Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[Shakespeare 2016]

First post and glad to have found this place where sanity seems to be the norm. I've been 45 years building everything except bank vaults and water towers (and I've seen that happen up close). I can positively tell you there are no buildings made which could satisfy Engineers that they were properly constructed. They live in a dream word of paper and computer screens while we build in a world of time-pressure and conditions which prevent the best of anything. They need to adapt to reality and understand that while some buildings are shoddily built and standard DI's don't apply, they need to be accepting the rest as they are, revising their thinking and application of DI's to reflect that. Won't happen though; just another sadness in life.

Phil

Is there any reason why this is? I don't have an engineering degree but I am very good at math and think in those terms. I have been through Calculus III and I have gotten A'S in all my math classes. Not trying to brag but I just can't see why these engineers can't acknowledge this was an EF5 intensity tornado and did EF5 damage IMHO.

 

[Sawmaster]

It seems the Engineers want only perfectly built structures to assess; my point is that there are none of those. So if they want any results at all, they need to adapt their methods to work with what they've got, not what they want to have. I've seen numerous vids of slabs swept clean with anchor bolts, nuts and washers all that is left behind and an equal number where some shoe plate remains bolted with everything else gone. And with these often the debris from the house is some distance away or scattered such that you can't tell what came from which house and most is broken into smaller pieces. Even some windrowing. Even ground scouring. By their own standards that's EF-5.

I could offer commentary and anecdotes on what I believe is the reason (elitism) but I don't think that would add anything positive to this thread.

Phil

 

[tornado examiner]

fun fact. the nws pulled every single excuse and nitpick out of the book to rate the goldsby oklahoma tornado of may 24 2011 ef4........
even when it was clearly ef5

another fun fact. the wind speeds they use on the ef-scale are borderline completely innaccurate in some case's. hint. 180mph winds in a tornado doing absolutely nothing to trees in a tiv2 intercept. lmao....how does that work? it is noted that the smithville ef5 likely had 347mph wind speeds via rigorous calculations. which i agree with....because 205 would never cover that unless the tornado was moving at like, 5 mph. which would also make it definitively the strongest tornado of all time. because calculations with other tornado damage and measurements cant find any tornado with wind speeds higher.
these calculations also confirm that quite a few ef4 rated tornadoes were indeed ef5 with damage to boot.

 

[Sawmaster]

I've read everything I could find online inre Smithville and found the 205MPH windspeed unvelievable. It was doing far more damage than the Doppler measured winds at Moore and El Reno which were in the 300MPH range aloft and certainly at least 250MPH on the ground. They are clearly allowing gross errors to be posted as truth and that needs to be ended- the only question is how?

I don't see any great issue with the EF scale itself although it could stand some revising as we learn more. The big issue is in it's mis-application. The less you know about something, the more accurate and careful you must be in studying it to actually learn more about it- that goes for everything.

Phil

 

[tornado examiner]

a tornado moving at 60mph like the mayfield tornado CANNOT do the damage it did with the nws's estimated wind speeds of 190mph. the trees would not be debarked. there wouldnt be clean slabs. and there wouldnt be any ground scouring. this tornado NEEDED EF-5 strength to do the damage it did at it's foward speed. so....yes...if it wasnt clear enough already. the mayfield tornado WAS MOST DEFINITELY, an EF-5.....if it wasnt already confirmed by radar alone...

 

[TH2002]

No amount of reform to the EF Scale can fix bad surveying. Even if the lower bound values were seriously redone, bad survey teams would just do what they did in Bowling Green and continue to go below lower bound.

 

[tornado examiner]

No amount of reform to the EF Scale can fix bad surveying. Even if the lower bound values were seriously redone, bad survey teams would just do what they did in Bowling Green and continue to go below lower bound.

bowling green should have also been rated EF-4...even if it was just barely that. like an ef4 with 166mph winds....

 

[TH2002]

I know it's a long shot and there would definitely be flaws in this approach too but sometimes I wish there was a way to ensure survey teams never "skip over" a damage point.

My fellow SKYWARN spotters know there is a page where you can submit a weather report. Maybe if there was a similar page for reporting damage points like what type of structure was impacted, the nature of the damage to it, the nature of the contextual damage near/surrounding it, the exact address and/or coordinates of the location of the damage, and maybe some contact info to ensure the damage point gets surveyed. I know, it's a long shot and will probably never happen, and there would certainly be flaws to this approach too, but IMO it would still be MUCH better than the cluster***k we have now.

 

[tornado examiner]

I know it's a long shot and there would definitely be flaws in this approach too but sometimes I wish there was a way to ensure survey teams never "skip over" a damage point.

My fellow SKYWARN spotters know there is a page where you can submit a weather report. Maybe if there was a similar page for reporting damage points like what type of structure was impacted, the nature of the damage to it, the nature of the contextual damage near/surrounding it, the exact address and/or coordinates of the location of the damage, and maybe some contact info to ensure the damage point gets surveyed. I know, it's a long shot and will probably never happen, and there would certainly be flaws to this approach too, but IMO it would still be MUCH better than the cluster***k we have now.

yep. i didnt know there was high end ef4 damage in mayfield though.....specially one house THAT SHOULD BE RATED EF-5....near the beginning of the mayfield impact.

 

[A Guy]

I know it's a long shot and there would definitely be flaws in this approach too but sometimes I wish there was a way to ensure survey teams never "skip over" a damage point.

My fellow SKYWARN spotters know there is a page where you can submit a weather report. Maybe if there was a similar page for reporting damage points like what type of structure was impacted, the nature of the damage to it, the nature of the contextual damage near/surrounding it, the exact address and/or coordinates of the location of the damage, and maybe some contact info to ensure the damage point gets surveyed. I know, it's a long shot and will probably never happen, and there would certainly be flaws to this approach too, but IMO it would still be MUCH better than the cluster***k we have now.

Well considering that, like the trenches the Mayfield tornado dug, you can have the locations quite specifically pointed out and they simply don't go out and check it, I don't see how that would help.

 

[tornado examiner]

i'd love to view that catastrophe map viewer thing but i cant get it....

 

[MNTornadoGuy]

yep. i didnt know there was high end ef4 damage in mayfield though.....specially one house THAT SHOULD BE RATED EF-5....near the beginning of the mayfield impact.

That house had zero anchoring, so it could be rated as LE EF4 at the most.

 

[tornado examiner]

That house had zero anchoring, so it could be rated as LE EF4 at the most.

if it had no anchoring than why is it even rated EF4 with 190 mph winds? with how the nws does things that should have been rated low end ef3 lol

 

[MNTornadoGuy]

if it had no anchoring than why is it even rated EF4 with 190 mph winds? with how the nws does things that should have been rated low end ef3 lol

The brick buildings in downtown Mayfield that collapsed were rated HE EF4, not those houses.

 

[tornado examiner]

there's a house near the beginning of the mayfield impacted area thats rated high end ef4.

 

[TH2002]

Well considering that, like the trenches the Mayfield tornado dug, you can have the locations quite specifically pointed out and they simply don't go out and check it, I don't see how that would help.

That is why I think meetings could be set up between the person who filed the damage report and a survey team.

 

[Spinner]

Hey y'all. I'm new and just joined and am a big weather enthusiast. Glad I'm not the only who is very disappointed and confused by not only how they are rating these tornadoes, but by the Enhanced Fujita scale in general. The old scale seemed to be more accurate than what they are doing now. No way are some of these tornadoes EF-4's.

 

[tornado examiner]

Hey y'all. I'm new and just joined and am a big weather enthusiast. Glad I'm not the only who is very disappointed and confused by not only how they are rating these tornadoes, but by the Enhanced Fujita scale in general. The old scale seemed to be more accurate than what they are doing now. No way are some of these tornadoes EF-4's.

there needs to be a middle ground between the two scales.

 

[Spinner]

there needs to be a middle ground between the two scales.

Yea there definitely needs to be a change to the scale and how they are rating them.

 

[tornado examiner]

pavement scouring. foundation damage. and trench digging are all associated with the mayfield tornado. so...yeah it needs the EF-5 upgrade. but of course non of those are "damage indicators" so they will all be ignored.....and it'll remain rated EF-4............so dumm....