Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[Sawmaster]

When did he make that quote about never rating a home EF5 like that ever again? Not doubting you, I’ve just never heard about that. If that’s the case, I would definitely have to rethink my stance on him. That’s a highly problematic statement.

However, I do maintain that WFOs with a lack of knowledge about what true EF5 damage looks like are the main offenders here. Matador, Rochelle, Chapman, Vilonia…the list goes on and on. Those were all decisions made independently of Tim. The QRT wasn’t event called in for Rochelle. I’m not saying Tim is not behind some genuinely BS calls and logic, but what was in question was who is responsible for the rash of bad ratings being finalized, and the answer is it doesn’t come down to Tim Marshall or a single person in general. It comes down to an across the board misapplication of the EF scale by numerous people. That’s a valid take and the main reason, independent of Tim’s opinion. You can’t pin an across the board issue on one person. That’s the point I’m trying to make, rather then a defense of his competency as an accurate surveyor.

I saw it reported here on TW maybe two years ago. My memory ain't that good anymore to remember those details but I'm positive about the statement itself as it floored me to hear it. Maybe someone with a better memory can help us out here. I can look for it if you wish but it will be quite a task for me.

I've always noted that this problem of misratings is systemic and not limited to specific people, WX offices, or survey teams. The entire approach is wrong and efforts to make more DI's and clarify existing DI's is missing the point and only making things more complex without improving them. Lowering the windspeed threshold for EF-5 is good but misses this point too. We all can agree that there are differences between tornadoes and the structures they impact. That makes applying exact specifics of one type across all tornadoes counter-productive and error-prone. We're not weight-loading a beam to failure in testing which is replicable and provable; we're dealing with situations which are all at least slightly different so no "one-size-fits-all" approach can possibly be accurate in every case. If the Fujita scales are only about damages then we need to stop including wind speeds in the discussion, and if we're going to include windspeeds we need to change to a different means of assessment. Given our advances in tecghnology I think Dr Fujita would concur.

Personally I'm all for allowing intelligent judgements by knowledgeable people to be used in ratings as long as they explain their reasoning. This could give us a more accurate knowledge such as the infamous El Reno which hit few structures but was insanely strong with high measured windspeeds and is universally acknowledged as being underrated because of that. Or Mayfield where it would suffice to say that Bremen didn't quite meed construction quality nor Cambridge shores have the contextuals we would like to see but was clearly an EF-5 anyway. These two examples aren't alone- there are many similar instances where the rating and the truth weren't congruous. This is all because of the system in use not allowing for the individual vagaries which occur with every tornado. We can fix that so why aren't we doing it?

 

[AJS]

Perfect images that describe “ The look. “
A shredded, muddy landscape with nothing left standing.

 

[Sawmaster]

When I see 10 or more slabbed houses, anchored or not, it's automatically an F5.

On this I must disagree, for it's pretty easy for winds to move and/or destroy poorly anchored or unanchord structures. I'm not saying that a lower rating should be applied because anchors were a few inches too far apart, just that anchoring does matter. What you are noting is more indicative of the size of a strong tornado, not it's actual strength.

 

[buckeye05]

I saw it reported here on TW maybe two years ago. My memory ain't that good anymore to remember those details but I'm positive about the statement itself as it floored me to hear it. Maybe someone with a better memory can help us out here. I can look for it if you wish but it will be quite a task for me.

I've always noted that this problem of misratings is systemic and not limited to specific people, WX offices, or survey teams. The entire approach is wrong and efforts to make more DI's and clarify existing DI's is missing the point and only making things more complex without improving them. Lowering the windspeed threshold for EF-5 is good but misses this point too. We all can agree that there are differences between tornadoes and the structures they impact. That makes applying exact specifics of one type across all tornadoes counter-productive and error-prone. We're not weight-loading a beam to failure in testing which is replicable and provable; we're dealing with situations which are all at least slightly different so no "one-size-fits-all" approach can possibly be accurate in every case. If the Fujita scales are only about damages then we need to stop including wind speeds in the discussion, and if we're going to include windspeeds we need to change to a different means of assessment. Given our advances in tecghnology I think Dr Fujita would concur.

Personally I'm all for allowing intelligent judgements by knowledgeable people to be used in ratings as long as they explain their reasoning. This could give us a more accurate knowledge such as the infamous El Reno which hit few structures but was insanely strong with high measured windspeeds and is universally acknowledged as being underrated because of that. Or Mayfield where it would suffice to say that Bremen didn't quite meed construction quality nor Cambridge shores have the contextuals we would like to see but was clearly an EF-5 anyway. These two examples aren't alone- there are many similar instances where the rating and the truth weren't congruous. This is all because of the system in use not allowing for the individual vagaries which occur with every tornado. We can fix that so why aren't we doing it?

You say a user “reported” he said that? So I assume no primary source, text, quote, or clip was provided? I have to take that with a big grain of salt, because if it was an “I heard he said so and so” kind of thing, that precisely is how rumors get started.

 

[joshoctober16]

Might be a silly question. Was there any houses in Greenfield that had the chance to get an EF5 rating had it been hit? Greenfield did of course meet the wind requirements but I remember talking about it in the severe threat discussion for it. I just don’t recall seeing a house that was “had it been hit head on, it would’ve gotten an EF5 rating.”

however it did hit homes when it was at its strongest , red area is 266+ mph

 

[ColdFront]

I have a very negative view of Tim Marshall. That view is completely Independent of Tim’s surveying and work as the steering committee head of the Enhanced Fujita scale committee.

His employment with Haag Engineering is pretty much a walking conflict of interest. I’m not sure how he can possibly exercise independent, impartial minded judgement without subconscious bias on his damage claim research. Especially when HAAG’s majority of general revenue sources are from insurance companies like all state that they do claim research for. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you I suppose.

Some of HAAG and Tim’s work on Hurricane Katrina claims completely bilked many insurance holders out of their deserved payouts. If you want a masterclass in all this, just google “Haag Engineering Tim Marshall lawsuits” or just “Haag Engineering Katrina”. Independent of the outcome of those lawsuits, it’s specifically not a great look for HAAG or Tim.

Not exactly the most ethical person in the world, his contributions to tornado research and structural wind impacts notwithstanding.

Not trying to perform an ad hominem attack here but…. the way Tim Marshall talked to his then wife on his home video of the 5/3/99 chase crossed into a**hole territory.

 

[slenker]

I have a very negative view of Tim Marshall. That view is completely Independent of Tim’s surveying and work as the steering committee head of the Enhanced Fujita scale committee.

His employment with Haag Engineering is pretty much a walking conflict of interest. I’m not sure how he can possibly exercise independent, impartial minded judgement without subconscious bias on his damage claim research. Especially when HAAG’s majority of general revenue sources are from insurance companies like all state that they do claim research for. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you I suppose.

Some of HAAG and Tim’s work on Hurricane Katrina claims completely bilked many insurance holders out of their deserved payouts. If you want a masterclass in all this, just google “Haag Engineering Tim Marshall lawsuits” or just “Haag Engineering Katrina”. Independent of the outcome of those lawsuits, it’s specifically not a great look for HAAG or Tim.

Not exactly the most ethical person in the world, his contributions to tornado research and structural wind impacts notwithstanding.

This talking point has been mentioned earlier in this thread. While this is no doubt a conflict of interest and is absolutely worth discussing, people shouldn't turn it into a hard accusation against Marshall (which I am not accusing you of doing in this post) because there is not nearly enough evidence to suggest he is being puppeteered by insurance to lowball ratings. Marshall may have played a significant role in downrating many of the controversial ratings of the past, but he's also played a role in maintaining or upgrading tornado ratings, a big one being Joplin where he ended up finding 22 homes that constituted EF5 ratings, after that horrendous ASCE survey attempted to downgrade Joplin.

I despise disaster insurance's existence as much as the next guy does, they've always been completely abhorrent. If the events that transpired in early January in Los Angeles didn't wake people up to that fact, I don't know what would. Additionally, I don't know who he is personally, from what I hear he sounds like a really egotistical guy, so anyone with negative personal opinions of him are probably valid in that regard. But there have been hard accusations against Marshall earlier in this thread that come without hard evidence speaking for it. You can most certainly believe that it's the case but to me it's baseless until that can happen.

 

[ColdFront]

This talking point has been mentioned earlier in this thread. While this is no doubt a conflict of interest and is absolutely worth discussing, people shouldn't turn it into a hard accusation against Marshall (which I am not accusing you of doing in this post) because there is not nearly enough evidence to suggest he is being puppeteered by insurance to lowball ratings. Marshall may have played a significant role in downrating many of the controversial ratings of the past, but he's also played a role in maintaining or upgrading tornado ratings, a big one being Joplin where he ended up finding 22 homes that constituted EF5 ratings, after that horrendous ASCE survey attempted to downgrade Joplin.

I despise disaster insurance's existence as much as the next guy does, they've always been completely abhorrent. If the events that transpired in early January in Los Angeles didn't wake people up to that fact, I don't know what would. Additionally, I don't know who he is personally, from what I hear he sounds like a really egotistical guy, so anyone with negative personal opinions of him are probably valid in that regard. But there have been hard accusations against Marshall earlier in this thread that come without hard evidence speaking for it. You can most certainly believe that it's the case but to me it's baseless until that can happen.

Yeah, that’s one of my biggest pet peeves is the theory that he’s lowballing ratings for insurance payouts. Which isn’t true at all. My post was merely explaining why I don’t care for the guy at all.

 

[Tomcats Forever!]

Yeah, that’s one of my biggest pet peeves is the theory that he’s lowballing ratings for insurance payouts. Which isn’t true at all. My post was merely explaining why I don’t care for the guy at all.

Which, I don't even understand how that would work.

 

[tornado examiner]

There’s still one home in greenfield that has a missing DI on the DAT and its the home to the right of the only 185mph DI.

It was slabbed so cleanly no debris remained anywhere near it.

 

[tornado examiner]

Does anyone have images for the new updated EF-scale di’s?

 

[slenker]

Side question: There's a high end EF4 that I have not heard a single person mention on this forum for the time I have been here, and that is the Lake Thunderbird 190 mph EF4 that occurred the day before the 2013 Moore tornado. I would love to see any imagery of damage from that storm because I haven't heard a single soul discuss it.

 

[Sawmaster]

You say a user “reported” he said that? So I assume no primary source, text, quote, or clip was provided? I have to take that with a big grain of salt, because if it was an “I heard he said so and so” kind of thing, that precisely is how rumors get started.

Dear boy don't go putting words in my mouth which I did not say. I said I found it here and IIRC it was in a publication or interview which several members here also saw. Given that I think we can trust the sources.

Never "assume"- I hope I don't need to explain why..

 

[Tanner]

Side question: There's a high end EF4 that I have not heard a single person mention on this forum for the time I have been here, and that is the Lake Thunderbird 190 mph EF4 that occurred the day before the 2013 Moore tornado. I would love to see any imagery of damage from that storm because I haven't heard a single soul discuss it.

Significant tornado thread has some info on that event. Interesting stuff!

 

[TH2002]

The original F5 description was "Whole frame houses tossed off foundations; steel-reinforced concrete structures badly damaged;
automobile-sized missiles generated; incredible phenomena can occur.” Most of the average homes in those days were set on CMU block foundations, and several F5s received their rating from those. Today, that description barely constitutes a high end EF3 rating.

Also the DOW team recorded 224 mph winds with the Minden tornado so yeah, that tracks. If we're talking purely about the EF5 threshold of 200 MPH, I believe pretty much all EF4 tornadoes of the last 10 years (and several EF3s) meet and/or exceed that mark. It's verifiable fact that 5% of tornadoes have winds exceeding 200 mph. I also believe, on average, tornado outbreaks have become significantly more widespread and intense over the last 20 years. It's why I'm so vocal about this stuff.

3 of the top 5 biggest 24 hour outbreaks have occurred in the 2020s. If you remove the insane outliers of 1974 and 2011, it's the top 3.

View attachment 34355

Look at the differences in F4/EF4+ ratings. Even EF2 ratings. Published research shows the NWS is underrating tornadoes by an average of 40 mph, and even more for violent tornadoes.

Idk how much more evidence I can provide to prove my point. Just look at the training module Tim Marshall has been using to mislead surveyors since 2011. Everyone here agrees Chickasha and Goldsby were EF5s. Why is it being used as training for EF4 damage?

I think you're slightly misinterpreting what I'm saying. No one is denying that many tornadoes are underrated and that the underrating of tornadoes has become a systemic issue in the NWS.

What I am saying is that the EF scale itself is not entirely to blame. Is it flawed? Yes. Does that mean it's 'fundamentally useless'? No. Reiterating something I wrote in a previous post - if the surveyors themselves are lazy, misinformed, careless or whatever, the EF scale being perfect is not going to change that.

When the EF scale is properly applied, homes with CMU foundations can still be eligible for EF4/EF5 ratings (Parkersburg, Rainsville, Stanton 2014 and Dalton 2020 to give a few examples).

And to add a bit of my own subjective opinion - I personally believe the wind speeds on the original F scale were much closer to being accurate. Some people including max from extremeplanet share this view.

To conclude, had to mention this because it may give you a chuckle - there's a certain poster on here who believes the opposite of you, in that he believes climate change has rendered the big tornado outbreaks of the past extinct. Won't mention him here by name, but go to about page 128 of the March 30, 2023 thread and you'll see exactly who I'm talking about.

 

[TH2002]

Nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. This understandable and forgivable. And I did respect Tim's vast knowledge and experience once, but he lost me when he said he could never again rate a properly built and bolted slab house being swept away as an EF-5.

When did he make that quote about never rating a home EF5 like that ever again? Not doubting you, I’ve just never heard about that. If that’s the case, it’s a a highly problematic statement.

I saw it reported here on TW maybe two years ago. My memory ain't that good anymore to remember those details but I'm positive about the statement itself as it floored me to hear it. Maybe someone with a better memory can help us out here. I can look for it if you wish but it will be quite a task for me.

You say a user “reported” he said that? So I assume no primary source, text, quote, or clip was provided? I have to take that with a big grain of salt, because if it was an “I heard he said so and so” kind of thing, that precisely is how rumors get started.

I think this is what Sawmaster is referring to. It's (unfortunately) most definitely not a baseless rumor, although the quotes are actually from Thomas Grazulis and not Tim Marshall. These are what he had to say about Jarrell and Hudsonville:

I appreciate and respect Grazulis for all the work he has done, but to say I disagree with these quotes would be an understatement.

 

[slenker]

I think this is what Sawmaster is referring to. It's (unfortunately) most definitely not a baseless rumor, although the quotes are actually from Thomas Grazulis and not Tim Marshall. These are what he had to say about Jarrell and Hudsonville:

I appreciate and respect Grazulis for all the work he has done, but to say I disagree with these quotes would be an understatement.

So, was there any math done to demonstrate the validity of these statements? I am assuming that there most certainly was within this book, otherwise I don't understand how you could possibly arrive to that conclusion. I'm not questioning Grazulis's expertise but I am questioning the method in how he got to this conclusion in the first place.

 

[UK_EF4]

There’s still one home in greenfield that has a missing DI on the DAT and its the home to the right of the only 185mph DI.

It was slabbed so cleanly no debris remained anywhere near it.

Do you have any photos of this possibly? Would be very interested to see the home.

 

[andyhb]

Not trying to perform an ad hominem attack here but…. the way Tim Marshall talked to his then wife on his home video of the 5/3/99 chase crossed into a**hole territory.

All other things aside, I do agree with this. It's obvious she was scared. She should be. There was a violent tornado coming nearly directly toward them and she is not a seasoned chaser like Gene Rhoden was with Kellerville/etc.

His behavior there was pretty dismissive and unbefitting.

 

[ColdFront]

To conclude, had to mention this because it may give you a chuckle - there's a certain poster on here who believes the opposite of you, in that he believes climate change has rendered the big tornado outbreaks of the past extinct. Won't mention him here by name, but go to about page 128 of the March 30, 2023 thread and you'll see exactly who I'm talking about.

This board is a better place when that person doesn’t post. He’s been refuted by pretty much every poster involved in meteorology professionally on here with his pseudo scientific drivel. On any other wx board, he would’ve been banned or laughed out of the room in 24 hours.