joshoctober16
Member
- Messages
- 547
- Location
- Canada New brunswick
and this was also posted.... but kind of old news
-
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
and this was also posted.... but kind of old news
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
- Messages
- 2,445
- Location
- Missouri
I think we should go back to the old scale, or at least use the F-scale wind speed estimates as opposed to the EF ones.
Tomcats Forever!
Member
- Messages
- 354
- Location
- Louisville, KY
The DOW readings this spring really put a lot of evidence to that.
Sawmaster
Member
Yup. I'm just waiting to see what they do now that there's measured winds to compare with the damage scale determinations. It wouldn't look good for them if the enhanced scale wasn't the improvement they thought it was, but I also think that Fujita may have gone a little too high with the top end wind estimations he proposed. The truth is out there somewhere...
What I don't expect is for past ratings to be reviewed and changed because it involved a humongous amount of work and they neither have the time or funding to go there. It will need something like what Grazulis did to go back over so many tornadoes at that level of detail, and quite frankly I don't see anyone willing to take on such a herculean task today. I'm not a big fan of AI, but here is where it might prove worthwhile given the size of such a project.
What I don't expect is for past ratings to be reviewed and changed because it involved a humongous amount of work and they neither have the time or funding to go there. It will need something like what Grazulis did to go back over so many tornadoes at that level of detail, and quite frankly I don't see anyone willing to take on such a herculean task today. I'm not a big fan of AI, but here is where it might prove worthwhile given the size of such a project.
Shakespeare 2016
Member
- Messages
- 1,469
- Location
- Augusta, Kansas
Somewhere around 235 mph is where I think EF5 winds probably start.
EF0...<86 mph
EF1...86 to 112 mph
EF2...113 to 146 mph
EF3...147 to 187 mph
EF4...188 to 235 mph
EF5...>235 mph
joshoctober16
Member
- Messages
- 547
- Location
- Canada New brunswick
remember el reno 2011 mesonet measurement had a 150 mph and only EF0 damage around it and there's the whole andover had a 118 ms wind speed at a house that only had its whole roof gone and a few walls down.
Sawmaster
Member
It's odd, but tornadoes are also odd with highly variable winds and damage points not far from each other. In a perfect world I'd want to see ratings for max wind, max damage, size, average winds, average damage, max path width, and path length. I don't think all this could be made into a single meaningful figure but some parameters could fit simply, such as "xF4/190M" meaning maximum damage of 4 and top winds actually measured @190MPH. If winds weren't measured it would read "xF4/190E" for estimated wind speed.
I admire and respect Dr. Fujita's amazing efforts as well as the studies done to update his categories, but still the system is clearly broken with some glaring disparities (like the El Reno biggie) making the simple damage rating we have now meaningless unless you go deep into the rabbit hole for each and every tornado. We need to incorporate our better knowledge and abilities of today into the system while keeping it simple enough for the average person to understand it.
Tomcats Forever!
Member
- Messages
- 354
- Location
- Louisville, KY
This has been kicking around in my head for a couple weeks.
I wonder if there would be any benefit if the engineers behind the revisions were to consult with, say, a Formula 1 aerodynamicist. After all, they have an immense amount of practical experience with how EF-4/5 wind speeds interact with complex shapes. They could at least give input on the CFD models that are being used.
I wonder if there would be any benefit if the engineers behind the revisions were to consult with, say, a Formula 1 aerodynamicist. After all, they have an immense amount of practical experience with how EF-4/5 wind speeds interact with complex shapes. They could at least give input on the CFD models that are being used.
Sawmaster
Member
Or aeronautic engineers.
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
- Messages
- 2,445
- Location
- Missouri
I'd personally cap EF5 winds at 250+ and EF4 as being something like 180-249 or so. I think the most extreme tornadoes likely maintain winds in the 280-320 mph range but 250 is likely the low-end for F5 or EF5 winds.
- Messages
- 875
- Location
- Iowa
Hey everyone, i'm new here and this is my first comment on the site. I read through all 39 pages of this thread, and would like to share some thoughts now.
1. It's incredible how much debate there is surrounding the 200 mph EF4 vs 205 MPH EF5 mark, when it is beyond clear all the EF5 candidates of the last 10 years were so far beyond those windspeeds. There's endless discussion about Vilonia's 200 mph rating, or Mayfield's 190 MPH rating, etc. without any mention of the fact those tornadoes were easily 250 MPH+. Surveyors and the EF scale aren't just getting it wrong, they're getting it wrong by 75-100 mph. Consistently.
2. I can't really wrap my mind around how DOW recorded wind speeds on notable tornadoes are seen as a "correlation" to the damage on the ground and not (conclusive) causation. Surely, there are at least a dozen instances now of DOW recordings showing it requires 220 MPH+ winds to achieve a DOD of 10 on any framed houses with even remotely competent construction. Is there one single instance of a DOW recording less than 200 MPH (EF4) in a tornado that slabbed homes?
3. I'm not sure why Tim Marshall is getting so much grace here. I believe if we observe his actions and public statements in a vacuum (without the context of how nice he seems in person or his apparent respect from colleagues) it's clear he has worked to dismantle everything Ted Fujita worked to create. His mindset is incorrect, and most of his public comments indefensible. He has directly had a hand in almost all of the most controversial damage surveys in the last decade (Vilonia, Rolling Fork, Mayfield, Matador, Tuscaloosa, Chickasha, Goldsby, Rochelle Fairdale, etc.).
Some of his quotes:
"there's no difference between a high end EF4 and an EF5"
About Mayfield: "There you have it folks! The NWS says EF4. It was bad, but couldn't quite match Bridge Creek, Jarell, etc."
Here's a few slides from his presentation titled "Discriminating EF4 and EF5 tornado Damage"
Not EF5
EF5
Look at the bottom of those EF5 slides. Bridge Creek and Piedmont. The most powerful tornado ever recorded (322 MPH), and the most severe damage ever recorded. There is absolutely no excuse for this. It's indefensible.
Oh, and the best part. You see the first example of "EF4", how lack of ground scouring is listed as a reason for the downgrade? Well he failed to mention another house from the same tornado. A 5,000 sq ft home that was built by two architects with upgrades specifically designed to make it more tornado resistant. Check out the overhead shot. Same tornado. More impressive house. WITH GROUND SCOURING.
Let's take it a step further. still the same tornado. More damage photos.
This was the Washington-Goldsby tornado. It spawned from the same storm system (and was arguably close to as powerful) as Piedmont. Side note: Chickasha was also spawned from the same storm system and it's just as impressive as Piedmont and Goldsby. That outbreak (may 24, 2011) spawned 12 tornadoes, and 3 of them were, by all measures of logic, EF5s. Imagine how much more that system would be talked about and studied if it wasn't underrated so severely. It's the perfect example of the severe consequences of bad science and record keeping. (edit: corrected storm to storm system*)
Conclusion? Tim Marshall is deliberately training surveyors to be confused and misinformed. By comparing some of the worst tornado damage ever recorded (Goldsby), to THE worst tornado damage ever recorded (Piedmont), and painting it as EF4 vs EF5 differences, he's guaranteeing all tornadoes with actual windspeeds of 250 MPH or 300 MPH will be underrated by 100 MPH or more.
And let me just reiterate a comment from a few pages ago: "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 [Marshall] & 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." This brings me to my next point.
4. I take extreme exception to the idea that the people raising the alarm bells and criticizing the current system are "Weather Wheenies". Frankly, I find the amount of restraint being shown by both the weather and scientific community around this issue infuriating. It feels like I'm taking crazy pills, and I know i'm not alone. It's good, as scientists, to approach these issues with an open mind and give people the benefit of the doubt, but at a certain point it crosses into naivety and willful ignorance. We're far past that point. The system is broken, conclusively, and there's strong evidence it's deliberate.
Please feel free to copy this post or anything from it anywhere.
1. It's incredible how much debate there is surrounding the 200 mph EF4 vs 205 MPH EF5 mark, when it is beyond clear all the EF5 candidates of the last 10 years were so far beyond those windspeeds. There's endless discussion about Vilonia's 200 mph rating, or Mayfield's 190 MPH rating, etc. without any mention of the fact those tornadoes were easily 250 MPH+. Surveyors and the EF scale aren't just getting it wrong, they're getting it wrong by 75-100 mph. Consistently.
2. I can't really wrap my mind around how DOW recorded wind speeds on notable tornadoes are seen as a "correlation" to the damage on the ground and not (conclusive) causation. Surely, there are at least a dozen instances now of DOW recordings showing it requires 220 MPH+ winds to achieve a DOD of 10 on any framed houses with even remotely competent construction. Is there one single instance of a DOW recording less than 200 MPH (EF4) in a tornado that slabbed homes?
3. I'm not sure why Tim Marshall is getting so much grace here. I believe if we observe his actions and public statements in a vacuum (without the context of how nice he seems in person or his apparent respect from colleagues) it's clear he has worked to dismantle everything Ted Fujita worked to create. His mindset is incorrect, and most of his public comments indefensible. He has directly had a hand in almost all of the most controversial damage surveys in the last decade (Vilonia, Rolling Fork, Mayfield, Matador, Tuscaloosa, Chickasha, Goldsby, Rochelle Fairdale, etc.).
Some of his quotes:
"there's no difference between a high end EF4 and an EF5"
About Mayfield: "There you have it folks! The NWS says EF4. It was bad, but couldn't quite match Bridge Creek, Jarell, etc."
Here's a few slides from his presentation titled "Discriminating EF4 and EF5 tornado Damage"
Not EF5
EF5
Look at the bottom of those EF5 slides. Bridge Creek and Piedmont. The most powerful tornado ever recorded (322 MPH), and the most severe damage ever recorded. There is absolutely no excuse for this. It's indefensible.
Oh, and the best part. You see the first example of "EF4", how lack of ground scouring is listed as a reason for the downgrade? Well he failed to mention another house from the same tornado. A 5,000 sq ft home that was built by two architects with upgrades specifically designed to make it more tornado resistant. Check out the overhead shot. Same tornado. More impressive house. WITH GROUND SCOURING.
Let's take it a step further. still the same tornado. More damage photos.
This was the Washington-Goldsby tornado. It spawned from the same storm system (and was arguably close to as powerful) as Piedmont. Side note: Chickasha was also spawned from the same storm system and it's just as impressive as Piedmont and Goldsby. That outbreak (may 24, 2011) spawned 12 tornadoes, and 3 of them were, by all measures of logic, EF5s. Imagine how much more that system would be talked about and studied if it wasn't underrated so severely. It's the perfect example of the severe consequences of bad science and record keeping. (edit: corrected storm to storm system*)
Conclusion? Tim Marshall is deliberately training surveyors to be confused and misinformed. By comparing some of the worst tornado damage ever recorded (Goldsby), to THE worst tornado damage ever recorded (Piedmont), and painting it as EF4 vs EF5 differences, he's guaranteeing all tornadoes with actual windspeeds of 250 MPH or 300 MPH will be underrated by 100 MPH or more.
And let me just reiterate a comment from a few pages ago: "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 [Marshall] & 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." This brings me to my next point.
4. I take extreme exception to the idea that the people raising the alarm bells and criticizing the current system are "Weather Wheenies". Frankly, I find the amount of restraint being shown by both the weather and scientific community around this issue infuriating. It feels like I'm taking crazy pills, and I know i'm not alone. It's good, as scientists, to approach these issues with an open mind and give people the benefit of the doubt, but at a certain point it crosses into naivety and willful ignorance. We're far past that point. The system is broken, conclusively, and there's strong evidence it's deliberate.
Please feel free to copy this post or anything from it anywhere.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 875
- Location
- Iowa
Here's more photos of Goldsby to really drive the point home. The fact this tornado was used to train surveyors on EF4 damage is beyond inexcusable. This tornado had 16 houses with a DOD of 10, but only 5 of them have pictures on the assessment toolkit. About half were described as being brand new with anchor bolts. One that wasn't pictured was described in the toolkit as, "Bolt-anchored house completely swept off foundation. Bolts spacing 18 [inches]. House remains 10 yards to the west of the foundation." I've been trying to dig up photos of that one with no luck!
This first photo was described in the toolkit as "Complete ground scouring for a width of at least 100 yards". The second is a large flag pole that was uprooted and thrown with its 4 foot long concrete foundation still attached. The third is the surveyors standing next to a combine that was ripped in half. The rest are self explanatory.
This first photo was described in the toolkit as "Complete ground scouring for a width of at least 100 yards". The second is a large flag pole that was uprooted and thrown with its 4 foot long concrete foundation still attached. The third is the surveyors standing next to a combine that was ripped in half. The rest are self explanatory.
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
- Messages
- 2,445
- Location
- Missouri
Yeah, I was one of the few people that dared to suggest that Tim Marshall doesn't deserve any more respect and I got attacked for it by quite a few posters here, accusing me of exaggerating Marshall as a "weather boogeyman" or that he's just following orders from above (the former CEO of NWS, etc.). While I don't doubt Marshall is solely to blame for the current state of the EF scale he is undoubtedly a major player in the debacle.
Also, welcome to the forum! This is probably the largest English-language tornado forum on the internet at this point, at least that I'm aware of.
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
- Messages
- 2,445
- Location
- Missouri
Yeah this whole deal. Goldsby & Chickasha were both EF5s, although Goldsby is definitely the more egregious case. While I'm at it, Canton Lake was at least high-end EF4.
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
- Messages
- 2,445
- Location
- Missouri
While I'm at it, I really do think that Grazulis was pressured by Marshall and some of his associates to not say anything about Vilonia being an EF5. I was also accused of being a baseless conspiracy theorist for this too.
- Messages
- 630
- Location
- Columbus, OH
One thing that I don't believe to be true is that the Chickasha, Goldsby and Piedmont tornadoes all spawned from the same storm. I am pretty sure they did not (although I could be wrong). I am pretty sure Canton Lake and Piedmont were the same storm, and Chickasha/Goldsby were two separate storms to the south.
I believe that this is a dangerous mindset to have when it comes to this sort of thing. Tim Marshall is a veteran surveyor/scientist and I find it very unlikely that he is deliberately misleading engineers. He likely makes just enough money without State Farm's help. Surveyors and meteorologists are currently revising the EF scale right now. I truly believe that they are just overly afraid of giving tornadoes a higher rating all because of the La Plata fallout from twenty years ago.
I want to know, what more came out of that case? Is this just "the guy who started the case is making an accusation?" I don't think we should jump to conclusions based on that.
As far as your other points go, I mostly agree. Goldsby was absolutely an EF5, Chickasha was absolutely an EF5, among many others. But I still believe Marshall deserves some respect, and I stand by this.
Edit: Also, welcome to the forum. It's good to have different viewpoints here.
Juliett Bravo Kilo
Member
- Messages
- 2,445
- Location
- Missouri
Maybe some respect, but not as much as he would've had once upon a time. The same for Grazulis. So many are afraid to challenge obvious mistakes if not flat out lies about tornado rankings and the like.
- Messages
- 2,828
- Location
- Smithville MS
I feel it's high time we incorporated DOW measurements, drone data, and other field measurements into the assessments especially if there's no damage done. That's the thing. The whole scale is damaged based, so how do you rate a tornado that doesn't hit anything. I would argue there's been a whole lot more tornadoes that would have been rated EF3+ if we had a scale that wasn't solely based on damage done. That's my two cents anyways.
- Messages
- 630
- Location
- Columbus, OH
I agree for the most part. The only issue is that there have been DOW measurements exceeding 200 or even 250 mph in some cases on tornadoes that most definitely were not capable of producing EF5 damage (I.e. Andover 2022 and potentially Dodge City 2016). That just shows us that windspeed isn't everything in determining the power of a tornado, there's got to be something more to it.
I believe using the EF scale to estimate windspeeds is a complete failure. Windspeed obviously plays a role in the intensity of the damage but it's not the whole story.
Edit: Also, I think Andover 2022 was estimated with photogrammetry, not DOW, iirc. My bad.
- Messages
- 875
- Location
- Iowa
I respect your opinion and reservations. However, try to explain why he would create a presentation, specifically to train surveyors on the difference between EF4 and EF5 tornadoes, and choose to use Bridge Creek and Piedmont as the EF5 examples, and Goldsby as the EF4 example. There's absolutely no excuse for that. He's comparing 280 mph damage with 320 mph damage and painting it as the boundary line for 200 MPH.
His connections to Haag and consulting for insurance companies is a conflict of interest. Bar none. It's not up for debate. If you believe his character is strong enough it has no effect on him that's good, but it's a pretty good example of the naivety I'm talking about.
So is this:
"He likely makes just enough money without State Farm's help"
I don't think he's hurting for cash. This is a weird conclusion to draw with how much money there is in consulting and insurance. Haag has 100 employees and their yearly revenue is between $25-100 million.
I hope i'm not coming off too harsh. I just very strongly disagree. Thanks for the welcome! This whole thread was a fascinating read over the last week or so!