Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[Central Ohio Wx]

It's not controversial at all to say Tri-state was stronger. Most people would agree, including me.

Tri-State is likely in the top three strongest tornadoes in recorded history; I have it at 2/3 on my list.

I do get why people don't like excessive nitpicking, but atd on that.

What are our thoughts on the Catania tornado? I know this isn't the global thread but I don't think it's nonsensical to say that was likely one of the strongest in history as well if the damage information is verifiable.

 

[Kds86z]

I'd actually go with EF-4 180 for Marion. Definetely not a weaker home but idk about 190 MPH strong. 160 MPH is way too low (Straight nail+toe nail isn't weak by any means. Infact it's stronger than many think) but 190 MPH is a bit high aswell.

Of course, contextual damage would factor in, but there was windrowing and solid tree damage. Mid-end EF-4 is fine, no more, no less.

100 agree

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

Tri-State is likely in the top three strongest tornadoes in recorded history; I have it at 2/3 on my list.

I do get why people don't like excessive nitpicking, but atd on that.

What are our thoughts on the Catania tornado? I know this isn't the global thread but I don't think it's nonsensical to say that was likely one of the strongest in history as well if the damage information is verifiable.

Tri-State is #2 on my Top 10, and there's a decent chance Catania just joined that list. Tough luck, Jarrell.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Tri-State is #2 on my Top 10, and there's a decent chance Catania just joined that list. Tough luck, Jarrell.

I have Jarrell at 4/5; the 7-mph thing is a myth. It was closer to 14, and even then it never really “stalled”.

 

[tornado examiner]

Hmmm. This was either further review, or peer pressure, or maybe a combination of the two. Or him just changing his mind.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Hmmm. This was either further review, or peer pressure, or maybe a combination of the two. Or him just changing his mind.

Either way, I respect it a ton. There's not many of us here that are this open minded. It's a trait that'll be needed in abundance as tornado ratings are reevaluated based on this flood of new data shaking everything up these last few months/years.

I can't help but think it's a matter of when, not if, tornado records will be updated based on our new understanding of their wind speeds. Even if it's a decade from now.

 

[buckeye05]

Just a few thoughts from my perspective…

There’s been a lot of variance these past two years regarding how to rate homes where the house has been swept from its floor platform. In fact, up until this year, I always defaulted to EF3 for this type of damage (shows how no matter how long you do this, there’s always more to learn).

Yet now we have Elkhorn, Marion, and we even have Jim LaDue providing a scenario in which an EF5 rating could be applied to a clean subfloor. On the other hand, we have people like Nick questioning this kind of thing, which I do understand. While I think a downgrade to EF3 may be excessive given that we now know that clean subfloors are viable for violent ratings, I’ve always felt 190 MPH for Marion was a little bullish, especially given the contextual evidence. I can see both sides though.

 

[AJS]

My honest opinion: I am perfectly okay with an EF4 rating for Marion. I do think that 190 may have been a little bit too high, but i’m definitely not complaining. I just feel like 170-180 would have been more appropriate. But at the end of the day, a violent rating is a violent rating.

 

[buckeye05]

One thing I do want to say though that I’ve been biting my tongue on for a while and I can’t hold back on it anymore:

I don’t appreciate Nick’s attitude that his analysis is high above, or has some level of depth/scientific value that far exceeds what happens on this forum, or that of anyone genuinely knowledgeable on the topic of EF scale application.

I’ve never taken real issue with him until his response to the recent blowup on this forum over the absurd attempt to justify Vilonia’s rating that stemmed from some discord discussion. What got me during the recent Vilonia debacle was his assertion that people here are looking at pics and making calls “without a shred of scientific evidence”. Yet, looking at pics and making calls on tornadoes he never personally surveyed based on available info regarding construction quality and context is about half or more of Nick’s online presence. Does anyone see the irony there? The “pot calling the kettle black” analogy comes to mind. Anyone who knows how to dig up facts, has detailed knowledge on construction, and knows what contextual evidence correlates with what intensity levels, is capable of doing what Nick does. Since 2011, I’ve been reading up on construction and tornado surveying methods, poring over AMS journals, and learning as much as I possibly can. Myself and many, many people here and elsewhere have an understanding of construction, damage, and surveying at least equal to Nick’s level of knowledge. The difference on my end is I am not, and never will be a met student, and I suck at forging connections with experts and having a social media presence.

He’s done a great job at making a name for himself, but at the end of the day, he’s doing the exact same thing as many others: amassing knowledge about construction and EF scale application, asking experts questions, looking at pics, gathering other available relevant information, and sharing his opinion. It’s important not to get a big head when that is largely the extent of your analysis, and I can’t say that he’s managed to stay grounded in that aspect.

 

[buckeye05]

Also regarding Vilonia or any tornado for that matter, at the end of the day, my interest is simple: a rating that accurately reflects the true intensity. We can squabble over the degree of plate removal and bolt bending all day, but when it comes down to it, when anyone who has been obsessing over tornado damage for more than a decade looks at the contextual damage images from Vilonia I posted recently, and has a good feel for tornado intensity, knows what kind of intensity this level of contextual damage is indicative of…

I admittedly would be more reticent to say something like that if I had career aspirations in the field and was looking to not rock the boat too much. The reality of the situation is that a higher-up in the field is going to be more receptive to “hey those bolts aren’t bent that much, let’s scrutinize the continuous load path” versus “hey that contextual damage has the look and is consistent with only a small handful of tornadoes of exceptionally high intensity”. If you want to be like your heroes and tow the line for a potential future career, you’re going to focus on the first point more so than the second.

But that doesn’t give the second point any less actual value.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

I don’t appreciate Nick’s attitude that his analysis is high above, or has some level of depth/scientific value that far exceeds what happens on this forum, or that of anyone genuinely knowledgeable on the topic of EF scale application.

I think his attitude about this site is completely justified - he was basically bullied off here twice, even after the first time when it was stated it wouldn't happen again. As for his "high above" attitude, I don't interpret it that way - he's simply giving his opinion. Nowhere does he say he has some sort of "higher knowledge".

 

[buckeye05]

I think his attitude about this site is completely justified - he was basically bullied off here twice, even after the first time when it was stated it wouldn't happen again. As for his "high above" attitude, I don't interpret it that way - he's simply giving his opinion. Nowhere does he say he has some sort of "higher knowledge".

1.) The first bolded part, while true and definitely not good that it happened, has nothing to do what I’m talking about. If he wants to critique the site for being hostile and toxic towards him that’s valid, but that’s not what I’m getting at.

2.) The second bolded part, while he never said that verbatim, he has demonstrated that attitude, and demonstrated it pretty clearly. During the Vilonia debate, he specifically accused people here of questioning the rating “without a shred of scientific evidence”. That right there is the crux of my point. In reality, he regularly questions ratings based on info he gathers himself, and we question ratings on information we gather ourselves. So what’s the difference, and how does it equate to “scientific evidence” when he does it? He literally just did it again recently with the Cheyenne, OK tornado based on DAT survey images. It’s literally the same process and the same depth of analysis, so bringing the burden of scientific evidence into the conversation is a classic “pot and kettle” statement, especially when both parties are largely gathering said information while sitting in front of a computer screen. In addition, he defended the Lake City, AR rating on this very forum, got criticized for it, then later questioned the exact same rating himself on social media, while @ing NWS Memphis, while bringing up the very same questions about why it wasn’t rated EF4 that he was dismissing here. If you are dismissive of a rating critique made on this forum, then down the line publicly make the same rating critique yourself after previously jumping to its defense and acting like you know better, how does that come off? He may not have specifically said “my opinion matters more”, but he has demonstrated it through his actions. Same goes with the “shred of scientific evidence” Vilonia quip. It’s hardly debatable.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

During the Vilonia debate, he specifically accused people here of questioning the rating “without a shred of scientific evidence”.

When you are in the middle of a debate in which you are being insulted, of course you're going to be a little mad. What I'm having an issue with is that whenever he is brought up here it is usually in negative light, and if I'm being completely honest isn't productive. He said something in the heat of a debate that may not have come out well. So what? I'd argue that worse was said to him during that debate.

 

[buckeye05]

When you are in the middle of a debate in which you are being insulted, of course you're going to be a little mad. What I'm having an issue with is that whenever he is brought up here it is usually in negative light, and if I'm being completely honest isn't productive. He said something in the heat of a debate that may not have come out well. So what? I'd argue that worse was said to him during that debate.

Oh I completely agree actually. He was treated poorly and in a way that would make anyone angry and defensive. But, at the end of the day the forum’s failure was its inability to keep things civil, impartial, and cool headed (I know I’m one to talk), not its ability to critique ratings in an evidence based manner, nor the validity behind our collective understanding of what happened in Vilonia and all the troubling facts surrounding it. Had his vocal criticism of this forum remained limited to the first part, and didn’t spill over into the second part, I’d have literally nothing negative to say about him at all.

 

[tornado examiner]

Oh I completely agree actually. He was treated poorly and in a way that would make anyone angry and defensive. But, at the end of the day the forum’s failure was its inability to keep things civil, impartial, and cool headed (I know I’m one to talk), not its ability to critique ratings in an evidence based manner, nor the validity behind our collective understanding of what happened in Vilonia and all the troubling facts surrounding it. Had his vocal criticism of this forum remained limited to the first part, and didn’t spill over into the second part, I’d have literally nothing negative to say about him at all.

I know I certainly didn't help matters…me being me, got a little heated as well, of course. I mainly just stay here now to observe and learn things I may not have known before. Only rarely speaking my mind cause I don't have the vast quantities of accurate knowledge to have informed discussion like the rest of y’all.
my older blunt style of commentary wasn't fit for this forum.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

I think his attitude about this site is completely justified - he was basically bullied off here twice, even after the first time when it was stated it wouldn't happen again.

Wait when was he bullied off the second time? I must have missed it.

The reality of the situation is that a higher-up in the field is going to be more receptive to “hey those bolts aren’t bent that much, let’s scrutinize the continuous load path” versus “hey that contextual damage has the look and is consistent with only a small handful of tornadoes of exceptionally high intensity”. If you want to be like your heroes and tow the line for a potential future career, you’re going to focus on the first point more so than the second.

But that doesn’t give the second point any less actual value.

Great analysis. This second point explains my issues with nit picking houses perfectly. If a house is built to code that should be enough to go with expected value. It's how the scale was designed, and it's very simple and consistent. Outside of that, context tells the rest of the story. Use context to move the needle towards upper bound or lower bound, not little tiny construction details.

It's especially frustrating because it's not like we know how these slight variations in construction practices affect wind resistance anyways. It's all just unnecessary speculation with no scientific purpose (do a study if it's so important). At least with contextual indicators we have decades of precedent and other tornadoes to compare to. We also have a really good idea of how common different tornado wind speeds are. If 5% of tornadoes have wind speed over 200 MPH, then the worst 5% tier of contextual damage is likely caused by 200 mph+ winds. We're focusing so much on these insignificant little details of individual houses, and it's completely unnecessary.

Feel free to disagree. I come in peace.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

A lot of surveyors do use context to move the needle, but to the absolute extreme. The truth of the matter is Vilonia's contextual damage is NOT top 5%. it's top 0.1%.

In all honesty Marion's contextual damage is top 5%. Top 10% if you want to be really safe. 20% of tornadoes have wind speeds over 165 mph.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

We're focusing so much on these insignificant little details of individual houses, and it's completely unnecessary.

In my opinion:

If you have a completely swept home but a softwood/hardwood tree either directly in front or to the side of the home (I don't say behind, because debris loading will almost 100% exaggerate tree damage) is untouched, that is an extremely important indicator that either the home's construction was worse than it seems, or debris impacts were involved. That, of course, shouldn't be ignored when evaluating tornadic intensity. I used to be on the "contextuals don't matter" boat, but I've changed my mind. If the intensity was enough to sweep a home, it would also be enough to snap or maybe even debark that tree. Marion's tree damage was also directly behind the home, and thus could be accentuated by debris from the home itself.

Structural-wise, I don't really see the issue with nitpicking homes - if we are trying to get an accurate wind speed number, factoring in issues with the home seems reasonable. Maybe EF-scale wise, sure, but every quality issue is a thing that may have led it to be swept at lower windspeeds.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Wait when was he bullied off the second time? I must have missed it.

I remember some insults being thrown during the night, but I could be wrong.

 

[andyhb]

All of this debate about the Vilonia rating -> what about the non-existent surveys for literally dozens of structures that were swept away in the path? That's the biggest issue by far that I have with that survey; the fact that we don't even have at least half of the evidence that we should have to be able to decide one way or another between EF4 and EF5.