Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread (1 Viewer)

[A Guy]

At this point it's clear that tornado examiner just wants to argue and always be right as opposed to having constructive discussions.

Are you saying you haven't put him on ignore yet?

 

[Sawmaster]

You're wrong and need to admit it. This is not how you have constructive discussions.

At this point it's clear that tornado examiner just wants to argue and always be right as opposed to having constructive discussions.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that either- after all I think every one of us would like to be 100% right 100% of the time, but we're humans so that ain't gonna happen. And there's a flipside to this in some who so cling to their opposing views and try only to justify that instead of exploring other possibilities and other ways of thinking.

Everyone's thoughts have value and in our consideration of them we can always gain something good if we will look for it. Discounting someone's thoughts outright will cost you those possible gains. I saw the pics same as everybody did, but I didn't notice those sideways markings until it was pointed out. I will now be looking closer for and at such things. I have gained something good.

Phil

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

Are you saying you haven't put him on ignore yet?

Done and done.

 

[TH2002]

At this point it's clear that tornado examiner just wants to argue and always be right as opposed to having constructive discussions.

I will say that tornado examiner has been posting a bit too much lately and I don't think anyone (this applies to everyone myself included BTW) should actually post something unless they have something interesting to say and/or share, but I also agree with what Sawmaster said, none of us are perfect.

With that said, for those of you who do not want to read his posts it's better to just put him on ignore and move on with your life because complaining about him certainly won't do any good either.

 

[tornado examiner]

the only two tornadoes i can say were likely over-rated are newnan and allendale...

 

[Marios Wallace]

Nah Allendale is fine, standard UP for a double wide is EF3/154. Allendale was given EF3/137, likely bumped up for the tree damage which in this photo seems pretty typical of EF3 intensity.

 

[Marios Wallace]

Newnan however is a different case. Personally believe it to be a borderline case that can go either way. However in my personal belief it's probably a very low-end EF4 that was likely bumped to 170 in survey. Some homes on Fairview drive used relatively decent clipping methods and had anchor bolts. Standard DI for home collapsed in the FR12 EXP is 170, so 167-168 would likely be fine here. Tree damage in this area was not violent, but the mass snapping and even spotty debarking of trees in this area do point towards a intensity similar to the centreville tornado SE of Brent, AL on the same day.

 

[UK_EF4]

Thought this was interesting

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

 

[UK_EF4]

Also saw this. Some of this sounds good, but other things concern me. I hope the 'wind duration argument' doesn't become a way to try and downgrade tornadoes such as the 'Jarrell could have had F3 winds' stuff. If it did, I hope they would be consistent in it going both ways. But that's getting ahead of myself there the new system isn't even out yet!

 

[Sawmaster]

Good to see any advancement here, especially in more clearly defining the DoD. And hoping the section on trees takes into consideration that some barks are more firmly attached than others with similar differences for root systems as well as the strength of the wood itself.

 

[TH2002]

to make things worse , every EF5 of 2007-2013 would not be rated EF5 today.... just cause of Vilonia and Mayfield reasons used on them (blue is Vilonia and Mayfield reasons) magenta is a (bowling green EF3 reason) correct me if im wrong with some facts here (like if some did do severe granulation or not)
View attachment 15535

Moving this to the EF scale debate thread, but this pretty much sums it up. What's even sadder is that a single underlying reason could be used to nitpick ALL of those tornadoes down to EF4 - the construction quality of the structures they hit. The only outliers to this one rule are Parkersburg, Smithville and Moore since they encountered verifiably "well built" (per engineering standards, anyhow) homes, though of course nitpicky surveyors could use a plethora of other reasons to downgrade them.

As far as construction quality goes, I won't go into detail for every specific example because I honestly think it's already painfully obvious to most of us, but what I think engineers like Marshall often forget is that most structures in the US are poorly built - and actually expecting a tornado to encounter a well built structure as a requirement for an EF5 rating is, well, an unrealistic expectation.

But the damage surveys for the recent November 4 outbreak were actually pretty good, with even NWS Fort Worth handing out appropriate ratings. To me it's a glimmer of hope that tornado damage surveying is finally back on the right track, and the ripple effects of Vilonia are hopefully finally wearing off after eight years.

 

[tornado examiner]

all the EF4's of the year were rating appropriately....minus the powderly tornado imo...i don't know what they saw but from all the images i've seen the one home that got the tornado rated EF4 had rather unimpressive contextual damage surrounding it "high end EF2 low end EF3 from the looks of it" and it was only a singular wall that seemed to have bolts on it...the rest of the walls appeared to be either unanchored or anchored with nails...which would explain why the house just seemed to have been pushed sideways off the foundation rather than blown apart in violent fashion...

but thats just what i saw....i'd call that one a 165 mph EF3 and too me an EF4 rating seems a little generous....

i guess the house was just incredibly well built...i may be trippin...i wish they gave a us a clear explanation for the rating.

 

[tornado examiner]

it really could have gone either way and nobody would really complain too much...it's right on the border of EF3 and EF4

 

[UK_EF4]

Slightly unrelated...
Revisited the 'December 10th Outbreak Damage Surveys' video on YouTube. Had a section where audience of the talk (presumably NWS employees) could submit a vote on what they would rate the damage shown. First screenshot is damage shown (the infamous Bremen home). Look at the results of the poll - second screenshot. I genuinely cannot comprehend how some meteorologists in the audience of this presentation Could *possibly* conceive this as being EF2 damage... a higher percentage would have rated this EF2 than EF4. To me, there just seems there is some weird pressure nowadays among some meteorologists and surveyors, that finding small details and reasons, even invalid ones, in order to rate extremely conservatively is somehow more advanced... or makes you seem more professional and experienced? I genuinely have no clue.

But linking back to what was posted previously, If Tim Marshall and some Mets and Surveyors consider this kind of damage EF2 and EF3 (referring to Tim Marshalls recent publication yesterday), then what on earth do they consider EF4 and EF5? and what would they rate past EF5s today? I have no idea.

Anyways, sorry for that rant!

 

[tornado examiner]

that is unbelievably daft like what the heck...these are the kind of people who would rate smithville a low end EF4....

that home in particular is still a home that should have gotten rated at least 200mph EF4 or greater than 200mph EF5 at the very least regardless of it's weird construction

 

[joshoctober16]

Slightly unrelated...
Revisited the 'December 10th Outbreak Damage Surveys' video on YouTube. Had a section where audience of the talk (presumably NWS employees) could submit a vote on what they would rate the damage shown. First screenshot is damage shown (the infamous Bremen home). Look at the results of the poll - second screenshot. I genuinely cannot comprehend how some meteorologists in the audience of this presentation Could *possibly* conceive this as being EF2 damage... a higher percentage would have rated this EF2 than EF4. To me, there just seems there is some weird pressure nowadays among some meteorologists and surveyors, that finding small details and reasons, even invalid ones, in order to rate extremely conservatively is somehow more advanced... or makes you seem more professional and experienced? I genuinely have no clue.

But linking back to what was posted previously, If Tim Marshall and some Mets and Surveyors consider this kind of damage EF2 and EF3 (referring to Tim Marshalls recent publication yesterday), then what on earth do they consider EF4 and EF5? and what would they rate past EF5s today? I have no idea.

Anyways, sorry for that rant!

View attachment 15543
View attachment 15544

im sorry but what , if one single engineer considered this EF2 then its best to remove EF4 and EF5 , this is way too ridiculous , this has become the game of find 0.001% chance of it being this low and rate it that and not pick the most realistic result.

 

[tornado examiner]

people don't seem to realize that around 25% of supercellular tornadoes pack EF4+ wind speeds especially in the plains. this is according to official study using dow radar data.

 

[Sawmaster]

this has become the game of find 0.001% chance of it being this low and rate it that and not pick the most realistic result.

Bullseye! It's how "learned" folks impress each other with how thorough and intelligent they are You tend to get the answer you're looking for, so going in with this attitude ensures a low rating will result.

Phil

 

[buckeye05]

If one were to do a survey on what NWS employees across the US define as EF5 house damage, I'd bet my savings that the answers would be all over the place, and that few surveyors would be on the same page, even within the same WFO. Some would give an unrealistically extreme definition of damage for EF5 (the type only seen in Jarrell/Bridge Creek/Smithville-tier events), some may only understand EF5 damage from a strictly engineering viewpoint with no understanding of contextual evidence, a few may have a good well-rounded grasp, and I would bet that many others just don't have a clear idea one way or the other.

How can they get a clear idea? I believe this can only be done by NWS mets examining past EF5 events in great detail, which I really doubt is done in any capacity. Surveyors at any WFO should be able to say "This specific past EF5 tornado was rated as such because of these factors and damage points", yet I doubt hardly any actually can. Many probably still think Moore 2013 was based on damage to school buildings, because "rating process of historic tornado events" is not a topic meteorologist are taught in college, or on the job. I won't mention names obviously, but I recently talked to a friend who's a well-respected, employed met regarding this topic. He wasn’t able to recall how many tornadoes have been rated EF5 since EF scale implementation in 2007, and couldn't name any besides Greensburg and two of the 4/27/2011 tornadoes, and was shocked by the Philadelphia, MS ground scouring photos I showed him, as he had never seen them until just then. That to me, is indicative of the problem. Tornado event history is not being taught, nothing is being learned from past EF5s, so NWS surveyors don't have anything from past events to reference for comparison, and a clear agreed-upon definition of EF5 damage no longer exists. It's just considered a low priority topic and that needs to change.