Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[NewFoundWeatherNerd]

I think the reason he gets so much flak is because a lot of people view him as the main figurehead for damage surveys, kind of like Ted Fujita was during his time (but to a lesser extent), and the steward of the EF scale.

This is subjective opinion, but based on what I've seen I believe he actively sought that status/reputation, and it wasn't accidentally bestowed upon him. As the kids say, he wants all the clout but none of the smoke. All that being said, I'm definitely leaning way more towards @NewFoundWeatherNerd's points about a lack of passion being the biggest issue in fixing the situation we're in. We desperately need a new steward of damage surveying. My vote would be for Josh Wurman, but who knows if he'd even want the title. Maybe someone entirely new is needed!

On a semi-unrelated note -- this excerpt from a comment by Randy Zisper on Stormtrack (1970s tornado scientist and co-creator of the original Stormtrack Newsletter) almost makes it seem like there's always been a rivalry between Fujita's camp and the "engineer"/Texas Tech camp, and I think that rivalry has lasted into today.

View attachment 40807

Good friend of mine, Jaxon; is working on a radar truck, hes trying to follow Josh's footsteps! But I honestly believe that Ethan Moriarty might be the inspiration of this generation to get back into going outside the box, and trying to give tornadoes real justice. He's honest, level headed, and doesn't fall to "hype" and "weenism" with rating tornadoes. We need to be engineers and creative; thats what this takes.

When youre just doing a job, you dont innovate: but when youre doing your passion, you cant help but innovate. Right now rating is a job over a fascination

 

[Aaron Rider]

That's a tough call, because that outbreak is very poorly documented for an EF scale event. I'd imagine it's thanks in no small part to websites and images disappearing over the course of nearly 15 years, but anyways...

I'm going to place my bets on Parkers Prairie/Almora/Bluffton as having been the strongest. Left wind rowing and scouring visible on satellite imagery (the scouring was even still visible a few years later). Unfortunately, ground level photos are extremely difficult to come across.

I'd put Wadena at #2. Between the debarking, scouring, granulation and throwing/mangling of vehicles, the contextual damage was impressive. Have not seen any EF5 level structural damage from that one though. Easily the most well documented tornado from that event, which makes sense considering it hit a town directly while the others remained in rural areas.

Albert Lea scoured crops to bare soil, probably its most impressive feat. Also threw and mangled vehicles and caused debarking of trees, but not quite on the same level as Wadena. The homes it swept away were also not well constructed, so I think EF4 was the right call.

Regarding Holmes, I do agree with EF4. The home it swept away was well constructed, but the contextual damage was lacking.

As for your previous question about Barnesville, I highly doubt any footage of it exists. It's not impossible, but highly unlikely considering it happened after midnight and impacted rural areas. I'd place my bets that you're misremembering what news report you saw the footage in (even if you're 100% certain it was a Barnesville report, I doubt the footage would have been of the Barnesville tornado itself).

How confident are you that Almora may have been EF5?

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

Ethan Moriarty might be the inspiration of this generation to get back into going outside the box, and trying to give tornadoes real justice.

Hmmmmmmm

This is the same person who made a video defending Vilonia's EF4 rating, with his stance basically being 'well, if it had hit a hospital or some other large institutional building it may have been an EF5, but the worst damage surveyed was EF4, case closed.' Enough said...

His problem like so many others is that his stance on tornado damage is based purely on engineering, and also his belief that you must "stay within the confines of the scale" in the name of consistency. Okay, then how did NWS Jackson taking context heavily into account during the Rolling Fork survey end up working out so well? Why did NWS Huntsville give vehicles DI's in the Hackleburg and Rainsville tornado surveys? Why are some past F5 tornadoes rated solely based on vehicle damage? And most of all, if staying within the confines of the scale is really working, then why are tornado ratings so damn inconsistent between WFO and WFO?

What I'm saying is I see a bit too much ASCE in him if TH2002's post is anything to go by. I'll have to check.

 

[slenker]

I tend to trust Moriarty to a high degree. He’s an actual engineer. I don’t agree with his Vilonia and Rochelle takes but he was on the side of the Western Kentucky tornado receiving an EF5 rating because of the CMU home in Bremen with the 190 MPH rating. I’m pretty sure he even described the potential flaws of the home but still was willing to give it a maxed rating within the video. Pretty sure he also believed that Greenfield last year may have deserved an EF5 rating given the thrown parking stops coinciding with the 318 MPH DOW readings. Even with cracked and weakened parking stops, the windspeed he computed in the video still exceeded 200 MPH IIRC. If we’re going strictly off the confines of the EF scale I disagree with this take, but I wouldn’t have been mad if an exception was made for this tornado either, seeing as 2011 El Reno and 2011 Philadelphia were given this treatment. I really appreciate the math he’s doing in his videos, clears up a lot of confusion for why certain DI’s are given the ratings they are.

 

[AJS]

I tend to trust Moriarty to a high degree. He’s an actual engineer. I don’t agree with his Vilonia and Rochelle takes but he was on the side of the Western Kentucky tornado receiving an EF5 rating because of the CMU home in Bremen with the 190 MPH rating. I’m pretty sure he even described the potential flaws of the home but still was willing to give it a maxed rating within the video. Pretty sure he also believed that Greenfield last year may have deserved an EF5 rating given the thrown parking stops coinciding with the 318 MPH DOW readings. Even with cracked and weakened parking stops, the windspeed he computed in the video still exceeded 200 MPH IIRC. If we’re going strictly off the confines of the EF scale I disagree with this take, but I wouldn’t have been mad if an exception was made for this tornado either, seeing as 2011 El Reno and 2011 Philadelphia were given this treatment. I really appreciate the math he’s doing in his videos, clears up a lot of confusion for why certain DI’s are given the ratings they are.

What I don’t understand is how he believes the 190 DI in Bremen was an EF5 worthy indicator over the numerous homes in Vilonia that were EF5 candidates.

 

[NewFoundWeatherNerd]

Hmmmmmmm

What I'm saying is I see a bit too much ASCE in him if TH2002's post is anything to go by. I'll have to check.

Hes gotten better over time; heck he helped me out with Lake City. His opinions aside, he's still acting as that inspiration for people; Tim Marshall inspires me, but for the more social media savvy type, Ethan's the one doing it.
We need someone to demonstrate the science, and lead people into being interested in it.
Yea we know Vilonia shouldve been EF5; being hyper conservative in the attempt to not stir up controversy is something I see with him. Even stating to not use the Lake City ram as evidence for an EF4 rating, despite that being proven as a known rating method...

I think really, hes afraid. I dont blame someone for that; going against the NWS so openly can squander future career possibilities out of bias. But we need a little confidence, I hope someday I can bring it.

 

[slenker]

What I don’t understand is how he believes the 190 DI in Bremen was an EF5 worthy indicator over the numerous homes in Vilonia that were EF5 candidates.

IIRC, I believe it's because there was substantial evidence to suggest that the home was so well-built above the foundation that it was picked up in a single piece and disintegrated after-the-fact, despite the flaws with the foundation itself. I have heard others on this forum discuss this as a condition that should be against a higher-end rating rather than in support of one, so I'm not sure which side is more correct. It's probably dependent on a litany of factors. However, I'm sure his reasoning is valid on this home from an expert standpoint, seeing as he 1) conducted windspeed calculations within the video, and 2) knows what he is doing because he's an engineer himself.

It's also worth mentioning that I haven't watched his video on Vilonia entirely, so I don't know all of the other points he made on why he thinks that way about that tornado specifically.

 

[AJS]

IIRC, I believe it's because there was substantial evidence to suggest that the home was so well-built above the foundation that it was picked up in a single piece and disintegrated after-the-fact, despite the flaws with the foundation itself. I have heard others on this forum discuss this as a condition that should be against a higher-end rating rather than in support of one, so I'm not sure which side is more correct. It's probably dependent on a litany of factors. However, I'm sure his reasoning is valid on this home from an expert standpoint, seeing as he 1) conducted windspeed calculations within the video, and 2) knows what he is doing because he's an engineer himself.

It's also worth mentioning that I haven't watched his video on Vilonia entirely, so I don't know all of the other points he made on why he thinks that way about that tornado specifically.

Ah I see. I will admit, the damage to the house was pretty impressive when I look back and the contextual damage was extreme in this area too.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

There's a question I've had in my head for a while now. If we had to trust one person to create a new system for determining tornado windspeeds, who would be most qualified, an engineer or a physicist?

It's funny, Ted Fujita Fujita enrolled as a mechanical engineering major at Meiji College, part of Kyushu Institute of Technology. However, after graduating he was hired at the institute as a physics teacher and lab instructor. So he had qualifications in both fields, which is why he was tasked with studying the atomic blast sites after WWII. His physics knowledge is probably also what aided him in the revolutionary discovery of downbursts and micro bursts. As a result of Fujita’s recommendations, Doppler radar equipment to detect downbursts became standard at airports and has since saved countless passenger lives.

The obvious answer is a collaboration of both disciplines would be best. I'd bet they have always butted heads, though, just by their nature. Physicists vs. Engineers. A tale as old as time. We definitely need physicists to uncover the causes of severe low pressure gradients in tornadoes, the causes of violent sub vortices, the forces that cement tornadoes to the ground, true wind speeds, etc. Young open minded engineers (like Ethan Moriarty) is who we need to aid in that process of discovery, because structural damage will always be one of the most important variables.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

I tend to trust Moriarty to a high degree. He’s an actual engineer. I don’t agree with his Vilonia and Rochelle takes but he was on the side of the Western Kentucky tornado receiving an EF5 rating because of the CMU home in Bremen with the 190 MPH rating. I’m pretty sure he even described the potential flaws of the home but still was willing to give it a maxed rating within the video. Pretty sure he also believed that Greenfield last year may have deserved an EF5 rating given the thrown parking stops coinciding with the 318 MPH DOW readings. Even with cracked and weakened parking stops, the windspeed he computed in the video still exceeded 200 MPH IIRC. If we’re going strictly off the confines of the EF scale I disagree with this take, but I wouldn’t have been mad if an exception was made for this tornado either, seeing as 2011 El Reno and 2011 Philadelphia were given this treatment. I really appreciate the math he’s doing in his videos, clears up a lot of confusion for why certain DI’s are given the ratings they are.

I'm the most liberal Fujita stan there is and even I like him. The way he approaches uncovering tornado wind speeds with math is refreshing. He has really good videos on Parkersburg, Rochelle-Fairdale, and Rolling Fork as well.

I've also got confirmation those parking stops will be covered in the DOW team's full Greenfield report releasing later this year.

Edit:
I also get the vibe his defense of surveyors is more about trying to avoid making any enemies by giving them the benefit of the doubt. He mentioned in some of his earliest vids that his dream was to be a damage surveyor someday, so to me, that justifies his avoidance of criticizing them outright.

 

[Aaron Rider]

Hmmmmmmm

What I'm saying is I see a bit too much ASCE in him if TH2002's post is anything to go by. I'll have to check.

I think it's also clear that the problem with Vilonia is not engineering, the problem with Vilonia is raw (perhaps even deliberate) incompetence to a malfeasant degree.

That said, engineers in this context have shown a serious problem missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

the calculation is at 641 mph

Holy $hit... Not saying I don't believe you, but that's unbelievable! Do you have a copy of your calculations or notes so the other engineers in this thread can "peer review" it? lol

The thing that gets me is the tornadoes with the highest wind speed scans (Bridge Creek, Greenfield, El Reno) aren't even at the top of the list for worst damage ever observed. Hell, several scans between 200-250 mph were associated with (E)F2 tornadoes. One of those scans was associated with a TIV intercept on the ground (@TH2002 posted it in here a while back). Does anyone know where in the damage path the Bridge Creek-Moore winds were observed? Was it near the most intense damage in Bridge Creek?



Pictures like this absolutely make me believe Piedmont could've had 500 mph winds. I can't wrap my mind around how that's even physically possible though. I suppose if the pressure is low enough it could be explained, as there'd be less resistance/friction. Kind of like the speeds airplanes reach at cruising altitude.

 

[A Guy]

The sum up: NWS Little Rock ex-lead surveyor John Robinson was a person who worked on the EF Scale as it was being designed. He is notable because he held the opinion that homes should never be rated EF5, which is at least partially the reason why the EXP for homes on the EF scale is EF4.

It wasn't Robinson, though he obviously agreed with those that did make the decision, leaving the cryptic comment that 'some people on the committee' felt houses shouldn't be able to get what became EF5. Those involved are public knowledge:





I'll leave everyone here to guess who they think hold those views. There are actually tables in Appendix B of each of the experts' nominated windspeeds, I have a suspicion they are not in the same order as the list here.

 

[joshoctober16]

Holy $hit... Not saying I don't believe you, but that's unbelievable! Do you have a copy of your calculations or notes so the other engineers in this thread can "peer review" it? lol

The thing that gets me is the tornadoes with the highest wind speed scans (Bridge Creek, Greenfield, El Reno) aren't even at the top of the list for worst damage ever observed. Hell, several scans between 200-250 mph were associated with (E)F2 tornadoes. One of those scans was associated with a TIV intercept on the ground (@TH2002 posted it in here a while back). Does anyone know where in the damage path the Bridge Creek-Moore winds were observed? Was it near the most intense damage in Bridge Creek?

View attachment 40847

Pictures like this absolutely make me believe Piedmont could've had 500 mph winds. I can't wrap my mind around how that's even physically possible though. I suppose if the pressure is low enough it could be explained, as there'd be less resistance/friction. Kind of like the speeds airplanes reach at cruising altitude.

you can simply go in a program like blender and slowly calculate stuff like this.


like i said i slightly messed up as its not centered right , so its making the wind speeds a tiny bit too low.
then again we were talking about the highest possible wind speed. i think this black outline has a major flaw that you can see
and its that the starting point isn't 0 mph....

if you were trying to keep it at the center of the dots but also have it at the 0 mph start it could be more like this?
then again the Andover 2022 EF3 has a 150 mph rating , if you were to convert it to the black outline it would almost perfectly match up with the 264 mph winds from it.


and also then again the 151 mph 3 second gust (yes looking at the mesonet data shows it takes 3 second gust , perfectly what the EF scale uses and under the 10 meters level as well) was found at a EF0 damage area....

 

[ColdFront]

Anyone have any information on this? This is in reference to the Henryville EF4 from 3/2/2012. I imagine the backhoe may have been close to the home on the property and exacerbated the damage if it was blown into it, but the missing truck is interesting.

Edit: actually found where they discuss it in the NWS Louisville video here at 11 minutes. Actually more impressive than what I originally stated up there.

The backhoe and truck were in a garage around 25 feet from the home. The truck was never found, and the backhoe was placed into the home’s basement.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

you can simply go in a program like blender and slowly calculate stuff like this.
View attachment 40867
View attachment 40868
like i said i slightly messed up as its not centered right , so its making the wind speeds a tiny bit too low.
then again we were talking about the highest possible wind speed. i think this black outline has a major flaw that you can see
and its that the starting point isn't 0 mph....
View attachment 40869
if you were trying to keep it at the center of the dots but also have it at the 0 mph start it could be more like this?
then again the Andover 2022 EF3 has a 150 mph rating , if you were to convert it to the black outline it would almost perfectly match up with the 264 mph winds from it.
View attachment 40870

and also then again the 151 mph 3 second gust (yes looking at the mesonet data shows it takes 3 second gust , perfectly what the EF scale uses and under the 10 meters level as well) was found at a EF0 damage area....
View attachment 40871

I think I'm following. You're basically plotting the ratings along the NWS trendline, which you extended out further so it actually crosses the EF5 threshold. That'd basically imply the average EF5 rated tornado had actual wind speeds of 170 m s (380 mph). I'm not sure why you plotted Piedmont so far out there because it was only rated 210 mph. Which would translate to 400 MPH.

The red line you created starting at zero is probably unnecessary. No tornado has ever (or will ever) be rated 0 mph. The NWS trendline would start around the lowest rating they gave in that time period.

Edit:
I realize now you plotted piedmont where it was because of a 300 MPH indicator, which makes sense, but also if the NWS was consistently using indicators like that (which they should be) the trendline would probably look way different. I think the only way to accurately stay near the trendline is to use official ratings. Now, if we found the standard deviation and used that to come up with a range of possible windspeeds, I bet the results would be very interesting.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

@joshoctober16 Here's a better version of your expanded graph I whipped up. Hope it helps!



Not sure if this will work, but here's a transparent PNG version for you to use in Blender or whatever.




I also created this Photogrammetry grid for anyone who wants to take a crack at that. Just throw it over the top of a tornado video.




Edit: links were wonky so removed them

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

View attachment 40878

Anyone have any information on this? This is in reference to the Henryville EF4 from 3/2/2012. I imagine the backhoe may have been close to the home on the property and exacerbated the damage if it was blown into it, but the missing truck is interesting.

Edit: actually found where they discuss it in the NWS Louisville video here at 11 minutes. Actually more impressive than what I originally stated up there.

The backhoe and truck were in a garage around 25 feet from the home. The truck was never found, and the backhoe was placed into the home’s basement.

That's nuts! Has any other tornado ever thrown asphalt this thick before either?

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

Ironically, @joshoctober16 I do agree that Piedmont broke 400 mph at peak intensity. Cactus 117 and the scene surrounding it is the most impressive tornado damage of all time IMO.

 

[AJS]

That's nuts! Has any other tornado ever thrown asphalt this thick before either?

View attachment 40913View attachment 40914View attachment 40912

I need to do some digging, but I once had access to a bunch of damage pics inside Henryville itself and some of the damage was actually quite a bit more impressive than people may think it was.