Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[Grand Poo Bah]

Texas Tech University. Local college known for their absurdly conservative engineering-only based tornado damage surveys that do not include contextual evidence whatsoever, and they seem to have no ability to identify which certain damage hallmarks are associated with violent tornadoes. They are almost certainly responsible for ruining the Matador survey due to their influence at NWS Lubbock

Texas Tech also hosts the ACSE student symposium (which brings together students from Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Mexico), helped write the EF scale, and has the debris impact facility behind most of the wind driven debris emphasis we've been seeing with tornado ratings.

It's that dang pneumatic canon they got. They think just because they can cause extraordinary damage by launching 2x4s at brick walls that it explains all tornado damage all the time (half joking).

It's worth noting that Texas Tech is also Tim Marshall's alma mater and he collaborates with them often. He's also published several studies and research papers with them. Plus, they're the reason for his connection with the NWS.

"While at Texas Tech University, Mr. Marshall worked as a teaching assistant and research assistant for the Atmospheric Sciences Department, and as a research assistant for the Institute for Disaster Research. Through Texas Tech University, Mr. Marshall became involved with a damage survey following seven tornadoes which hit Grand Island, Nebraska in 1980."

From my perspective, to say Tim Marshall has influence at NWS Lubbock and Texas Tech would be an understatement.

Just looking at his profile page on HAAG engineering's website really showcases his influence.

"Mr. Marshall is a member of the American Association of Wind Engineering, American Meteorology Society, American Society of Civil Engineers, International Conference of Building Officials, National Weather Association, and the Southern Building Code Congress International. Mr. Marshall was one of, if not the first, individual to combine his meteorology background with his engineering expertise. This combination allowed him to provide better analysis of storm events and storm damage evaluation than individuals with only one or the other expertise.

Mr. Marshall is a widely published author, writing and contributing to more than 100 articles, technical papers, and damage surveys [...]

He has also authored or contributed to damage assessment surveys to most major hurricanes and tornadoes from the last 30 years.

With his combined background in meteorology and civil engineering, Mr. Marshall was a key contributor to the development of the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale used operationally by the National Weather Service since 2007 to rate tornadoes. He is currently an active participant in the development of a joint ASCE/SEI/AMS standard for wind speed estimation in tornadoes and other wind storms.

He is an active member of NOAA/NWS Quick Response Team (2003 to present); Enhanced Fujita Scale Committee (2003 to present); Consultant to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale Committee; and ASCE Wind Speed Estimation on Tornadoes Committee – The EF scale (2015 to present).

Over the past three decades, Mr. Marshall has presented hundreds of lectures on storm damage at meteorological and engineering conferences.[...] His most recent talks include 'Assessing Wind Damage to Wood-Framed Residences', University of Arkansas; 'EF-Scale and Sulphur, OK Tornado'."

Timothy P. Marshall, P.E. - Haag Global

Timothy P. Marshall, P.E., M.S., is a seasoned forensic engineer and meteorologist with Haag Engineering, known for expertise in hail and wind damage.

haagglobal.com

The dude has his hands in everything. His membership in every wind and engineering committee imaginable is a display of a compulsive need for control and influence, but then he shirks it, deflects, and plays dumb whenever he's confronted with anything negative about it.

In conclusion, maybe it's not fair to assign ALL the blame for bad tornado ratings of the last 10-15 years to Tim Marshall. However, if you had to pick one person who's most responsible... It's impossible to point at anyone else.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

And I guess, if not him, then who? Genuine question. Whether it's perfectly followed by all WFOs or not, someone (or multiple someones) developed the standard, and whoever's responsible doesn't seem to have any interest in using their influence to correct it.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Lastly, in contrast to all the negative I've been spouting, who are some influential people/institutions pushing for positive change, and have they published anything recently? I know the university of Illinois and DOW team are some good ones, but I'm not familiar with too many others.

 

[buckeye05]

And I guess, if not him, then who? Genuine question. Whether it's perfectly followed by all WFOs or not, someone (or multiple someones) developed the standard, and whoever's responsible doesn't seem to have any interest in using their influence to correct it.

This is the precise thing you’re not understanding. There isn’t a standard, nor is there a sole entity or person responsible for the lack of standard in question. One was supposedly developed in 2007, but things slowly went off the rails over the years due to a combination of factors. You are trying to pinpoint it down to a sole source of blame that simply does not exist.

What you are really seeing is a lack of consistency resulting of the application of the EF scale varying wildly, depending largely on the office doing the survey. If you think that there is some bad, blanket standard of unreasonable surveying being followed by every office, you simply aren’t paying close attention. A few are pretty dang reasonable and thorough offices, while many others seem to always make ridiculous calls. I’d say it’s rarer to find a very thorough and reasonable office, which makes it issue SEEM like an awful precent is being followed by every NWS surveyor in the business as the ridiculous surveys pile up year after year. But that is not the case.

In a nutshell, it’s a LACK of standard, a LACK of employee education focusing on examples of reasonable EF scale application, mixed in with an overall conservative surveying bias at many offices in tornado-heavy regions that is causing a large scale mess of underrated tornadoes. There’s also unique local factors too, like influence from TTU ruining the Matador survey. It’s a complex mashup of factors.

But if you’re looking for a singular policy, person, group, decision, or training guide to blame, you won’t find any of that, because this is a broad issue that involves many, many people, and a lack of education and leadership that is needed to make reasonable, fair, consistent middle-the-road, EF scale application, the type of EF scale application used at every office. As new people step in to hopefully make that happen, and people like Tony Lyza continue to put out studies like his recent one, we can maybe start to see some positive change. I hope that better explains the complicated situation it is. The quicker you step away from looking for a specific person or non-existent NWS-wide training guide to blame, the quicker you’ll get what I’m saying.

 

[buckeye05]

This brings me back to my previous point about the value of precedent being used to solve the EF5 drought, and is why I told the story I told about my surveyor buddy not knowing about El Reno 2011.

Here’s the deal: The agreed upon current definition of EF5 damage in terms of houses, is supposed to be a well-built home with anchor bolts and a strong foundation being completely swept away, with extreme contextual evidence to back it up. That’s all there is to it, it’s reasonable, and was the basis for most of the official EF5s, but has also happened several times since 2013, but didn’t get rated appropriately. That’s where precedent comes in, and is why every surveyor SHOULD know the specific rationale behind those official EF5 ratings. Why? Because once they do, they will see that EF5 damage is not some unobtainable, ambiguous concept, nor does it require insane construction quality, and doesn’t have to be Bridge Creek/Jarrell level damage intensity.

All it requires is slabbed, sturdy homes or businesses with enough contextual support. That was the basis for Greensburg, Parkersburg, Smithville, Hackleburg-Phil Campbell, and Moore (and should have also been the basis for Vilonia, Rochelle, etc). No hospitals were leveled, no reinforced concrete homes were scoured from the earth, and no skyscrapers were twisted. Nothing inconceivable happened like that. It was just houses and extreme context, and that is what surveyors would learn by studying the ratings of those tornadoes. They would think back to those examples and actually recognize EF5 damage when they see it, rather than have EF5 damage as an unclear, unreachable level of damage, for which they have no reference points in their heads to use. That’s why tornado rating history education and rating precedent study of EF5s would be invaluable imo. It could very well help solve the issue, which is why being dismissive of that idea is flippant and ill-informed.

There ARE some good NWS surveyors out there, and I truly believe if there was a “Past EF5 tornadoes and what led to their ratings” course they could take, good things would happen. Because again, there is not some imaginary nation-wide super unreasonable training guide or person they are all following that explicitly tells them to rate every tornado like Goldsby. That simply doesn’t exist, and I can’t stress it enough.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

As new people step in to hopefully make that happen, and people like Tony Lyza continue to put out studies like his recent one, we can maybe start to see some positive change.

Thanks for the recommendation. Looks like he graduated from University of Alabama so maybe he has some Tuscaloosa fueled beef to settle!

I think you're giving the WFOs too much (or too little?) credit for what we've been seeing. These underrated tornadoes have been too consistent to not think there's some bias being pushed from somewhere in nationwide leadership. If there was no standard wouldn't we be seeing just as much overrating as underrating? We can disagree about the extent of nationwide impact presentations like "discriminating between EF4 and Ef5 damage" had, but it was definitely nonzero. That presentation alone was so egregiously off-base I consider it malicious. If everyone participating in this thread can agree on at least a dozen tornadoes that were underrated, even while staying within the bounds of the original intent of the EF scale, why hasn't someone like Marshall, who has so much influence and had access to all this information before any of us, done anything to correct it?

Also if it's just a problem with the way surveys are trending on a broad scale, and just needs some correction in the right direction, why isn't the new EF scale doing that? I don't see how we fix this problem when the people in charge of the systems we use to rate tornadoes don't even think there's a problem. It kinda seems to me like they prefer it this way.

Maybe there is no system. And it's all random and unorganized. But there certainly seems to be a committee of people actively working to keep this problem from self correcting.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

This brings me back to my previous point about the value of precedent being used to solve the EF5 drought, and is why I told the story I told about my surveyor buddy not knowing about El Reno 2011.

Here’s the deal: The agreed upon current definition of EF5 damage in terms of houses, is supposed to be a well-built home with anchor bolts and a strong foundation being completely swept away, with extreme contextual evidence to back it up. That’s all there is to it, it’s reasonable, and was the basis for most of the official EF5s, but has also happened several times since 2013, but didn’t get rated appropriately. That’s where precedent comes in, and is why every surveyor SHOULD know the specific rationale behind those official EF5 ratings. Why? Because once they do, they will see that EF5 damage is not some unobtainable, ambiguous concept, nor does it require insane construction quality, and doesn’t have to be Bridge Creek/Jarrell level damage intensity.

All it requires is slabbed, sturdy homes or businesses with enough contextual support. That was the basis for Greensburg, Parkersburg, Smithville, Hackleburg-Phil Campbell, and Moore (and should have also been the basis for Vilonia, Rochelle, etc). No hospitals were leveled, no reinforced concrete homes were scoured from the earth, and no skyscrapers were twisted. Nothing inconceivable happened like that. It was just houses and extreme context, and that is what surveyors would learn by studying the ratings of those tornadoes. They would think back to those examples and actually recognize EF5 damage when they see it, rather than have EF5 damage as an unclear, unreachable level of damage, for which they have no reference points in their heads to use. That’s why tornado rating history education and rating precedent study of EF5s would be invaluable imo. It could very well help solve the issue, which is why being dismissive of that idea is flippant and ill-informed.

There ARE some good NWS surveyors out there, and I truly believe if there was a “Past EF5 tornadoes and what led to their ratings” course they could take, good things would happen. Because again, there is not some imaginary nation-wide super unreasonable training guide or person they are all following that explicitly tells them to rate every tornado like Goldsby. That simply doesn’t exist, and I can’t stress it enough.

Wow. I actually fully agree with this comment. Spot on. no notes.

If the scale was used purely as it's written it wouldn't be useless. Wind speeds would still be too low but that could easily be adjusted later in one sweep once it was proven conclusively. I also believe if there was a "Past EF5 tornadoes and what led to their ratings" course it'd solve the issue, so long as whoever made that presentation wasn't biased and secretly wanted tornadoes to be underrated. Which is what I believe is happening with those presentations now.

Just a casual, long-held, and unhinged opinion i'm gonna sling out there because i'm feeling good. I don't think Tim Marshall believes in climate change and he's doing his part to stop discourse about it by hiding tornado and supercell trends. There I said it!

Disclaimer: I have absolutely no evidence to back that up.

Edit:
Unless you consider constant guest appearances on Fox Weather and no other networks evidence.

 

[buckeye05]

Thanks for the recommendation. Looks like he graduated from University of Alabama so maybe he has some Tuscaloosa fueled beef to settle!

I think you're giving the WFOs too much (or too little?) credit for what we've been seeing. These underrated tornadoes have been too consistent to not think there's some bias being pushed from somewhere in nationwide leadership. If there was no standard wouldn't we be seeing just as much overrating as underrating? We can disagree about the extent of nationwide impact presentations like "discriminating between EF4 and Ef5 damage" had, but it was definitely nonzero. That presentation alone was so egregiously off-base I consider it malicious. If everyone participating in this thread can agree on at least a dozen tornadoes that were underrated, even while staying within the bounds of the original intent of the EF scale, why hasn't someone like Marshall, who has so much influence and had access to all this information before any of us, done anything to correct it?

Also if it's just a problem with the way surveys are trending on a broad scale, and just needs some correction in the right direction, why isn't the new EF scale doing that? I don't see how we fix this problem when the people in charge of the systems we use to rate tornadoes don't even think there's a problem. It kinda seems to me like they prefer it this way.

Maybe there is no system. And it's all random and unorganized. But there certainly seems to be a committee of people actively working to keep this problem from self correcting.

Underrating happens frequently, not constistently. Two different things that can appear the same. Let me explain…

The underrating of tornadoes FEELS consistent due the fact that some of the worst WFOs are in regions that have seen more high-ends events recently, and that more WFOs seem to have a conservative bias, compared to WFOs that have a more reasonable approach. But most doesn’t mean all, so the underrating of tornadoes happens FREQUENTLY, but not CONSISTENTLY. See how those are two different things? Yes there are certain offices that do consistently underrate tornadoes (MEG, LMK, and others). However, some offices are consistently reasonable or even seem to OVER-rate tornadoes, like FFC (only after the recent staff change though, they used to be very conservative). But all that only furthers what I’m saying: it’s still mostly just WFO bias and the people working there, and the FFC staff change example all but proves it. It just so happens that more WFOs lean unreasonable, which makes it feel like there is some nationwide standard of overly conservative surveys being collectively followed. There’s not though.

But, one could definitely say that a there is a lack of good NWS leadership to dissuade and discourage the underrating of tornadoes. You pointed that out and I absolutely agree with that. In that case, one could technically say that NWS leadership is INDIRECTLY responsible for promoting the underrating of tornadoes by not correcting the problem, and failing to step in and address WFOs like MEG for their bad surveys. So if you want to argue that NWS leaders are promoting bad surveys by failing to do anything about the problem, then you’d be right in that sense. But nobody is directly going out to NWS employees and saying “Hey! You better keep those ratings low, or else!”. That’s where it becomes untrue.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

The underrating of tornadoes FEELS consistent due the fact that some of the worst WFOs are in regions that have seen more high-ends events recently, and that more WFOs seem to have a conservative bias, compared to WFOs that have a more reasonable approach. But most doesn’t mean all, so the underrating of tornadoes happens FREQUENTLY, but not CONSISTENTLY. See how those are two different things? Yes there are certain offices that do consistently underrate tornadoes (MEG, LMK, and others). However, some offices are consistently reasonable or even seem to OVER-rate tornadoes, like FFC (only after the recent staff change though, they used to be very conservative). But all that only furthers what I’m saying: it’s still mostly just WFO bias and the people working there, and the FFC staff change example all but proves it. It just so happens that more WFOs lean unreasonable, which makes it feel like there is some nationwide standard of overly conservative surveys being collectively followed. There’s not though.

Oh good. So it's not all the WFOs. Just the ones that matter. That makes me feel so much better! lol jk

In all seriousness, i'm glad we were able to come to a consensus. It means our back and forth was actually productive, and a reasonable solution was uncovered. Fingers crossed the same thing has been happening (or will happen) at the NWS.

One last point, though. In regards to your NWS friend who didn't know anything about Piedmont. Wouldn't that mean if a tornado on par with Piedmont occurred in his area, he'd be expected (if not required) to seek outside guidance from someone with more expertise, like for example, one of the bad WFOs in tornado prone regions , the NWS rapid response team, or Tim Marshall? If you're still in touch, I'd be very interested in his answer to that question.

 

[buckeye05]

I’ll add this too. If some day there’s a slab cleaning, debris granulating, grass scouring monster that produces insane contextual damage that has “the look” in a more liberal and reasonable WFO, I do believe we’ll see the end of our EF5 drought. That simply hasn’t happened yet though.

For example, OUN is actually pretty dang good now. Yeah Kiel Ortega and the team royally screwed up with Goldsby and Chickasha a long time ago, but look at their survey of Moore 2013 a few years later. They absolutely nailed it, and didn’t use stupid reasoning to keep it at EF4. Ever since then, OUN has handed out violent ratings quite liberally. I don’t see why they wouldn’t go EF5 again if it’s a truly textbook case. Thing is, nothing has happened in that WFO since then to give them a chance to prove it.

If damage of that severity happens again and they don’t though, then the EF5 rating situation really is hopeless until meaningful reform occurs. We’ll just have to see.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

For example, OUN is actually pretty dang good now. Yeah Kiel Ortega and the team royally screwed up with Goldsby and Chickasha a long time ago, but look at their survey of Moore 2013 a few years later. They absolutely nailed it, and didn’t use stupid reasoning to keep it at EF4. Ever since then, OUN has handed out violent ratings quite liberally. I don’t see why they wouldn’t go EF5 again if it’s a truly textbook case. Thing is, nothing has happened in that WFO since then to give them a chance to prove it.

That tracks. I mean, look how young they are in this pic from the Goldsby survey!



In my totally made up head canon I got the impression the kids (them) were sent out to survey the less severe tornado tracks, while dad (Tim Marshall) took care of Piedmont. They all got back and compared notes, but dad, who is an egotistical narcissist, was mad the kids had the audacity to think they landed a "big one", and scolded them for including "16 exceptionally well built slabbed houses" in their report (which is still in the DAT). He decided to put them in their place by rating it EF4, and embarrassed them in front of all their friends, by creating a presentation about why their tornadoes just simply wasn't up to par.

I could see how that would sour the family dynamic and motivate the kids to become more independent, and capable. I feel validated and comforted knowing they're doing well now.

 

[buckeye05]

Oh good. So it's not all the WFOs. Just the ones that matter. That makes me feel so much better! lol jk

In all seriousness, i'm glad we were able to come to a consensus. It means our back and forth was actually productive, and a reasonable solution was uncovered. Fingers crossed the same thing has been happening (or will happen) at the NWS.

One last point, though. In regards to your NWS friend who didn't know anything about Piedmont. Wouldn't that mean if a tornado on par with Piedmont occurred in his area, he'd be expected (if not required) to seek outside guidance from someone with more expertise, like for example, one of the bad WFOs in tornado prone regions , the NWS rapid response team, or Tim Marshall? If you're still in touch, I'd be very interested in his answer to that question.

Yeah that’s usually how it goes in a region that doesn’t see higher-end events on the regular. But quick response teams and outside guidance can be called in at any forecast office. Unfortunately, it’s not mandatory. For example, LOT recognized EF5 potential while surveying Rochelle in 2015, and went with a preliminary rating of EF4 with winds up to 200 MPH. According to a former employee on another forum, it was debated at the office whether or not bring in a QRT to see if they could rate it higher. In the end, the issue reportedly wasn’t pressed or prioritized and they moved on to other objectives, so they just slapped it with 200 MPH and called it case closed with no QRT involvement. Just washed their hands of it, and sent a potential EF5 rating swirling down the toilet because they didn’t want to spend any more time on the issue (or so I heard).

Anyway I’m rambling, but I just really think regardless of where an office is at, the people working there should know about previous EF5s and the thought process behind their ratings. As unlikely as it is, it can happen anywhere. If they’re not sure, then they should at least call someone in who has expertise.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Yeah that’s usually how it goes in a region that doesn’t see higher-end events on the regular. But quick response teams and outside guidance can be called in at any forecast office. Unfortunately, it’s not mandatory. For example, LOT recognized EF5 potential while surveying Rochelle in 2015, and went with a preliminary rating of EF4 with winds up to 200 MPH. According to a former employee on another forum, it was debated at the office whether or not bring in a QRT to see if they could rate it higher. In the end, the issue reportedly wasn’t pressed or prioritized and they moved on to other objectives, so they just slapped it with 200 MPH and called it case closed with no QRT involvement. Just washed their hands of it, and sent a potential EF5 rating swirling down the toilet because they didn’t want to spend any more time on the issue (or so I heard).

Anyway I’m rambling, but I just really think regardless of where an office is at, the people working there should know about previous EF5s and the thought process behind their ratings. As unlikely as it is, it can happen anywhere. If they’re not sure, then they should at least call someone in who has expertise.

Yeah Rochelle really is a bummer considering Illinois is home to some of the best tornado science institutions on the planet. The doppler on wheels team is from the University of Illinois, and Ted Fujita taught at the University of Chicago. They're normally pretty liberal with tornado wind estimates in their research.

 

[buckeye05]

Yeah Rochelle really is a bummer considering Illinois is home to some of the best tornado science institutions on the planet. The doppler on wheels team is from the University of Illinois, and Ted Fujita taught at the University of Chicago. They're normally pretty liberal with tornado wind estimates in their research.

It just seems like they were afraid to make that important call themselves, and split hairs with a 200 MPH rating instead. I will say this; it does feel like there is an overall feeling of apprehension and stigma about making that specific rating call. Nobody wants to make the call, and end up being wrong. La Plata syndrome 2.0.

Once again, the EF5 rating course idea feels like it would help in these situations, and give surveyors the confidence and reference points to say “I cant believe what I’m looking at here, but it absolutely meets the criteria based on what I learned. Let’s call it EF5”.

 

[AJS]

In conclusion, maybe it's not fair to assign ALL the blame for bad tornado ratings of the last 10-15 years to Tim Marshall. However, if you had to pick one person who's most responsible... It's impossible to point at anyone else.

Tim Marshall has made some very fair and bang on calls throughout his career. His most notable being Joplin. Think about that craptastic survey conducted by that one team that decided to egregiously underrate the tornado and say that most of the damage in the city was done by EF2-EF3 winds. Marshall, however, conducted a very thorough and well executed damage survey that led to him finding 22 homes that fit the standard required for an EF5 rating. From what I can remember, no other EF5 has had that many DIs rated EF5 than Joplin has.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

It just seems like they were afraid to make that important call themselves, and split hairs with a 200 MPH rating instead. I will say this; it does feel like there is an overall feeling of apprehension and stigma about making that specific rating call. Nobody wants to make the call, and end up being wrong. La Plata syndrome 2.0.

Once again, the EF5 rating course idea feels like it would help in these situations, and give surveyors the confidence and reference points to say “I cant believe what I’m looking at here, but it absolutely meets the criteria based on what I learned. Let’s call it EF5”.

That was my theory, as well. No one wants to face the scrunity from peers of being the office that finally called EF5, regardless of how much it'd be drowned out by universal praise from the weather community for finally doing the right thing. Lord knows the current scutiny (basically shouting) being directed at them isn't making any difference.

 

[AJS]

Texas Tech University. Local college known for their absurdly conservative engineering-only based tornado damage surveys that do not include contextual evidence whatsoever, and they seem to have no ability to identify which certain damage hallmarks are associated with violent tornadoes. They are almost certainly responsible for ruining the Matador survey due to their influence at NWS Lubbock.

100% agreed. I wish Marshall didn’t turn to them for the final rating and took it upon himself to decide the final rating.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Tim Marshall has made some very fair and bang on calls throughout his career. His most notable being Joplin. Think about that craptastic survey conducted by that one team that decided to egregiously underrate the tornado and say that most of the damage in the city was done by EF2-EF3 winds. Marshall, however, conducted a very thorough and well executed damage survey that led to him finding 22 homes that fit the standard required for an EF5 rating. From what I can remember, no other EF5 has had that many DIs rated EF5 than Joplin has.

Yeah, and what happened as soon as the mainstream narrative shifted to the idea that "maybe climate change had something to do with 2011 and the overall increase in violent tornadoes"? He stopped rating tornadoes with the same objectivity as Joplin.

I absolutely believe the timing of the shifts we've seen in political climate (starting around then) aligns with an the increased scrutiny in the way he rates tornadoes now.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

100% agreed. I wish Marshall didn’t turn to them for the final rating and took it upon himself to decide the final rating.

If there's one thing I feel like I can guarantee, it's that Marshall has the freedom and authority to rate tornadoes however he sees fit.

He is a two time weather hall of famer, after all.

 

[buckeye05]

If there's one thing I feel like I can guarantee, it's that Marshall has the freedom and authority to rate tornadoes however he sees fit.

He is a two time weather hall of famer, after all.

He has the freedom and credentials, but not the authority. Two different things.

It’s up to the National Weather Service to determine what final rating will go in the books, so they’re the ones who make the decision. Tim is there to guide and advise them, but he doesn’t have the authority to make the final rating call, because he isn’t a NWS employee. That’s what happened in Matador, and is also why he says “NWS says” when addressing final ratings. That specific wording is very much intentional, and shows that he is deferring to NWS officials. It’s subtle, but if you carefully read his Vilonia survey, it oozes dissent and actually hints that it was likely an EF5.

I’m not 100% sure I interpreted your comment correctly though.