Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[ColdFront]

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.

Yeah, exactly. Tells me all I need to know about him. If he’s that dismissive with his wife, especially on something being recorded, I have zero respect for him.

The video is on YouTube for those curious. Believe the title is Tim Marshall’s Bridge Creek Video.

 

[AJS]

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.

I lose brain cells reading his posts and I don’t have many begin to with.

 

[TH2002]

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.

I don't know what kind of math was used to assert those conclusions, but I can assume Grazulis' sentiment expressed above was either an inspiration for, or directly influenced by the same engineering mindset that led to the creation of the EF scale.

I don't know if the statements 'Winds as low as 160 MPH could have caused the damage at Jarrell' and 'One minute of F3 winds equals three seconds of F5 winds' were immediately disprovable when Grazulis first made those statements, but we certainly have a solid example now...

On May 27, 2013, the Lebanon, KS tornado was intercepted by storm chasers Brandon Ivey, Herb Stein and Sean Casey in the TIV2 vehicle. Winds up to 175 MPH (EF4) were recorded during the intercept, yet the worst damage surveyed was ultimately awarded a 140MPH EF3 rating:

As you can see, the damage is intense but definitely not violent, and a low-end EF3 rating seems appropriate despite the glaring difference in wind speed.

Here is a photo of the damage in the direct vicinity of the TIV2 vehicle, where winds up to EF4 intensity were recorded. The damage was nowhere near violent, much less Jarrell-like. Nearby evergreen trees were not even defoliated, let alone debarked.

By contrast, Greensburg managed to denude and more or less completely debark the same type of tree species.

So, with all that said, I think that's evidence enough to conclude that not only are the EF scale's wind speed estimates too low on the upper end of the scale, but the statements that 160MPH winds could have caused the damage at Jarrell and that 'one minute of F3 winds equals F5 damage' are bogus.

@Grand Poo Bah mentioned in one of his previous posts that the EF scale underestimates the wind speeds in tornadoes by an average of about 40MPH. I most definitely concur with that statement, and believe the original F scale's wind speed estimates were far more accurate.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

We need to normalize chasers recording tornadoes hitting structures with cameras mounted on tripods. Then we could easily use photogrammetry to determine wind speeds. It'd only take one good season to verify true tornado strength with how many chasers there are now.

Calling the EF scale useless was a bit hyperbolic on my part. However, I think the amount of scrutiny being put on families' homes after they just lost everything, has become increasingly tasteless and unnecessary. It was fine when the goal was uncovering true wind speeds, but now the community has totally lost the plot with tornado ratings. It's only a damage scale when it's convenient because maximum damage doesn't receive the maximum rating. It switches right back to a wind scale when maximum damage is excused as possible debris impacts, or tornado size/speed.

Yes, Jarell was over homes for 3 minutes, but it still did F5 damage right?

Wait, now it's about the winds and should be F3?


40 homes were tossed in Greenfield. Every single home in the tornado's direct path. Truly maximum possible damage, and in mere seconds.

but wait, apparently there's a weighted modifier that says if the towns houses are too old it's not EF5.


Ok then, Goldsby slabbed 16 brand new houses built above code, should be a slam dunk right? Maximum damage AND maximum construction.

Nope, I'm seeing too much grass around a few houses and the trees don't have "the look", so it's not EF5 wind.

WAIT. I THOUGHT THIS WAS A DAMAGE SCALE?! Or wind scale?! Now it's about shrubbery?!


There's zero consistency. It's worthless as both a damage scale and a wind scale with its current application because it's being used as both entirely subjectively. Which begs the question, who is it even serving at this point? It's not serving engineers and community planners because there's no clear info on how often tornadoes cause maximum damage, and it's not serving climate scientists because true wind speeds are rarely the main consideration. It's more of a "community construction quality" scrutinizer at this point. The ONLY group that type of scale could possibly benefit is insurance companies. Do they get government subsidies if a town is poorly built or something?

 

[ColdFront]

Per WeatherBrains a few weeks ago, DOW/Doppler wind speed measurements will NOT be included in the new EF scale revision.

This came straight from one of Wurman’s research partners.


Edit: WeatherBrains993, 27:10 timestamp. Jennifer Walton gets a text from Dr. Karen Kosiba discussing this.

 

[ColdFront]

I don't know what kind of math was used to assert those conclusions, but I can assume Grazulis' sentiment expressed above was either an inspiration for, or directly influenced by the same engineering mindset that led to the creation of the EF scale.

I don't know if the statements 'Winds as low as 160 MPH could have caused the damage at Jarrell' and 'One minute of F3 winds equals three seconds of F5 winds' were immediately disprovable when Grazulis first made those statements, but we certainly have a solid example now...

On May 27, 2013, the Lebanon, KS tornado was intercepted by storm chasers Brandon Ivey, Herb Stein and Sean Casey in the TIV2 vehicle. Winds up to 175 MPH (EF4) were recorded during the intercept, yet the worst damage surveyed was ultimately awarded a 140MPH EF3 rating:

As you can see, the damage is intense but definitely not violent, and a low-end EF3 rating seems appropriate despite the glaring difference in wind speed.

Here is a photo of the damage in the direct vicinity of the TIV2 vehicle, where winds up to EF4 intensity were recorded. The damage was nowhere near violent, much less Jarrell-like. Nearby evergreen trees were not even defoliated, let alone debarked.

By contrast, Greensburg managed to denude and more or less completely debark the same type of tree species.

So, with all that said, I think that's evidence enough to conclude that not only are the EF scale's wind speed estimates too low on the upper end of the scale, but the statements that 160MPH winds could have caused the damage at Jarrell and that 'one minute of F3 winds equals F5 damage' are bogus.

@Grand Poo Bah mentioned in one of his previous posts that the EF scale underestimates the wind speeds in tornadoes by an average of about 40MPH. I most definitely concur with that statement, and believe the original F scale's wind speed estimates were far more accurate.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but Grazulis strikes me as a bit of kook judging by a lot of his tweets.

He did important historical work, but I still take a lot of his opinions and statements with a grain of salt.

I’m a Doswell fan and feel like he nailed all of the issues with the EF scale And had no issue voicing his opinion no matter who’s feathers he ruffled.

 

[AJS]

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but Grazulis strikes me as a bit of kook judging by a lot of his tweets.

He did important historical work, but I still take a lot of his opinions and statements with a grain of salt.

I’m a Doswell fan and feel like he nailed all of the issues with the EF scale And had no issue voicing his opinion no matter who’s feathers he ruffled.

I think a good fitting word for Grazulis is “ Eccentric. “

 

[ColdFront]

I think a good fitting word for Grazulis is “ Eccentric. “

Precisely. And maybe even a bit off his rocker. I believe one of his tweets stated climate change started in 1967 when the river near his house flooded lol.

I’m very happy a new generation of researchers have arrived such as @andyhb and others like Cameron Nixon will give fresh new eyes and minds on tornado science/ along with valid criticism of the EF scale in the meteorological community.

 

[AJS]

Not trying to sound like a super fan right now, but @andyhb s posts have been nothing but informative, encouraging, and detail oriented and those traits are exactly what we need in the future generations of meteorologists.

 

[buckeye05]

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..

1.) You didn’t mention a publication in the original post, you verbatim said you saw it “reported here”.

2. )If TH2002 is correct, you misattributed a quote from Grazulis as a quote from Marshall, in conjunction with an admission that your memory isn’t good. If that’s the case, my skepticism is in the end validated, and doesn’t exactly justify the tone of the reply I got in return.

 

[AJS]

Let’s try and tone it down y’all. We don’t need simple misunderstandings blowing up. Not playing TW police btw. Just trying to keep the peace.

 

[TH2002]

Let’s try and tone it down y’all. We don’t need simple misunderstandings blowing up. Not playing TW police btw. Just trying to keep the peace.

You should've seen what the Severe Weather 2025 thread devolved into when the topic of mass layoffs at NOAA was brought up. Glad I missed that drama...

 

[buckeye05]

Simple misunderstandings are fine, but don’t talk down to me and call me “dear boy” if you can’t provide direct evidence or keep straight who said what. If I’m wrong I’ll gladly eat crow and stay humble, but if the tone I receive is both condescending AND without factual merit, I’m not going to ignore it and will justifiably clap back in my defense. I think that’s pretty fair and not a “blowup”.

 

[AJS]

Simple misunderstandings are fine, but don’t talk down to me and call me “dear boy” if you can’t provide direct evidence or keep straight who said what. If I’m wrong I’ll gladly eat crow and stay humble, but if the tone I receive is both condescending AND without factual merit, I’m not going to ignore it and will justifiably clap back in my defense. I think that’s pretty fair.

Btw I do agree with you. I’ve just read enough posts on this forum to know how easily it can blow up lol. Just hope to avoid that.

 

[AJS]

You should've seen what the Severe Weather 2025 thread devolved into when the topic of mass layoffs at NOAA was brought up. Glad I missed that drama...

I think the funniest drama i’ve seen so far on this forum was the Matador, TX tornado thread. Hoo boy that thread was a hot mess!

 

[ColdFront]

Simple misunderstandings are fine, but don’t talk down to me and call me “dear boy” if you can’t provide direct evidence or keep straight who said what. If I’m wrong I’ll gladly eat crow and stay humble, but if the tone I receive is both condescending AND without factual merit, I’m not going to ignore it and will justifiably clap back in my defense. I think that’s pretty fair and not a “blowup”.

The guy got the same tone with me the other night. I 100% agree with you.

 

[ColdFront]

I think the funniest drama i’ve seen so far on this forum was the Matador, TX tornado thread. Hoo boy that thread was a hot mess!

Speaking of which… where are Shakespeare and tornado examiner lmao

 

[TH2002]

Btw I do agree with you. I’ve just read enough posts on this forum to know how easily it can blow up lol. Just hope to avoid that.

I mean... compared to other forums I'm a member of, TW is essentially a free speech zone. A few blowups here and there are gonna be an inevitable byproduct of that. Just how the world works. I don't condone bickering and unnecessary back and forths, but it's a small price to pay compared to being on a forum that's run by stormtroopers.

 

[TH2002]

I think the funniest drama i’ve seen so far on this forum was the Matador, TX tornado thread. Hoo boy that thread was a hot mess!

That thread was as much of a hot mess as a video you can find on the internet of a man eating Taco Bell, taking laxatives and super gluing his butthole shut. If you watch that video then read the Matador thread, they're essentially the same thing.

 

[AJS]

I mean... compared to other forums I'm a member of, TW is essentially a free speech zone. A few blowups here and there are gonna be an inevitable byproduct of that. Just how the world works. I don't condone bickering and unnecessary back and forths, but it's a small price to pay compared to being on a forum that's run by stormtroopers.

I completely get that and I myself get into bickering and back and forth sometimes.

That thread was as much of a hot mess as a video you can find on the internet of a man eating Taco Bell, taking laxatives and super gluing his butthole shut. If you watch that video then read the Matador thread, they're essentially the same thing.

Best comment i’ve seen all day.