• 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

slenker said:
Selmer was weird because I feel like the contextual damage was very impressive but I didn’t see much on the home damage front as far as violent damage candidates go. But it looked like there was some scouring and maybe even a bit of granulation with it.

I haven’t seen the imagery of any slabbed homes in Selmer - would like to see that.
Click to expand...
I do not currently have those pictures on me; but here's a few screenshots of the damage. Very obvious that it was not a weak tornado by any means.
 

Attachments

  • 1744218875591.png
    1744218875591.png
    5 MB · Views: 0
  • 1744219085520.png
    1744219085520.png
    4.4 MB · Views: 0
  • 1744219181840.png
    1744219181840.png
    2.4 MB · Views: 0
  • 1744219229362.png
    1744219229362.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 0
NewFoundWeatherNerd said:
Just dont go on Twitter for the next three days lol. But on a more interesting note; a friend of mine noticed they removed the "+" tag from a lot of these EF3s, specifically the aforementioned ones (so just "EF3" without official word).

Selmer did slab/sweep at least three homes; im unsure of their construction quality or anchoring situation. I can only guess. But the degree of wind rowing from that damage is noticeable.
Click to expand...
That’s just Wikipedia editors doing their thing. MEG hasn’t given an update on the EF3 rated tornadoes yet.
 
Apparently the Rochelle tornado should be downgraded to EF3 in many spot’s. Likely no longer 200mph at all. According to the scale, no, some guy who likes doing these damage analysis’s which 90% of the time is just him explaining why we shouldn’t have any EF4’s anymore.
A bruh moment for the debate thread.

Apparently several of the 200mph homes wouldn't even be eligible for an EF4 rating.

He downgrades them for contextual discrepancies but then fails to notice the scoured lawn grass which essentially requires winds to be above 200mph. Given how rare of a feat that is. That stuff is incredibly resistant to tornadic winds.
 
Last edited:
tornado examiner said:
I wonder what nick Kraz would say on vilonia. Probably the same nonsense he’s said everywhere else. “The only 190mph home should be downgraded because contextual discrepancies conclusion 170mph EF4.” Ugh I really dislike nitpicky people.
Click to expand...
He's not ALL conservative. He has stated he believes Vilonia was an EF5, actually upgraded Goldsby to 240 EF5 in his analysis of that tornado, and made a post that basically states that Rolling Fork would be rated EF5 on the new EF scale (at the Dollar General).

That said his Chickasha and Rochelle surveys can go kick rocks. No, that house with the moved sidewalk was NOT EF3 in ANY way shape or form.
 
Lake Martin EF4 said:
He's not ALL conservative. He has stated he believes Vilonia was an EF5, actually upgraded Goldsby to 240 EF5 in his analysis of that tornado, and made a post that basically states that Rolling Fork would be rated EF5 on the new EF scale (at the Dollar General).

That said his Chickasha and Rochelle surveys can go kick rocks. No, that house with the moved sidewalk was NOT EF3 in ANY way shape or form.
Click to expand...
Oh….right….
 
tornado examiner said:
I wonder what nick Kraz would say on vilonia. Probably the same nonsense he’s said everywhere else. “The only 190mph home should be downgraded because contextual discrepancies conclusion 170mph EF4.” Ugh I really dislike nitpicky people.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, the only reason why the Harper, KS tornado was rated F4 was because it was very slow-moving, and there were people who wanted to rate Jarrell as low as F3 for the same reason. There always seems to be a subset of people who want to avoid giving tornadoes upper end ratings for any reason.
 
tornado examiner said:
I wonder what nick Kraz would say on vilonia. Probably the same nonsense he’s said everywhere else. “The only 190mph home should be downgraded because contextual discrepancies conclusion 170mph EF4.” Ugh I really dislike nitpicky people.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to dismiss Nick Kraz or sound harsh, but isn’t he still in high school? I wouldn’t put much stock into what he says or his analysis lol his knowledge is impressive for his age, but I wouldn’t get your hackles up since he’s extremely far from being an authority on this stuff
 
tornado examiner said:
Apparently the Rochelle tornado should be downgraded to EF3 in many spot’s. Likely no longer 200mph at all. According to the scale, no, some guy who likes doing these damage analysis’s which 90% of the time is just him explaining why we shouldn’t have any EF4’s anymore.
A bruh moment for the debate thread.

Apparently several of the 200mph homes wouldn't even be eligible for an EF4 rating.

He downgrades them for contextual discrepancies but then fails to notice the scoured lawn grass which essentially requires winds to be above 200mph. Given how rare of a feat that is. That stuff is incredibly resistant to tornadic winds.
Click to expand...
I saw the tweet you were referencing and also say I disagree with what is being argued. He may well be technically correct in the application of the scale, but I think the realistic application is likely incorrect. The home is slabbed, and had anchor bolts - you can start with a baseline EXP/200mph. In this case, if there were deficiencies in the anchoring with a "few missing nuts and washers", and context was high end.

This, at least in my opinion, just doesn't justify a complete movement all the way to LB/165mph, as suggested. Per this logic you should basically see only 165mph, 200mph, or 220mph ratings for slabbed homes, which is neither realistic nor makes sense. A completely unanchored, terribly built home is obviously at the bottom of LB, but this home was obviously not all the way to LB, especially considering some of the nearby context. Moving below/above EXP windspeeds should, in an ideal application of the scale, be done incrementally to reflect how far off construction standards the structure is. While probably technically incorrect, the most accurate application of the scale to true intensity probably goes further and any slabbed home supported by clearly violent contextuals should get baseline EF4.

Besides, Rochelle was clearly an EF4+ tornado. Or at least those are my thoughts anyway. Would be interesting to hear more about this from the Nick K guy though, as he evidently has detailed knowledge about the scale.
 
Last edited:
UK_EF4 said:
I saw the tweet you were referencing and also say I disagree with what is being argued. He may well be technically correct in the application of the scale, but I think the realistic application is likely incorrect. The home is slabbed, and had anchor bolts - you can start with a baseline EXP/200mph. In this case, if there were deficiencies in the anchoring with a "few missing nuts and washers", and context was high end.

This, at least in my opinion, just doesn't justify a complete movement all the way to LB/165mph, as suggested. Per this logic you should basically see only 165mph, 200mph, or 220mph ratings for slabbed homes, which is neither realistic nor makes sense. A completely unanchored, terribly built home is obviously at the bottom of LB, but this home was obviously not all the way to LB, especially considering some of the nearby context. Moving above EXP windspeeds should, in an ideal application of the scale, be done incrementally to reflect how far off construction standards the structure is. While probably technically incorrect, the most accurate application of the scale to true intensity probably goes further and any slabbed home supported by clearly violent contextuals should get baseline EF4.

Besides, Rochelle was clearly an EF4+ tornado. Or at least those are my thoughts anyway. Would be interesting to hear more about this from the Nick K guy though, as he evidently has detailed knowledge about the scale.
Click to expand...
My main issue with his tweet is that he claims that Rochelle didn't have "impressive contextual damage", which is just flat out not true. The homes there were swept away had their debris wind-rowed and granulated along the tornado's track and there was ground scouring evident on the properties as well. In addition, I'm pretty sure there was one home that had a concrete sidewalk dislodged and moved by the tornado, which is an indication of extreme force.
 
tornado examiner said:
Apparently the Rochelle tornado should be downgraded to EF3 in many spot’s. Likely no longer 200mph at all. According to the scale, no, some guy who likes doing these damage analysis’s which 90% of the time is just him explaining why we shouldn’t have any EF4’s anymore.
A bruh moment for the debate thread.

Apparently several of the 200mph homes wouldn't even be eligible for an EF4 rating.

He downgrades them for contextual discrepancies but then fails to notice the scoured lawn grass which essentially requires winds to be above 200mph. Given how rare of a feat that is. That stuff is incredibly resistant to tornadic winds.
Click to expand...
wait who are you talking about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
ColdFront said:
I don’t mean to dismiss Nick Kraz or sound harsh
Click to expand...
I can…

Honestly, I don’t even know why people on this forum are seriously discussing anything that comes from him. Pretty sure I’m not the only one here who could tell you he is full of it based on his twitter posts and Wikipedia edits.
 
tornado examiner said:
Apparently the Rochelle tornado should be downgraded to EF3 in many spot’s. Likely no longer 200mph at all. According to the scale, no, some guy who likes doing these damage analysis’s which 90% of the time is just him explaining why we shouldn’t have any EF4’s anymore.
A bruh moment for the debate thread.

Apparently several of the 200mph homes wouldn't even be eligible for an EF4 rating.

He downgrades them for contextual discrepancies but then fails to notice the scoured lawn grass which essentially requires winds to be above 200mph. Given how rare of a feat that is. That stuff is incredibly resistant to tornadic winds.
Click to expand...
The other problem is non DI'S should be considered especially when something is thrown a long ways or torn to shreds and becomes like an automobile sized projectile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top