I'm going to answer these in steps to avoid clutter and attempt to make each point clear. Each paragraph is denoted by a number.
1. I'm assuming you're talking about the contextuals in my example I shared. There is no "quantifiable" way to do that, I agree. But precedent has been set with past F5 tornadoes and EF5 tornadoes, a precedent that's more than valid, that allows us to be able to discern violent contextual damage from non-violent contextual damage. Almost anyone in this forum is capable of discerning between those two things, and there are some borderline cases that are more challenging, but the point still stands. This has nothing to do with actually attempting to quantify the wind speeds here required for these exact things, doing so is not only exceptionally nontrivial, but I imagine the answers we would get would be extremely inconsistent if we did have some hypothetical way to get a windspeed calc on a hardwood tree being debarked.
What about my example isn't a valid reason to stay conservative with the rating? There's a lot of "what ifs" here. That's not how science works, we operate based on what we know and can confidently say. Hypotheses are for new ideas, not a full-fledged scale that is
supposed to be entrenched in reality. That's not what is happening with the current scale, I agree, but in Enderlin's case it just doesn't apply. There's a single instance of damage from this tornado that
may point to EF5 level winds. In every other rated EF5, and even a good portion of F5s,
there's a lot. That's the consistency that we should have at this point. We may not know what wind speeds are adequate to inflict extreme scouring, but it definitely doesn't require a minimum of 250 mph winds, that's most certainly an over-exaggeration.
I agree with your final sentence. But, being careful as a scientist is very important. I think over-estimations are just as bad as under-estimations. The reasons for the extremely over-conservative rating of today are
mostly not unscientific, and I think you should be a bit careful with throwing a term like that around when the people who are surveying the damage are full-fledged wind engineers. Again, I agree that
some WFOs are problematic when it comes to this. But that's why I think the biggest issue with the scale is the consistency in how its applied, not necessarily the contents of it.
2. I didn't use it as an excuse for lowballing ratings. The very reason why a lot of these listed windspeeds for the EF scale are the way they are is because of the things I mentioned here, this is the math that gives us the 200 mph EF5s. Which, as you know, isn't correct, because we have seen countless examples of 200+ mph readings, some even near ground level, in non-violent tornadoes. I'm arguing that it's too difficult with what we have now to be able to confidently say "this tornado briefly reached EF5 intensity because it threw a train car, and somehow managed to not debark trees extensively," and we should reflect that in the consistency of how we rate tornadoes, at least for now.
I was discussing those points in the context of the train car throw. I was giving potential reasons why the calculation could be giving either A) a higher number than what should be expected, and/or B) a number that makes no sense. You and I both do not know the exact windspeed required to loft a train car and toss it. What the calculation tells us, is that a wind moving in one direction, acting uniformly over only one side of the object, with little to no vertical component, with no debris, and
without lift, requires >260 mph winds. Tornadic winds are extremely complicated and this is most certainly not the case within them, so honestly this doesn't tell us a whole lot IMO. It's still an impressive calculation too, but again, it's just too complex to integrate confidently into what our final rating should be.
3. If a tornado inflicts less-than-violent scouring throughout almost its entire life, and slabs a house in the process, then there isn't anything wrong with assuming that it is a poorly built structure, you just need to find evidence of it. Which these engineers are obviously too good at doing. I'm not saying to assume poor construction with every home, I'm saying you can safely assume it or prior lack of structural integrity if the context surrounding it makes sense with that conclusion. That's not being unscientific, that's proposing an idea and uncovering new information that supports it. What I have a problem with is when homes are nitpicked to death despite being surrounded with good context, or homes that aren't looked into in-depth with good context either. This does most certainly occur, unfortunately.
4. We do know 150 mph winds can't do that. Again, this is an issue with the EF scale having the listed wind speeds it does. As
@jiharris0220 stated, a 200 mph F3 rating would make perfect sense here. But also, that doesn't mean that a >200 mph EF5 works here, the EF scale winds are simply incorrect (at least at violent intensities specifically). I promise you, though, that people are working to fix the issue with the new scale.
I fully share a lot of the sentiments that you do, believe me. This whole conversation is mostly about my opinion on Enderlin and nothing else. I'm not defending past ratings, I just don't think Enderlin deserves an EF5 rating at all. Maybe a low-end EF4, but that's the highest I'm willing to go.
The scouring looked to be about on par with Grinnell's worst scouring, obviously a far smaller size but that's what I deduced. There was a twitter post about it in the Severe Weather 2025 thread, it looks extremely impressive to me. Of course, I'm happy to be proven wrong here.
