• 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

Grand Poo Bah said:
@joshoctober16 can we get a list of F5 rated DIs pre 2007? It'd be extremely interesting to see how the distribution would look across the 28 EF scale DIs. To @slenker 's point, it'd be good to have an additional column for overall contextual F5 DIs as well (just call it "misc."). Contextual indicators used to be far more commonly given ratings.
Click to expand...
and what do you mean by pre 2007 di? i dont think theres a true di list for the old F scale , only this thing here.
1743788763834.png
i dont think there is a way to convert F scale rating to EF rating... however like i stated a few post ago you can do the other way around.

and it would be
110 mph EF1 to EF2
136-137 EF3 to EF2
166-167 EF4 to EF3
200 EF4 to EF5

all of EF0 is the same, and the starting point of EF1 is the same.
 
joshoctober16 said:
note this is only for offical DI , contextual isnt counted for this study.
Click to expand...
I know. It'd be good to add a column for contextuals. Even without it, it shows that the expected wind speeds for many EF scale DIs are far too low. It's just wild to me homes are the only official DI to achieve an EF5 rating when so many structures are stronger than homes. I have a strong suspicion this is purely an EF scale issue, and the F scale had plenty of commercial structures rated F4 and F5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
joshoctober16 said:
and what do you mean by pre 2007 di? i dont think theres a true di list for the old F scale , only this thing here.
View attachment 39039
i dont think there is a way to convert F scale rating to EF rating... however like i stated a few post ago you can do the other way around.

and it would be
110 mph EF1 to EF2
136-137 EF3 to EF2
166-167 EF4 to EF3
200 EF4 to EF5

all of EF0 is the same, and the starting point of EF1 is the same.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about finding all the F5 DIs and distributing them amongst the 28 EF scale DIs, with a seperate column for contextual F5 indicators (that don't fall within the 28 EF scale DIs).
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
joshoctober16 said:
like this?
Click to expand...
No. I'm talking about going through all the F5 indicators of pre-2007 F5 tornadoes, distributing them into the 28 EF scale DIs (plus a misc. column), and then charting them. It'd be this same chart, but for the F scale era. I can do it, but not sure i'll have time today.

1743792596967.png1743792616024.png

Edit: Turns out there's no damage assessment toolkit records for F scale era tornadoes so this will be much harder than I thought....
 
Last edited:
Grand Poo Bah said:
I charted some data and the results are extremely telling.

Here's total tornadoes per year since 1980

View attachment 38966

Here's (E)FU-(E)F1 Rated Tornadoes

View attachment 39055

Here's (E)F2-(E)F3

View attachment 38968

And Here's (E)F4-(E)F5

View attachment 38969

Here's all four overlayed with each other.

View attachment 39056

Compare 2011 to 2024. Close to the same amount of tornadoes, but an enormous lack of EF4/EF5s. 2004 was the last time there was a discrepancy this large and 500 of those tornadoes were from two hurricane outbreaks, and one November outbreak. We're trending even below that today. You can even see the exact moment the rating system changed in 2013.

Are we just supposed to accept this climatology? This data suggests tornadoes have become far less violent over the last 40 years.

Edit: Somehow didn't include (E)F0 ratings in the original charts so i've updated with corrected information.
Click to expand...

Important note: I somehow I excluded (E)F0 tornadoes from the charts i posted last night. I went back and edited my original post with the corrected data.
 
Last edited:
joshoctober16 said:
View attachment 39047
View attachment 39048
like this?
Click to expand...
Man the DI-17 is such an amazing addition; particularly "Incredible phenomena can occur".
Such a description can allow for use of damage analogs and inference with ratings. Such as Camp Cook throwing a tractor across a border, Jarrell in general, Piedmont debarking an entire zone of shrubland, Pearsall tearing up 1-inch of asphalt on a runway(yes this one's more debatable, I see that), Bakersfield Valley throwing multiple anhydrogenous ammonia tanks, Hackleburg transporting a picture 212 miles from town, Alonsa's haybale throwing; there is just so many incredible instances of damage that you KNOW had to have been done by an immense force, but it's so unusual that it does not fit well into the scale. Im sure there's examples Im forgetting as well.

That stuff will never not fascinate me
 
NewFoundWeatherNerd said:
Man the DI-17 is such an amazing addition; particularly "Incredible phenomena can occur".
Such a description can allow for use of damage analogs and inference with ratings. Such as Camp Cook throwing a tractor across a border, Jarrell in general, Piedmont debarking an entire zone of shrubland, Pearsall tearing up 1-inch of asphalt on a runway(yes this one's more debatable, I see that), Bakersfield Valley throwing multiple anhydrogenous ammonia tanks, Hackleburg transporting a picture 212 miles from town, Alonsa's haybale throwing; there is just so many incredible instances of damage that you KNOW had to have been done by an immense force, but it's so unusual that it does not fit well into the scale. Im sure there's examples Im forgetting as well.

That stuff will never not fascinate me
Click to expand...
I somehow had NEVER heard of that Alonsa tornado before. Impressive! https://stormchaserkyle.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-2018-alonsa-manitoba-tornado.html?m=1
 
Did I see, earlier in this thread, Tim Marshall “roasting” the construction quality of the damage of the Franklin Arkansas EF4 from March 14th?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
Here's the best I could do using information from this page. It's not perfect by any stretch, but it does help paint the difference in ratings practices between both scale eras. Organizing tons of different data like this isn't my strong suit, so please let me know if there's any errors.

I added 1 number to each DI every time it was mentioned. So if several homes, businesses, factories, etc. were destroyed in one tornado it still only received one mark for each. The most important factor to note is that only 39 of the 55 F5 tornadoes were rated based on houses. Contextuals like ground/pavement scouring, debarking, and airborne missiles were used heavily. A few tornadoes received their rating based purely on missiles and scouring. A few received their rating from commercial buildings, factories, and farms.


1743797499179.jpeg

Here's the raw data:

1743797658444.png
 
Last edited:
Grand Poo Bah said:
Here's the best I could do using information from this page. It's not perfect by any stretch, but it does help paint the difference in ratings practices between both scale eras. Organizing tons of different data like this isn't my strong suit, so please let me know if there's any errors.

I added 1 number to each DI every time it was mentioned. So if several homes, businesses, factories, etc. were destroyed in one tornado it still only received one mark for each. The most important factor to note is that only 39 of the 55 F5 tornadoes were rated based on houses. Contextuals like ground/pavement scouring, debarking, and airborne missiles were used heavily. A few tornadoes received their rating based purely on missiles and scouring. A few received their rating from commercial buildings, factories, and farms.


View attachment 39094

Here's the raw data:

View attachment 39097
Click to expand...
hey pretty good, however the (Farms) destroyed seems a bit iffy to be its own di.

im just going to say anything with a 20-25% + precentage are the common di, and anything under 10 would be too rare.

only common one is one- or two-family resisdance and the typical resistance is at 200 mph.

debarking is being removed for the next EF scale. (my theory base on the IF scale they removed it because it would need a 230 mph rating for almost all 60+ % debark trees and it would be jam pack of EF5 rated base on a single tree only situation)

vehicle thrown is being added to the next EF scale however its the only DI i find to be poorly made that ive seen.
1743962828109.png
here is the vehicle di compared to the well made small general buildings di.

why do we need 3 different 110 mph damage, where are the weaker and stronger resistance, where is the EF4 vehicle DOD, are the major problems.

still no ground scouring for the next EF scale.

with all this said it shows there is no 20+ % typical resistance Di for EF5, compared to EF0-EF4 that do.
 
joshoctober16 said:
hey pretty good, however the (Farms) destroyed seems a bit iffy to be its own di.

im just going to say anything with a 20-25% + precentage are the common di, and anything under 10 would be too rare.

only common one is one- or two-family resisdance and the typical resistance is at 200 mph.

debarking is being removed for the next EF scale. (my theory base on the IF scale they removed it because it would need a 230 mph rating for almost all 60+ % debark trees and it would be jam pack of EF5 rated base on a single tree only situation)

vehicle thrown is being added to the next EF scale however its the only DI i find to be poorly made that ive seen.
View attachment 39368
here is the vehicle di compared to the well made small general buildings di.

why do we need 3 different 110 mph damage, where are the weaker and stronger resistance, where is the EF4 vehicle DOD, are the major problems.

still no ground scouring for the next EF scale.

with all this said it shows there is no 20+ % typical resistance Di for EF5, compared to EF0-EF4 that do.
Click to expand...
I definitely think train cars and farm equipment would be a great one for rural areas. It's weird vehicles being tossed doesn't have a lower bound and upper bound, based on weight. A Chevy 2500 getting thrown is certainly more impressive than a Toyota Corolla. Pavement and ground scouring is certainly rare enough to be an indicator of an upper echelon tornado.

I think debarking is more the result of debris loading than anything. Shards of glass, masonry, etc. will certainly do that. That doesn't mean it should be eliminated entirely. Matador was especially impressive because the mesquite trees that were debarked were in empty fields. They were basically sand blasted clean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
Grand Poo Bah said:
I definitely think train cars and farm equipment would be a great one for rural areas. It's weird vehicles being tossed doesn't have a lower bound and upper bound, based on weight. A Chevy 2500 getting thrown is certainly more impressive than a Toyota Corolla. Pavement and ground scouring is certainly rare enough to be an indicator of an upper echelon tornado.

I think debarking is more the result of debris loading than anything. Shards of glass, masonry, etc. will certainly do that. That doesn't mean it should be eliminated entirely. Matador was especially impressive because the mesquite trees that were debarked were in empty fields. They were basically sand blasted clean.
Click to expand...
base on what i herd , train cars might only be rated EF3 , at least for the Tuscaloosa tornado throwing distance situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top