• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER

Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

Does anyone else feel like grazulis in his 1974-2022 book just.. doesn't challenge almost any of the should be EF5 ratings? The only example I can find is that he says Chapman was "Near EF5" he also states that the Mayfield tornado had "several historic brick buildings judged too frail to be EF5" in town. He brushes off Rochelle-Fairdale 2015, and describes Parkersburg 2008 as a "Low end EF5" <- Just NO. He does say that Tuscaloosa 2011 was "Originally rated at EF5" though. The book was a great read, though and I would still recommend it. It's just kind of weird for a guy that used to just rerate F5 deserving tornadoes as F5 in his 1680-1991 book.
 
SweptSlab5 said:
Does anyone else feel like grazulis in his 1974-2022 book just.. doesn't challenge almost any of the should be EF5 ratings? The only example I can find is that he says Chapman was "Near EF5" he also states that the Mayfield tornado had "several historic brick buildings judged too frail to be EF5" in town. He brushes off Rochelle-Fairdale 2015, and describes Parkersburg 2008 as a "Low end EF5" <- Just NO. He does say that Tuscaloosa 2011 was "Originally rated at EF5" though. The book was a great read, though and I would still recommend it. It's just kind of weird for a guy that used to just rerate F5 deserving tornadoes as F5 in his 1680-1991 book.
Click to expand...
Definitely feels like there was a bit of outside interference.
 
Follow up on more correct thread for this:
Does anybody have any photos of the damage from the F5 that hit Camden, NJ on July 26, 1860? It reportedly destroyed a chemical plant with 22 inch thick brick walls. It had a path that was 2 miles long and 60 yards wide. Fascinating event, considering it's weird location and extreme intensity. Notes on the chemical plant: "It was a two-story brick structure, 200 feet long and 36 feet wide. Its walls were an impressive 22 inches thick, reinforced with internal and external pilasters for added strength. The primary girders, measuring 12 by 16 inches, were double-bitted and supported by posts of the same size. These girders rested on interior pilasters. Throughout the structure, white pine joists, each 3 by 14 inches and spaced 9 inches apart, were reinforced with truss-bridging. The roof was covered in slate and featured a surrounding gallery, indicating that no expense had been spared in making it a robust and comprehensive establishment. During the Coroner's inquest, a master carpenter and a bricklayer provided sworn testimony regarding the structural integrity of the building." according to tornadoarchive dot com.
 
SweptSlab5 said:
Follow up on more correct thread for this:
Does anybody have any photos of the damage from the F5 that hit Camden, NJ on July 26, 1860? It reportedly destroyed a chemical plant with 22 inch thick brick walls. It had a path that was 2 miles long and 60 yards wide. Fascinating event, considering it's weird location and extreme intensity. Notes on the chemical plant: "It was a two-story brick structure, 200 feet long and 36 feet wide. Its walls were an impressive 22 inches thick, reinforced with internal and external pilasters for added strength. The primary girders, measuring 12 by 16 inches, were double-bitted and supported by posts of the same size. These girders rested on interior pilasters. Throughout the structure, white pine joists, each 3 by 14 inches and spaced 9 inches apart, were reinforced with truss-bridging. The roof was covered in slate and featured a surrounding gallery, indicating that no expense had been spared in making it a robust and comprehensive establishment. During the Coroner's inquest, a master carpenter and a bricklayer provided sworn testimony regarding the structural integrity of the building." according to tornadoarchive dot com.
Click to expand...
If there were damage photos from it, the photos would likely be the oldest tornado damage photographs in existence.

The oldest tornado damage photographs I can definitively confirm are from the July 4, 1874 Lewistown, PA tornado, though a damage photo purportedly from the March 16, 1868 Toronto, ON tornado also exists.

While the Camden tornado did receive passing mentions in nationwide press, considering how expensive and finicky the photography process was back then, I doubt any serious photographers thought to take any photos of a localized event with a path length of less than two miles (photography was typically reserved for portraits and large scale events like the severe nationwide political crisis leading up to the Civil War during that time).

Also, the Tornado Archive has recently added many entries (including that one) for both pre-1880 tornadoes and more recent international tornadoes based on the work of author Blue Ayanami, who also unofficially assigned the ratings. Their research is reportedly very thorough and foolproof but I don't know anything about them beyond that.
 
TH2002 said:
If there were damage photos from it, the photos would likely be the oldest tornado damage photographs in existence.

The oldest tornado damage photographs I can definitively confirm are from the July 4, 1874 Lewistown, PA tornado, though a damage photo purportedly from the March 16, 1868 Toronto, ON tornado also exists.

While the Camden tornado did receive passing mentions in nationwide press, considering how expensive and finicky the photography process was back then, I doubt any serious photographers thought to take any photos of a localized event with a path length of less than two miles (photography was typically reserved for portraits and large scale events like the severe nationwide political crisis leading up to the Civil War during that time).

Also, the Tornado Archive has recently added many entries (including that one) for both pre-1880 tornadoes and more recent international tornadoes based on the work of author Blue Ayanami, who also unofficially assigned the ratings. Their research is reportedly very thorough and foolproof but I don't know anything about them beyond that.
Click to expand...
Would you consider this a significant F5 contender then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top