• 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

ColdFront said:
Yep! Me too. It just takes that perfect combination of right intensity, right DI, and right context all at the same time. And in a lot of the areas where tornados are common in the USA, that’s a rarity.

I do want to research a storm later from 4/27, it may have been the Flat Rock or the Stevenson-Fackler tornado where, recently, one of the Mets that surveyed it straight up told James Spann on his podcast he thought it was a 5 but there was something with an anchor bolt or a small fence was still standing that kept it at a 4.

After the New Wren debacle(almost as egregious as Vilonia), we could’ve been looking at 6 EF5s that day.
Click to expand...
It was a small fence, and it was Flat Rock.
 
buckeye05 said:
100% agreed. There was not a single instance of clear-cut EF5 damage along the Mayfield path. Now did it contain EF5 winds? Based on the Bremen damage, almost certainly. However, there wasn't a single point that met BOTH the structural and contextual criteria for EF5. I wish people would stop using Mayfield as an example of an egregiously underrated tornado. It hurts the credibility of hobbyists like us, and perpetuates the perception of "lol look at the tornado weenies squabbling over ratings on the internet thinking everything is an EF5". If you want to talk about missed EF5s, then lets talk about Chickasha, Goldsby, Vilonia, Fairdale, Chapman, New Wren, and potentially Tuscaloosa.

Now if we had the type of construction from Cambridge Shores in the same area as the type of contextual damage seen in Bremen, it would be a different story, but those two factors which are needed for an EF5 rating, never overlapped with one another at a single point along the path.
Click to expand...
I’ll keep this brief:

1.) I don’t know a single person who thinks every tornado is an EF5. This seems like a comment targeted at certain individuals.

2.) After talking to several surveyors including PAH themselves, they all essentially agree that this tornado was likely an EF5 but wasn’t rated this because of political reasons likely with CRH. There are people at the office (including other offices such as Springfield) who did agree with likely EF5. There are discussions of an upgrade with the new EF-Scale. So saying it “wasn’t an EF5” is overwhelmingly and defiantly wrong. Was it rated EF4? Yes, however the rating is a bit open ended.

3.) The vast majority of the tornadoes you just named (aside from Wren, Vilonia, & Tuscaloosa) were slower moving plains tornadoes and their damage and tornado structures are going to be different, thus it’s not gonna be fair to compare those with Mayfield.

4.) It would serve better to not put emotions into this. Don’t foam at the mouth anytime someone brings up a higher rating you inherently disagree with. Shaming so called “WeatherWeenies” for “squabbling” but still obtaining that same mentality is hypocritical.
 
CalebRoutt said:
I’ll keep this brief:

1.) I don’t know a single person who thinks every tornado is an EF5. This seems like a comment targeted at certain individuals.

2.) After talking to several surveyors including PAH themselves, they all essentially agree that this tornado was likely an EF5 but wasn’t rated this because of political reasons likely with CRH. There are people at the office (including other offices such as Springfield) who did agree with likely EF5. There are discussions of an upgrade with the new EF-Scale. So saying it “wasn’t an EF5” is overwhelmingly and defiantly wrong. Was it rated EF4? Yes, however the rating is a bit open ended.

3.) The vast majority of the tornadoes you just named (aside from Wren, Vilonia, & Tuscaloosa) were slower moving plains tornadoes and their damage and tornado structures are going to be different, thus it’s not gonna be fair to compare those with Mayfield.

4.) It would serve better to not put emotions into this. Don’t foam at the mouth anytime someone brings up a higher rating you inherently disagree with. Shaming so called “WeatherWeenies” for “squabbling” but still obtaining that same mentality is hypocritical.
Click to expand...
Not jumping in on you or anything, but that’s a pretty big and alarming statement to make if true. I guess my follow up questions are, can you expand a bit? And Exactly what is CRH? At the end of the day, the ball was in PAH’s court to rate this as an EF5, if they felt it was, why wasn’t it rated as such?

One of the Mets at Paducah went on Spann’s podcast shortly after and seemed to agree with the EF4 rating. I don’t think anyone is saying this tornado wasn’t capable of harboring EF5 winds and power, it just didn’t come across anything clear cut to be rated as such, which is an issue in discerning tornado power from an engineering standard.
 
ColdFront said:
Not jumping in on you or anything, but that’s a pretty big and alarming statement to make if true. I guess my follow up questions are, can you expand a bit? And Exactly what is CRH? At the end of the day, the ball was in PAH’s court to rate this as an EF5, if they felt it was, why wasn’t it rated as such?

One of the Mets at Paducah went on Spann’s podcast shortly after and seemed to agree with the EF4 rating. I don’t think anyone is saying this tornado wasn’t capable of harboring EF5 winds and power, it just didn’t come across anything clear cut to be rated as such, which is an issue in discerning tornado power from an engineering standard.
Click to expand...
Yes it was definitely EF4 by PAH there’s no question what it was officially rated. What I meant was PAH has left an open ended rating to likely be upgraded with the new EF-Scale as they said.

CRH tends to be extremely conservative on ratings like we saw with Rochelle for a good example. We contrast that with SRH which tends to rate tornadoes less conservatively (but not extremely bullish).

Totally off topic: I’ve often wondered how Kentucky is even in the Central Region, if we are in the south and not in the central US.
 
CalebRoutt said:
Yes it was definitely EF4 by PAH there’s no question what it was officially rated. What I meant was PAH has left an open ended rating to likely be upgraded with the new EF-Scale as they said.

CRH tends to be extremely conservative on ratings like we saw with Rochelle for a good example. We contrast that with SRH which tends to rate tornadoes less conservatively (but not extremely bullish).

Totally off topic: I’ve often wondered how Kentucky is even in the Central Region, if we are in the south and not in the central US.
Click to expand...
Oh, okay. Do you care to maybe elaborate some on possible repercussions to PAH staff if they went with EF5 against CRHs wishes? I always thought ratings were completely up to the NWS office where the tornado occurred, not additional input coming from a higher authority.

I’m from KY as well, but I know Western KY has always been looked as part of the Midwest/Central US than the south, or it could just be proximity to CRHs location. We are just in a weird place geographically it seems.
 
My main issue with the Mayfield survey was not the rating itself - I don't necessarily think there was EF scale 'abuse' in the sense blatant misrating occurred. Maybe some of the ratings were slightly on the low end. For that "awesomely built home" I could see an argument for 200mph (Like Rochelle) but that was maybe avoided for being too close to an EF5 and the fact past EF5s have been rated 200mph. The 200/EF4 rating seems almost 'retired' nowadays. But if single homes can't receive EF5 damage unless exceptionally well built (which seems to be the current way of things despite that not always being the situation), then I don't think PAH messed up in that sense.

Rather, my main issue was the rushed/incomplete nature of the survey. I'm sure posts can be found in the thread somewhere but there were very many destroyed buildings/swept homes visible on high-res satellite that as far as I know, were never surveyed or at least added to DAT, mentioned in surveys etc. Even in Mayfield itself, only about half of the DIs were added. Even some structures which *apparently* may have been EF5 candidates, like some of the completely destroyed large brick churches were not officially surveyed by the NWS (as far as I am aware). No DIs for context, vehicle damage or similar were added. The recent Rolling Forks survey was a perfect example of a great survey - almost all DIS added, context, vehicle damage DIs added. However, I do realise the absolutely massive amount of path to survey in KY, but given multiple survey teams from multiple offices, I would have maybe expected more - I would never have minded waiting more for a more thorough survey.

I also found something I read on twitter this morning insightful - NWS Paducah highlighted multiple DIs for a rating of 190+mph (i.e. EF5 or at least very high end EF4), that were all kept at 190mph instead by Tim Marshall. I don't necessarily think there was much 'foul play' at NWS Paducah, I believe they did a relatively good job and they seemed not opposed to a higher rating as some surveys have been in the past. I just think there are fundamental problems with the EF scale and a pressure to be 'conservative' nowadays.
 
UK_EF4 said:
My main issue with the Mayfield survey was not the rating itself - I don't necessarily think there was EF scale 'abuse' in the sense blatant misrating occurred. Maybe some of the ratings were slightly on the low end. For that "awesomely built home" I could see an argument for 200mph (Like Rochelle) but that was maybe avoided for being too close to an EF5 and the fact past EF5s have been rated 200mph. The 200/EF4 rating seems almost 'retired' nowadays. But if single homes can't receive EF5 damage unless exceptionally well built (which seems to be the current way of things despite that not always being the situation), then I don't think PAH messed up in that sense.

Rather, my main issue was the rushed/incomplete nature of the survey. I'm sure posts can be found in the thread somewhere but there were very many destroyed buildings/swept homes visible on high-res satellite that as far as I know, were never surveyed or at least added to DAT, mentioned in surveys etc. Even in Mayfield itself, only about half of the DIs were added. Even some structures which *apparently* may have been EF5 candidates, like some of the completely destroyed large brick churches were not officially surveyed by the NWS (as far as I am aware). No DIs for context, vehicle damage or similar were added. The recent Rolling Forks survey was a perfect example of a great survey - almost all DIS added, context, vehicle damage DIs added. However, I do realise the absolutely massive amount of path to survey in KY, but given multiple survey teams from multiple offices, I would have maybe expected more - I would never have minded waiting more for a more thorough survey.

I also found something I read on twitter this morning insightful - NWS Paducah highlighted multiple DIs for a rating of 190+mph (i.e. EF5 or at least very high end EF4), that were all kept at 190mph instead by Tim Marshall. I don't necessarily think there was much 'foul play' at NWS Paducah, I believe they did a relatively good job and they seemed not opposed to a higher rating as some surveys have been in the past. I just think there are fundamental problems with the EF scale and a pressure to be 'conservative' nowadays.
Click to expand...
I really think PAH’s inexperience with tornados of this type really led to the issues with the DAT, missing DIs etc But like you said with multiple offices helping it shouldn’t be an excuse. But I do think PAH was in over their heads.
 
ColdFront said:
Oh, okay. Do you care to maybe elaborate some on possible repercussions to PAH staff if they went with EF5 against CRHs wishes? I always thought ratings were completely up to the NWS office where the tornado occurred, not additional input coming from a higher authority.

I’m from KY as well, but I know Western KY has always been looked as part of the Midwest/Central US than the south, or it could just be proximity to CRHs location. We are just in a weird place geographically it seems.
Click to expand...
If a NWS office rates something as EF4 or higher it has to be approved first by either QRT or regional head quarters.

Kentucky is most certainly a southern state. The vast majority of tornadoes here are essentially stuff you’d see in the deep south. Plus culturally it’s southern.
 
UK_EF4 said:
My main issue with the Mayfield survey was not the rating itself - I don't necessarily think there was EF scale 'abuse' in the sense blatant misrating occurred. Maybe some of the ratings were slightly on the low end. For that "awesomely built home" I could see an argument for 200mph (Like Rochelle) but that was maybe avoided for being too close to an EF5 and the fact past EF5s have been rated 200mph. The 200/EF4 rating seems almost 'retired' nowadays. But if single homes can't receive EF5 damage unless exceptionally well built (which seems to be the current way of things despite that not always being the situation), then I don't think PAH messed up in that sense.

Rather, my main issue was the rushed/incomplete nature of the survey. I'm sure posts can be found in the thread somewhere but there were very many destroyed buildings/swept homes visible on high-res satellite that as far as I know, were never surveyed or at least added to DAT, mentioned in surveys etc. Even in Mayfield itself, only about half of the DIs were added. Even some structures which *apparently* may have been EF5 candidates, like some of the completely destroyed large brick churches were not officially surveyed by the NWS (as far as I am aware). No DIs for context, vehicle damage or similar were added. The recent Rolling Forks survey was a perfect example of a great survey - almost all DIS added, context, vehicle damage DIs added. However, I do realise the absolutely massive amount of path to survey in KY, but given multiple survey teams from multiple offices, I would have maybe expected more - I would never have minded waiting more for a more thorough survey.

I also found something I read on twitter this morning insightful - NWS Paducah highlighted multiple DIs for a rating of 190+mph (i.e. EF5 or at least very high end EF4), that were all kept at 190mph instead by Tim Marshall. I don't necessarily think there was much 'foul play' at NWS Paducah, I believe they did a relatively good job and they seemed not opposed to a higher rating as some surveys have been in the past. I just think there are fundamental problems with the EF scale and a pressure to be 'conservative' nowadays.
Click to expand...
Tim only surveyed in Mayfield and Dawson Springs. Both areas I agree were high end EF4 190 mph. Construction practice in both areas were bad. I even went to Dawson Springs myself and there’s poorly built homes there. The only thing that could arguably be rated EF5 there were the metal buildings and the apartment complexes. The contextual damage in Dawson was certainly supportive though.
 
CalebRoutt said:
I’ll keep this brief:

1.) I don’t know a single person who thinks every tornado is an EF5. This seems like a comment targeted at certain individuals.

2.) After talking to several surveyors including PAH themselves, they all essentially agree that this tornado was likely an EF5 but wasn’t rated this because of political reasons likely with CRH. There are people at the office (including other offices such as Springfield) who did agree with likely EF5. There are discussions of an upgrade with the new EF-Scale. So saying it “wasn’t an EF5” is overwhelmingly and defiantly wrong. Was it rated EF4? Yes, however the rating is a bit open ended.

3.) The vast majority of the tornadoes you just named (aside from Wren, Vilonia, & Tuscaloosa) were slower moving plains tornadoes and their damage and tornado structures are going to be different, thus it’s not gonna be fair to compare those with Mayfield.

4.) It would serve better to not put emotions into this. Don’t foam at the mouth anytime someone brings up a higher rating you inherently disagree with. Shaming so called “WeatherWeenies” for “squabbling” but still obtaining that same mentality is hypocritical.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I never said I thought every tornado was an EF5; just that way too many tornadoes have been underrated within the past decade or so due to Vilonia and the resulting pressure of being conservative with tornado ratings.
Also the term "WeatherWeenies" is amusing to me; makes me think of a hot dog with a tornado shape.
 
CalebRoutt said:
If a NWS office rates something as EF4 or higher it has to be approved first by either QRT or regional head quarters.

Kentucky is most certainly a southern state. The vast majority of tornadoes here are essentially stuff you’d see in the deep south. Plus culturally it’s southern.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know that, well today I learned, that is bureaucracy at its finest.

We will have to agree to disagree on the entirety of KY being a southern state. Someone from Covington and near @buckeye05 ‘s area of Ohio is most likely not going to have the same value sets as someone from southeastern Appalachian KY.
 
Last edited:
CalebRoutt said:
Tim only surveyed in Mayfield and Dawson Springs. Both areas I agree were high end EF4 190 mph. Construction practice in both areas were bad. I even went to Dawson Springs myself and there’s poorly built homes there. The only thing that could arguably be rated EF5 there were the metal buildings and the apartment complexes. The contextual damage in Dawson was certainly supportive though.
Click to expand...


This is what I am referring to btw, as I forgot to link it initially. The NWS raised a couple of DIs as being possible EF4+ and Tim kept them EF4 due to construction issues. I still doubt he would have said anything in Bremen was EF5 though.

Also side topic, what were the metal buildings in Dawson Springs? I have never heard of them before and would be interested in other potential EF5 DIs.
 
UK_EF4 said:


This is what I am referring to btw, as I forgot to link it initially. The NWS raised a couple of DIs as being possible EF4+ and Tim kept them EF4 due to construction issues. I still doubt he would have said anything in Bremen was EF5 though.

Also side topic, what were the metal buildings in Dawson Springs? I have never heard of them before and would be interested in other potential EF5 DIs.
Click to expand...

From what I saw of the metal buildings, probably not. It did hit a propane tank shop and tossed several propane tanks hundreds of yards into nearby debarked trees though.
 
ColdFront said:
I didn’t know that, well today I learned, that is bureaucracy at its finest.

We will have to agree to disagree on the entirety of KY being a southern state. Someone from Covington and near @buckeye05 ‘s area of Ohio is most likely not going to have the same value sets as someone from southeastern Appalachian KY.
Click to expand...
Ohio is the worst state ever LMAO. The far northern section of Kentucky is basically an extension of the Cincinnati Metro anyway.

As a whole I would say we are southern even the northern part of Kentucky would probably seem redneck af to someone living in NY.
 
Gee, with all of this nonsense surrounding ratings, it's almost as if people do care about these things! Who woulda' thunk it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top