Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[buckeye05]

Also one more thing I want to circle back to something another user posted about. This sort of got glazed over and buried in the thread, but it’s extremely significant. In the proposed new scale, root ball displacements (trees getting ripped out of the ground and thrown) have an expected damage starting at EF4 and can be rated EF5.



That’s huge! That means we have another way besides the “Enderlin method” to rate tornadoes EF5 independent of any structural damage. While “greater than typical resistance” hasn’t been defined yet, people have pointed out that a tree with no leaves would give the wind less surface area to grab onto. People have also pointed out that this happened in Bremen. How crazy would it be if Mayfield finally gets the rating it deserves based on tree damage?

Also, adjusting to this “new” definition of EF5 damage and this much less conservative approach to damage surveying has honestly left my head spinning. It’s been a bit of an adjustment. So many tornadoes that I’ve said “don’t meet the stringent EF5 criteria”, now can meet that criteria between the standards used in Jim LaDue’s presentation, the upcoming new tree scale, and by using mathematics to calculate windspeed to move heavy objects. I’ve gone from defending Mayfield’s high-end EF4 rating not because I agree with it, but because of the standards being used at that time, to realizing Mayfield now can likely be rated EF5 in some way due to the standards changing. I always go by what the current EF scale practices are, and as a result, my definition for what constitutes as EF4 and EF5 damage has dropped a s**t-ton essentially overnight. Not that this is a bad thing at all, as I just want to see accurate ratings too.

 

[tornado examiner]

Excellent news all around. No complaints from me. Especially when initial internal talks to begin reevaluations of past surveys are ongoing throughout the nws apparently. (no plans yet made though)

 

[joshoctober16]

Chapman wasn’t rated EF5 because the immediate area around the house that was obliterated wasn’t swept clean to the survey team’s liking. It literally came down to some bricks left piled up next to the basement foundation. So their logic was literally “A concrete foundation stemwall literally being ripped apart, bent railroad tracks, cars and multi-ton farm machinery lofted and mangled, and severe scouring and debarking all carry less weight in terms of the rating compared to some loose bricks left on the ground next to the foundation”.

Totally ridiculous, I know. It’s a perfect example of surveyors being totally fine with using some minute contextual factor to downgrade, while ignoring multiple other huge pieces of contextual evidence that just scream for an upgrade. It’s a double standard, and not even a subtle one. That kind of logic can’t just be a one way street. It has to go both ways.

very well built homes that have all the walls down but not swept clean can be rated EF5 on the new scale.

 

[tornado examiner]

very well built homes that have all the walls down but not swept clean can be rated EF5 on the new scale.
View attachment 47163

Have they showed the DOD’s for the concrete block foundation residence DI? I think that's a new one.

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

While “greater than typical resistance” hasn’t been defined yet, people have pointed out that a tree with no leaves would give the wind less surface area to grab onto. People have also pointed out that this happened in Bremen. How crazy would it be if Mayfield finally gets the rating it deserves based on tree damage?

I think Matador also did this IIRC, and to mesquite trees. Possibly guaranteed EF5 there.

 

[WeathermanLeprechaun]

Also one more thing I want to circle back to something another user posted about. This sort of got glazed over and buried in the thread, but it’s extremely significant. In the proposed new scale, root ball displacements (trees getting ripped out of the ground and thrown) have an expected damage starting at EF4 and can be rated EF5.

View attachment 47157

That’s huge! That means we have another way besides the “Enderlin method” to rate tornadoes EF5 independent of any structural damage. While “greater than typical resistance” hasn’t been defined yet, people have pointed out that a tree with no leaves would give the wind less surface area to grab onto. People have also pointed out that this happened in Bremen. How crazy would it be if Mayfield finally gets the rating it deserves based on tree damage?

Also, adjusting to this “new” definition of EF5 damage and this much less conservative approach to damage surveying has honestly left my head spinning. It’s been a bit of an adjustment. So many tornadoes that I’ve said “don’t meet the stringent EF5 criteria”, now can meet that criteria between the standards used in Jim LaDue’s presentation, the upcoming new tree scale, and by using mathematics to calculate windspeed to move heavy objects. I’ve gone from defending Mayfield’s high-end EF4 rating not because I agree with it, but because of the standards being used at that time, to realizing Mayfield now can likely be rated EF5 in some way due to the standards changing. I always go by what the current EF scale practices are, and as a result, my definition for what constitutes as EF4 and EF5 damage has dropped a s**t-ton essentially overnight. Not that this is a bad thing at all, as I just want to see accurate ratings too.

I am actually so happy that this very strict era of surveying is coming to a end. This puts plenty of tornadoes in contention and I'm curious if Matador did this type of tree damage. That tornado has a lot more evidence of higher end intensity now with the new guidelines. This gives many tornadoes that just didn't fit the criteria a very major change in how they are viewed. Without the train in Mayfield, I'm very confident that in Bremen, it was no doubt EF5 intensity.