• 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

I’m not trying to be cringy or anything, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that this is likely one of the most significant days for tornado science in the 2020s (heck, certainly the most significant since at least 2013), and certainly one of the most significant applications of the EF scale to a modern tornado.

On my way to Wendy’s right now as promised ten (!) pages back.
 
I think at the very least, there’s enough data from Tuscaloosa for another look. I recall an academic study concluding 200+ MPH winds based on the coal car and the railroad bridge. If NWS Birmingham works in cooperation with whoever did that study and has access to the raw data and numbers, why not upgrade?

Also Mayfield was recent enough, and in their video presentation on that event NWS Paducah seemed open to eventually upgrading if new survey techniques arise.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
These results imply that a large compact object being lofted more than 50 m horizontally is an indicator of an EF5 tornado.
Click to expand...
I gotta admit...I'm pretty happy about this, considering the fact that I've always felt like that was one of the best indicators of an (E)F5 and I honestly was pretty annoyed after more than a decade of this kind of damage being completely ignored. Just off the top of my head, the tornadoes that need to be re-analyzed with this in mind are Tuscaloosa, Goldsby, Vilonia, Chapman, Camp Crook, Mayfield and Rolling Fork. I'm probably missing a couple of others.
 
Brice W said:
I think one of the better candidates this year that they could change in the coming weeks or months would be the Scott City/Grinnell tornado. Maybe not an EF5 but surely an EF4 should be warranted.
Click to expand...
Out of all the tornadoes from this year, if any deserve an upgrade, it’s the Bakersfield, MO tornado from March 14, 2025.
 
So we can say definitively that enderlin’s upgrade is scientifically warranted and valid.

But of course, people are trying to downplay it and say “nuh uh!”
These people beg for an EF5 for years, finally get one, and say “NOT THAT ONE.”

Gosh the online weather community is an absolute mess.
Yikes
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
AJS said:
Out of all the tornadoes from this year, if any deserve an upgrade, it’s the Bakersfield, MO tornado from March 14, 2025.
Click to expand...
This one and Lake City potentially deserves 4’s. I really do hope this happens more often to other EF3 and EF4 tornadoes. Or just criminally underrated tornadoes in general but the big exposition is just starting.
 
Ugh, I think I may have misread the survey. I was under the impression that the “sandpapering”/debarking was also rated EF5 and I don’t think it was. Oh well. At least we still have this new mathematics/physics-based way to ascertain EF5 winds.
 
buckeye05 said:
It was regarding missed EF5s and the human error-induced nature of the EF5 drought, and whether this establishes a way to go back and upgrade them.

He called critics “backseat drivers” and said the NWS is “in the know” and knows what they’re doing, and didn’t say whether further retroactive upgrades are possible or not.
Click to expand...
Lol, based on what I'm hearing from some pretty damn stout sources, NWS has many of the same problems that the critics do, and in some cases, worse.
 
buckeye05 said:
Ugh, I think I may have misread the survey. I was under the impression that the “sandpapering”/debarking was also rated EF5 and I don’t think it was. Oh well. At least we still have this new mathematics/physics-based way to ascertain EF5 winds.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they outright rated the tree damage EF5, but they used it in conjunction with the slabbed (improperly bolted) home and the train car lofting to justify EF5. As well as high end radar data being coincident with the extreme damage. IMO a great way to look at it, and not only that, the imagery of the tree damage doesn’t scream EF5 to me, although it’s definitely well into the EF4 range at the very least.

I’m really interested in what they said about the “root ball” tree in particular, the one where they couldn’t figure out where it came from. That’s a weird thing to emphasize IMO.
 
slenker said:
I don’t think they outright rated the tree damage EF5, but they used it in conjunction with the slabbed (improperly bolted) home and the train car lofting to justify EF5. As well as high end radar data being coincident with the extreme damage. IMO a great way to look at it, and not only that, the imagery of the tree damage doesn’t scream EF5 to me, although it’s definitely well into the EF4 range at the very least.

I’m really interested in what they said about the “root ball” tree in particular, the one where they couldn’t figure out where it came from. That’s a weird thing to emphasize IMO.
Click to expand...
They are talking about instances of trees being ripped out of the ground by their root balls, lofted, and thrown.

I cannot cite the source as I do not have it saved, but recent research has shown that this phenomenon is unique to intense tornadoes. At the time I first heard about this, the consensus was that a tornado had to be at least of EF3 strength for a root ball displacement to occur. Further research may have concluded that this is linked to even higher wind speeds, but I’m not sure.

While it isn’t an official part of the scale yet, root ball displacements were actually used as a determining factor for the EF3 rating of the December 2019 Sumrall, MS tornado.
 
Last edited:
tornadowatch211 said:
This thing might’ve bent railroad track and cracked concrete. Not joking
View attachment 46965View attachment 46966View attachment 46967
Click to expand...
If that's from the tornado itself, that would be only the second example in recorded history of a tornado bending continuously welded railroad tracks, and the NWS should probably look into using track damage at least as a contextual indicator. Interestingly enough it's not nearly as bad as Chapman 2016. It probably couldn't pass muster as an actual DI - 2 instances of damage isn't nearly enough - but it makes me wonder what kind of winds it took to bend the tracks slightly here and what it would have taken to do this.

Of course, that also reopens the can of worms of Chapman itself, which in my mind absolutely should have been rated EF5 - I'd even say it was the second-worst case of an underrated EF4 of the entire EF5 drought, only behind Vilonia.
Grand Poo Bah said:
I was more amused by it than disappointed because I really wasn't expecting him to just straight up say "yeah we sure have F'd up a lot!" live on air lmao. It's frustrating that he doesn't seem to be open to re-rating at all though.
Click to expand...
That's actually pretty funny lol. But I agree completely on there needing to be a lot of re-rating. EF5 was warranted for Enderlin, but I really don't see how it was more violent than most of the high-end EF4s (or even some other EF3s) over the last 12 years.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
Here's some interesting Figures from the study.

These are the wind speed probabilities for a Jeep Grand Cherokee (SUV) that was thrown 30-50 meters and a Chevrolet Silverado Z71 (truck) that was thrown 80-100 meters. A bombshell fact is they found a 0% probability of winds less than 200 mph (90 m/s) being capable of throwing a truck that distance. The SUV was 0% at 190 mph. This blows the doors wide open for reanalysis of dozens of tornado that achieved these feats and were given impossibly low wind speeds.

View attachment 46925

Here's the analysis of some haybales that were thrown. They found a 0% probability that sub 200 mph winds could throw them 50-100 meters.

View attachment 46926
View attachment 46927

Here is the results of all the specific items they modeled compared to their tornado's EF ratings.

View attachment 46928

I now understand why Tim Marshall was on board with the EF5 rating for Enderlin. This study was an absolute kill shot for the EF scale. I can't believe how much it has flown under the radar. These results imply that a large compact object being lofted more than 50 m horizontally is an indicator of an EF5 tornado. It also created an algorithm for calculating objects at all size, weights, and distances thrown.

It's also more evidence in support of the original Fujita scale.
Click to expand...
Like you said it goes to show how low the windspeed estimates for the ef scale are. Hurricane Andrew did this
1759807806613.png
with one minute (!) sustained winds of 165 mph.
 

Attachments

  • 1759807754084.png
    1759807754084.png
    3 MB · Views: 0
slenker said:
I don’t think they outright rated the tree damage EF5, but they used it in conjunction with the slabbed (improperly bolted) home and the train car lofting to justify EF5. As well as high end radar data being coincident with the extreme damage. IMO a great way to look at it, and not only that, the imagery of the tree damage doesn’t scream EF5 to me, although it’s definitely well into the EF4 range at the very least.

I’m really interested in what they said about the “root ball” tree in particular, the one where they couldn’t figure out where it came from. That’s a weird thing to emphasize IMO.
Click to expand...
im pretty sure the (root ball) thing is going to be the new tree dod7

Screenshot_146.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top