• 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

All three of these homes from the goldsby tornado should have been rated EF5. No questions asked. The last one especially with the extreme contextuals is the one with 18 inch bolt spacing. The other two had bolt spacing of 48 inches. And we’re all three generally very well built. The first of these, which is the last one hit as the tornado was roping out. Was built by a construction engineer who built the home with tornado resistance in mind.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0885.jpeg
    IMG_0885.jpeg
    204.7 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_0884.jpeg
    IMG_0884.jpeg
    201 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_0883.jpeg
    IMG_0883.jpeg
    276.5 KB · Views: 0
AJS said:
I can safely say for myself that I am a lot more mature than most high school students these days lol. Some high schoolers are full of it.
Click to expand...

No way @AJS is in high school


Season 9 What GIF by The Office
 
tornado examiner said:
Apparently the Rochelle tornado should be downgraded to EF3 in many spot’s. Likely no longer 200mph at all. According to the scale, no, some guy who likes doing these damage analysis’s which 90% of the time is just him explaining why we shouldn’t have any EF4’s anymore.
A bruh moment for the debate thread.

Apparently several of the 200mph homes wouldn't even be eligible for an EF4 rating.

He downgrades them for contextual discrepancies but then fails to notice the scoured lawn grass which essentially requires winds to be above 200mph. Given how rare of a feat that is. That stuff is incredibly resistant to tornadic winds.
Click to expand...
I believe you've completely misunderstood the intent of my damage analysis. At no point did I definitively state that the tornado wasn't an EF4. My primary concern lies with two of the six homes rated as such. Based on available evidence, I believe those two homes were improperly assessed due to poor construction quality.

Unlike the others, these two homes had multiple photos available, and those clearly showed substandard construction not consistent with damage typically associated with high-end EF4 (200 mph) winds. Notable issues included wide anchor bolt spacing, missing structural connections (particularly in the western section of one home, which was merely resting on unfilled CMU blocks), garage door failures, and minimal damage to surrounding vegetation, such as small trees and shrubs still standing in front of one of the homes where a subvortex may have passed. Additionally, aerial imagery showed very little windrowing near that particular structure (other homes nearby were windrowed, just not this one seemingly).

To be clear: I am not arguing that the tornado was only an EF3, nor am I suggesting that we should not have EF4s anymore. That claim is completely unfounded, and I would appreciate not having words put in my mouth. I'm simply applying the Enhanced Fujita scale as it was intended-with critical assessment of construction quality and damage indicators—rather than assigning ratings without proper justification, which unfortunately seems common in some circles.

As for comments implying I have some kind of authority: I don't, and I've never claimed to. My analysis is based on the data and damage evidence available, and I welcome discussion rooted in facts—not assumptions
 
I know that some tornadoes that have gotten an F/EF-5 rating might have not gotten that rating today, but that also brings into question if any of the 4/27/2011, 5/31/1985, and 4/3/1974 tornadoes would be rated as an F/EF-5 today. Obviously the extreme examples like Smithville would get that rating but I wonder if tornadoes like Brandenburg, Niles-Wheatland, Guin, or even Hackleburg would get that rating nowadays.
 
Ozonelayer said:
I know that some tornadoes that have gotten an F/EF-5 rating might have not gotten that rating today, but that also brings into question if any of the 4/27/2011, 5/31/1985, and 4/3/1974 tornadoes would be rated as an F/EF-5 today. Obviously the extreme examples like Smithville would get that rating but I wonder if tornadoes like Brandenburg, Niles-Wheatland, Guin, or even Hackleburg would get that rating nowadays.
Click to expand...
Smithville would 100% be an EF5 without a doubt. The above standard construction and extreme contextual damage to the funeral home. If MEG was actually competent, you could’ve possibly had back to back EF5s from the same parent storm in Smithville & New Wren.

Hackleburg wouldn’t. I believe in Lyza’s paper it hit only one well built home in its entire path and was deemed EF5 due to extreme contextual damage by BMX and HUN. You’re looking at a HE EF4 post 2013. Same thing with Rainsville & Philadelphia. I would be surprised if you had more than 1 EF5 during 4/3/74 today. Brandenburg, but all the others? Good chance they get EF3/EF4.

Something interesting of note is that on another forum, someone in the know with the NWS during the 2011 El Reno tornado said there was fierce debate inter-office on the final rating. Probably due to the oil rig being a non-traditional DI. So you could have had a situation where El Reno did incredible damage, but just ended up with an EF4 rating.
 
ColdFront said:
Smithville would 100% be an EF5 without a doubt. The above standard construction and extreme contextual damage to the funeral home. If MEG was actually competent, you could’ve possibly had back to back EF5s from the same parent storm in Smithville & New Wren.

Hackleburg wouldn’t. I believe in Lyza’s paper it hit only one well built home in its entire path and was deemed EF5 due to extreme contextual damage by BMX and HUN. You’re looking at a HE EF4 post 2013. Same thing with Rainsville & Philadelphia. I would be surprised if you had more than 1 EF5 during 4/3/74 today. Brandenburg, but all the others? Good chance they get EF3/EF4.

Something interesting of note is that on another forum, someone in the know with the NWS during the 2011 El Reno tornado said there was fierce debate inter-office on the final rating. Probably due to the oil rig being a non-traditional DI. So you could have had a situation where El Reno did incredible damage, but just ended up with an EF4 rating.
Click to expand...
If only one tornado gets EF5 from 4/27/2011 now, the system is broken.
 
Ozonelayer said:
I know that some tornadoes that have gotten an F/EF-5 rating might have not gotten that rating today, but that also brings into question if any of the 4/27/2011, 5/31/1985, and 4/3/1974 tornadoes would be rated as an F/EF-5 today. Obviously the extreme examples like Smithville would get that rating but I wonder if tornadoes like Brandenburg, Niles-Wheatland, Guin, or even Hackleburg would get that rating nowadays.
Click to expand...
it seems shockingly that except for one very well built home , all other homes from the hackleburg EF5 tornado would not be rated EF5 today.

oddly enough before hitting that home the tornado wasn't making any scouring on the ground despite everything else showing EF5 contextual. however after hitting the home major ground scouring happened.
 
andyhb said:
If only one tornado gets EF5 from 4/27/2011 now, the system is broken.
Click to expand...
lets not forget the whole , debris hitting the building reasoning that is commonly used starting in 2014 , and the whole tree standing within 100 yards.

smithville and hackleburg were 2 of the EF5 from that outbreak that threw large debris on to other stuff.

Smithville also had a very narrow but long live Violent damage path, however for some odd reason most office sees narrow violent damage as.... not real violent damage for some reason.

however ignoring them 2 main issues smithville has every reason to be EF5.

but yeah.... hackleburgs survey is a mess...
Screenshot_12.png
(image overlay on the official survey map on google earth)
 
NickKrasz_Wx said:
I believe you've completely misunderstood the intent of my damage analysis. At no point did I definitively state that the tornado wasn't an EF4. My primary concern lies with two of the six homes rated as such. Based on available evidence, I believe those two homes were improperly assessed due to poor construction quality.

Unlike the others, these two homes had multiple photos available, and those clearly showed substandard construction not consistent with damage typically associated with high-end EF4 (200 mph) winds. Notable issues included wide anchor bolt spacing, missing structural connections (particularly in the western section of one home, which was merely resting on unfilled CMU blocks), garage door failures, and minimal damage to surrounding vegetation, such as small trees and shrubs still standing in front of one of the homes where a subvortex may have passed. Additionally, aerial imagery showed very little windrowing near that particular structure (other homes nearby were windrowed, just not this one seemingly).

To be clear: I am not arguing that the tornado was only an EF3, nor am I suggesting that we should not have EF4s anymore. That claim is completely unfounded, and I would appreciate not having words put in my mouth. I'm simply applying the Enhanced Fujita scale as it was intended-with critical assessment of construction quality and damage indicators—rather than assigning ratings without proper justification, which unfortunately seems common in some circles.

As for comments implying I have some kind of authority: I don't, and I've never claimed to. My analysis is based on the data and damage evidence available, and I welcome discussion rooted in facts—not assumptions
Click to expand...
Welcome to TalkWeather!

I now have to take back part of what I said - now that you’re here, your viewpoints must be seriously discussed.

Just curious - how did you discover this site?
 
andyhb said:
If only one tornado gets EF5 from 4/27/2011 now, the system is broken.
Click to expand...
I agree. I would just ask the question, outside of Smithville, which ones would pass muster for EF5 with today’s application of the scale?

Because I could honestly foresee a situation where it’s only Smithville.

Philadelphia would be a no. Hackleburg and Rainsville are more debatable. I know Tim Marshall isn’t the authority on ratings, but his post analysis on Hackleburg found that a home rated EF5 should have actually been EF4 because of below standard construction.

Not trying to be controversial either.
 
Last edited:
ColdFront said:
I agree. I would just ask the question, outside of Smithville, which ones would pass muster for EF5 with today’s application of the scale?

Because I could honestly foresee a situation where it’s only Smithville.

Philadelphia would be a no. Hackleburg and Rainsville are more debatable. I know Tim Marshall isn’t the authority on ratings, but his post analysis on Hackleburg found that a home rated EF5 should have actually been EF4 because of below standard construction.
Click to expand...
I could see Rainsville being rated an EF-5, mainly due to that one home where the safe was ripped out and the concrete porch was shattered. Sure it was CMU, but there was adequate anchoring. Due to the extreme contextual damage, I could see Rainsville being rated anywhere from 201-205 MPH. Now for Hackleburg, there was only one home that was well built. However, I don't think it would be rated above 195-200 MPH.

Going outside of the 2011 super outbreak, I could see a few F/EF-5s before and after the super outbreak.

Joplin 2011
Moore 2013
El Reno-Piedmont 2011
Marion County 2004
Moore 1999
Niles-Wheatland 1985
Brandenburg 1974


There is likely much more, but these are the best examples that came to my head.
 
Ozonelayer said:
I could see Rainsville being rated an EF-5, mainly due to that one home where the safe was ripped out and the concrete porch was shattered. Sure it was CMU, but there was adequate anchoring. Due to the extreme contextual damage, I could see Rainsville being rated anywhere from 201-205 MPH. Now for Hackleburg, there was only one home that was well built. However, I don't think it would be rated above 195-200 MPH.
Click to expand...
I agree, However, it would also depend on what surveying office it fell in as well. I would believe JAN, Norman, and BMX would deservedly give it an EF5. But if it was in John Robinson era LZK or Springfield now I could easily see Rainsville being given an EF4. Some offices would just laser focus on the home being CMU and throw contextual by the way side.

The reason I believe BMX would give a 5 is the MIC of BMX now was the MIC in Huntsville during the survey of the Hackleburg and Rainsville tornados lol.
 
ColdFront said:
I agree. I would just ask the question, outside of Smithville, which ones would pass muster for EF5 with today’s application of the scale?

Because I could honestly foresee a situation where it’s only Smithville.

Philadelphia would be a no. Hackleburg and Rainsville are more debatable. I know Tim Marshall isn’t the authority on ratings, but his post analysis on Hackleburg found that a home rated EF5 should have actually been EF4 because of below standard construction.

Not trying to be controversial either.
Click to expand...
The home swept away in Oak Grove should should be worthy of EF5 for the Hackleburg tornado, at the very least.
 
ColdFront said:
Smithville would 100% be an EF5 without a doubt. The above standard construction and extreme contextual damage to the funeral home. If MEG was actually competent, you could’ve possibly had back to back EF5s from the same parent storm in Smithville & New Wren.

Hackleburg wouldn’t. I believe in Lyza’s paper it hit only one well built home in its entire path and was deemed EF5 due to extreme contextual damage by BMX and HUN. You’re looking at a HE EF4 post 2013. Same thing with Rainsville & Philadelphia. I would be surprised if you had more than 1 EF5 during 4/3/74 today. Brandenburg, but all the others? Good chance they get EF3/EF4.

Something interesting of note is that on another forum, someone in the know with the NWS during the 2011 El Reno tornado said there was fierce debate inter-office on the final rating. Probably due to the oil rig being a non-traditional DI. So you could have had a situation where El Reno did incredible damage, but just ended up with an EF4 rating.
Click to expand...
There was probably a lot of internal screaming inside the people at MEG because they knew there was no way Smithville could be rated other than EF5. Also they half a**ed the survey.
 
Shakespeare 2016 said:
There was probably a lot of internal screaming inside the people at MEG because they knew there was no way Smithville could be rated other than EF5. Also they half a**ed the survey.
Click to expand...
Funny enough, I actually watched a presentation someone from MEG gave on Smithville, they actually went home and slept on the EF5 rating after the preliminary EF4. This was a bullet point in their presentation.
 
joshoctober16 said:
lets not forget the whole , debris hitting the building reasoning that is commonly used starting in 2014 , and the whole tree standing within 100 yards.

smithville and hackleburg were 2 of the EF5 from that outbreak that threw large debris on to other stuff.

Smithville also had a very narrow but long live Violent damage path, however for some odd reason most office sees narrow violent damage as.... not real violent damage for some reason.

however ignoring them 2 main issues smithville has every reason to be EF5.

but yeah.... hackleburgs survey is a mess...
View attachment 39576
(image overlay on the official survey map on google earth)
Click to expand...
I went to look on DAT and couldn't find any lines or points for the Smithville 2011 EF5 tornado.
 
This is an honest question from me: Why in the world is a tree standing within 100 yards(if not less) of violent damage justification to lower the rating of the violent damage? When it's been scientifically proven that subvortices contribute HEAVILY to localized areas of EF5 damage. It just has always felt very excusatory to me; if not semi-unscientific. Tornadic internal winds vary wildly and chaotically; only true slow moving "Grinders" tend to wipe out EVERYTHING in their windfield, or exceedingly rare tornadoes such as Bridgecreek 1999. I really cannot get why this is, but ive heard that Mayfield 2021 was heavily scrutinized for this, plus Goldsby 2011 had a fence cited for rating a home EF4 when it very well could've been EF5.
I get it, EF5 damage is supposed to be incredible, it is supposed to be exceedingly rare; but this does not justify these almost unscientific and random bits of scrutiny. I really would like some sort of explanation from someone who knows more than I. Like even confirmed EF5 tornadoes left trees intact in spots of extreme damages. I just am curious
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top