• 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

How do y'all feel about the EF3 rating of the Fultondale tornado? I personally think a low-end EF4 could have been warranted. Some photos:
1747159314297.png
Obliterated manufactured home in Fultondale
1747159336815.png
Snapped tree trunks, not sure whether they were softwood or hardwood
1747159364322.png
Completely slabbed home, debris swept (although it looks unanchored)
1747159411981.png
Bolted home slabbed
 
Shakespeare 2016 said:
I liked Fujita much than the idiots we have today that take nothing into account but the construction of the house. It is getting to be flat out stupid if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Calling an entire group of damage surveyors and engineers idiots who spent much of their time studying, doing math, getting taught from experts (AKA the people who were from Fujita’s era of surveying) is pretty distasteful, especially when considering the fact that surveying is heavily dependent on the office doing it and differs vastly dependent on that factor alone. Regardless on whether or not you agree with their ratings, they have reasons for doing things the way they do. They are more qualified than many of us to assign tornado ratings based on the current scale. It’s inherently subjective and will continue to be for a long time.

** moved this from another thread, because I agree with the sentiment shared there after I posted this reply. **
 
Shakespeare 2016 said:
I have studying tornado damage for 23 years but yet I don't know nothing according to you. There are people on this forum who are better than the experts at rating tornadoes.
Click to expand...
I did not say anything about you or your ability to read tornado damage dude. I’m saying that you are calling an entire group of engineers that have well-agreed upon distinctions of what certain damage types look like idiots because you don’t agree with them. I don’t know you or your credentials, but it’s very distasteful regardless. This isn’t how civil debate works. The wind engineers behind the scale are most certainly more qualified than you at assigning a damage rating. There are a few bad ratings as of late for upper echelon tornadoes but that doesn’t mean they don’t know what they are doing.
 
slenker said:
Calling an entire group of damage surveyors and engineers idiots who spent much of their time studying, doing math, getting taught from experts (AKA the people who were from Fujita’s era of surveying) is pretty distasteful, especially when considering the fact that surveying is heavily dependent on the office doing it and differs vastly dependent on that factor alone. Regardless on whether or not you agree with their ratings, they have reasons for doing things the way they do. They are more qualified than many of us to assign tornado ratings based on the current scale. It’s inherently subjective and will continue to be for a long time.

** moved this from another thread, because I agree with the sentiment shared there after I posted this reply. **
Click to expand...
Well since you said we should always trust the experts because they know what they are doing, then there is no point in having An Enhanced Fujita Scale Debate. You sound like one of those people who never question authority. I do so quite frequently.
 
Shakespeare 2016 said:
Well since you said we should always trust the experts because they know what they are doing, then there is no point in having An Enhanced Fujita Scale Debate. You sound like one of those people who never question authority. I do so quite frequently.
Click to expand...
You’re making really general assumptions about my beliefs when it comes to this sort of thing just because you’re getting called out for being uncivil about this stuff. I do question ratings, it’s literally a part of the science. There are repeated instances from you in particular of blowing things out of proportion and getting upset when you don’t try to seek to understand why a certain DI was given the rating it was (RE: Nick Krasz situation from early April - also not a defense of him because he did something really distasteful himself, but that whole thing could have been handled better). Be more open to hearing what they have to say, and be civil. That’s all I’m saying dude.
 
slenker said:
You’re making really general assumptions about my beliefs when it comes to this sort of thing just because you’re getting called out for being uncivil about this stuff. I do question ratings, it’s literally a part of the science. There are repeated instances from you in particular of blowing things out of proportion and getting upset when you don’t try to seek to understand why a certain DI was given the rating it was (RE: Nick Krasz situation from early April - also not a defense of him because he did something really distasteful himself, but that whole thing could have been handled better). Be more open to hearing what they have to say, and be civil. That’s all I’m saying dude.
Click to expand...
Because I hate 165 mph EF3 ratings consistently being assigned to tornadoes that apparently deserved a higher rating. Ever since around 2004 to 2006 I have had a bad taste in my mouth about high-end F3/EF3 ratings. Sure high-end F3/EF3 ratings exist but the abuse of them is what pisses me off so bad. The St Louis tornado from yesterday was probably a high-end EF3 and there are others I have agreed with as well(Nashville 2020 and Little Rock 2023 etc).
 
Last edited:
Y'all think they'll upgrade Marion? Given Lake City and Bakersfield this year, I actually have my doubts on us seeing a single EF4 this outbreak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
From the damage assessment of the Marion tornado:

"Two story home built in 2003 at 12928 Kyler Court *completely swept away* with *slab cleared* and *debris scattered into wooded area behind the home.* *Trees behind the homes were reduced to stubs.* [no reference to debarking - I thought I saw pictures of debarked trees with this tornado? Haven't confirmed that] Analysis by NWS damage surveyors and structural engineering experts showed that everything above the floor diaphragm of the home was removed. The studs were toe-nailed, and there was evidence of partially engineered wood being removed. The *extreme tree stubbing* combined with the *typical construction methods* of the home support a wind peak wind speed rating of 190 mph."

I assume "typical" rather than "excellent" construction methods is the justification for not an EF5. Please note I am not sufficiently well-versed enough to just make the blanket statement that this WAS an EF5. I do find it interesting that they're describing toe-nailed as "typical" rather than "below-average" or "poor." Shifting the burden of proof to the structure, rather than the winds, is, I suppose, a big complaint many have with the current paradigm.
 
Are there any damage photos out of Plevna, Kansas, yet? I’ve heard from at least a few people that it was 100% of EF5 intensity at some point in its life; but I’m not sure about construction quality in Kansas. It’s a miracle nobody was hurt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
OH-IOan said:
Are there any damage photos out of Plevna, Kansas, yet? I’ve heard from at least a few people that it was 100% of EF5 intensity at some point in its life; but I’m not sure about construction quality in Kansas. It’s a miracle nobody was hurt.
Click to expand...
It was a pretty rural area so it might take a while for pictures/videos to emerge.

Grinnell, KS seems to have been hit pretty hard. Significant damage being shown and easily looks to be in the EF3-EF4 range based on the contextual evidence shown.
 
AJS said:
It was a pretty rural area so it might take a while for pictures/videos to emerge.

Grinnell, KS seems to have been hit pretty hard. Significant damage being shown and easily looks to be in the EF3-EF4 range based on the contextual evidence shown.
Click to expand...
That was so weird, it looked like it had lifted on radar but actually tracked right into town.

Anyways, back on-topic. Indeed it does look potentially violent:
1747671847185.png
 
tornado examiner said:
I’m raising my eyebrows at the linton Indiana tornado survey. Nws Indianapolis has some explaining to do.
There is a lot of bullsh*t happening with the EF0 di’s at the end of the track showing EF2 damage at least being rated as low as 60mph.

That’s blatantly extremely conservative like wtf.
Click to expand...

Uhhh…
IMG_6478.pngIMG_6479.png
 
Aaron Rider said:
From the damage assessment of the Marion tornado:

"Two story home built in 2003 at 12928 Kyler Court *completely swept away* with *slab cleared* and *debris scattered into wooded area behind the home.* *Trees behind the homes were reduced to stubs.* [no reference to debarking - I thought I saw pictures of debarked trees with this tornado? Haven't confirmed that] Analysis by NWS damage surveyors and structural engineering experts showed that everything above the floor diaphragm of the home was removed. The studs were toe-nailed, and there was evidence of partially engineered wood being removed. The *extreme tree stubbing* combined with the *typical construction methods* of the home support a wind peak wind speed rating of 190 mph."

I assume "typical" rather than "excellent" construction methods is the justification for not an EF5. Please note I am not sufficiently well-versed enough to just make the blanket statement that this WAS an EF5. I do find it interesting that they're describing toe-nailed as "typical" rather than "below-average" or "poor." Shifting the burden of proof to the structure, rather than the winds, is, I suppose, a big complaint many have with the current paradigm.
Click to expand...
@buckeye05 has deduced that this was a CMU home without much of a true slab to begin with, so it's surprising this even got EF4 at all, much less 190 MPH EF4. Wow!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top