• 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

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.
Didn’t John Robinson intentionally not mention the E Wicker Street home during the Vilonia? From what I can remember, Marshall didn’t even survey that home and wasn’t made aware of it during the survey.
 
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.
I don’t care too much for Tim, but I will say he has my full upmost respect as he has made a significant impact on the way we view tornadoes today. And some of his calls have been spot on. Joplin being one of them.
 
My views of Tim have soured for other reasons than damage surveys, but I'll just leave that can of worms unopened for now.
Hard to leave that can of worms unopened because I'm genuinely curious now... why so? I've conversed with him on multiple occasions and he's always seemed nice and willing to answer my questions. If you aren't comfortable sharing your views publicly then please consider sending me a PM, I'd love to hear your reasons.
 
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.

1. Goldsby 2011 - My number one based on sheer strength. A storm system on May 24th, 2011 only spawned 12 tornadoes, but three of those were Piedmont, Goldsby, and Chickasha. I believe Goldsby was as strong as Piedmont. 16 well constructed houses had slabs swept completely clean. Only 5 had pictures, 8 were described as brand-new with exceptional construction.

This house had anchor bolts every 18 inches, current building code is 36 inches. Also note the evergreen tree in the foreground that is completely debarked.

1740796110247.jpeg

three more well built, anchored homes
1740796295339.jpeg1740796264607.jpeg1740796580392.png

This 5000 sq foot house was built by married architects, who designed it specifically to be tornado resistant.

1740796393451.jpeg1740796720807.png

2. Tuscaloosa 2011 - The third deadliest tornado in the last 70 years. Killed 64, injured 1500.

3. Mayfield 2021 - Killed 57 people and injured 520. Tore down a water tower, dug 8 inch trenches, and did this to a well constructed home in Bremen.

1740798457596.png1740798841192.jpeg

Took the whole house AND the concrete slab it was built on.

Some more pics:

1740798570148.jpeg1740798675598.jpeg
University of Kentucky reinforced concrete building
Some structures which *apparently* may have been EF5 candidates, like some of the completely destroyed large brick churches were not officially surveyed by the NWS. No DIs for context, vehicle damage or similar were added. NWS Paducah highlighted multiple DIs for a rating of 190+mph (i.e. EF5 or at least very high end EF4), that were all kept at 190mph instead by Tim Marshall.
 
Last edited:
1. Goldsby 2011 - My number one based on sheer strength. A storm system on May 24th, 2011 only spawned 12 tornadoes, but three of those were Piedmont, Goldsby, and Chickasha. I believe Goldsby was as strong as Piedmont. Several extremely well built homes were slabbed without a trace.

This house had anchor bolts every 18 inches, current building code is 36 inches. Also note the evergreen tree in the foreground that is completely debarked.

View attachment 34294

three more well built, anchored homes
View attachment 34296View attachment 34295View attachment 34298

This 5000 sq foot house was built by married architects, who designed it specifically to be tornado resistant.

View attachment 34297View attachment 34299

2. Tuscaloosa 2011 - The third deadliest tornado in the last 70 years. Killed 64, injured 1500.

3. Mayfield 2021 - Killed 57 people and injured 520. Tore down a water tower, dug 8 inch trenches, and did this to a well constructed home in Bremen.

View attachment 34301View attachment 34304

Took the whole house AND the concrete slab it was built on.

Some more pics:

View attachment 34302View attachment 34303
University of Kentucky reinforced concrete building

Surprised you didn't the obvious top EF4, Vilonia lol.
 
1. Goldsby 2011 - My number one based on sheer strength. A storm system on May 24th, 2011 only spawned 12 tornadoes, but three of those were Piedmont, Goldsby, and Chickasha. I believe Goldsby was as strong as Piedmont. Several extremely well built homes were slabbed without a trace.

This house had anchor bolts every 18 inches, current building code is 36 inches. Also note the evergreen tree in the foreground that is completely debarked.

View attachment 34294

three more well built, anchored homes
View attachment 34296View attachment 34295View attachment 34298

This 5000 sq foot house was built by married architects, who designed it specifically to be tornado resistant.

View attachment 34297View attachment 34299

2. Tuscaloosa 2011 - The third deadliest tornado in the last 70 years. Killed 64, injured 1500.

3. Mayfield 2021 - Killed 57 people and injured 520. Tore down a water tower, dug 8 inch trenches, and did this to a well constructed home in Bremen.

View attachment 34301View attachment 34304

Took the whole house AND the concrete slab it was built on.

Some more pics:

View attachment 34302View attachment 34303
University of Kentucky reinforced concrete building
That aerial image of the damage in Bremen never ceases to amaze me. Truly extreme contextual damage present here. Ground scouring, wind rowing, granulation, trees debarked and stubbed, and vehicles thrown/mangled.

Throwback to what Buckeye mentioned earlier in his post. Mayfield undoubtedly contained EF5 winds based on the contextual damage seen in Bremen, but the construction quality in this area was poor and therefore, the rating isn’t as egregious as some other ratings such as Vilonia or Goldsby. In a nutshell, if we had the construction quality of the homes found in Cambridge Shores combined with the extreme contextual damage seen in Bremen, then an EF5 rating would have been necessary.
 
1. Goldsby 2011 - My number one based on sheer strength. A storm system on May 24th, 2011 only spawned 12 tornadoes, but three of those were Piedmont, Goldsby, and Chickasha. I believe Goldsby was as strong as Piedmont. 16 well constructed houses had slabs swept completely clean. Only 5 had pictures, 8 were described as brand-new with exceptional construction.

This house had anchor bolts every 18 inches, current building code is 36 inches. Also note the evergreen tree in the foreground that is completely debarked.

View attachment 34294

three more well built, anchored homes
View attachment 34296View attachment 34295View attachment 34298

This 5000 sq foot house was built by married architects, who designed it specifically to be tornado resistant.

View attachment 34297View attachment 34299

2. Tuscaloosa 2011 - The third deadliest tornado in the last 70 years. Killed 64, injured 1500.

3. Mayfield 2021 - Killed 57 people and injured 520. Tore down a water tower, dug 8 inch trenches, and did this to a well constructed home in Bremen.

View attachment 34301View attachment 34304

Took the whole house AND the concrete slab it was built on.

Some more pics:

View attachment 34302View attachment 34303
University of Kentucky reinforced concrete building
Some structures which *apparently* may have been EF5 candidates, like some of the completely destroyed large brick churches were not officially surveyed by the NWS. No DIs for context, vehicle damage or similar were added. NWS Paducah highlighted multiple DIs for a rating of 190+mph (i.e. EF5 or at least very high end EF4), that were all kept at 190mph instead by Tim Marshall.
That house in Bremen is not what it seems. It’s a concrete slab resting on top of a CMU foundation that has a gravel/aggregate fill inside the empty space. It’s not a true slab foundation home, and the wind was able to get under the slab as a result of this. People use this house as the main reasoning for “shoulda been EF5” in regards to Mayfield while not understanding the weird construction utilized here.

Also the large University of Kentucky building was not “reinforced”. The walls contained rebar, but the construction crew did not follow the blueprint and failed to attach the rebar to the foundation, rendering it essentially useless.

I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but you’re posting pics of things that look impressive at first glance without understanding the subtle construction factors that make a huge difference when it comes to structural integrity.

Tuscaloosa and Goldsby are absolutely strong EF5 candidates though, especially the latter.
 
Last edited:
That house in Bremen is not what it seems. It’s a concrete slab resting on top of a CMU foundation that has a gravel/aggregate fill inside the empty space. It’s not a true slab foundation home, and the wind was able to get under the slab as a result of this. People use this house as the main reasoning for “shoulda been EF5” in regards to Mayfield while not understanding the weird construction utilized here.

Also large University of Kentucky building was not “reinforced”. The walls contained rebar, but the construction crew did not follow the blueprint and failed to attach the rebar to the foundation, rendering it essentially useless.

I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but you’re posting pics of things that look impressive at first glance without understanding the subtle construction factors that make a huge difference when it comes to structural integrity.

Tuscaloosa and Goldsby are absolutely strong EF5 candidates though, especially the latter.
Ethan Moriarty (June First youtube channel) seems to agree with the sentiment that the home in Bremen constitutes EF5 damage, albeit very baseline. I trust his calculations, which is why I personally believe it's hard to deny Mayfield's EF5 intensity. Also, the argument given against EF5 intensity, if I recall correctly, was the fact that it was only the home and a tree still stood about 35 yards away from the home, which is not a good argument in my opinion. Either way, I definitely agree with you that it was not nearly as egregious of a snub as Goldsby, Chickasha, Vilonia, or Tuscaloosa.

Also, I understand that one engineer's opinions should not be taken as gospel for this sort of thing, and if the majority of damage surveyors seem to think it doesn't constitute EF5 damage, then it probably shouldn't. I have also heard some interesting information (not too deeply though) about the church in Mayfield maybe being a valid candidate for EF5 intensity, but then again, the damage surrounding it was solidly EF3-EF4.
 
Ethan Moriarty (June First youtube channel) seems to agree with the sentiment that the home in Bremen constitutes EF5 damage, albeit very baseline. I trust his calculations, which is why I personally believe it's hard to deny Mayfield's EF5 intensity. Also, the argument given against EF5 intensity, if I recall correctly, was the fact that it was only the home and a tree still stood about 35 yards away from the home, which is not a good argument in my opinion. Either way, I definitely agree with you that it was not nearly as egregious of a snub as Goldsby, Chickasha, Vilonia, or Tuscaloosa.

Also, I understand that one engineer's opinions should not be taken as gospel for this sort of thing, and if the majority of damage surveyors seem to think it doesn't constitute EF5 damage, then it probably shouldn't. I have also heard some interesting information (not too deeply though) about the church in Mayfield maybe being a valid candidate for EF5 intensity, but then again, the damage surrounding it was solidly EF3-EF4.
That’s fair. The tree argument is some genuine bs, but I can’t ignore the fact that there’s a slab resting on a gravel-filled CMU foundation. That foundation issue is hinted at in the text referring to the “awesomely strong” house. From what I heard, the house was essentially a “DIY” project that was put together by the land owner. You don’t ever really see construction like that, and probably for good reason.

In a nutshell, I don’t deny that Mayfield had EF5 winds, but I can’t identify a single “slam dunk” EF5 damage point along the path that seals the deal, and I dug pretty deep. It’s just not a very clear-cut case of underrating compared to other more egregious examples.
 
Ethan Moriarty (June First youtube channel) seems to agree with the sentiment that the home in Bremen constitutes EF5 damage, albeit very baseline. I trust his calculations, which is why I personally believe it's hard to deny Mayfield's EF5 intensity. Also, the argument given against EF5 intensity, if I recall correctly, was the fact that it was only the home and a tree still stood about 35 yards away from the home, which is not a good argument in my opinion. Either way, I definitely agree with you that it was not nearly as egregious of a snub as Goldsby, Chickasha, Vilonia, or Tuscaloosa.

Also, I understand that one engineer's opinions should not be taken as gospel for this sort of thing, and if the majority of damage surveyors seem to think it doesn't constitute EF5 damage, then it probably shouldn't. I have also heard some interesting information (not too deeply though) about the church in Mayfield maybe being a valid candidate for EF5 intensity, but then again, the damage surrounding it was solidly EF3-EF4.
Out of all the places the Mayfield tornado hit, the only place I could actually see an EF5 rating being applied would be Cambridge Shores. Unfortunately, the contextual damage wasn’t what you would typically expect to see in an EF5. The construction quality of some of the homes though were pretty good. But construction quality and contextual damage need to overlap for a fair and conclusive rating. Some of the tree debarking was impressive however if I recall. I do think the wind speed of 170 MPH was too low at that place. Definitely high end EF4 worthy in my opinion.
 
I’d actually say that Chapman 2016 and Rochelle-Fairdale 2015 are stronger EF5 candidates than Mayfield, and they don’t get included enough when it comes to this topic.

I’ve also heard some crazy things about the 4/27/2011 New Wren/Houston, MS EF3 but haven’t looked into it enough to confirm (anchor bolted homes slabbed, vehicles thrown over a mile, major ground scouring, ect). MEG really biffed that one bad (surprise surprise), and allegedly neglected to survey miles of the damage path that apparently contained EF5 candidate damage.
 
Last edited:
IMG_0663.jpegIMG_0671.jpegIMG_2173.jpegIMG_2174.jpegIMG_2425.jpegThat’s fair. The tree argument is some genuine bs, but I can’t ignore the fact that there’s a slab resting on a gravel-filled CMU foundation. That foundation issue is hinted at in the text referring to the “awesomely strong” house. From what I heard, the house was essentially a “DIY” project that was put together by the land owner. You don’t ever really see construction like that, and probably for good reason.

In a nutshell, I don’t deny that Mayfield had EF5 winds, but I can’t identify a single “slam dunk” EF5 damage point along the path that seals the deal, and I dug pretty deep. It’s just not a very clear-cut case of underrating compared to other more egregious examples.
Agreed. The construction quality along the path was overwhelmingly poor for the most part. I do however hold the opinion that Mayfield produced truly extreme contextual damage that ranks fairly high with some of the egregiously underrated EF4s.
 
Agreed. The construction quality along the path was overwhelmingly poor for the most part. I do however hold the opinion that Mayfield produced truly extreme contextual damage that ranks fairly high with some of the egregiously underrated EF4s.
Holy crap I didn’t mean to upload those images onto your own post I apologize.
 
I’d actually say that Chapman 2016 and Rochelle-Fairdale 2015 are stronger EF5 candidates than Mayfield, and they don’t get included enough when it comes to this topic.

I’ve also heard some crazy things about the 4/27/2011 New Wren/Houston, MS EF3 but haven’t looked into it enough to confirm (anchor bolted homes slabbed, vehicles thrown over a mile, major ground scouring, ect). MEG really biffed that one bad (surprise surprise), and allegedly neglected to survey miles of the damage path that apparently contained EF5 candidate damage.
I genuinely don’t know if i’ve ever seen a NWS office as lazy and non thorough as MEG.
 
The clincher for Rochelle imo was the concrete sidewalk that was dislodged from the ground and shifted laterally. That takes INSANE low level winds. This was directly in front not a large anchor-bolted house that was obliterated and reduced to a poured concrete basement foundation. There was also extensive debris granulation, wind rowing, and grass scouring in the immediate vicinity. Slam dunk EF5, no doubt.
 
Back
Top