• 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

Shakespeare 2016 said:
He was the guy who said that Tim Marshall is incahoots with State Farm because of the abysmally underrated Westminister, TX tornado which happened exactly 18 years ago to the day.

That was on the old American WX thread.
Click to expand...
@Shakespeare 2016 That’s actually extremely interesting, because I don’t think someone like Tony Lyza would just throw that out there. Tim & the firm he works for, HAAG Engineering, provide reports, services, and evaluations to multiple insurance companies for claims, chief amongst them Allstate & State Farm.

Now to start, I don’t think Tim Marshall is the boogeyman or the EF scale devil or a flawed, corrupt character. His contributions to this field are too numerous to even list, and he seems from afar like a decent person. But I think Tony was referring to this:

Anyone that has ever taken an introductory or college level insurance law class has probably saw Holt v. State Farm Lloyds referenced. Basically, Mr. Holt challenged the impartiality of Tim & HAAG because at least 25% of their income came from being an appraiser for State Farm. He argued it’s possible Tim and HAAG had an inherent bias in favoring any outcome that would favor State Farm. Not to mention the multiple lawsuits HAAG was involved in after Katrina that led to State Farm ordering an independent investigation into some of their findings, which led to multiple denied claims.

Tim’s NWS survey work isn’t related to State Farm or HAAG, and I think those lawsuits say more about HAAG’s character and their style of business than Tim’s character since he’s just an employee there.
 
Tempestas Tonitrua said:
@Shakespeare 2016 That’s actually extremely interesting, because I don’t think someone like Tony Lyza would just throw that out there. Tim & the firm he works for, HAAG Engineering, provide reports, services, and evaluations to multiple insurance companies for claims, chief amongst them Allstate & State Farm.

Now to start, I don’t think Tim Marshall is the boogeyman or the EF scale devil or a flawed, corrupt character. His contributions to this field are too numerous to even list, and he seems from afar like a decent person. But I think Tony was referring to this:

Anyone that has ever taken an introductory or college level insurance law class has probably saw Holt v. State Farm Lloyds referenced. Basically, Mr. Holt challenged the impartiality of Tim & HAAG because at least 25% of their income came from being an appraiser for State Farm. He argued it’s possible Tim and HAAG had an inherent bias in favoring any outcome that would favor State Farm. Not to mention the multiple lawsuits HAAG was involved in after Katrina that led to State Farm ordering an independent investigation into some of their findings, which led to multiple denied claims.

Tim’s NWS survey work isn’t related to State Farm or HAAG, and I think those lawsuits say more about HAAG’s character and their style of business than Tim’s character since he’s just an employee there.
Click to expand...
He did criticize Tim Marshall but Tony Lyza was 16 in June of 2006. He said something along the lines to be a conspiracy theorist minute, minute, that he has a deep dark suspicion that Tim Marshall is in cahoots with State Farm and writes off things as faulty construction to appease his clients. There is something too fishy about him. I don't like him. It was on the old AmericanWX site.
 
Last edited:
I guess another thing is that Gary Woodall with NWS Dallas-Fort Worth was with Tim Marshall when surveying the Westminster, TX 2006 tornado. So if some kind of cover up that was happening then Gary Woodall would be just guilty as Tim Marshall.
 
locomusic01 said:
Heaven forbid we violate the sanctity of the historical record, which is famously known for its accuracy and consistency. Wouldn't want to introduce any new variables, y'know.
Click to expand...
I thought I'd quote this here because this is actually a genuine argument:


1716592549458.png 1716592580823.png
The way almost everyone falls over themselves to agree is something else. If you apply a bit of scrutiny you can see that the premise falls apart, because rating has been highly inconsistent and there are other factors (such as the expanding bullseye effect) that aren't accounted for. Oh, and I don't think Fujita really intended it to be just damage, but rather was working in the limitations of what was available. I'm not sure what it's saying that such an experienced researcher as Houser would make this argument against better characterising tornadoes.
 
Last edited:
A Guy said:
I thought I'd quote this here because this is actually a genuine argument:


View attachment 27693 View attachment 27694
The way almost everyone falls over themselves to agree is something else. If you apply a bit of scrutiny you can see that the premise falls apart, because rating has been highly inconsistent and there are other factors (such as the expanding bullseye effect) that aren't accounted for. Oh, and I don't think Fujita really intended . I'm not sure what it's saying that such an experienced researcher as Houser would make this argument against better characterising tornadoes.
Click to expand...

well... that text instead make me realise that using that logic it would make the EF scale even more flawd.... at least for EF5.... FG2G96sXsAQ6z6k.png
(some of the committe felt that a house should never be rated EF5.) right there already shows the whole...
1716594148923.png
(ruin the tornado climatology database) so you would first have to rate evrey single 200 mph EF4 tornado into EF5 tornadoes before agreeing with that twitter post.
 
Tomcats Forever! said:
How do they determine what "bound" to use, anyway?
Click to expand...

the-castle-the-vibe.gif

By choosing the most conservative option

Even though you would think that the 'expected value' would be the default for a given DI in the absence of any evidence either way (the term implies it) the lower bound is used as a default. I've noticed that sometimes WFOs will even rate the damage as a lower DI than what actually occurred in order to give a lower speed.
 
Last edited:
A Guy said:
View attachment 27699

By choosing the most conservative option

Even though you would think that the 'expected value' would be the default for a given DI in the absence of any evidence either way (the term implies it) the lower bound is used as a default. I've noticed that sometimes WFOs will even rate the damage as a lower DI than what actually occurred in order to give a lower speed.
Click to expand...
I find it to be absurd myself.
 
In a post above by "A Guy" he shows where Sydney Walters said:

"You cannot simply implement changes. It will literally ruin the tornado climatology database we have already established."

First, this is irrelevant. If you find something is inaccurate to continue on with it 'just because it's there' is ludicrous and illogical. Mistakes must be corrected no matter how much work the correcting of the mistake entails. To say "we know this is wrong but we're going to keep on doing it" is as unprofessional and as unscientific as you can get.

Secondly if the old database is wrong then it's ruined already, isn't it? Sorry but Sydney's logic fails any reasonable test of intelligence in depth. If his peers were worthy of their titles they would routinely drum out those like Sydney, and that they are not doing this brings into question their own desire for correctness and accuracy.

In my business there's an old saying meant to be a joke but with more truth behind it than anyone wants to admit:
"Nobody has the time to do the job right first time around, but everybody has the time to go back and rectify it later even though that takes three times as long."

It is an admonishment to do the job right no matter how hard that is or how long it takes. It's your job to do it right so stop looking for excuses and just do it.
 
Sawmaster said:
In a post above by "A Guy" he shows where Sydney Walters said:

"You cannot simply implement changes. It will literally ruin the tornado climatology database we have already established."

First, this is irrelevant. If you find something is inaccurate to continue on with it 'just because it's there' is ludicrous and illogical. Mistakes must be corrected no matter how much work the correcting of the mistake entails. To say "we know this is wrong but we're going to keep on doing it" is as unprofessional and as unscientific as you can get.

Secondly if the old database is wrong then it's ruined already, isn't it? Sorry but Sydney's logic fails any reasonable test of intelligence in depth. If his peers were worthy of their titles they would routinely drum out those like Sydney, and that they are not doing this brings into question their own desire for correctness and accuracy.

In my business there's an old saying meant to be a joke but with more truth behind it than anyone wants to admit:
"Nobody has the time to do the job right first time around, but everybody has the time to go back and rectify it later even though that takes three times as long."

It is an admonishment to do the job right no matter how hard that is or how long it takes. It's your job to do it right so stop looking for excuses and just do it.
Click to expand...
I find it to be unbelievable how people were saying that should get a tornado warning or tornado emergency minutes before the NWS finally gives it a tornado warning or tornado emergency. Like that one EF2 tornado that NWS Dodge City failed to give a tornado warning and turn around and act like they were right and not admit their incompetence.
 
Last edited:
Sawmaster said:
In a post above by "A Guy" he shows where Sydney Walters said:

"You cannot simply implement changes. It will literally ruin the tornado climatology database we have already established."

First, this is irrelevant. If you find something is inaccurate to continue on with it 'just because it's there' is ludicrous and illogical. Mistakes must be corrected no matter how much work the correcting of the mistake entails. To say "we know this is wrong but we're going to keep on doing it" is as unprofessional and as unscientific as you can get.

Secondly if the old database is wrong then it's ruined already, isn't it? Sorry but Sydney's logic fails any reasonable test of intelligence in depth. If his peers were worthy of their titles they would routinely drum out those like Sydney, and that they are not doing this brings into question their own desire for correctness and accuracy.

In my business there's an old saying meant to be a joke but with more truth behind it than anyone wants to admit:
"Nobody has the time to do the job right first time around, but everybody has the time to go back and rectify it later even though that takes three times as long."

It is an admonishment to do the job right no matter how hard that is or how long it takes. It's your job to do it right so stop looking for excuses and just do it.
Click to expand...
The original comments in the images posted by Sydney Walters are from Jana Houser.

That's worse, I find it astounding such an experienced researcher would make such an argument.
 
After reanalyzing the El Dorado/Sterling tornado’s imagery from 5/23, I don’t think it was as violent as people (myself included) made it out to be. The ground scouring appears to be exaggerated due to the soil looking very loose and grainy, and the trees aren’t totally debarked + the low-lying shrubbery seems like it wouldn’t be very wind-resistant. It moved very slowly, so it had plenty of time to do this damage. I’m no engineer, but I think the location it struck makes it seem like the damage would appear stronger than it actually was. I wouldn’t disregard EF4 intensity, but I don’t think it reached anywhere close to EF5.
 
slenker said:
After reanalyzing the El Dorado/Sterling tornado’s imagery from 5/23, I don’t think it was as violent as people (myself included) made it out to be. The ground scouring appears to be exaggerated due to the soil looking very loose and grainy, and the trees aren’t totally debarked + the low-lying shrubbery seems like it wouldn’t be very wind-resistant. It moved very slowly, so it had plenty of time to do this damage. I’m no engineer, but I think the location it struck makes it seem like the damage would appear stronger than it actually was. I wouldn’t disregard EF4 intensity, but I don’t think it reached anywhere close to EF5.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that tornado didnt actually fully condensed for most of time of its life, no matter in multiple vortex stage or cone stage so the stronger winds were more aloft. Though Raxpol potentially got 280mph winds at 14m AGL but it didn't mean it capable of EF5 damage.
 
pohnpei said:
Yeah, that tornado didnt actually fully condensed for most of time of its life, no matter in multiple vortex stage or cone stage so the stronger winds were more aloft. Though Raxpol potentially got 280mph winds at 14m AGL but it didn't mean it capable of EF5 damage.
Click to expand...
That’s pretty insane, I didn’t even know it potentially recorded those wind speeds. It’s also possible for a tornado to not be fully condensed and cause EF5 damage - the extremely violent Rainsville tornado did this, albeit the atmospheric conditions that day were an extreme outlier so it’s not that comparable.

Still, I overhyped this tornado quite a bit. I would guess it reached high-end EF3 intensity on the surface, and maybe low-end EF4, but I would definitely not put it any higher than that simply due to the uncertainty. Had it struck a structure of any kind at all, we would have had at least a good idea of what it would have been capable of, but thankfully it didn’t.
 
joshoctober16 said:
https://fxtwitter.com/LimWeather/status/1793993961545355550
il just post this in here....
Click to expand...
Sorry it took me this long to read all of this. I must say that many points are quite valid and I'm in full agreement with almost all of it. Some comments:

#1 It seems strange to me that winds are always listed as multiples of 5 which is because they can't resolve better than that, yet we get many200's and no 201's or 205's.
#2 Evidence of what they consider "well built" includes toe-nailed studs,m and that evidence is rather easy to find. Very few homes have toe-nailed studs,so finding no holes where the toe-nails would have been means "not well-built" right away. This one parameter can be discovered in an instant so long as there are studs which can definitely be linked to that one site. I have no beef with the NWS on this in most instances, but my experience in building and demo work shows me that end-nailing (the most common practice) also has variables- mainly nail type- and that true 16d common nails resist side-shear approximately as well as toe nailed studs and after being in place several years also resist end-pull-out nearly as well too. However in the last 20+years, almost all homes are built with nail-guns, having thinner diameter shanks and shorter lengths. Those nails (along with CC Sinker type) have good initial pull-out resistance but once moved lose most of their grip. I have built exactly one home where we toe-nailed studs with guns, none by hand, and I've built or helped build at least 70 homes in several different parts of the US using local techniques. They need to alter that DI to allow for true 16d nails then I'd be happy.
#3 If no other rating requires a 70+ yard diameter damage area, then it should be removed as an EF-5 DI/DOD rule. Accept the damage found as is. We've all seen momentary subvortices that probably covered far less area so it's clearly possible for a group of homes to be lower in damage while one or two affected by that subvortice are EF-5.
#4 "Home not hit by debris" would have some validity if you specified exactly what the mass of excluding debris is but they don't. All homes get hit by debris; not all homes have a vehicle thrown at them. If we do such defining we might end up like the low end of the TORRO scale which to me is laughable in it's efforts to exactly define ending up with more questions that answers. I would like a rule on the debris mass "being large enough and at such a velocity to greatly affect wall strength" of something similar.
#5 :Has to be ground scouring: is insane. There are so many different types of soils and conditions that the lack of scouring can be meaningless as anyone who has dug into dry red Georgia clay or dry Texas 'hardpan' can tell you. It's almost like concrete and even 205MPH winds would have a hard time dislodging it. The wet fertile soil of the Imperial Valley in SoCal could probably be scoured by a low-end EF-4, maybe less. Asphalt also has many variations. I think we should use scouring just as an additional contextual indicator when it occurs and take nothing from it when it's absent.
#6 "All trees within 35 yards have to be fully gone and fully debarked does not take into account that buildings or even blown large debris can protect against debarking until the protection goes away, by which time the EF-5 core could have passed. Or the structure ciould have been at the edge of the EF-5 core with the tree(s) just outside of the 35 yard area.
#7 Extreme debris granulation will be affected by the time itis in the core, which is why slow-movers like Jarrel granulate completely while fast-movers likr Philadelphia or Smithville may not. Again, it's presence can mean everything but it's absence means nothing.

In conclusion we need to end the mindset of everything having to be exactly within written parameters or it being discounted, instead allowing an experienced surveyor to override some of the exactness without question when they truly believe the damage was otherwise at a higher level. Show me a precise tornado then I'll accept precise parameters for determining damage levels (but only for that tornado, and not the usual imprecise ones).
 
slenker said:
That’s pretty insane, I didn’t even know it potentially recorded those wind speeds. It’s also possible for a tornado to not be fully condensed and cause EF5 damage - the extremely violent Rainsville tornado did this, albeit the atmospheric conditions that day were an extreme outlier so it’s not that comparable.

Still, I overhyped this tornado quite a bit. I would guess it reached high-end EF3 intensity on the surface, and maybe low-end EF4, but I would definitely not put it any higher than that simply due to the uncertainty. Had it struck a structure of any kind at all, we would have had at least a good idea of what it would have been capable of, but thankfully it didn’t.
Click to expand...
Rainsville actually condensed when doing true EF5 damage. Like clearly the tornado didnt have so many true EF5 damage area like NWS map suggest(like in town). As it left the town, the tornado was pretty condensed fully to the ground all the way. When tornado is's fully condensed, it's a clear indicator that the pressure deficit is't strong enough.

Also interestingly, more than half of tornados with ＞100m/s winds on DOW didnt have EF5 contextual damage at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top