• 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

joshoctober16 said:
i forget where i got the presentation screenshot from since its been quite a while as for the DOD graph its from 2 separate areas here is one
Click to expand...

Yeah I've seen that video just didn't recognise/remember that particular DOD graph came from it. As for the 264mph wind calculation they came to, unless I'm reading the image wrong, where above the homes that where being effected.
 
Jordan said:
Yeah I've seen that video just didn't recognise/remember that particular DOD graph came from it. As for the 264mph wind calculation they came to, unless I'm reading the image wrong, where above the homes that where being effected.
Click to expand...
it was photogrammetric , i think it was around 30 meter off the ground, according to the IF scale DI it counts , as its under 60 meters , anything at or above 60 meter is where it isn't counted.
Screenshot_2.png
on the IF scale it would be a IF5
 
talking about EF5 / F5 its one of the only few they stated they made more strict , but never stated how much they changed this goal line , what i mean is what would a old F5 rating starting point be on the EF scale? is it 200 mph? 196 mph? 195 mph? 190 mph?

(canada has EF5 start at 196 mph)

on the beta (2006) version of the EF scale EF5 were at 200 mph however i think thats when they stated they made the EF scale more strict for 5 ratings.

ive seen some one post that if you put all the 190+ mph tornadoes since 2007 it is the best fit for no EF5/F5 amount change on average.

FHAtpizX0AI8czj (1).jpg
 
TH2002 said:
TornadoStudy1: The EF scale is flawed, so at the end of the day tornado ratings mean nothing

southcarolinaman77: Well, maybe we should fix the scale, then?

Tim Marshall: ...

John Robinson: REEEEEE

southcarolinaman77 was kicked from the room
Click to expand...
This would be funny except that it could happen that way :(

Beware those who are intolerant of criticism and those who are not open to reviewing their own thought and decision-making processes.
 
It's actually crazy this is the official tornado record. If we consider the fact 5% of tornadoes have winds greater than 200 MPH, that would mean 3,377 tornadoes out of 67,558 actually had EF5 strength. 20% have 165 MPH+, which would equate to 13,511. This is an absolutely insane discrepancy between true events and records the likes of which we've probably never seen anywhere in science.

1728326388520.png


If you look at the wind speeds associated with the original Fujita scale, it brings us back way closer to reality.

1728326801909.png
 
you know it would be nice for them to re look at the 2011 superoutbreak ... since they were on a rush and had to much areas to look at ....

hackleburg survey seems in such a mess... the new wren tornado had clear high end EF4 to EF5 damage....
 
Sawmaster said:
That's a near-perfect roof for wind resistance, but yeah it would all be gone with an EF-5, house and roof along with it's neighbors. I still believe some tornadoes are under-rated but what this pic shows isn't one of them. EF-3 more likely.
Click to expand...
its at least not as bad as a bit more east....

Screenshot_16.png

not only that this out of the EF0 damage area seems to have been EF5 damage base on tornadotalks survey.
also clear that the TN part of its so call track is a other tornado and not the same tornado that hit hackleburg.
 
joshoctober16 said:
its at least not as bad as a bit more east....

View attachment 31009

not only that this out of the EF0 damage area seems to have been EF5 damage base on tornadotalks survey.
also clear that the TN part of its so call track is a other tornado and not the same tornado that hit hackleburg.
Click to expand...
Different elsewhere for sure, but what was noted in the previous pic makes me leery of their judgement which affects everything else they have done or will do as far as I'm concerned. I doubt the errata was intentional but being that far off should have gotten someone's attention before publication.
 
Sawmaster said:
Different elsewhere for sure, but what was noted in the previous pic makes me leery of their judgement which affects everything else they have done or will do as far as I'm concerned. I doubt the errata was intentional but being that far off should have gotten someone's attention before publication.
Click to expand...
unknown (3).png
mayfeild had some bad ones as well , here is a home with the whole roof gone and most outer walls down , rated as a threshold of visible damage EF0 65 mph .... and theres like 2-3 photos of this di ...

then from a different tornado from the same day is this mid EF2 only damage
Only EF2 damage.png
unknown (2).png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top