your ankle), it's much different.

So I do deeply wonder, it takes something special to do what Westminster achieved

 

[tornado examiner]

Westminster's scouring DEEEPLY intrigues me. I grew up right next to Collin County(heck I can drive there right now if I wanted); the soil around these parts is unique. Its in spots highly nutrient poor, hard, and unlike the red clay surrounding DFW. Red clay is "Goopy" when wet, its sticky and extremely squishy when saturated; this soil isnt. I suppose it's been deposited by the Trinity river over the Brazos or Red Rivers; which both take on a red-clay hue. This soil when saturated is lumpy, sticky like clay, but doesn't clump together like it; but what it will do, is stay in big blocks during the summer and form giant cracks (that can break your ankle), it's much different.

So I do deeply wonder, it takes something special to do what Westminster achieved

That is one of the weirdest looking tracks ive. Seen. Most of those tree’s still have their foliage on them it looks like. Odd

 

[NewFoundWeatherNerd]

Nope. There’s nothing to suggest that those tornadoes suddenly reached EF5 strength over a single field. Quite the opposite in fact. Is such a thing impossible? No. Is it highly, HIGHLY unlikely given everything else I know about these two events? Yes. This makes the trenching an outlier in these two cases, and therefore questionable as an iron clad EF5 indicator. Especially Mauk, as the trenching was immediately proceeded and followed by minor tree damage!
View attachment 39645View attachment 39646

That isn’t a coincidence; it’s contextual evidence suggesting that it didn’t just suddenly explode into an EF5 exclusively in that field while producing EF1 tree damage right before and after. By your logic, one could argue that every tornado that scoured pavement just happened to be extremely violent very briefly while crossing those particular roads, rather than taking the surrounding damage into account and accepting that pavement scouring sometimes occurs in tornadoes that aren’t particularly violent (Americus, GA, New Boston, TX, etc). The most logical conclusion is that certain pavements and soils, in certain conditions and circumstances, can be scoured or trenched by sub-violent tornadoes, even if these phenomenon are typically associated with violent tornadoes. It’s called an outlier, and @pohnpei explained it beautifully. But no, you want to go with the mental gymnastics route instead of accepting that outliers exist.

Also regarding Hancock County, no those trees weren’t dead (hint: dead trees aren’t bright pale yellow under the bark, they’re gray or light beige like in your 3rd ash tree pic) and I have seen closeups of them. They were very much alive and by all appearances healthy, and were around that same farmhouse. The two debarking photos are cropped from a single picture, both within immediate vicinity of that house. And come on, here’s nothing to suggest the tornado “lifted over the house”. There is NOTHING to suggest that. You’re again using mental gymnastics to cling onto a stance, and interpreting these debarking photos through the filter of a personal agenda that allows your viewpoints to remain unchanged and unchallenged. “The trees are dead!” and “The tornado was lifting!” is just grasping at straws without any evidence so you can draw up scenarios that allow you to circumvent accepting the existence and implications of contextual outlier cases. It shows a total lack of objectivity.

Besides, considering that you eviscerated your own credibility here within a matter of days by via a flood of false assumptions and confidently incorrect claims, combined with a constant lack of objectivity and an unwillingness to learn when presented with new information, I couldn’t possibly respect or value what you have to say on this particular topic any less than I do, or any for that matter.

For the both of you: Yall each have good points, just bias on the first end.
The emerald ash borer theory is incredible work, bug damage should be considered with tree debarking! But keep in mind the odds this specific tree was infected isnt exactly *too* high.
With the soil situation, just like any damage, it's situational. This trenching is very frequently seen in saturated, sandy soils. Rain can turn sandy soil into a big, loose, and goopy mess. Keep in mind we are seeing trenching in open fields; based on my background in environmental sciences, I DEEPLY suspect a big reason for why is shallow grass roots not holding down the soft, saturated soil in this area. Tree roots act as a natural barrier for erosion; thats why we aren't seeing this with a bunch of trees in the area; deep, thick, and complex tree roots hold the soil in place. Native plants in more moist-rainfall rich regions have shallower roots to prevent over saturation and bacterial rot!! Keep in mind trees are evolved specifically to not fall in wind; theyre acting as a barrier in multiple different ways, including as a source of ground level friction. With the mystery debarking; its very likely that tree had thinner, more soft outer bark; you really see the thicker, more dense bark towards the bottom of tree trunks. I get really impressed when I see that bark removed. This could've been something like a red oak; which typically see thinner, softer bark towards the top parts of the tree. Also keep in mind wood hardness; this might have been a softer tree, with the debarking effected by the wood above being ripped off by a subvortex; allowing for easier peeling of the thinner, softer bark.

Its all situational; no need for anger, this is a learning environment

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

For the both of you: Yall each have good points, just bias on the first end.
The emerald ash borer theory is incredible work, bug damage should be considered with tree debarking! But keep in mind the odds this specific tree was infected isnt exactly *too* high.
With the soil situation, just like any damage, it's situational. This trenching is very frequently seen in saturated, sandy soils. Rain can turn sandy soil into a big, loose, and goopy mess. Keep in mind we are seeing trenching in open fields; based on my background in environmental sciences, I DEEPLY suspect a big reason for why is shallow grass roots not holding down the soft, saturated soil in this area. Tree roots act as a natural barrier for erosion; thats why we aren't seeing this with a bunch of trees in the area; deep, thick, and complex tree roots hold the soil in place. Native plants in more moist-rainfall rich regions have shallower roots to prevent over saturation and bacterial rot!! Keep in mind trees are evolved specifically to not fall in wind; theyre acting as a barrier in multiple different ways, including as a source of ground level friction. With the mystery debarking; its very likely that tree had thinner, more soft outer bark; you really see the thicker, more dense bark towards the bottom of tree trunks. I get really impressed when I see that bark removed. This could've been something like a red oak; which typically see thinner, softer bark towards the top parts of the tree. Also keep in mind wood hardness; this might have been a softer tree, with the debarking effected by the wood above being ripped off by a subvortex; allowing for easier peeling of the thinner, softer bark.

Its all situational; no need for anger, this is a learning environment

Fascinating points! Love when people apply their areas of study like this.

 

[tornado examiner]

If every office surveyed as conservatively as Lubbock, Springfield and Memphis here’s what we would possibly be looking at. This is all my personally opinion and not meant to be taken seriously. But based on those office’s track record for this decade.
Cookeville: 170mph
First bassfield tornado: 160mph
Second bassfield tornado: 180mph max
Estil SC: 165mph
Sandy hook: 160mph
Ashby: 165mph

Newnan: 150mph max (deserved I’m not complaining here)
Tristate tornado: 165mph
Western Kentucky: 188mph

Winterset: 160mph
Black creek: 175mph
Caviness: 160mph
Clarksville: 160mph

Rolling fork: 190mph max
Keota: 165mph

Elkhorn: 165mph
Marietta: 160mph
Barnsdall: 170mph
Greenfield: 180mph

Franklin: 160mph
Diaz: 190mph maybe
Tylertown: 165mph

Yeah. Again, these are not to be taken seriously just my opinion based on everything I’ve seen this past decade.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

"Although the Fujita Scale has been in use for 33 years, the limitations of the scale are well known to the users. The primary limitations are a lack of damage indicators, no account of construction quality and variability and no definitive correlation between damage and windspeed. These limitations have led to inconsistent rating of tornadoes and in some cases an over estimate of tornado wind speeds. Thus, there is a need to revisit the concept of the Fujita Scale and to improve and eliminate some of the limitations."

A Recommendation for an ENHANCED FUJITA SCALE
- Wind Science and Engineering Center, Texas Tech University

It's funny this assumption was used as the entire basis for creating the EF Scale, but NOAA couldn't find one single instance of tornadoes being overrated when they converted EF scale ratings to the much higher F scale winds.

Comparison of F-scale DI wind speeds to radar near-surface wind estimates
View attachment 39505

In fact, the F scale still under rates true tornado wind speeds. However, the true wind speed (solid line) is much closer to the rating wind speed (dotted line).

Relationship between radar-derived wind speeds and EF Scale DI wind speeds
View attachment 39506

The EF scale relationship to true wind speeds is WAY further off with massive under-rating in violent tornadoes, and even some over-rating in the weakest tornadoes.

"61 of 194 EF-scale damage ratings (31%) fall two or more ratings below the radar-estimated EF-scale ratings"
"26 of 194 F-scale damage ratings (14%) fall two or more ratings below the radar-estimated F-scale ratings"

- NOAA/OAR/National Severe Storms Laboratory

@Maxis_s you're exactly right about Fujita scale winds being closer to reality. Just recently addressed that point in this post.

 

[SilentShadow87]

Apparently the Rochelle tornado should be downgraded to EF3 in many spot’s. Likely no longer 200mph at all. According to the scale, no, some guy who likes doing these damage analysis’s which 90% of the time is just him explaining why we shouldn’t have any EF4’s anymore.
A bruh moment for the debate thread.

Apparently several of the 200mph homes wouldn't even be eligible for an EF4 rating.

He downgrades them for contextual discrepancies but then fails to notice the scoured lawn grass which essentially requires winds to be above 200mph. Given how rare of a feat that is. That stuff is incredibly resistant to tornadic winds.

Out of curiosity, who said this exactly?

 

[tornado examiner]

Out of curiosity, who said this exactly?

Nick kraz.

 

[tornado examiner]

that's THE Mr. Nick Krasz to you sir

View attachment 39676

Making action figures out of regular human’s is a skill not a birthright

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Making action figures out of regular human’s is a skill not a birthright

It seems self absorbed to me. Maybe he's learned the formula of other successful Twitter users. Trolling and controversy is the best way to get engagement on that platform.

 

[tornado examiner]

Oof

 

[NewFoundWeatherNerd]

It seems self absorbed to me. Maybe he's learned the formula of other successful Twitter users. Trolling and controversy is the best way to get engagement on that platform.

Hey yall know he can see this right lol
Try to be respectful because me personally I would absolutely find this; he is a member of this forum

 

[buckeye05]

It seems self absorbed to me. Maybe he's learned the formula of other successful Twitter users. Trolling and controversy is the best way to get engagement on that platform.

Oh the irony…