Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread (1 Viewer)

Sawmaster

Member
Messages
114
Reaction score
183
Location
Easley SC
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
I think the problem runs deeper. The sad thing is that it's probably not going to change because of the people involved who don't want anyone else playing with their ball, and if you are allowed to play with it then they set the rules and you're not allowed to complain 'cause if you do they'll take their ball away so you can't play with it or them anymore. Yes it's that childish and that stupid.
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
2,374
Reaction score
3,067
Location
Riverside, Ohio
I asked Tim Marshall about the CWR tracks from the Chapman 2016 tornado being ripped up with the bar bent. I said to him, why wasn't that rated EF5? He said to me well the Tuscaloosa 2011 tornado destroyed railroad tracks. I thought that was a railroad bridge that was destroyed and easier to do so then ripping up railroad tracks from the ground and bending the bar. I don't understand why these people like to play like they are dumb. Not meaning to offend anyone but it seems like they are covering up something.
If this is true, it makes me think less of him.
 

Sawmaster

Member
Messages
114
Reaction score
183
Location
Easley SC
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
And here again in the Gaylord aftermath pics we see the NWS totally ignoring it's own dictates and using THIS HOUSE as the sole determinant in increasing an EF-2 rating to an EF-3 with 150MPH winds estimated when the house clearly shows end-nailed studs and unbolted nailed-down walls. These factors are clearly delineated in their own instructions on how to assess damage yet they either can't / won't read them or do not want to follow them.

The standards don't need updating nearly as much as their people and/or methods do.

Phil
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
2,374
Reaction score
3,067
Location
Riverside, Ohio
I think Grazulis's Vilonia assessment (In this post he lists April 27. 2014....with one F5) might cause enough of a backlash to make NWS Little Rock change the rating.......Maybe.
Well at the very least, they can’t say “It’s just a bunch of online weather nerds” when it comes to who’s disputing the rating. Grazulis’ opinion has a lot of weight and credibility.

I hope he includes a much-deserved dig at the survey team’s decision in his summary.
 
Messages
415
Reaction score
252
Location
Augusta, Kansas
Well at the very least, they can’t say “It’s just a bunch of online weather nerds” when it comes to who’s disputing the rating. Grazulis’ opinion has a lot of weight and credibility.

I hope he includes a much-deserved dig at the survey team’s decision in his summary.
There seems to be no way in trying to get away with saying the Vilonia 2014 tornado was only a high-end EF4.
 
Messages
415
Reaction score
252
Location
Augusta, Kansas
Well at the very least, they can’t say “It’s just a bunch of online weather nerds” when it comes to who’s disputing the rating. Grazulis’ opinion has a lot of weight and credibility.

I hope he includes a much-deserved dig at the survey team’s decision in his summary.
Us tornado nerds may not all be experts but when you study tornado damage for many years you would think we have a good idea on how to rate tornadoes.
 
Messages
147
Reaction score
169
Location
Oakland, Tennessee
Well at the very least, they can’t say “It’s just a bunch of online weather nerds” when it comes to who’s disputing the rating. Grazulis’ opinion has a lot of weight and credibility.

I hope he includes a much-deserved dig at the survey team’s decision in his summary.
Oops.

(can we please move the "Grazulis downgrades Vilonia" discussion over here please?)
 
Messages
274
Reaction score
94
Location
texas
as anything on here been said about the new wren mississippi tornado of april 27 2011? the one right before smithville. rated EF3. pretty sure that one was also of EF4 to EF5 intensity judging by the fact that it swept away a large well built, well anchored home.
 

Sawmaster

Member
Messages
114
Reaction score
183
Location
Easley SC
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
as anything on here been said about the new wren mississippi tornado of april 27 2011? the one right before smithville. rated EF3. pretty sure that one was also of EF4 to EF5 intensity judging by the fact that it swept away a large well built, well anchored home.
It seems to me that it was about this time when the NWS started being over-conservative with windspeed estimates and ratings. Part of the problem with the 2011 outbreak was that there were so many tornadoes they couldn't keep up with the surveys and in some places clean-up was already in progress by the time they got there. The manpower shortage does not explain the underestimated winds and low ratings though. New Wren seems to be under-rated to me too, but at this point I doubt that anyone's going to change anything because to do that would be an overt admission of themselves being wrong the first time around.

Phil
 
Messages
147
Reaction score
169
Location
Oakland, Tennessee
"This tornado still remains the baseline to which all other high end tornadoes are rated." - Tim Marshall
Welp, that confirms it. We need another Jarrell to get EF5 now.


F**k Tim Marshall.
 

OHWX97

Member
Messages
615
Reaction score
629
Location
Norwood, Ohio
Can we quit it with the hateful comments towards professionals? I get why some here aren’t fond of the implications of that quote by Tim Marshall and criticism is always valid, but comments like the one above are just mean and disrespectful.
 
Last edited:

Sawmaster

Member
Messages
114
Reaction score
183
Location
Easley SC
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
Can we quit it with the hateful comments towards professionals? I get why some here aren’t fond of the implications of that quote by Tim Marshall and criticism is always valid, but comments like the one above are just mean and disrespectful.
"Professional" only has meaning when exemplified through actions, and claiming such a thing in itself does not entitle anyone to any respect. Professionals who deserve bashing should get bashed and heavily as a reminder of their position and it's obligations to hold a higher standard. I DO agree that we should be civil in our language and discussions though regardless of who we're speaking about or with.

I'm a trained communicator and I've had to learn that what people exactly say isn't always what they exactly mean, and that the two things which matter most in communications is that you don't alter someone else's words, and that it's up to the receiver to decide what the sender meant. If Tim Marshall meant exactly what he said then I must agree with sentiments (but not the wording) of @Lake Martin EF4 and I do hope he'll edit his post once he cools down. It would be nice if Tim Marshall further responded to clarify exactly what he meant but I have no involvement there.

If anything, Jarrell should be an argument for a EF-6 rating where nothing is left behind larger than a specific small size (for instance one cubic inch or whatever) which would ensure it isn't mis-applied and is only applied to tornadoes of unconscionable levels of destruction like we saw at Double Creek. I think it's useful and valid to have 5 subdivisions of damage normally and I wouldn't argue with leaving Jarrell as EF-5 on an open-ended scale, but it shouldn't be the minimum required for an EF-5 rating. I certainly do not want to have more numerous subdivisions of destruction such as the "Torro" scale used in the UK as that's not meaningful or useful, and would only complicate the work of the surveyors without offering any useful scientific or public gains.

Phil
 

locomusic01

Member
Messages
912
Reaction score
2,468
Location
Pennsylvania
"This tornado still remains the baseline to which all other high end tornadoes are rated." - Tim Marshall
Welp, that confirms it. We need another Jarrell to get EF5 now.


F**k Tim Marshall.
Yeah, maybe it's time to take a break and chill out a little. I don't claim to speak for Tim, but I'm pretty sure you're reading too much into that. He's said many times that he considers Jarrell the most violent tornado he's ever surveyed, which I suspect is what he meant to convey there. Either way, this whole thing is getting entirely irrational.
 

OHWX97

Member
Messages
615
Reaction score
629
Location
Norwood, Ohio
"Professional" only has meaning when exemplified through actions, and claiming such a thing in itself does not entitle anyone to any respect. Professionals who deserve bashing should get bashed and heavily as a reminder of their position and it's obligations to hold a higher standard. I DO agree that we should be civil in our language and discussions though regardless of who we're speaking about or with.

I'm a trained communicator and I've had to learn that what people exactly say isn't always what they exactly mean, and that the two things which matter most in communications is that you don't alter someone else's words, and that it's up to the receiver to decide what the sender meant. If Tim Marshall meant exactly what he said then I must agree with sentiments (but not the wording) of @Lake Martin EF4 and I do hope he'll edit his post once he cools down. It would be nice if Tim Marshall further responded to clarify exactly what he meant but I have no involvement there.

If anything, Jarrell should be an argument for a EF-6 rating where nothing is left behind larger than a specific small size (for instance one cubic inch or whatever) which would ensure it isn't mis-applied and is only applied to tornadoes of unconscionable levels of destruction like we saw at Double Creek. I think it's useful and valid to have 5 subdivisions of damage normally and I wouldn't argue with leaving Jarrell as EF-5 on an open-ended scale, but it shouldn't be the minimum required for an EF-5 rating. I certainly do not want to have more numerous subdivisions of destruction such as the "Torro" scale used in the UK as that's not meaningful or useful, and would only complicate the work of the surveyors without offering any useful scientific or public gains.

Phil
Tim Marshall has been highly respected in the weather community for decades and it's well deserved and I think he has the right to be considered a professional. I don't believe that exempts him from any criticism and scorn, but I also don't think this embittered attitude that has been directed towards him since the December 10-11, 2021 damage surveys is warranted. There's plenty of valid criticism towards that specific quote and I agree with what you had to say about it, but simply cursing his name is so spineless and undeserving.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top