• 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

WeathermanLeprechaun said:
I watched Enderlin, but those photos take the cake for me on Enid. Most violent tornado I've watched live. Genuinely unreal contextuals, very high end tornado. This was the most violent in Oklahoma since Moore 2013, very easily. Right out of May 2013 if you will.
Click to expand...
It’s tough to say which one was more violent between Enid and Enderlin, but (maybe) hot take incoming: I think Enderlin may have marginally been more violent than Enid’s peak at the location where it tossed the train. The contextuals where Enderlin struck weren’t capable of displaying high end intensity because it was in the middle of a plowed field where it did its extreme train toss. However, I see Enderlin as more of a Joplin- or Greensburg-esque EF5, where there isn’t a super well defined location of the core that is consistent throughout its path (there is still a core) whereas Enid fits more of the super consolidated, well defined EF5 level core, seen in tornadoes like Vilonia or the violent tornadoes of 4/27/11. I think the contextuals that appear are also very dependent on whether or not the tornado has much more of a multi-vortex nature or if it has a very well established core that obliterates everything thoroughly. Both tornadoes are of EF5 intensity, clearly, but there’s an established “mode” to how the damage presents itself, for lack of a better term.
 
Lake Martin EF4 said:
EF5 contextuals, no doubt about it. Since I also factor in contextual damage in my interpretation of the EF scale (the LMEF Scale?), I now have this as an EF5. Note that last year didn't have my first surefire EF5 candidate by my book until mid-May, and it took me even longer to decide it was actually an EF5 candidate.
Click to expand...
What tornadoes besides Enderlin last year do you have as an EF5 candidate?
 
I’m wondering how thorough nws Norman is being with the final survey, which I think releases tomorrow. I do believe we’ll likely see a bump up with the wind max speeds. If they’re taking into account everything and doing pulling an enderlin, then a high end EF4, or even, contextual EF5 isn’t completely off the table. But, I doubt that.
 
tornado examiner said:
I’m wondering how thorough nws Norman is being with the final survey, which I think releases tomorrow. I do believe we’ll likely see a bump up with the wind max speeds. If they’re taking into account everything and doing pulling an enderlin, then a high end EF4, or even, contextual EF5 isn’t completely off the table. But, I doubt that.
Click to expand...
I fully expect an upgrade to at least a high end EF4. If we get a contextual EF5 that would be phenomenal!
 
For whatever reason I’ve been having issues uploading the photos due to a ‘server error,’ so I’ll have to wait for that to revolve before I can post the images. In the mean time, I did upload a video on YouTube of the footage I took in the areas where I saw the most extreme damage, so here’s that:



Checks basically every box in terms of EF5-contextual damage.
 
Western_KS_Wx said:
For whatever reason I’ve been having issues uploading the photos due to a ‘server error,’ so I’ll have to wait for that to revolve before I can post the images. In the mean time, I did upload a video on YouTube of the footage I took in the areas where I saw the most extreme damage, so here’s that:



Checks basically every box in terms of EF5-contextual damage.
Click to expand...

That is truly really extreme damage and even more violent than I actually expected. Every single hall mark is here. Mangled/Thrown vehicles, intense scouring over a long swath, granulation, debarking of trees/shrubbery, and other phenomena. By far the most violent tornado of the year and in my opinion based on these contextuals, one of the most violent of the decade.
 
speedbump305 said:
What tornadoes besides Enderlin last year do you have as an EF5 candidate?
Click to expand...
Other than Enderlin I think the best EF5 candidate from last year is probably London (with a high-tension tower destroyed, extreme tree damage, and debris granulation). I'm pretty confident that Plevna and a couple of the others on May 18 were probably at or near EF5 strength as well although they didn't really cause the damage to match.
 
Moving this post from the other thread in here.
buckeye05 said:
But in no circumstance is being dismissive of structural damage and engineering a good move scientifically in the realm of tornado intensity estimation. The true perfect scenario is learning to use contextual damage to fill in the gaps where structural damage doesn’t tell the full story. It’s about using both to complement one another, rather levying one as more important than the other.
Click to expand...
This is 100% what a lot of people need to hear, particularly EF weenies.

You need to have a quantitative approach that yields a consistent way to rate tornadoes for it to be a valid science. You cannot just go "OMG This tornado scowered grownd to the bedrock!!! EF5 >200 mph!!!!" with zero legitimate methodology used to calculate that number, because as far as we know, it isn't possible with the tools we have right now to get a number that remotely makes sense for contextual DIs like rootballing giant debarked trees, scouring grass, pavement removal, and many more. Could we potentially get to that point? Maybe, but as someone who does do active work with physics in some form, I can tell you it's going to be a while (maybe never) before we get a good method of doing it that doesn't yield completely erroneous results... fluid dynamics is very poorly understood in a lot of ways (and I mean that as a general statement), and turbulent flow is one of the greatest unsolved problems in the field right now. This is not me saying it's wrong to associate these types of contextual DIs with higher end events, that's totally fine, but you need to have a quantitative leg to stand on when you do it. It's the exact reason why people mix up what truly intense scouring looks like vs. nothing-burger trenching.

I get particularly annoyed when people who have never actually done the corresponding math and worked with the concepts in this field call engineers "idiots" because they aren't fitting their ego-driven fantasyland EF ratings based on something that cannot be quantified at the moment. It's completely asinine. They have no idea about the work that these people did to get to the level they're at, and they are a billion times more qualified than people spouting that complete drivel. This behavior seriously needs to be put in check on this forum.
 
Last edited:
Terrence Ross Wow GIF


Looking at these couple forums… Lol


I think it’s important for people to take a step back with some of these ratings. Nothing is completely set in stone. There’s been tornadoes before that have had their ratings changed well after the event. Enderlin went from an EF3 to an EF5, and Robinson still looks like something could potentially change there too, and that’s been over 3 years now. The same thing could happen with Enid or any of these more controversial ratings we’ve had the past few years. We just need to be patient and keep an open mind. There could easily be damage that was undocumented initially or something surveyors take a deeper look into later on.
 
slenker said:
Moving this post from the other thread in here.

This is 100% what a lot of people need to hear, particularly EF weenies.

You need to have a quantitative approach that yields a consistent way to rate tornadoes for it to be a valid science. You cannot just go "OMG This tornado scowered grownd to the bedrock!!! EF5 >200 mph!!!!" with zero legitimate methodology used to calculate that number, because as far as we know, it isn't possible with the tools we have right now to get a number that remotely makes sense for contextual DIs like rootballing giant debarked trees, scouring grass, pavement removal, and many more. Could we potentially get to that point? Maybe, but as someone who does do active work with physics in some form, I can tell you it's going to be a while (maybe never) before we get a good method of doing it that doesn't yield completely erroneous results... fluid dynamics very poorly understood in a lot of ways, and turbulent flow is one of the greatest unsolved problems in the field right now. This is not me saying it's wrong to associate these types of contextual DIs with higher end events, that's totally fine, but you need to have a quantitative leg to stand on when you do it. It's the exact reason why people mix up what truly intense scouring looks like vs. nothing-burger trenching.

I get particularly annoyed when people who have never actually done the corresponding math and worked with the concepts in this field call engineers "idiots" because they aren't fitting their ego-driven fantasyland EF ratings based on something that cannot be quantified at the moment. It's completely asinine. They have no idea about the work that these people did to get to the level they're at, and they are a billion times more qualified than people spouting that complete drivel. This behavior seriously needs to be put in check on this forum.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you backing me up on this. I still have strong opinions about certain contextual phenomenon (particularly grass scouring), as I’ve studied it long enough to know there’s a strong statistical correlation between it and high-end violent tornado events. But I have to acknowledge at the same time that I can’t cite anything (besides a single brief anecdote from a Tim Marshall PowerPoint that was used as a visual aid at a conference many years ago) or show you a specific number/percentage from a study to prove my point. It remains one of those things I know, but cannot scientifically prove. Hopefully that changes at some point (I’d do it myself if I was better at math).

But yes, there are a lot of people in this hobby who are super into EF scale stuff, but are clueless about the science that goes into it, and when they can’t wrap their heads around it, they just dismiss it and act like they’re above it or label it nonsense. I do think the EF scale needs work and I do acknowledge that we see a lot of botched ratings. But we also see a lot of people who offer such asinine counterpoints and display such poor comprehension of how science works, they make the crowd pushing for EF scale reforms look terrible by association.
 
I don't like starting fuel for arguments of trying to get into confrontations but sometimes people really do need to be put in their place on their forum. Some of the stuff said is just straight out of a 12 year old's mouth. These engineers know what they're doing. Tornado ratings aren't perfect and never will be. But it's really not like they're purposefully trying to fluke these ratings up and damage the system. It's genuinely mind-boggling that this particular person still hasn't learned from the many, many times they've had outbursts on X towards their OWN local office, and different ones. I don't step into damage much, because truthfully, I'm not well versed in it. I know the basics and the general landmarks etc etc but I'm not going to act like a authority on the topic if I'm not. That's how misinformation gets spread. When others act like they know what they're talking about and it's passed on and so on. There has to be repercussions at some point for some of these comments from time to time. But there's a difference between being humble and saying you're not a authority versus going "I'm doing this 25 years, so i know my stuff, so shush". Comes off more arrogant to me more than assuring or confident. Arrogance is a very poor trait and i dislike it plenty. Being too dismissive is what's hurting this science. And plus the people that get all up in arms and call engineers stupid are also what hurts the chances of us ever actually getting to peace again with the scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top