Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[ColdFront]

I really do hate the claim that Smithville produced damage any similar to Jarrell. It didnt; plain and clear, it didnt do anything remotely like it.
Smithville is BAD, easily up there; but it's not Jarrell.
Jarrell moved at 5-15mph forward, but even tornadoes which moved at similar pace did not do what Jarrell did. The ONLY comparison to Jarrell that can reasonably be made is Harper KS 2004. Bridgecreek and Chickasha did worse damage than Smithville IMO; Chickasha not getting EF5 is criminal, threw 7-feet of debris against a fence, cracked a solid concrete dome, and slathered everything in a 1-inch thick layer of red clay.
The Smithville glazing removes the actual incredible feats of the tornado; as it is one of the upper echelon events of our lifetimes. It WAS an incredibly strong tornado with immense damage; but it's not Jarrell, its not Harper, and its not Bridgecreek, nor Chickasaw, Piedmont, or even Guin.

Jarrell ripped up 8 inches of hard Texas river soil, without rain saturation beforehand; due to the tornado's SW movement, the soil had not been saturated by rain before impact. It threw two live goldfish into a drainage ditch, only for them to be discovered by search and rescue at the scene; it removed slabs, it did things done once, and never again. It is in a league of it's own, and don't let hype, bias, and desire to have a new "ruler of them all" tornado tell you otherwise. Jarrell is Jarrell; there is no comparison.

Your other points have merit but I just completely disagree with Guin. Smithville would almost assuredly get an EF5 rating today, scale flaws and all because the houses it wiped were built far above code. You could easily make an argument it was the most violent tornado on 4/27/11.

The same can’t be said for Guin. It has achieved a sort of “legendary” status but its damage was pretty standard F5 damage. The construction quality of those homes were most likely lacking as well. It had high end contextual damage but run of the mill F5 building damage from everything I have seen/read. It deserved an F5, but this mythical status being given to Guin isn’t deserved. Brandenburg was the storm of the day on 4/3/74.

 

[NewFoundWeatherNerd]

Has a study ever been done on whether the extreme damage done by Jarrell was based on slow movement or wind speeds? It'd be interesting to see. Also, an NIST study found that Jarrell produced F3-maximum damage, although I don't necessarily agree with that. Can be found here.

Yea that whole "F3 maximum" is the whole reason we dont have EF5s anymore. Ignoring the contextual and just focusing on if a house had anchoring. It obliterated everything, fridges, washing machines, cars, concrete; and looking at that and saying "F3 max" is a fool's mistake

 

[NewFoundWeatherNerd]

Your other points have merit but I just completely disagree with Guin. Smithville would almost assuredly get an EF5 rating today, scale flaws and all because the houses it wiped were built far above code. You could easily make an argument it was the most violent tornado on 4/27/11.

The same can’t be said for Guin. It has achieved a sort of “legendary” status but its damage was pretty standard F5 damage. The construction quality of those homes were most likely lacking as well. It had high end contextual damage but run of the mill building damage from everything I have seen/read. It deserved an F5, but this mythical status being given to Guin isn’t deserved. Brandenburg was the storm of the day on 4/3/74.

Oh yea; absolutely not denying the fact Smithville couldve been the strongest tornado of the day, I agree! It, or Hackleburg were absurdly strong, that shouldnt be denied. Smithville IS INCREDIBLE, Im only stating it's not the worst as some state erroneously.
I need to do more research on Guin; but Brandonburg is undeniably upper echelon in itself. It's damage photos look like something out of Hiroshima after the atomic bomb, you cant say that for most tornadoes.
Like Im no Smithville "denier"; it pulped trees and furniture, threw a vehicle over a mile; it preformed incredible feats, horrifying ones. It's just put in spots where it shouldn't be, lessening what it actually did.

Smithville is undeniably an EF5, I'd put it second only to Piedmont in 2011.

 

[OH-IOan]

Yea that whole "F3 maximum" is the whole reason we dont have EF5s anymore. Ignoring the contextual and just focusing on if a house had anchoring. It obliterated everything, fridges, washing machines, cars, concrete; and looking at that and saying "F3 max" is a fool's mistake

The study is actually really interesting, here's a few quips that particularly caught my attention:

• "Inspections of the concrete slab-on-grade foundations performed during the ground surveys revealed that, in many cases, even the sill plates that connected the wood frames to the concrete foundations were blown away (see fig. 11 ). This suggests that the connections between the sill plates and the foundations were not as strong as those between the sill plate and the wood frames." (page 12)
• "There was no evidence of anchor bolts or steel straps used at the few random foundations where close inspections were performed." (page 12)
• "We also note that Williamson County has not adopted a building code,even though Jarrell had been hit by a tornado on May 17, 1987." (page 13)
• "Speeds assigned to F3 tornadoes in the Fujita classification are about 72 m/s to 94 m/s (158 mph to 206 mph). For a building in Central Texas to resist such speeds, its safety margin with respect to wind loads would have to be about 3.1 to 5.5. There is no reason to believe that any of the structures destroyed by the Jarrell tornado were that strong." (page 16)
• "We note that 90 m/s (201 mph) windspeeds, which in the Fujita classification are associated with F3 tornadoes, would likely utterlydestroy most residential homes not only in a 40 m/s (90 mph) basic design wind speed zone, butalso in hurricane-prone areas with 63 m/s (140 mph) basic design wind speeds." (page 16)
• "For these reasons we recommend that: (1) Engineers, meteorologists, disaster relief workers, and representatives of standards organizations, regulatory bodies, and the insurance industry (bolding that, maybe this is where the EF5 insurance conspiracy theories come from?) should work together to develop a tornado intensity classification scale wherein damage descriptions make specific reference to basic design wind speeds and to quality of construction as defined by degree of conformity to standards requirements." (page 17)

The whole survey basically criticized the F scale, noting that wind speeds were very overestimated. This is now well-known to be true, but in 1998 I can assume this study probably picked up some controversy. They give good reason for an F3 rating of Jarrell based solely on structural damage. It doesn't account for contextuals, like the deep scouring.

 

[ColdFront]

• "We also note that Williamson County has not adopted a building code,even though Jarrell had been hit by a tornado on May 17, 1987." (page 13)

Here’s what really catches my eye. Not really a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe structural engineers are on a “crusade” to improve building codes across America and are trying to use the EF scale as a cudgel to get their point across. Jarrell could have went another 50 years after 1987 without a tornado, why update your building code for something like that? Even in the most tornado prone areas on earth, the return rate on a violent tornado isn’t every year.

I get having building codes for earthquake/hurricane prone areas. Tornados are relatively small, and the core of violent winds in them are even smaller in radius. 99.99% of homes in America will never be impacted by a significant/violent tornado. It does feel like one goal from an engineering standpoint of the EF scale is to try and show just how bad they think building standards are in America, But their central dream of having above code well built site homes across America is just fantasy land.

 

[NewFoundWeatherNerd]

Oh yea; absolutely not denying the fact Smithville couldve been the strongest tornado of the day, I agree! It, or Hackleburg were absurdly strong, that shouldnt be denied. Smithville IS INCREDIBLE, Im only stating it's not the worst as some state erroneously.
I need to do more research on Guin; but Brandonburg is undeniably upper echelon in itself. It's damage photos look like something out of Hiroshima after the atomic bomb, you cant say that for most tornadoes.
Like Im no Smithville "denier"; it pulped trees and furniture, threw a vehicle over a mile; it preformed incredible feats, horrifying ones. It's just put in spots where it shouldn't be, lessening what it actually did.

Smithville is undeniably an EF5, I'd put it second only to Piedmont in 201

Here’s what really catches my eye. Not really a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe structural engineers are on a “crusade” to improve building codes across America and are trying to use the EF scale as a cudgel to get their point across. Jarrell could have went another 50 years after 1987 without a tornado, why update your building code for something like that? Even in the most tornado prone areas on earth, the return rate on a violent tornado isn’t every year.

I get having building codes for earthquake/hurricane prone areas. Tornados are relatively small, and the core of violent winds in them are even smaller in radius. 99.99% of homes in America will never be impacted by a significant/violent tornado. It does feel like one goal from an engineering standpoint of the EF scale is to try and show just how bad they think building standards are in America, But their central dream of having above code well built site homes across America is just fantasy land.

That 1987 tornado was another event that deserves discussion; in my extensive research of Jarrell: I realize that without the original F3, a lot of things would be of different outcome.
Just another thing in the endless melting pot of information around the event.

 

[OH-IOan]

This to me is the most extreme image of contextual Jarrell damage I've seen; you rarely see photos of cycloidal marking (besides Washington 2013) and deep scouring in a populated area.

 

[Aaron Rider]

Here’s what really catches my eye. Not really a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe structural engineers are on a “crusade” to improve building codes across America and are trying to use the EF scale as a cudgel to get their point across. Jarrell could have went another 50 years after 1987 without a tornado, why update your building code for something like that? Even in the most tornado prone areas on earth, the return rate on a violent tornado isn’t every year.

I get having building codes for earthquake/hurricane prone areas. Tornados are relatively small, and the core of violent winds in them are even smaller in radius. 99.99% of homes in America will never be impacted by a significant/violent tornado. It does feel like one goal from an engineering standpoint of the EF scale is to try and show just how bad they think building standards are in America, But their central dream of having above code well built site homes across America is just fantasy land.

Not even mentioning the fact that there is very good reason to believe that building codes, much like zoning laws, are often extremely subject to enough, let's just say, political stuff that their actual usefulness and application are.....well, I often think they exist for (legitimate) liability reasons as much as anything.

 

[AJS]

How in the hell was the Saloma, KY Tornado from December 10-11 2021 rated EF3???

 

[NewFoundWeatherNerd]

View attachment 40767View attachment 40768
How in the hell was the Saloma, KY Tornado from December 10-11 2021 rated EF3???

Honestly I think this outbreak shouldve had 3-4 EF4 tornadoes; yes I agree with Bowling Green's rating, but contextually it still was very strong. I in some manner dont blame the surveyors; the outbreak was absurdly widespread.
I do think some areas were just "scanned" over examined; meaning they took a glance, assigned the rating, and moved on without a closer look. Simply because of the lack of resources, long tracked tornadoes, and minimal time; it's no excuse, but it's a possible reason for why it looks like spots were just... missed. I assume this same thing is the reason why every tornado from 4/2 was rated EF3; in fact a friend of mine pointed out that a structure (which was completely leveled) wasnt even rated with Lake City. (or it appears that way)

Just not enough time, not enough knowledgeable people, and a lack of dedication and reason. I just dont think we have that PASSION to rate tornadoes with the current NWS; maybe NWS Jackson, but all the other offices just arent passionate about it. It doesnt help we've been short on people to do it for years; at least knowledgeable people who want to go outside the box. Tim Marshall is just a second voice, he isnt the one doing it; he himself has that passion im talking about; so do we, but we cant have influence. I do have hope that the upcoming generation has that fiery passion to discover, the one that Ted Fujita himself possessed; that's what we need, someone who actually cares, puts in the work, and is given the grace and resources they need.
We need innovators, not box checkers.

 

[OH-IOan]

Honestly I think this outbreak shouldve had 3-4 EF4 tornadoes; yes I agree with Bowling Green's rating, but contextually it still was very strong. I in some manner dont blame the surveyors; the outbreak was absurdly widespread.
I do think some areas were just "scanned" over examined; meaning they took a glance, assigned the rating, and moved on without a closer look. Simply because of the lack of resources, long tracked tornadoes, and minimal time; it's no excuse, but it's a possible reason for why it looks like spots were just... missed. I assume this same thing is the reason why every tornado from 4/2 was rated EF3; in fact a friend of mine pointed out that a structure (which was completely leveled) wasnt even rated with Lake City. (or it appears that way)

Just not enough time, not enough knowledgeable people, and a lack of dedication and reason. I just dont think we have that PASSION to rate tornadoes with the current NWS; maybe NWS Jackson, but all the other offices just arent passionate about it. It doesnt help we've been short on people to do it for years; at least knowledgeable people who want to go outside the box. Tim Marshall is just a second voice, he isnt the one doing it; he himself has that passion im talking about; so do we, but we cant have influence. I do have hope that the upcoming generation has that fiery passion to discover, the one that Ted Fujita himself possessed; that's what we need, someone who actually cares, puts in the work, and is given the grace and resources they need.
We need innovators, not box checkers.

I feel like Tim Marshall gets way too much crap online (I understand the Diaz posts backlash, but everything else). Remember y'all, this is the guy who wasn't told where the potential EF5 damage from Vilonia was and thus couldn't rate it. As you said, Tim Marshall doesn't "rate" damage, he suggests a rating.

 

[NewFoundWeatherNerd]

I feel like Tim Marshall gets way too much crap online (I understand the Diaz posts backlash, but everything else). Remember y'all, this is the guy who wasn't told where the potential EF5 damage from Vilonia was and thus couldn't rate it. As you said, Tim Marshall doesn't "rate" damage, he suggests a rating.

What was with the whole Vilionia situation anyway? I hear so much about the rating being seemingly tampered with just to ensure it wasnt an EF5; but who, what, and why? Because it just really seems like something from a "b-movie" plot; surveyors using conspiracy to deny a rating for some unknown purpose.
Specifically a certain Robert? Just something that deserves elaboration, as it seems to be some catalyst for the cucking of the EF5 rating as we have today

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

What was with the whole Vilionia situation anyway? I hear so much about the rating being seemingly tampered with just to ensure it wasnt an EF5; but who, what, and why? Because it just really seems like something from a "b-movie" plot; surveyors using conspiracy to deny a rating for some unknown purpose.
Specifically a certain Robert? Just something that deserves elaboration, as it seems to be some catalyst for the cucking of the EF5 rating as we have today

The sum up: NWS Little Rock ex-lead surveyor John Robinson was a person who worked on the EF Scale as it was being designed. He is notable because he held the opinion that homes should never be rated EF5, which is at least partially the reason why the EXP for homes on the EF scale is EF4. Apparently, this still wasn't enough, so when he led the Vilonia survey he rated a single EF5 candidate home EF4 for BS reasons, seemingly intentionally skipped the other EF5 candidate buildings, and when questioned about it used the Parkwood Meadows subdivision (which was rightfully rated EF4 for poor anchoring) as the evidence and said "See? Poorly anchored! Case closed!".

This led to a particular scourge in tornado ratings called "Vilonia Syndrome", which likely influenced ratings until at least 2017, if not longer. The worst was in 2014, where EVERY office lowballed. Smithville NY got a fully destroyed house rated BELOW the lowest bound for the DoD. The NWS in Jackson, one of the most liberal offices, rated the Louisville tornado EF4 (IMO should've also been EF5), the Tupelo tornado EF3, and a later tornado EF3 on BS claims as well. Among others. This is a large part of why I consider the Vilonia survey the worst NWS damage survey of all time.

Ironically, after John Robinson left, LZK liberalized a lot, and even rated a tornado EF2 based entirely on moved vehicles in 2021. I guarantee you: if Vilonia happened today, you'd get an EF5, no question.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

I feel like Tim Marshall gets way too much crap online (I understand the Diaz posts backlash, but everything else). Remember y'all, this is the guy who wasn't told where the potential EF5 damage from Vilonia was and thus couldn't rate it. As you said, Tim Marshall doesn't "rate" damage, he suggests a rating.

I think the reason he gets so much flak is because a lot of people view him as the main figurehead for damage surveys, kind of like Ted Fujita was during his time (but to a lesser extent), and the steward of the EF scale.

This is subjective opinion, but based on what I've seen I believe he actively sought that status/reputation, and it wasn't accidentally bestowed upon him. As the kids say, he wants all the clout but none of the smoke. All that being said, I'm definitely leaning way more towards @NewFoundWeatherNerd's points about a lack of passion being the biggest issue in fixing the situation we're in. We desperately need a new steward of damage surveying. My vote would be for Josh Wurman, but who knows if he'd even want the title. Maybe someone entirely new is needed!

On a semi-unrelated note -- this excerpt from a comment by Randy Zisper on Stormtrack (1970s tornado scientist and co-creator of the original Stormtrack Newsletter) almost makes it seem like there's always been a rivalry between Fujita's camp and the "engineer"/Texas Tech camp, and I think that rivalry has lasted into today.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Does anyone here believe 500 mph tornado winds are possible? If so, have there been any past tornadoes you think hit these speeds (or anywhere close)?

 

[TH2002]

2010
Tornadoes from 6/17/10 including Parker's Prairie and Albert Lea (maybe) (note to @TH2002 - what 6/17/10 tornadoes would you consider potential EF5 candidates?)

That's a tough call, because that outbreak is very poorly documented for an EF scale event. I'd imagine it's thanks in no small part to websites and images disappearing over the course of nearly 15 years, but anyways...

I'm going to place my bets on Parkers Prairie/Almora/Bluffton as having been the strongest. Left wind rowing and scouring visible on satellite imagery (the scouring was even still visible a few years later). Unfortunately, ground level photos are extremely difficult to come across.

I'd put Wadena at #2. Between the debarking, scouring, granulation and throwing/mangling of vehicles, the contextual damage was impressive. Have not seen any EF5 level structural damage from that one though. Easily the most well documented tornado from that event, which makes sense considering it hit a town directly while the others remained in rural areas.

Albert Lea scoured crops to bare soil, probably its most impressive feat. Also threw and mangled vehicles and caused debarking of trees, but not quite on the same level as Wadena. The homes it swept away were also not well constructed, so I think EF4 was the right call.

Regarding Holmes, I do agree with EF4. The home it swept away was well constructed, but the contextual damage was lacking.

As for your previous question about Barnesville, I highly doubt any footage of it exists. It's not impossible, but highly unlikely considering it happened after midnight and impacted rural areas. I'd place my bets that you're misremembering what news report you saw the footage in (even if you're 100% certain it was a Barnesville report, I doubt the footage would have been of the Barnesville tornado itself).

 

[joshoctober16]

Does anyone here believe 500 mph tornado winds are possible? If so, have there been any past tornadoes you think hit these speeds (or anywhere close)?

i forget what the highest possible winds could possibly be , however using the highest possible MPH damage point and converting it to the one study's wind speed (radar measurement vs damage) , the highest damage point that mention a MPH to cause a damage (at least since 2007) was at the 2011 el reno EF5 tornado at a above ground storm shelter that would withstand 300 mph winds, its to note there 2 damage points that are stronger yet don't have a MPH given to them , one is once again el reno 2011 and the other was from the Smithville EF5.


pretty much extend the solid black line, till it reaches the 134.112 MS point in the Y axis , once its reach there , just look where the black line is at in the X axis and that is probably one of the highest MPH winds calculated , from a known tornado that is.

i was trying to do a measurement of this , i have it saved somewhere , but i can at least tell you its for sure over 400 mph.

 

[joshoctober16]

i forget what the highest possible winds could possibly be , however using the highest possible MPH damage point and converting it to the one study's wind speed (radar measurement vs damage) , the highest damage point that mention a MPH to cause a damage (at least since 2007) was at the 2011 el reno EF5 tornado at a above ground storm shelter that would withstand 300 mph winds, its to note there 2 damage points that are stronger yet don't have a MPH given to them , one is once again el reno 2011 and the other was from the Smithville EF5.

View attachment 40814
pretty much extend the solid black line, till it reaches the 134.112 MS point in the Y axis , once its reach there , just look where the black line is at in the X axis and that is probably one of the highest MPH winds calculated , from a known tornado that is.

i was trying to do a measurement of this , i have it saved somewhere , but i can at least tell you its for sure over 400 mph.

the calculation is at 641 mph

3 things to note

1:its at a average height of 15 meters with some being 10 meters and others being 20 meters , but most are for 15 meters, so you could use the excuse of it being above ground but just barely, however base on DOW data the highest wind speeds tend to be at 5 meters
2:i might of slightly messed up the calculation by 1% however correcting it might make the wind speed at the higher end go up to 3 mph?
3:they note for the AMS paper somewhere that the data might still be under estimating it.

note unsure what the smithville and el reno oil rig mph would be.

 

[ColdFront]

Funny now but there was intense debate within the NWS on giving the 2011 El Reno an EF5 rating because of the non traditional DIs.

 

[NewFoundWeatherNerd]

The sum up: NWS Little Rock ex-lead surveyor John Robinson was a person who worked on the EF Scale as it was being designed. He is notable because he held the opinion that homes should never be rated EF5, which is at least partially the reason why the EXP for homes on the EF scale is EF4. Apparently, this still wasn't enough, so when he led the Vilonia survey he rated a single EF5 candidate home EF4 for BS reasons, seemingly intentionally skipped the other EF5 candidate buildings, and when questioned about it used the Parkwood Meadows subdivision (which was rightfully rated EF4 for poor anchoring) as the evidence and said "See? Poorly anchored! Case closed!".

This led to a particular scourge in tornado ratings called "Vilonia Syndrome", which likely influenced ratings until at least 2017, if not longer. The worst was in 2014, where EVERY office lowballed. Smithville NY got a fully destroyed house rated BELOW the lowest bound for the DoD. The NWS in Jackson, one of the most liberal offices, rated the Louisville tornado EF4 (IMO should've also been EF5), the Tupelo tornado EF3, and a later tornado EF3 on BS claims as well. Among others. This is a large part of why I consider the Vilonia survey the worst NWS damage survey of all time.

Ironically, after John Robinson left, LZK liberalized a lot, and even rated a tornado EF2 based entirely on moved vehicles in 2021. I guarantee you: if Vilonia happened today, you'd get an EF5, no question.

Wow so his biased opinion literally lead to a falsified rating just to prove himself right.
That sucks.
But yea 2014 was 100% just an underrated year, had multiple tornadoes well into EF4-5 range over and over again. Such as Stanton or Colridge, lotta other tornadoes were most likely way stronger than the rating