• 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

Lake Martin EF4 said:
Regarding Plevna, although I personally consider it an EF4 the EF3 rating is understandable considering the limitations of the scale. Wish you didn't need EF4 structural damage to get EF4 contextuals rated EF4, but whatever. Wichita didn't screw up, at least not as badly as Goodland did.

For examples of other justifiably rated tornadoes that I believe were higher, see Bassfield and Monette. For an example where there WAS violent (even EF5!) damage to compliment the (off-the-wall, #4 of all time) contextuals, yet the tornado was still lowballed anyway, see Matador.

Also, here's my "bad NWS offices" list:

NWS Memphis
NWS Nashville (Cookeville was the exception and it actually was considered for high end EF3 by at least some surveyors)
NWS Springfield
NWS Fort Worth
NWS Goodland (Grinnell proved it)
NWS Topeka (maybe, but Chapman was not a good survey or rating call)
NWS Lubbock (literally every rating from this office should just be disregarded due to the Texas Tech contamination)

Any more I'm missing?
Click to expand...
NWS Wichita. They rated a completely destroyed home as being 62 mph damage earlier today. The issue wasn’t the bad rating, it was the incredibly lowballed wind speeds with zero explanation.
 
Last edited:
If Grinnell is rated EF2, it’s going on my list of the worst tornado damage surveys of not just this year, but of all time. No way on gods green earth can an EF2 cause that amount of damage.

This is eerily similar to the Delmont, SD tornado. An EF2 rated tornado that caused HE EF3 to mid range EF4 damage.

Below are some images of the damage in Delmont. Like I said, eerily similar
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9546.jpeg
    IMG_9546.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 0
  • IMG_9547.jpeg
    IMG_9547.jpeg
    1 MB · Views: 0
  • IMG_9548.jpeg
    IMG_9548.jpeg
    912.3 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_9549.jpeg
    IMG_9549.jpeg
    933.5 KB · Views: 0
What’s weird is that they give in-depth reasoning for every DI, which makes it seem thought out. But when you look at the actual DI stats, it makes no sense. For example, a grain cart thrown 1,000 yards by the tornado apparently was a “snapped tree” at EF1 intensity.
 
OH-IOan said:
What’s weird is that they give in-depth reasoning for every DI, which makes it seem thought out. But when you look at the actual DI stats, it makes no sense. For example, a grain cart thrown 1,000 yards by the tornado apparently was a “snapped tree” at EF1 intensity.
Click to expand...
What a joke of a survey. That kind of surveying is just not okay.
 
AJS said:
What a joke of a survey. That kind of surveying is just not okay.
Click to expand...
Yea, it’s laughable. I still don’t know how they can clearly lowball a rating and just not fix it. Do they have a grudge against EF4 tornadoes?

If Plevna, Kansas was in Dodge City’s WFO bounds, I think it would’ve been rated EF4. Same with Grinnell.
 
OH-IOan said:
Yea, it’s laughable. I still don’t know how they can clearly lowball a rating and just not fix it. Do they have a grudge against EF4 tornadoes?

If Plevna, Kansas was in Dodge City’s WFO bounds, I think it would’ve been rated EF4. Same with Grinnell.
Click to expand...
Plevna most likely won’t be rated EF4 just because of how little it hit.
 
Lake Martin EF4 said:
Let's take a field trip to the tree damage in Arkansas.

View attachment 43013
Click to expand...
My brain always disregards this image. It's automatic.

Subconsciously, I'm just like, "There's gotta be something else going on here!" "This isn't real."

You almost have to remind yourself that it is, in fact, real. The fact it legitimately doesn't seem physically possible, doesn't change its realness. Which begs the question, how TF tornado do that?!
 
Last edited:
The perfectly rated high-end EF4s we've gotten this year made me shrug off a few questionable calls up to this point, but this last outbreak has laid these systemic problems out as plainly as can be.

It might be time to throw in the towel on this one. There is no fixing this system. Idk what the solution is any more. Have tornado ratings ever been in a worse place than they are right now? Genuine question. Because I not only think we're currently in the worst period of ratings ever, I don't think it's even close.

2003-2007 is #2, but it's important to remember, this Texas Tech, Engineering Czar, rudderless group of morons (respectfully) was responsible for that period as well. The EF scale was literally invented to solve the problems THEY created in those years.

Edit:
I have more to say.

Why are EF5 ratings hidden away by things that NEVER happen? Seriously, it's like if hurricanes could ONLY be rated Category 5 if they hit Cuba. Then people defend it by saying "Well 150 mph+ hurricanes very likely still happen, they just haven't hit the right country! It's an unfixable flaw, but it's the best we can do."

It. makes. no. f*cking. sense. Why aren't surveyors just using their eyeballs? You can't just cover your eyes and ignore ground scouring and tree damage this significant. A swath of Grinnell was grinded into powder, but the absence of anchor bolts makes that unquantifiable? This tornado probably had 300 mph+ winds in certain areas, but 140 mph is the highest it can be rated because of "the scale", and surveyors apparent lack of a third grade logic. How did they make it through college?!

While I'm at it, I'm so sick of terrible science constantly being waved off as "the scale's" fault. You're an adult with a PHD! Use your brain!

.....*sighs*.... ok, i'm done. Thanks guys. I needed that.....
 
Last edited:
Grand Poo Bah said:
The perfectly rated high-end EF4s we've gotten this year made me shrug off a few questionable calls up to this point, but this last outbreak has laid these systemic problems out as plainly as can be.

It might be time to throw in the towel on this one. There is no fixing this system. Idk what the solution is any more. Have tornado ratings ever been in a worse place than they are right now? Genuine question. Because I not only think we're currently in the worst period of ratings ever, I don't think it's even close.

2003-2007 is #2, but it's important to remember, this Texas Tech, Engineering Czar, rudderless group of morons (respectfully) was responsible for that period as well. The EF scale was literally invented to solve the problems THEY created in those years.

Edit:
I have more to say.

Why are EF5 ratings hidden away by things that NEVER happen? Seriously, it's like if hurricanes could ONLY be rated Category 5 if they hit Cuba. Then people defend it by saying "Well 150 mph+ hurricanes very likely still happen, they just haven't hit the right country! It's an unfixable flaw, but it's the best we can do."

It. makes. no. f*cking. sense. Why aren't surveyors just using their eyeballs? You can't just cover your eyes and ignore ground scouring and tree damage this significant. A swath of Grinnell was grinded into powder, but the absence of anchor bolts makes that unquantifiable? This tornado probably had 300 mph+ winds in certain areas, but 140 mph is the highest it can be rated because of "the scale", and surveyors apparent lack of a third grade logic. How did they make it through college?!

While I'm at it, I'm so sick of terrible science constantly being waved off as "the scale's" fault. You're an adult with a PHD! Use your brain!

.....*sighs*.... ok, i'm done. Thanks guys. I needed that.....
Click to expand...
There's been a shift in culture to following the letter of the law on the EF scale, much more than the F scale for some reason. I think a bunch of this fiasco could have been/could be averted if there were just more DIs for more common objects. I'm sure there could be a DI for ground scouring, even if there are many different types of dirt, just like there are many different types of houses.

Also whats the tea about Texas Tech? pretty newbie wx enthusiast
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
Ethan Moriarty posts about Rochelle: He doubles down on EF4, and states that 200 mph was an overestimation and the true winds were about 170-180 mph. Looks like Rochelle is rapidly exiting the "universally recognized EF5 candidate" category - which is a shame because it absolutely was an EF5. Oh well.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top