• 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

The crux of the issue is we're rating tornadoes exclusively based on things that never happen or are extremely rare. It's not like these tornadoes are leaving behind huge swaths of damage where we can pull an average of most likely wind speeds from a large pool of data. There's very limited evidence to work with, and, right now, almost all of it is always tossed out. Where is the passion for discovery, investigative spirit, and scienctific mindset? It's nowhere to be found. They're just slapping made up, opinionated numbers on structures and calling it a day. Every tornado is an EF3 or less unless it hits a building with 1 in 100 build quality, and produces exceptional context along with it. Violent tornadoes are going extinct because leading survey engineers are choosing to make them go extinct.
 
Last edited:
Woah. What the heck is going on here?? It almost looks like it melted the surface into stone or something. That is weird.

This begs the question. Why are we using engineers to study and keep records of tornadoes? Why TF is it not scientists?? At least they would record unique damage like this and catalogue it appropriately for potential further study at a later date.

IMG_2552.jpeg
 
I've pulled enough weeds to know it's much harder to do in dry soil than wet, so the scouring these tornadoes did is especially impressive considering there was no precipitation with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
Im going out on a limb here. The Gary, SD tornado is 100% deserving of an EF-4 rating, even if just barely (although it likely hit 180+ at some point given the intense scouring).

Even if the home was poorly built, the contextuals more than make up for it. There is intense scouring and cyclonial marks, as well has heavy debarking around the home. And if they take into account the contextual damage in the final rating (I really hope so), then we could be looking at a low end EF-4 rating, which I whole-heartedly think it deserves.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
But what are these contextuals rated? How can they be compared to home damage when there is no quantifiable way to do so right now? What if debarking trees and scouring ground requires 250 mph winds in most cases, would that justify rating a home 150 mph because it's missing? They shouldn't err on the conservative side without having valid reasons to do so, and the default practice should be erring to the default. Not liberal, not conservative, but concise, objective, and how the scale is written.

We also have to use basic math exactly because we don't understand the unknown factors like wind uniformity, swirl ratios, etc. We can't just say "idk, tornadoes are weird. Subtract 40 mph." That's not scientific, and the basic math would at least be consistent and exact.

The homes condition can be considered if there's any home remaining, but it can't just be assumed to be poor as the default like it is now. if there's no home remaining, it means incredible winds were involved regardless. I'll keep emphasizing, there's a massive difference between sliding a home off its foundation, and carrying it away without a trace.

There's also zero excuse to ignore heavy objects like cars, trains, and farm equipment being carried long distances. We know 150 mph winds can't do that, so seeing so many of these tornadoes being rated so low is an insult to anyone with a shred of intelligence and common sense.
Click to expand...
I'm going to answer these in steps to avoid clutter and attempt to make each point clear. Each paragraph is denoted by a number.

1. I'm assuming you're talking about the contextuals in my example I shared. There is no "quantifiable" way to do that, I agree. But precedent has been set with past F5 tornadoes and EF5 tornadoes, a precedent that's more than valid, that allows us to be able to discern violent contextual damage from non-violent contextual damage. Almost anyone in this forum is capable of discerning between those two things, and there are some borderline cases that are more challenging, but the point still stands. This has nothing to do with actually attempting to quantify the wind speeds here required for these exact things, doing so is not only exceptionally nontrivial, but I imagine the answers we would get would be extremely inconsistent if we did have some hypothetical way to get a windspeed calc on a hardwood tree being debarked.

What about my example isn't a valid reason to stay conservative with the rating? There's a lot of "what ifs" here. That's not how science works, we operate based on what we know and can confidently say. Hypotheses are for new ideas, not a full-fledged scale that is supposed to be entrenched in reality. That's not what is happening with the current scale, I agree, but in Enderlin's case it just doesn't apply. There's a single instance of damage from this tornado that may point to EF5 level winds. In every other rated EF5, and even a good portion of F5s, there's a lot. That's the consistency that we should have at this point. We may not know what wind speeds are adequate to inflict extreme scouring, but it definitely doesn't require a minimum of 250 mph winds, that's most certainly an over-exaggeration.

I agree with your final sentence. But, being careful as a scientist is very important. I think over-estimations are just as bad as under-estimations. The reasons for the extremely over-conservative rating of today are mostly not unscientific, and I think you should be a bit careful with throwing a term like that around when the people who are surveying the damage are full-fledged wind engineers. Again, I agree that some WFOs are problematic when it comes to this. But that's why I think the biggest issue with the scale is the consistency in how its applied, not necessarily the contents of it.

2. I didn't use it as an excuse for lowballing ratings. The very reason why a lot of these listed windspeeds for the EF scale are the way they are is because of the things I mentioned here, this is the math that gives us the 200 mph EF5s. Which, as you know, isn't correct, because we have seen countless examples of 200+ mph readings, some even near ground level, in non-violent tornadoes. I'm arguing that it's too difficult with what we have now to be able to confidently say "this tornado briefly reached EF5 intensity because it threw a train car, and somehow managed to not debark trees extensively," and we should reflect that in the consistency of how we rate tornadoes, at least for now.

I was discussing those points in the context of the train car throw. I was giving potential reasons why the calculation could be giving either A) a higher number than what should be expected, and/or B) a number that makes no sense. You and I both do not know the exact windspeed required to loft a train car and toss it. What the calculation tells us, is that a wind moving in one direction, acting uniformly over only one side of the object, with little to no vertical component, with no debris, and without lift, requires >260 mph winds. Tornadic winds are extremely complicated and this is most certainly not the case within them, so honestly this doesn't tell us a whole lot IMO. It's still an impressive calculation too, but again, it's just too complex to integrate confidently into what our final rating should be.

3. If a tornado inflicts less-than-violent scouring throughout almost its entire life, and slabs a house in the process, then there isn't anything wrong with assuming that it is a poorly built structure, you just need to find evidence of it. Which these engineers are obviously too good at doing. I'm not saying to assume poor construction with every home, I'm saying you can safely assume it or prior lack of structural integrity if the context surrounding it makes sense with that conclusion. That's not being unscientific, that's proposing an idea and uncovering new information that supports it. What I have a problem with is when homes are nitpicked to death despite being surrounded with good context, or homes that aren't looked into in-depth with good context either. This does most certainly occur, unfortunately.

4. We do know 150 mph winds can't do that. Again, this is an issue with the EF scale having the listed wind speeds it does. As @jiharris0220 stated, a 200 mph F3 rating would make perfect sense here. But also, that doesn't mean that a >200 mph EF5 works here, the EF scale winds are simply incorrect (at least at violent intensities specifically). I promise you, though, that people are working to fix the issue with the new scale.

I fully share a lot of the sentiments that you do, believe me. This whole conversation is mostly about my opinion on Enderlin and nothing else. I'm not defending past ratings, I just don't think Enderlin deserves an EF5 rating at all. Maybe a low-end EF4, but that's the highest I'm willing to go.

Lake Martin EF4 said:
Uhhh....Can you show me some pics? It can't have been any worse than Grinnell, right?
Click to expand...
The scouring looked to be about on par with Grinnell's worst scouring, obviously a far smaller size but that's what I deduced. There was a twitter post about it in the Severe Weather 2025 thread, it looks extremely impressive to me. Of course, I'm happy to be proven wrong here.
 
Last edited:
slenker said:
I'm going to answer these in steps to avoid clutter and attempt to make each point clear. Each paragraph is denoted by a number.

1. I'm assuming you're talking about the contextuals in my example I shared. There is no "quantifiable" way to do that, I agree. But precedent has been set with past F5 tornadoes and EF5 tornadoes, a precedent that's more than valid, that allows us to be able to discern violent contextual damage from non-violent contextual damage. Almost anyone in this forum is capable of discerning between those two things, and there are some borderline cases that are more challenging, but the point still stands. This has nothing to do with actually attempting to quantify the wind speeds here required for these exact things, doing so is not only exceptionally nontrivial, but I imagine the answers we would get would be extremely inconsistent if we did have some hypothetical way to get a windspeed calc on a hardwood tree being debarked.

What about my example isn't a valid reason to stay conservative with the rating? There's a lot of "what ifs" here. That's not how science works, we operate based on what we know and can confidently say. Hypotheses are for new ideas, not a full-fledged scale that is supposed to be entrenched in reality. That's not what is happening with the current scale, I agree, but in Enderlin's case it just doesn't apply. There's a single instance of damage from this tornado that may point to EF5 level winds. In every other rated EF5, and even a good portion of F5s, there's a lot. That's the consistency that we should have at this point. We may not know what wind speeds are adequate to inflict extreme scouring, but it definitely doesn't require a minimum of 250 mph winds, that's most certainly an over-exaggeration.

I agree with your final sentence. But, being careful as a scientist is very important. I think over-estimations are just as bad as under-estimations. The reasons for the extremely over-conservative rating of today are mostly not unscientific, and I think you should be a bit careful with throwing a term like that around when the people who are surveying the damage are full-fledged wind engineers. Again, I agree that some WFOs are problematic when it comes to this. But that's why I think the biggest issue with the scale is the consistency in how its applied, not necessarily the contents of it.

2. I didn't use it as an excuse for lowballing ratings. The very reason why a lot of these listed windspeeds for the EF scale are the way they are is because of the things I mentioned here, this is the math that gives us the 200 mph EF5s. Which, as you know, isn't correct, because we have seen countless examples of 200+ mph readings, some even near ground level, in non-violent tornadoes. I'm arguing that it's too difficult with what we have now to be able to confidently say "this tornado briefly reached EF5 intensity because it threw a train car, and somehow managed to not debark trees extensively," and we should reflect that in the consistency of how we rate tornadoes, at least for now.

I was discussing those points in the context of the train car throw. I was giving potential reasons why the calculation could be giving either A) a higher number than what should be expected, and/or B) a number that makes no sense. You and I both do not know the exact windspeed required to loft a train car and toss it. What the calculation tells us, is that a wind moving in one direction, acting uniformly over only one side of the object, with little to no vertical component, with no debris, and without lift, requires >260 mph winds. Tornadic winds are extremely complicated and this is most certainly not the case within them, so honestly this doesn't tell us a whole lot IMO. It's still an impressive calculation too, but again, it's just too complex to integrate confidently into what our final rating should be.

3. If a tornado inflicts less-than-violent scouring throughout almost its entire life, and slabs a house in the process, then there isn't anything wrong with assuming that it is a poorly built structure, you just need to find evidence of it. Which these engineers are obviously too good at doing. I'm not saying to assume poor construction with every home, I'm saying you can safely assume it or prior lack of structural integrity if the context surrounding it makes sense with that conclusion. That's not being unscientific, that's proposing an idea and uncovering new information that supports it. What I have a problem with is when homes are nitpicked to death despite being surrounded with good context, or homes that aren't looked into in-depth with good context either. This does most certainly occur, unfortunately.

4. We do know 150 mph winds can't do that. Again, this is an issue with the EF scale having the listed wind speeds it does. As @jiharris0220 stated, a 200 mph F3 rating would make perfect sense here. But also, that doesn't mean that a >200 mph EF5 works here, the EF scale winds are simply incorrect (at least at violent intensities specifically). I promise you, though, that people are working to fix the issue with the new scale.

I fully share a lot of the sentiments that you do, believe me. This whole conversation is mostly about my opinion on Enderlin and nothing else. I'm not defending past ratings, I just don't think Enderlin deserves an EF5 rating at all. Maybe a low-end EF4, but that's the highest I'm willing to go.


The scouring looked to be about on par with Grinnell's worst scouring, obviously a far smaller size but that's what I deduced. There was a twitter post about it in the Severe Weather 2025 thread, it looks extremely impressive to me. Of course, I'm happy to be proven wrong here.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with your argument or Enderlin. The only reason we all saw the calculation and monkey-brained into thinking “EF5” is because the attached wind speed estimates are so incredibly low. I mentioned somewhere else that you can take about 10-20% off any actual calculation to convert it to EF scale. In this case it would still be EF5, but with the surrounding contextuals (which admittedly we haven’t seen much of) don’t shout viotor to me. If there was a more concrete structural DI (or maybe we should shift the ratings for what gets a viotor based off construction) I would be much more demanding of an EF4, but as of now I’m kind of ambivalent. I’m usually one who always skews towards the higher rating, and I think the EF3 rating has become way too overused, but in this case I’m just barely leaning EF4.
 
precedent has been set with past F5 tornadoes and EF5 tornadoes, a precedent that's more than valid, that allows us to be able to discern violent contextual damage from non-violent contextual damage.
Click to expand...

I think you're mistaking post-2011 precedent with overall precedent. Post-2011 precedent is not at all valid, or supported by studies. It's based off the opinions of a few engineers who train other surveyors and make up the "Quick Response Team" (QRT) at the NWS. Most offices can't go above EF3 without the approval of the QRT (or other pre-approved engineers). They make the final determination. The EF4 tornadoes this year were assisted by engineers outside of the QRT, brought in by offices who knew better.

Hurricane Andrew made landfall in 1992 with 145 mph sustained winds and up to 175 mph gusts.


"I was looking at NHC's wind anemometer and saw peak wind gusts of 163 miles per hour. That is something I will never forget."

Here are pictures of the tree damage those sustained winds produced over the course of several hours.

1751257245125.jpeg1751257251288.jpeg
1751257267812.png1751257279118.jpeg
1751257314119.jpeg
(^ this is a mobile home park)


Here's what the QRT and NWS think a 3-second maximum wind gust of 160 mph can do.

1751257836664.jpeg
1751257904738.png
1751257935683.jpeg
1751258125922.jpeg
1751258162152.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Grand Poo Bah said:
I think you're mistaking post-2011 precedent with overall precedent. Post-2011 precedent is not at all valid, or supported by studies. It's based off the opinions of a few engineers who train other surveyors and make up the "Quick Response Team" (QRT) at the NWS. Most offices can't go above EF3 without the approval of the QRT (or other pre-approved engineers). They make the final determination. The EF4 tornadoes this year were assisted by engineers outside of the QRT.

Hurricane Andrew made landfall in 1992 with 145 mph sustained winds and up to 175 mph gusts.


"I was looking at NHC's wind anemometer and saw peak wind gusts of 163 miles per hour. That is something I will never forget."

Here are pictures of the tree damage those sustained winds produced over the course of several hours.

View attachment 44684View attachment 44685
View attachment 44686View attachment 44687
View attachment 44688


Here's what the QRT and NWS think a 3-second maximum wind gust of 160 mph can do.

View attachment 44689
View attachment 44690
View attachment 44691
View attachment 44692
View attachment 44693
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s very clear the MPHs attached to the EF scale are completely incorrect
 
N0mz said:
Yes, it’s very clear the MPHs attached to the EF scale are completely incorrect
Click to expand...
What's even worse is Grinnell was given a 140 mph rating by the leading authority on tornado surveying (Tim Marshall). It's utterly proposterous! I'm so thoroughly on board the Tim Marshall hater train I might as well be the conductor.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
What's even worse is Grinnell was given a 140 mph rating by the leading authority on tornado surveying (Tim Marshall). It's utterly proposterous! I'm so thoroughly on board the Tim Marshall hater train I might as well be the conductor.
Click to expand...
Grinnell was probably the worst underrating of the year. Up there with some of the 3/14 and 4/2 tornadoes that also got completely Timmy’d. Someone should probably keep a list of worst rated storms this year just for posterity sake
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
I think you're mistaking post-2011 precedent with overall precedent. Post-2011 precedent is not at all valid, or supported by studies. It's based off the opinions of a few engineers who train other surveyors and make up the "Quick Response Team" (QRT) at the NWS. Most offices can't go above EF3 without the approval of the QRT (or other pre-approved engineers). They make the final determination. The EF4 tornadoes this year were assisted by engineers outside of the QRT, brought in by offices who knew better.

Hurricane Andrew made landfall in 1992 with 145 mph sustained winds and up to 175 mph gusts.


"I was looking at NHC's wind anemometer and saw peak wind gusts of 163 miles per hour. That is something I will never forget."

Here are pictures of the tree damage those sustained winds produced over the course of several hours.

View attachment 44684View attachment 44685
View attachment 44686View attachment 44687
View attachment 44688
(^ this is a mobile home park)


Here's what the QRT and NWS think a 3-second maximum wind gust of 160 mph can do.

View attachment 44689
View attachment 44690
View attachment 44691
View attachment 44692
View attachment 44693
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is apparent that all of them damage photos would fall into the low to high-end EF4 category.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
Shakespeare 2016 said:
I guess what really makes me so mad that no one stands up to these engineers. Extreme Non DI'S should be just as important as the construction of houses.
Click to expand...
We can stand up to them while still being objective and level headed. I don't support what you posted, but I'd be lying if I said I don't have thoughts like what you said sometimes lol. Best to keep the frustrations contained here, and try to reason with them directly once we've calmed down and organized our thoughts.
 
Here are some tornadoes that were definitely underrated. Feel free to add to the list.

Bakersfield, MO
Berryman, MO/Old Mines, MO
Lake City, AR
Grinnell, KS
Plevna, KS
Enderlin, ND*

*I am uncertain if these tornadoes will be rated higher but i am not going to hold my breath.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AJS
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top