• 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

UK_EF4 said:
That's fair enough, and a reasonable point. I'd still really like to understand the thought process behind the decision more, from the NWS's point of view.

View attachment 34061View attachment 34062

This is Satellite imagery from 2019, with the imagery right after the tornado on the right. It seems the core (which was quite narrow) of the tornado tracked pretty much just over or a tad north of the home, based on the debris field. The purple circled structure is what I assume to be the machinery shed/storage building. I am very curious about this, no.1 because the shed seems quite small and no. 2 I cant see any easily identifiable massive debris in the remnants of the home. I am *not* saying this impact didn't happen, but there is a part of me thinking that this impact seems pretty similar to normal debris that will hit a home when a tornado strikes it (which leads off into the points you mentioned in the second paragraph- in which I firmly agree). Besides, there is so much talk of the EF scale being a *damage* scale not windspeed, and then in cases like the actual *damage* isn't taken into consideration, and the focus is reasons why the windspeed was lower? It's the tornado doing all the damage anyway - and it takes an intense/violent tornado anyway to turn debris into something which can slab a home in the first place.
Click to expand...
ya thats a thing a notice, they say (radar cant be use since its a damage base scale) but then if thats true why lower a rating of a tornado that got hit by debris if its a pure damage scale?

the scale has become too much of a FIND ANY REASON to downgrade a tornado then being science base.

it isn't helping that base on DOW data that 50+% of all tornadoes are underrated and 0% of them are over rated (when i say over rated and under rated i mean 2 EF rating off)

while there are a view tornadoes that seem to be over rated base on dow data they are only off by 1 EF rating.

if the scale was good then the amount of over rated and under rated should be the same.
 
UK_EF4 said:
March 31st 2023 was again another high-end outbreak which probably had more violent tornadoes than rated. Certainly agree with you that Robinson was at least of EF4 intensity, aerial showed lots of destroyed homes and with quite significant contextual damage. Don't think its extremely underrated though due to the fact most of the homes surveyed don't seem well constructed. I feel like I remember some people saying not all of the damage was surveyed but I can't quite remember if/where this is.

View attachment 34050View attachment 34051
View attachment 34052

I also think that the tornadoes in TN were probably violent. The tornado near Covington was likely EF4 intensity - ripped out a massive electrical transmission tower from the ground. Destroyed some less well constructed homes and had moderate scouring and debarking in some photos. I also don't this is a massive mis-application of the scale. EF3/165 nowadays is probably the most realistic, but again in the early era of the EF scale, and even at a different office, I do reasonably think this would have gotten EF4 context and structural damage considered.
View attachment 34053View attachment 34054

Then the 86 mile Purdy/Bethel Springs TN tornado was very likely violent, even quite violent. Produced some asphalt scouring and destroyed a couple buildings which the NWS surveyed, and I think was not rated too inappropriately given construction concerns.
View attachment 34055View attachment 34056

But the worst damage (in my opinion) wasn't surveyed: Homes destroyed, some apparently well-built, accompanied by debris granulation, wind rowing and some fairly severe tree damage. Overall points towards at least low EF4 intensity, and I don't blame the NWS for not being able to survey all locations given the massive amount of track they had to cover.

View attachment 34057View attachment 34058View attachment 34059
View attachment 34060

Overall, I don't think there were any egregious EF rating cases from this outbreak, but certainly think there were 3-4 violent tornadoes, and likely pre 2014 most of those tornadoes would have been rated as such. This has turned into more of a tornado history post rather than EF debate, so apologies, but I thought it would be interesting to share here regardless.

Edit: it seems none of the photos I copied and pasted in the first half of the post have gone through. I will try and fix this!
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree that 3/31/23 had more violent tornadoes than rated. Keota was very likely an EF5-level tornado at some point just based on the video evidence alone. The motion associated with the vortex in that tornado was extraordinary. Robinson-Sullivan was also likely an EF4 at its peak.

I wonder if photogrammetry can be done on the Keota tornado from the videos. I would love to know what the resultant windspeed estimates would look like, because that thing looked like Andover 1991.
 
slenker said:
I absolutely agree that 3/31/23 had more violent tornadoes than rated. Keota was very likely an EF5-level tornado at some point just based on the video evidence alone. The motion associated with the vortex in that tornado was extraordinary. Robinson-Sullivan was also likely an EF4 at its peak.

I wonder if photogrammetry can be done on the Keota tornado from the videos. I would love to know what the resultant windspeed estimates would look like, because that thing looked like Andover 1991.
Click to expand...
I forgot which video it was, but the tornado was moving away from them, and they were already pretty far away when the camera went to another angel of the tornado and that monster was spinning so fast. I wanna say it was probably about 5-6 miles away? Maybe a little less than that.
 
andyhb said:


Kind of hard to claim no one cares about the rating when the AMS is putting the paper in the spotlight.
Click to expand...

I’m still relatively new to this forum and discussing about tornadoes, but I have always thought that it’s starting to get a bit pointless having this scale with all of these guidelines and regulations set to ensure fair ratings, yet a lot of the time it seems like a lot of WFOs don’t take them into account. I also don’t know why a lot of WFOs ignore certain areas of damage. Such as New Wren 2011. The worst damage was never surveyed and that damage pointed to a much higher rating than EF3.
 
Austin Dawg said:
I know you guys have made a list of your top EF5 tornadoes... have you ever made a top 10 list of E4 tornadoes? Just curious.
Click to expand...
If we are going on EF4 tornadoes, I would list these EF4 tornadoes as the most significant of the 21st century so far.

1: Controversial, but #1 in my opinion goes to the Mayfield Tornado.
2: Tuscaloosa.
3: Vilonia.
4: Rolling Fork.
5: Beauregard.
6: Cullman.
7: Washington.
8: Pilger Tornadoes.
9: Rochelle.
10: Chapman.
 
joshoctober16 said:
ya thats a thing a notice, they say (radar cant be use since its a damage base scale) but then if thats true why lower a rating of a tornado that got hit by debris if its a pure damage scale?

the scale has become too much of a FIND ANY REASON to downgrade a tornado then being science base.

it isn't helping that base on DOW data that 50+% of all tornadoes are underrated and 0% of them are over rated (when i say over rated and under rated i mean 2 EF rating off)

while there are a view tornadoes that seem to be over rated base on dow data they are only off by 1 EF rating.

if the scale was good then the amount of over rated and under rated should be the same.
Click to expand...
That second point is beyond true: I've wondered it myself. It really does seem like some offices are SPECIFICALLY trying to get a tornado's rating lowered when really we dont need to be doing that at all; case in point: Evansville 2/8/24. That tornado was preliminarily rated EF3, before being downgraded to EF2 based off "lack of DIs" (basically).
While this might have been some reasonable choice, an EF3 DI did exist; it was just considered invalid and the tornado was downgraded.
Very strange choices..
 
AJS said:
If we are going on EF4 tornadoes, I would list these EF4 tornadoes as the most significant of the 21st century so far.

1: Controversial, but #1 in my opinion goes to the Mayfield Tornado.
2: Tuscaloosa.
3: Vilonia.
4: Rolling Fork.
5: Beauregard.
6: Cullman.
7: Washington.
8: Pilger Tornadoes.
9: Rochelle.
10: Chapman.
Click to expand...
That is a really great list. You definitely got number one right. I cannot believe numbers two and three are still on this list, much less than number four.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
Austin Dawg said:
I know you guys have made a list of your top EF5 tornadoes... have you ever made a top 10 list of E4 tornadoes? Just curious.
Click to expand...
not sure if F scale or pre 2007 count but here goes mine

  1. Mayfield - Bremen EF4+ Dec 2021
  2. Marion County - Barnes F4+ July 2004
  3. Bakersfield Valley F4 June 1990
  4. Cordova EF4 April 2011
  5. Picher EF4 May 2008
  6. Holly Springs-Ashland EF4 Dec 2015
  7. Loyal Valley F4+ May 1999
  8. Chapman EF4+ May 2016
  9. Harper F4+ May 2004
  10. Tuscaloosa EF4+ April 2011
  11. Vilonia - Mayflower EF4+ April 2014
  12. Norton F4 June 1909
  13. Chickasha - Blanchard - Newcastle EF4+ May 2011
  14. Rochelle EF4+ April 2015
  15. Franklin - Girard F4+ May 2003
  16. Kellerville F4+ June 1995
  17. Red Rock F4+ April 1991
  18. Henryville EF4+ March 2012
note i would have 2 EF3 under Rochelle and above franklin
 
joshoctober16 said:
not sure if F scale or pre 2007 count but here goes mine

  1. Mayfield - Bremen EF4+ Dec 2021
  2. Marion County - Barnes F4+ July 2004
  3. Bakersfield Valley F4 June 1990
  4. Cordova EF4 April 2011
  5. Picher EF4 May 2008
  6. Holly Springs-Ashland EF4 Dec 2015
  7. Loyal Valley F4+ May 1999
  8. Chapman EF4+ May 2016
  9. Harper F4+ May 2004
  10. Tuscaloosa EF4+ April 2011
  11. Vilonia - Mayflower EF4+ April 2014
  12. Norton F4 June 1909
  13. Chickasha - Blanchard - Newcastle EF4+ May 2011
  14. Rochelle EF4+ April 2015
  15. Franklin - Girard F4+ May 2003
  16. Kellerville F4+ June 1995
  17. Red Rock F4+ April 1991
  18. Henryville EF4+ March 2012
note i would have 2 EF3 under Rochelle and above franklin
Click to expand...
There really won’t be another tornado like the Mayfield tornado for a very long time. An extremely violent, very long tracked tornado that without a doubt reached EF5 strength in the month of December will forever be unprecedented.
 
joshoctober16 said:
not sure if F scale or pre 2007 count but here goes mine

  1. Mayfield - Bremen EF4+ Dec 2021
  2. Marion County - Barnes F4+ July 2004
  3. Bakersfield Valley F4 June 1990
  4. Cordova EF4 April 2011
  5. Picher EF4 May 2008
  6. Holly Springs-Ashland EF4 Dec 2015
  7. Loyal Valley F4+ May 1999
  8. Chapman EF4+ May 2016
  9. Harper F4+ May 2004
  10. Tuscaloosa EF4+ April 2011
  11. Vilonia - Mayflower EF4+ April 2014
  12. Norton F4 June 1909
  13. Chickasha - Blanchard - Newcastle EF4+ May 2011
  14. Rochelle EF4+ April 2015
  15. Franklin - Girard F4+ May 2003
  16. Kellerville F4+ June 1995
  17. Red Rock F4+ April 1991
  18. Henryville EF4+ March 2012
note i would have 2 EF3 under Rochelle and above franklin
Click to expand...
Any pictures of Marion-Barnes damage? I have heard it was extraordinarily intense but seldom hear it mentioned when people talk about the most violent F4/EF4s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
Tim Marshall was inducted into his second weather "hall of fame" a few weeks ago. His first induction was in 2019. This is the guy who was directly involved with the most controversial ratings of 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."

And here's a slide from his presentation, "Discriminating EF4 and EF5 tornado Damage".

1740742903370.png

Yes, he trains new surveyors that a well constructed, anchored home being lofted 100m in one piece is actually EF4 damage if a few fence posts are still standing nearby. Here's another angle of the same house.

1740742879103.jpeg

Please ignore the ground scouring. Tim says there wasn't any.

Anyways, Congrats Tim! It's nice knowing that your contributions to tornado science aren't being underrated.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
Tim Marshall was inducted into his second weather "hall of fame" a few weeks ago. His first induction was in 2019. This is the guy who was directly involved with the most controversial ratings of 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."

And here's a slide from his presentation, "Discriminating EF4 and EF5 tornado Damage".

View attachment 34244

Yes, he trains new surveyors that a well constructed, anchored home being lofted 100m in one piece is actually EF4 damage if a few fence posts are still standing nearby. Here's another angle of the same house.

View attachment 34243

Please ignore the ground scouring. Tim says there wasn't any.

Anyways, Congrats Tim! It's nice knowing that your contributions to tornado science aren't being underrated.
Click to expand...
This here is objectively EF5 damage and I will not change my mind on that. Tornadoes can have exceptionally sharp wind speed boundaries.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
Tim Marshall was inducted into his second weather "hall of fame" a few weeks ago. His first induction was in 2019. This is the guy who was directly involved with the most controversial ratings of 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."

And here's a slide from his presentation, "Discriminating EF4 and EF5 tornado Damage".

View attachment 34244

Yes, he trains new surveyors that a well constructed, anchored home being lofted 100m in one piece is actually EF4 damage if a few fence posts are still standing nearby. Here's another angle of the same house.

View attachment 34243

Please ignore the ground scouring. Tim says there wasn't any.

Anyways, Congrats Tim! It's nice knowing that your contributions to tornado science aren't being underrated.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I disagree with a good portion of this. Tim Marshall has said some questionable things and did survey multiple tornadoes with questionable ratings, but his reputation is largely undeserved as he isn’t directly responsible for those ratings. What people seem unable to understand is that the bad calls you mention were almost entirely independently made by people in local WFO survey teams, and NOT by Tim Marshall himself. His surveys are supplemental and go along with the ratings decided by the WFO surveys. Tim’s survey of Vilonia actually subtly suggests dissent if you read it closely, and he never actually surveyed the EF5 areas of damage in Vilonia. Also, the person responsible for that mess is a guy named John Robinson, not Tim Marshall.

For Goldsby, the person who botched that survey is Kiel Ortega, not Marshall (btw that isn’t ground scouring in that photo, it’s a section of ground where grass isn’t growing along the perimeter of the foundation likely due to pooling of rain water).

Matador was ruined by the lead surveyor at NWS Lubbock, whose name escapes me right now.

Also EF4 for Mayfield is not egregious. Best shot at EF5 was in Bremen, and there wasn’t a single poured “slab and bolts” construction home in that area. Best construction was in Cambridge Shores, but there was no EF5 contextual damage there. Those two factors have to overlap.

Anyway you get the idea. Do I agree with everything he says? No way. Should Moore and Jarrell be the standard? Absolutely not. Does Tim catch way too much blame from people who don’t do enough digging and research to find the specific people on survey teams who made terrible decisions independently of Marshall’s surveys? Absolutely. The way I see it, guy is largely a scapegoat for tornado damage weenies who don’t see who the real main offenders are: incompetent local WFO survey teams who don’t know where the line between EF4 and EF5 damage lays, and couldn’t give you the reasoning behind previous EF5 ratings if their lives depended on it. They are the ones making the calls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top