Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[Grand Poo Bah]

I'd actually love to hear what about the survey specifically is nitpicked and badly done, if you have the time to go over it. I definitely believe it considering certain offices and how they conduct surveys. Like, what specifically makes the nitpicking they did "pedantic" or unnecessary? I don't think I've ever seen imagery of the damaged homes from Chapman before either so I can't make any specific remarks about it myself. Was it anchor bolted?

It was also rated F5 based on the damage it did to the corn crop in conjunction with extraordinary vehicle lofting and damage, which also cemented it as such a rating. Plus, you had prior high end F4 damage coinciding with noticeably less intense contextual damage. I think that's a great use of context to give a tornado a high-end rating, and it should be something being incorporated more into the process 100%. Also, vortex constriction coinciding with this damage probably helped give the final rating for Plainfield as well.

Mayfield is kind-of an example of this. The most impressive structural damage, AKA the church in Mayfield and the 190 DI in Bremen, did not coincide with the tornado's maximum contextual damage. If that's the case, it becomes absolutely completely reasonable to assume that the tornado was at a higher intensity in the areas of more extreme context, even without the help of structures. And it isn't like the tornado didn't impact structures at these locations either, it did what an EF5 was supposed to and slabbed everything in the most intense damage contour. To me, that makes it entirely reasonable to grant it an EF5 rating.

Also, this isn't a super important point because it's not a part of my argument for why Mayfield deserves EF5, but it's a small little side comment that hopefully gives more clearance to my opinions on the tornado: The fact that this storm was on the ground for 165 miles, did what it did to multiple communities, slabbed well-built structures, left behind the contextuals supportive of a maximum-intensity tornado, and still was not granted the rating just completely erodes my confidence in the scale as something that accurately portrays tornadic intensity. This thing was, without a shadow of a doubt, an EF5 at maximum intensity. Radar data supports it, context supports it, and structural damage coinciding with context supports it too. I agree that it is borderline unscientific to not take these features into account when attempting to accurately portray these things.

I can see the other side of the argument, absolutely - you make a scale, you abide by its rules. But when the scale has had a precedent set where context was used far more heavily, and to a completely reasonable degree, why are we all of the sudden stopping that? (This next point is a little off topic from what we were discussing, but while I'm ranting, I'm gonna just air it out) It's no coincidence at all that EF5s disappeared when this happened. Tornadoes are not "getting weaker" at all, I strongly disagree with that take, and people on twitter suggesting that climate change is responsible for weakening tornadoes is a strange hypothesis. Where's the proof of that? You're going to need a lot of research on that topic before even coming close to making that something that sounds realistic. I could believe it to be the case, but before jumping to a very bold conclusion like that, I want to see scientific papers on it. A lot of them. Definitely not evidence based on the fact that the scale is becoming more strict.

The scale may be purely based off damage in its purest and most contingent form, but the ultimate goal of the scale is to determine tornado intensity. We've seen in the earlier days multiple examples of context being used in conjunction with structures (Rainsville), even sometimes pure context (Philadelphia, El Reno, Joplin), but for some reason there's a sentiment among many wind engineers and surveyors nowadays to simply omit that idea, unless it's to downgrade the tornado. I literally cannot understand why.

Sorry for the rant.

Absolutely perfectly stated! Excellent points about the Plainfield tornado, the logic used, and how it applies to Mayfield. It is strange people are starting to make the argument climate change is weakening tornadoes. It's a convenient form of denialism, masked as support. Those people are basically saying, "Well if the effects of climate change are good then I guess it is real!" There have been several studies that have concluded global warming contributes to increases in frequency and severity of storms, and none that state the opposite.

I said before this tornado season started my completely unsubstantiated, crackpot theory is that Tim Marshall doesn't believe in climate change and the lack of EF5s is his form of confirmation bias. The timing of the start of the EF5 drought also perfectly coincides with the most serious we ever got as a country about reversing climate change. Definitely straying too far into politics now, but it's a real head scratcher.

Back to the scale, you've summarized the dilemma with contextuals and their overall importance better than I ever could, so I have nothing to add. Thank you for the rant!

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

The Plainfield, Iowa tornado was rated purely based on damage to corn crops!

1. Unless some particularly wacky border change has happened recently, Plainfield is in Illinois
2. As stated above, extreme vehicle damage was also part of the reason for the rating. TBH, an acceptable reason for an acceptable rating. That was some nasty vehicle damage.

As a side note, there actually aren't many F5 tornadoes from the 80s/90s I'd downgrade. The only one from the 90s I'd downgrade would be Birmingham 1998, the rest were justified. And I'm not sure any F5 from the 80s deserved a downgrade: even Broken Bow, the most questionable of them all, had a remarkable incident where it threw a motel sign into Arkansas. I'd definitely add a number of F5s in that period. Ivanovo and Kostroma 1984, Barrie 1985 (and friends?), possibly Allendale 1989, Bakersfield Valley and Stratton 1990, Winfield 1991, every single F4 from the Pampa day (and maybe Hoover) 1995, Waynesboro 1998, Loyal Valley 1999, and just to complete the 1980-2005 stretch we have possibly La Plata 2002 (and I MEAN possibly), Girard 2003, and the Harper/Roanoke/Marion triple threat from 2004.

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

Slabbed a well built, anchored, floral shop, which the surveyors described as "extremely, extremely destroyed". If "extremely, extremely destroyed" isn't a 5/5 on the "damage scale" what is? It's my favorite question. If the EF scale is truly a damage scale, why doesn't it actually rate the scale of damage?

As I have stated several times, the floral shop was actually rated fairly: it was not FULLY swept off the foundation, and a pretty large debris pile remained - in fact, technically part of the building was still standing. It and the Diaz house are my benchmarks for what 190/195 mph EF4 damage looks like. The Family Dollar is where you'll find the true EF5 candidate.

 

[slenker]

Absolutely perfectly stated! Excellent points about the Plainfield tornado, the logic used, and how it applies to Mayfield. It is strange people are starting to make the argument climate change is weakening tornadoes. It's a convenient form of denialism, masked as support. Those people are basically saying, "Well if the effects of climate change are good then I guess it is real!" There have been several studies that have concluded global warming contributes to increases in frequency and severity of storms, and none that state the opposite.

One thing I will say, is that I could absolutely believe that tornadoes are getting weaker from climate change, if evidence is good enough to believe it. It's obvious to see that tropical cyclones are getting more intense (I've heard this repeated in academic literature, plus warming oceans = stronger storms, that goes without saying), but with tornadoes there's so many different environmental factors that go into their formation that it's hard to say if climate change supports violent tornadogenesis or if it actually does work against it. Again, something that needs to be studied deeply by meteorologists and have papers written about it, with data displaying and supporting whatever conclusion they come to. Maybe there are scientists actively looking into it right now, who knows.

Maybe with increasing temperatures, the cap will get stronger in many places, leading to discrete storm development being much harder to pull off in certain setups. Maybe that isn't the case at all, and maybe 700 mb temps are warming from global warming (IDK if this is correct at all, and I'm unsure if any data realistically supports this, but I'm just making a hypothetical here) which decreases lapse rates and makes robust updrafts harder to achieve in supercells. You just never know until actual research is done on the topic, so that's why I have an open mind when it comes to that.

However, before people claim it to be true, they have to have substantial evidence for it, end of story. Otherwise it's conjecture. Not necessarily baseless if you are using weaker tornado ratings in recent times as your evidence, but close to being so since said base is very weak.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

As I have stated several times, the floral shop was actually rated fairly: it was not FULLY swept off the foundation, and a pretty large debris pile remained - in fact, technically part of the building was still standing. It and the Diaz house are my benchmarks for what 190/195 mph EF4 damage looks like. The Family Dollar is where you'll find the true EF5 candidate.

Do you have pics of the family dollar? I included the floral shop because it's part of the overall destruction of the tornado. In a vacuum it's maybe a 190 mph, but in the context of the overall damage path it possibly contributes to a higher rating. It's more about the overall story and the full picture for me than individual DIs.

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

Do you have pics of the family dollar? I included the floral shop because it's part of the overall destruction of the tornado. In a vacuum it's maybe a 190 mph, but in the context of the overall damage path it possibly contributes to a higher rating. It's more about the overall story and the full picture for me than individual DIs.

Found these on Twitter

 

[Aaron Rider]

I'd actually love to hear what about the survey specifically is nitpicked and badly done, if you have the time to go over it. I definitely believe it considering certain offices and how they conduct surveys. Like, what specifically makes the nitpicking they did "pedantic" or unnecessary? I don't think I've ever seen imagery of the damaged homes from Chapman before either so I can't make any specific remarks about it myself. Was it anchor bolted?

It was also rated F5 based on the damage it did to the corn crop in conjunction with extraordinary vehicle lofting and damage, which also cemented it as such a rating. Plus, you had confirmed prior high end F4 structural damage coinciding with noticeably less intense contextual damage. I think that's a great use of context to give a tornado a high-end rating, and it should be something being incorporated more into the process 100%. Also, vortex constriction coinciding with this damage probably helped give the final rating for Plainfield as well.

Mayfield is kind-of an example of this. The most impressive structural damage, AKA the church in Mayfield and the 190 DI in Bremen, did not coincide with the tornado's maximum contextual damage. If that's the case, it becomes absolutely completely reasonable to assume that the tornado was at a higher intensity in the areas of more extreme context, even without the help of structures. And it isn't like the tornado didn't impact structures at these locations either, it did what an EF5 was supposed to and slabbed everything in the most intense damage contour. To me, that makes it entirely reasonable to grant it an EF5 rating.

Also, this isn't a super important point because it's not a part of my argument for why Mayfield deserves EF5, but it's a small little side comment that hopefully gives more clearance to my opinions on the tornado: The fact that this storm was on the ground for 165 miles, maintained a borderline violent intensity for the majority of the path, did what it did to multiple communities, slabbed well-built structures, left behind the contextuals supportive of a maximum-intensity tornado, and still was not granted the rating just completely erodes my confidence in the scale as something that accurately portrays tornadic intensity. This thing was, without a shadow of a doubt, an EF5 at maximum intensity. Radar data supports it, context supports it, and structural damage coinciding with context supports it too. I agree that it is borderline unscientific to not take these features into account when attempting to accurately portray these things.

I can see the other side of the argument, absolutely - you make a scale, you abide by its rules. But when the scale has had a precedent set where context was used far more heavily, and to a completely reasonable degree, why are we all of the sudden stopping that? (This next point is a little off topic from what we were discussing, but while I'm ranting, I'm gonna just air it out) It's no coincidence at all that EF5s disappeared when this happened. Tornadoes are not "getting weaker" at all, I strongly disagree with that take, and people on twitter suggesting that climate change is responsible for weakening tornadoes is a strange hypothesis. Where's the proof of that? You're going to need a lot of research on that topic before even coming close to making that claim something that sounds realistic. I could believe it to be the case, but before jumping to a very bold conclusion like that, I want to see scientific papers on it. A lot of them. Definitely not evidence based on the fact that the scale is becoming more strict.

The scale may be purely based off damage in its purest and most contingent form, but the ultimate goal of the scale is to determine tornado intensity. We've seen in the earlier days multiple examples of context being used in conjunction with structures (Rainsville), even sometimes pure context (Philadelphia, El Reno, Joplin), but for some reason there's a sentiment among many wind engineers and surveyors nowadays to simply omit that idea, unless it's to downgrade the tornado. I literally cannot understand why.

Sorry for the rant.

Excellent post, especially regarding the use of deductive reasoning in the case of Plainfield. I did not know that!

 

[A Guy]

The scale may be purely based off damage in its purest and most contingent form, but the ultimate goal of the scale is to determine tornado intensity. We've seen in the earlier days multiple examples of context being used in conjunction with structures (Rainsville), even sometimes pure context (Philadelphia, El Reno, Joplin), but for some reason there's a sentiment among many wind engineers and surveyors nowadays to simply omit that idea, unless it's to downgrade the tornado. I literally cannot understand why.

It feels like the way it's being used recently, and in particular its forthcoming incorporation as an ASCE standard, this is increasingly not the case. And when meteorologists have lost control of it to engineers who won't call a spade a spade, data quality (consistency with prior ratings already having gone out the window) will suffer accordingly.

 

[joshoctober16]

I'll start by asking are you aware of the studies by the Doppler on Wheels team, NOAA, and YALE that all concluded tornadoes are currently underrated significantly?

Doppler on Wheels - Supercell tornadoes are much stronger and wider than damage-based ratings indicate

This study suggests tornadoes are underrated by an average of 1.5 EF rating, or 40 MPH.

NOAA - Comparison of Tornado Damage Characteristics to Low-Altitude WSR-88D Radar Observations and Implications for Tornado Intensity Estimation


View attachment 43470
The black dots are EF rated tornadoes. The dashed line is actual recorded wind speeds, and the solid line is the distribution of EF rating wind speeds. The gray areas represent overrating and underrating. Zero tornadoes were overrated, and over half were underrated.

Yale - Where Have the EF5s Gone? A Closer Look at the “Drought” of the Most Violent Tornadoes in the United States


All of these studies illustrate the fact the increased scrutiny with ratings is pointless and counter productive. The EF scale may be a damage scale, but the damage is being underestimated and over scrutinized by degrees of magnitude. I'll let @Lake Martin EF4 and @TH2002 address the pre 2011 tornadoes, but I'll cover some of the rest.

Here are your EF5 Indicators:

1. Tuscaloosa 2011 - Tossed a 36 ton rail car further than any railcar has ever been tossed (400 feet), and tore apart million pound, 150 foot tall bridge trestles and lifted them 100 feet up hill.
View attachment 43471

2. Henryville 2012 (maybe) - Tore up asphalt and lofted it long distances, creating 2-3 foot impact craters where they landed.
View attachment 43472

3. Washington 2013- Slabbed entire neighborhoods, including well built, anchored homes
View attachment 43473

4. Vilonia 2014 - One of the most egregiously underrated tornadoes ever, and the cause of "Vilonia Syndrome", which lead to multiple EF5 candidates being underrated due to lack of impossible contextuals, and build quality standards. One home was completely slabbed that had anchor bolts in both exterior AND interior walls
View attachment 43474

5. Pilger, NE 2014 - I don't have a ton of pictures (maybe someone else can help), but this one definitely speaks for itself
View attachment 43475

6. Rochelle-Fairdale 2015 - My favorite quote about this one is for @buckeye05, "As this tornado struck the Deer Creek subdivision to the north of town, numerous EF5 hallmarks occurred. Multiple large, modern, well-anchored homes were swept away, with the debris granulated and wind-rowed long distances. Mowed, short lawn grass was scoured from the yards of several of these homes as well. Most impressively, a concrete sidewalk leading to the front door of one of these homes was actually shifted and pulled away from the driveway and house (photo below). The low-level winds that would have been needed to move this sidewalk would have to have been absolutely insane."
View attachment 43476

7. Chapman 2016 The most impressive contextuals I've ever seen, it really encapsulates what Ted Fujita said about F5 tornadoes "leaving behind a path of destruction so severe that it could defy explanation due to the sheer force of the winds involved". It literally fused a truck with a combine, moved railroad tracks (it was only 85 degrees that day so I don't want to hear anyone mention thermal expansion), snapped the foundation of a well built brick farm house, and mangled cars in ways that defy explanation.
View attachment 43477

8. Bassfield-Soso 2020 - Some of the most impressive debarking you'll ever see, it wrapped steel beams around trees, and slabbed a well built home while bending its anchor bolts
View attachment 43478

9. Mayfield 2021 - Tore apart entire cities and subdivisions, destroyed multiple institutional buildings and steel reinforced concrete/masonry structures in downtown Mayfield, trenched the ground up to 8 inches deep in several spots, tossed a well built reinforced CMU home slab n' all, and much much more. I get increasingly frustrated when people say the tornado didn't hit enough well built structures. The path was so long, and so many structures impacted, the survey team never even came close to observing all of them. Multiple neighborhoods were surveyed and cataloged from the passenger seat of moving vehicles. Dozens of homes were slabbed, and surely some of those homes had top quality construction that was missed.

View attachment 43479

well not all are under rated , however it does show NONE are over rated , however it seems 50% of all tornadoes are under rated.

(when i say overrated and under rated i mean by + or - 2 EF rating)
its to note 2 EF0 had EF4 winds base on that data.

 

[NorthGaWeather]

The maximum structural damage indicator for Rainsville was a swept CMU home rated EF4 185, which seems quite fair for the tornado in general. I don't believe it should be rated any higher than that.

This may have been answered as I’m several pages back still.

This isn’t true. I mean no disrespect. You’re looking at DAT data that was uploaded with the initial survey. An additional survey was conducted later that finalized an EF-5 rating based on structural and contextual damage. The individual who finalized this rating used to post on this board a lot. Perhaps he can give an update if he’s still here.

 

[Asha627]

This may have been answered as I’m several pages back still.

This isn’t true. I mean no disrespect. You’re looking at DAT data that was uploaded with the initial survey. An additional survey was conducted later that finalized an EF-5 rating based on structural and contextual damage. The individual who finalized this rating used to post on this board a lot. Perhaps he can give an update if he’s still here.

Interesting, I haven't seen that yet. I do know that the maximum structural DI was rated EF4 185, as no homes greatly affected really qualified for an EF5 rating in the first place. The EF5 rating for Rainsville was given due to contextual damage only, and without said contextual damage the tornado would remain an EF4 as far as I know. There may be information out there disproving this, but it is what I've seen from the NWS.

 

[Tomcats Forever!]

I'd like to add on to the Mayfield portion.

The contextual damage in Bremen was absurd, to the point where debris were granulated and likely mixed with the rainwater to create what appears to be a paste. Ground scouring was extremely impressive too, with it being up to a foot deep in spots along the path. Tree debarking was incredible as well.

Also, about that one CMU home, it wasn't slabbed normally. Usually you have some remaining CMU. However in this case, it was just gone. Not near the foundation, just completely gone, leaving the bare gravel underneath. This is why I firmly believe it should have been rated EF-5, because it was well reinforced and anchored, yet the only trace left was the garage poured foundation and the gravel where the CMU once stood.

Regarding the Bremen house, it wasn't what we think of with the standard CMU house, i.e. a crawlspace. I attached a diagram that is much closer to how it was built. Looking at some photos of the slab remnants, the slab was attached to the blocks so securely that it actually took the entire top row of them with it when the house went.

 

[Ozonelayer]

Regarding the Bremen house, it wasn't what we think of with the standard CMU house, i.e. a crawlspace. I attached a diagram that is much closer to how it was built. Looking at some photos of the slab remnants, the slab was attached to the blocks so securely that it actually took the entire top row of them with it when the house went.

That's honestly quite insane that it took the poured concrete slab itself, let alone it being so well reinforced that the CMU went with it. If I can remember correctly, the slab and CMU were found crumpled and shattered around 100 yards away, which supports EF-5 intensity due to the sheer weight of the slab and how far it was thrown.

 

[Tomcats Forever!]

That's honestly quite insane that it took the poured concrete slab itself, let alone it being so well reinforced that the CMU went with it. If I can remember correctly, the slab and CMU were found crumpled and shattered around 100 yards away, which supports EF-5 intensity due to the sheer weight of the slab and how far it was thrown.

If you ask me, it gives a bit more creedence to the idea that the entire house was thrown, Elie style. Taking the slab with it would take some serious anchoring.

 

[AJS]

These damage photos from the Grinnell, KS tornado are particularly impressive. Reminds me a lot of the damage we saw from the May 10, 2015 Delmont, SD tornado. Which was another grossly underrated tornado.

 

[atrainguy]

Dunno if this is anything of note, but I came across this rant post on my Facebook feed.

 

[slenker]

Dunno if this is anything of note, but I came across this rant post on my Facebook feed.

While I agree with the overall message he’s attempting to convey, El Reno 2013 and Hollister 2024 aren’t great examples for conveying how misapplied the scale is. El Reno 2013 IMO is very overrated in its intensity to the general public outside of some impressive vehicle damage, and I haven’t seen a single image from Hollister 2024 that even remotely points to a significant EF2+ tornado. Extremely violent tornadoes are fully capable of incredible damage to the ground and trees, and neither of those two did such a thing (El Reno 2013 did have like, one tree that was debarked impressively though). Hollister 2024 literally did nothing substantial on the ground at all, it wasn’t even close to being a violent tornado.

Better examples for this argument are Grinnell and Lake City from this year, and Matador. All three of these inflicted violent damage without a doubt in my mind (Matador arguably inflicted full on EF5 damage for Pete’s sake) yet they were rated EF3. Sterling City potentially reached violent status as well, but I question the validity of that statement TBH.

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

Sterling City potentially reached violent status as well, but I question the validity of that statement TBH.

It absolutely did. Some of the photos I've seen were amazing and pointed to extreme intensity. I'll post them later.

To flip the clock back....man, June 1st really is known for some impressively underrated tornadoes, eh? Both of the most major events on this date (Bakersfield Valley 1990 and Springfield 2011) deserved to be rated a category higher (so F5 and EF4, respectively). Springfield 2011, specifically, is part of a very high amount of shoulda-been violent tornadoes from 2011. New Wren, Barnesville, Almena, South West City, Springfield...... the list goes on.

EDIT: Oh my god I forgot Askewville. What a year, man. Likely (at least one of) the only photographed violent tornado(es) in NC history, and a potential EF5 candidate, but it'll never be officially recognized as such. Shame.

 

[AJS]

I’ll give El Reno, 2013 credit where credit is due. It did produce some truly remarkable instances of vehicle damage. Plus, the second image shows what appears to be a tree uprooted, denuded, and severely debarked and the bottom one shows what looks to be a hardwood tree partially debarked and denuded. While I do not believe this tornado caused any EF5 damage indicators/contextuals, I have little doubt that these images are proof that it most likely contained EF4 wind speeds. It’s absolutely obvious though that with some of the vehicle damage present, winds well into the EF5 range must have been needed to cause that level of vehicle damage. Most likely due to in-countering extremely powerful sub vortices. @Western_KS_Wx posted a bunch of these pics a while back and I will admit, it did shock me to see this level of damage from El Reno.

 

[Kds86z]

View attachment 43564View attachment 43565View attachment 43566View attachment 43567View attachment 43568View attachment 43569
I’ll give El Reno, 2013 credit where credit is due. It did produce some truly remarkable instances of vehicle damage. Plus, the second image shows what appears to be a tree uprooted, denuded, and severely debarked and the bottom one shows what looks to be a hardwood tree partially debarked and denuded. While I do not believe this tornado caused any EF5 damage indicators/contextuals, I have little doubt that these images are proof that it most likely contained EF4 wind speeds. It’s absolutely obvious though that with some of the vehicle damage present, winds well into the EF5 range must have been needed to cause that level of vehicle damage. Most likely due to incountering extremely powerful sub vortices.

Uh yeah that vehicle damage…