N0mz
Member
Do you have the slide with the DODs up to 13? Gave me a heart attack making me think that EF5 wasn't possible on FR12 anymore
-
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
joshoctober16
Member
i dont sadly , that is what they only showd for now , but in a different area shows DOD13 is swept clean
thats all i have of now
Gray:not shown but known to exist
light Red:new DOD
Dark Red:new DOD but hasn't been shown
note im not sure if this not shown DOD is number 11 or 12 ,
joshoctober16
Member
however .... Stronger then Typical resistance might not be possible anymore (sorta)
im unsure if they mean they cant put it to 205 or if they mean they cant put it to 240 (as in fully in stronger then typical resistance) however this new rule is if it isnt in the hurricane prone areas... then it at least wont get a 240 mph rating (unsure about 205-235 mph)
note ONLY ONE F5 has ever went in this hurricane prone area
joshoctober16
Member
from what i can tell the new EF scale has
2 bad updates
2 mix updates
8-9 good updates
i remember listening to one of the video about the next EF scale... and they stated they are forcing all the mph to end with a 0 or 5 mph ... i wouldnt have a issue with this... if it wasnt for the reason they stated...
they wanted to make all the 1 mph off from the next rating to be gone... however what they did... is make this 1 mph off from the next rating... worse and more common.
interestingly both bad updates can simply be fix if they make each EF rating mph start in a 0 or 5 mph zone.... (only EF0 has this)
Central Ohio Wx
Member
Have they discussed factoring in contextuals?
joshoctober16
Member
no , and they are removing tree being debarked as a DOD , they will now be ignoring that.
joshoctober16
Member
The IF scale still has tree debark , has split it into <60% and 60% + with the 60+ % being around 230 mph.
Central Ohio Wx
Member
Wha??? That's stupid; that's one of the few viable DIs out of powerful rural tornadoes. I can already tell this scale isn't going to fix the issues we currently have if they end up removing trees as a DI.
N0mz
Member
I feel like those lower than expected rules are brutal
joshoctober16
Member
a confusing thing about rural tornadoes i notice is ... they seem proud and all happy to show di29 ... acting as if its going to fix all the rural issue.... and its just this...
what i find to be important di , would be any common di that has a typical resistance of 150+ mph
i mean... yeah its better to have it then not but ... not helpful if it cant go above 150 mph
What is your source on that? I remember distinctly the update committee was going to include Arborists in some of the discussions.
NickKrasz_Wx
Member
Tree debarking is being removed as a Degree of Damage (DoD) because it’s not considered a reliable way to estimate wind speeds. In most cases, debarking is caused by debris impacts rather than the tornado’s winds alone. They explain this in detail here:
joshoctober16
Member
they only remove tree debark , not the trees them self's , infact they combined and split the 2 tree di into 2 different di.
the other new di can sometimes be rated EF5
its sorta a improvement its just ... they did one big negative ....
overall what i would find to be a perfect tree di would be
1:tree debark is back
2:EF5 single tree (at least for strong)
3:Add small tree (theres mid and big)
4:split the bodily removal DOD7 into 4 (and in the <25% , 25% , 50% , 75%) like what they did for everything else.
i would then find it a perfect tree di if these 4 things would be added/changed
Central Ohio Wx
Member
Also, when is this scale expected to go into effect? I've seen people discuss it for a while but I don't know if they have a set "release date" yet
Probably another few years. They’re still having to vote on certain parts of it in the different committees.
This was one of Doswell’s original criticism of the EF scale. No one really “owns it”, so an ad hoc group has to be put together across multiple fields and disciplines. I imagine the glacial pace is just due to the amount of people involved, as well as getting a large group of scientists to agree on anything.
tornado examiner
Member
Tbh with how inconsistent and reliant on debris loading debarking often is I don’t think removing it is the worst thing in the world. Still should keep it though.
Bumping these two comments together because holy excrement. Look at how much anchors with clips supposedly improve wind resistance. If Tylertown actually had an anchored home with clips that was swept away we've got a serious EF5 contender.
AJS
Member
I’ve said it before, but there was an image posted of some really incredible tree damage from the Tylertown, MS tornado. Like, very high end. I’ll need to find it.
Aaron Rider
Member
Debarking is often a clear indicator of violent environment even if it cannot pin down an *exact* wind speed. If trees are fully debarked and stubbed, and if it's paired with ground scouring and structure obliteration, it still indicates violent winds. Dismissing it entirely removes a vital environmental clue.
Note: context matters!
Tree debarking will not move a rating today from EF3 → EF4 or EF4 → EF5 unless paired with high-quality structural failure evidence (or, if they're being extremely nitpicky, not at all!). So why is it even necessary to remove such an indicator?
Using “debris loading” as a blanket excuse to discard tree debarking as a violence indicator is overcorrection. It should caution surveyors to consider the cause, not dismiss the indicator entirely.
Sorry, but instead of taking things into consideration on a case by case basis, this strikes me as more unnecessary and lazy conservatism. Why are they afraid of contextual analysis?
Controlled testing and field studies have, I'm sure. shown debris can strip bark at lower winds than required for direct aerodynamic debarking. I'm sure they'll say that, and ignore how Fujita said "Extraordinary phenomena will occur" (stuff like extreme, Bridge Creek debarking)....stuff hard to explicate or replicate. But debris loading is not usually sufficient on its own to fully debark large trees around their entire circumference or create the smooth, sandblasted appearance seen in EF5 contexts. That's why I'm willing to be completely unimpressed with this change.
Note: context matters!
Tree debarking will not move a rating today from EF3 → EF4 or EF4 → EF5 unless paired with high-quality structural failure evidence (or, if they're being extremely nitpicky, not at all!). So why is it even necessary to remove such an indicator?
Using “debris loading” as a blanket excuse to discard tree debarking as a violence indicator is overcorrection. It should caution surveyors to consider the cause, not dismiss the indicator entirely.
Sorry, but instead of taking things into consideration on a case by case basis, this strikes me as more unnecessary and lazy conservatism. Why are they afraid of contextual analysis?
Controlled testing and field studies have, I'm sure. shown debris can strip bark at lower winds than required for direct aerodynamic debarking. I'm sure they'll say that, and ignore how Fujita said "Extraordinary phenomena will occur" (stuff like extreme, Bridge Creek debarking)....stuff hard to explicate or replicate. But debris loading is not usually sufficient on its own to fully debark large trees around their entire circumference or create the smooth, sandblasted appearance seen in EF5 contexts. That's why I'm willing to be completely unimpressed with this change.