Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[Grand Poo Bah]

Is it just me or are there cycloidal markings in this debris? This isn't the only spot either. The hospital far distance (to the right) in this first photo.



Here's a photo from right by the hospital. The snapped parking barriers are top right. Look at the way the debris is piled. especially the cars.

Some more less obvious examples:

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Josh Wurman and Jim Ladue just give a speech today and they reveals more interesting data of Greenfield when it went through town
View attachment 31105
View attachment 31106
It's quite unexpected to me that the strongest winds of 309-318mph occurred between SE 3th street and SE 4th street where all houses here was given EF3 rating with the particular one house sustained strongest winds not being swept clean from its foundation.
View attachment 31107
View attachment 31109View attachment 31110View attachment 31111View attachment 31113It's easy to tell that DOW-derived wind didnt match well with damage in town. Strongest damage was ahead of where strongest wind occurred.
They also mentioned that the highest rating DI could rated differently in new EF scale.
View attachment 31108
View attachment 31114
Really hope to see more detailed data and information from them.

It's incredibly interesting it did the most damage when it was multi vortex, and did less damage (but had highest recorded wind speeds) when it condensed momentarily.

Edit:

I bet it's debris loading. The tornado gets filled with debris due to incredible winds and gets "clogged". Temporarily cutting off wind speeds at the ground and condensing the funnel. The debris passes through and the tornado restrengthens. The DOW was basically recording a huge burst of wind, and the associated debris as it passed through the drain. The damage was even more extreme (by the hospital) after the brief weakening so it definitely wasn't something I think hindered the tornado.

I'm of the belief strong tornadoes and debris loading is a causal relationship and not a correlative one. Stronger tornado = more debris. It bugs me when debris is used to downgrade wind speeds.

I think it makes sense the DOW readings may not match damage on the ground perfectly. If winds ramp up to 300 mph it'll take a moment for the DOW to detect because structures have to be hit and debris lifted at those speeds. There'd inevitably be a delay as the debris reaches the height where it's scanned. Especially if tornado winds are actually strongest at the ground. Have to imagine there's some sort of cascading effect.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

View attachment 31115

oh did the new EF scale added more dod for homes? last i check it was 10 dod for homes (at least di 2)
View attachment 31116

Every new draft we get is lowering the estimated wind speeds for each DOD significantly. Why is that slide saying a DOD 10 is currently 185 MPH? The EF scale clearly states a DOD of 10 has an expected wind speed of 200 mph. Now it's 160 to <200 mph?? That's some serious BS. Who is showing this much commitment to keeping tornado ratings below 200 mph when all the evidence shows we're already underrating them so severely? I don't understand who this scale is even being designed for. It helps nobody. This is a complete joke.

 

[tornado examiner]

Every new draft we get is lowering the estimated wind speeds for each DOD significantly. Why is that slide saying a DOD 10 is currently 185 MPH? The EF scale clearly states a DOD of 10 has an expected wind speed of 200 mph. Now it's 160 to <200 mph?? That's some serious BS. Who is showing this much commitment to keeping tornado ratings below 200 mph when all the evidence shows we're already underrating them so severely? I don't understand who this scale is even being designed for. It helps nobody. This is a complete joke.

Unless we have a smithville type tornado strike Moore directly I doubt the EF5 rating will ever be used again.

Absolute joke indeed

 

[UK_EF4]

Why is that slide saying a DOD 10 is currently 185 MPH?

The LB for DOD 10 is 165mph, and the UB is 220mph, so a DOD 10 can be anything in that range. Though it is slightly ambiguous, I think they are stating the 185mph to be the damage in this particular photo (which I would say is pretty fairly applied in the context of the current scale), rather than the new EXP for DOD 10. Though admittedly, the realistic EXP nowadays is basically 170-180mph with 190-200mph being the UB and as low as 125mph being a LB (????). Clearly the point you are making about the scale being flawed still stands.

...and in reference to your second point, I am also starting to lose a bit of faith in the new EF scale. Time will tell, I guess.

 

[UK_EF4]

Unless we have a smithville type tornado strike Moore directly I doubt the EF5 rating will ever be used again.

Absolute joke indeed

Right on topic!



Great video

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Right on topic!



Great video

June First never misses.

 

[tornado examiner]

He mentioned Parkersburg. And I think everyone should agree that if Parkersburg happened today exactly like it did back in 2008…
It would still be rated EF5.

That is the most air-tight of all the EF5 tornado’s by far.

The golf club slabbed homes were clear cut EF5 indicators and were rated appropriately back in 2008.

 

[joshoctober16]

He mentioned Parkersburg. And I think everyone should agree that if Parkersburg happened today exactly like it did back in 2008…
It would still be rated EF5.

That is the most air-tight of all the EF5 tornado’s by far.

The golf club slabbed homes were clear cut EF5 indicators and were rated appropriately back in 2008.

yep the only tornado that doesn't have the Vilonia / Mayfield / bowling green issue.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

He mentioned Parkersburg. And I think everyone should agree that if Parkersburg happened today exactly like it did back in 2008…
It would still be rated EF5.

That is the most air-tight of all the EF5 tornado’s by far.

The golf club slabbed homes were clear cut EF5 indicators and were rated appropriately back in 2008.

I'd hardly call a 210 MPH rating appropriate, but that's just getting into semantics I guess lol

 

[slenker]

I'd hardly call a 210 MPH rating appropriate, but that's just getting into semantics I guess lol

As much as I tend to stay conservative with tornado ratings, iirc the concrete wall at the one EF5 house should have easily justified a >240 mph rating. I agree that it’s easily the most bulletproof EF5 rating for sure.

 

[Austin Dawg]

Right on topic!



Great video

That was a good video and a new person to subscribe to on YouTube. I have to ask, just as a Layman, what will it take to change the scale?
Everyone agrees that it is not operating correctly. Is it really going to take the National Weather Service to change the scale? Will the opinions of ordinary meteorologists have any weight at all? Or that is one more thing too tied up in our government and hopelessly inept.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Most weather communities I've come across have this double standard.

 

[TH2002]

Most weather communities I've come across have this double standard.

View attachment 31136

Out of curiosity, how would you say TW compares to other weather forums in this regard?

Obviously I can't speak for everyone here, and will admit that this is the only weather forum I frequent. Regardless, I will say that this thread regarding the 2006 Westminster, TX "F3" sums up Stormtrack pretty well.

 

[joshoctober16]

Most weather communities I've come across have this double standard.

View attachment 31136

ya this bothers me more because there is one point everyone seems to forget...

having more inaccurate data is going to likely mess up all the future models .... how can we learn about tornadoes if we keep putting bad data...

instead of input a 290 mph tornado in the data we have to put it as a 165 mph tornado ... that's such a huge differences that it will likely mess up any research and modeling.

if this keeps up the future will be full of false alarms and a bit more tornado related deaths just because we never were never allowed to "critic" these poor rating.

lets not forget the joplin tornado that had 150+ deaths .... and only had a normal tornado warning ... that states there was a report of a funnel cloud and no mention of a violent wedge tornado... no tornado emergency... no pds tornado warning ... just a tornado warning for a small funnel cloud and large hail.... yet this so call hail was the large debris from the tornado...

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Out of curiosity, how would you say TW compares to other weather forums in this regard?

Obviously I can't speak for everyone here, and will admit that this is the only weather forum I frequent. Regardless, I will say that this thread regarding the 2006 Westminster, TX "F3" sums up Stormtrack pretty well.

It's awesome. I don't know much about stormtrack, but there's some really high quality information here. Plus all the contributions in the form of theories, graphs, tools, etc. This is advanced tornado enthusiasm, and I believe some of this stuff would be a valuable resource for any scientists humble enough to consider it.

Oh my god that stormtrack thread is literally the exact same conversation people are having now. This has been going on for two decades.... Probably more. What a nightmare.

 

[Sawmaster]

Out of curiosity, how would you say TW compares to other weather forums in this regard?

Obviously I can't speak for everyone here, and will admit that this is the only weather forum I frequent. Regardless, I will say that this thread regarding the 2006 Westminster, TX "F3" sums up Stormtrack pretty well.

This is my only WX forum too. The reasons for that is that there are more knowledgeable people here, both amateur and professional, than anywhere else I could find. The member-base is widespread but has a lot from the SE USA where I am. No blind fanboys here playing 'yesman' even if some of us do have favorites. Discussions are in-depth and factual, and dissension is tolerated with good moderation to keep personal attacks out of it.

I spent over 10 years wanting to find a place like this and my only criticism of TalkWeather is that it's not publicly promoted enough making it hard to find until you sift through all the more noted websites. I did follow Stormtrack for awhile but no more.

 

[Sawmaster]

Oh my god that stormtrack thread is literally the exact same conversation people are having now. This has been going on for two decades.... Probably more. What a nightmare.

Yep, nothing really new about the strong disagreements over the EF scale except more and more data showing (proving?) it really is broken. And still pretty much the same debates as to the cause and the correct fix. In all this time the 'official' side has hardly acknowledged us and has certainly not deeply addressed our contentions, and that refusal to listen and see has grown stronger over time. The root of the problem is clearly systemic and not peripheral in only a few scattered places such as DI's and DOD's and measured windspeeds. The problem is in who is running the system and how that is being done. I see no changes there so I hold little hopes for things getting much better.

 

[Tomcats Forever!]

Yep, nothing really new about the strong disagreements over the EF scale except more and more data showing (proving?) it really is broken. And still pretty much the same debates as to the cause and the correct fix. In all this time the 'official' side has hardly acknowledged us and has certainly not deeply addressed our contentions, and that refusal to listen and see has grown stronger over time. The root of the problem is clearly systemic and not peripheral in only a few scattered places such as DI's and DOD's and measured windspeeds. The problem is in who is running the system and how that is being done. I see no changes there so I hold little hopes for things getting much better.

Well, the simple, effective changes would be: change EF-5 to 190, and.. Lower Bound means Lower Bound.

 

[Sawmaster]

Well, the simple, effective changes would be: change EF-5 to 190, and.. Lower Bound means Lower Bound.

But then you'd have a spate of 185's instead of 195's so that wouldn't really fix things. What needs to happen is to remove the people who do things like this and those who oversee them and allow it to happen.

If you seek to justify your opinion, you'll find plenty of things which do just that. Seek the truth instead, whatever it is. not trying to justify it because it needs no justification and the deeper you look the more apparent it will become.