Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[Tokai.Ryu]

Can you provide photos? I would love to see the potential candidates.

Polesella, 1892.

Venezia, 1970.
"The complex of the Celli shipyard was cancelled in one fell swoop, the superstructures of the ACNIL pier are thrown against a house.

The walls of the Morosini Naval College and the Luigi Stadium give way Penzo, whose steps are unhinged and brought beyond the canal like a bundle of grass."
"In the stadium, the damage is even more significant: a boundary wall with a thickness greater than 20 cm has collapsed; further on the scene is even more hallucinating: the entire wall that delimits the entrance to the side stands is disappeared to the base, a thick wall of solid bricks was knocked down and then sucked into the tremendous force of the Tornado."


Estacion Lopez, 1992.

 

[buckeye05]

How many times do I have to say it? Debris loading is only a significant factor if the destruction a specific structure can be linked to a specific airborne object or material. All tornadoes of significant intensity become debris loaded unless they remain in a rural area. There is no such thing as a non-debris loaded tornado impacting a town, and for some reason this only becomes an “issue” when a higher end rating is on the table. It’s a nothing-burger statement to make when it is brought up in a nebulous, ambiguous manner with zero specificity. By that logic, every tornado that impacts a semi-populated area should be downgraded by one EF scale ranking. Is that what the NWS actually does? No of course not, because that’s ridiculous, and it would eliminate literally every EF5 besides Philadelphia and Enderlin! If your interpretation of EF scale application is more stringent than that of actual NWS employees, you’ve lost the plot so much it’s not even funny. It’s like these discord chats create a loop of thought distortion reaffirmation that people just can’t see out of once they get swept up in it.

I am begging you people to actually use reasoning and independent thought, instead of just regurgitating things you’ve heard elsewhere without giving any critical thought to whether they actually make sense or not. It’s exhausting.

 

[SweptSlab5]

How many times do I have to say it? Debris loading is only a significant factor if the destruction a specific structure can be linked to a specific airborne object or material. All tornadoes of significant intensity become debris loaded unless they remain in a rural area. There is no such thing as a non-debris loaded tornado impacting a town, and for some reason this only becomes an “issue” when a higher end rating is on the table. It’s a nothing-burger statement to make when it is brought up in a nebulous, ambiguous manner with zero specificity. I am begging you people to actually use reasoning and independent thought, instead of just regurgitating things you’ve heard elsewhere without giving any critical thought to whether they actually make sense or not. It’s exhausting.

I think we broke buckeye.

 

[SweptSlab5]

View attachment 49346
Polesella, 1892.
View attachment 49347View attachment 49348View attachment 49349View attachment 49350
Venezia, 1970.
"The complex of the Celli shipyard was cancelled in one fell swoop, the superstructures of the ACNIL pier are thrown against a house.

The walls of the Morosini Naval College and the Luigi Stadium give way Penzo, whose steps are unhinged and brought beyond the canal like a bundle of grass."
"In the stadium, the damage is even more significant: a boundary wall with a thickness greater than 20 cm has collapsed; further on the scene is even more hallucinating: the entire wall that delimits the entrance to the side stands is disappeared to the base, a thick wall of solid bricks was knocked down and then sucked into the tremendous force of the Tornado."

View attachment 49351View attachment 49352View attachment 49353View attachment 49354
Estacion Lopez, 1992.

The damage to that shipyard and stadium is shocking. Those are huge, thick stone walls completely leveled. That is textbook European If5 damage.

 

[buckeye05]

Unfounded and completely inappropriate sockpuppetry allegations are certainly something. If you're going to accuse someone of sockpuppeting, at the very least back it up with a shred of evidence that isn't "well, they disagree with my opinion, so they must automatically be the same person!" It makes you look bad (and it's not the first time I've observed this attitude towards newcomers).

To clarify I'm not one of their "sockpuppets" or whatever, I'm just going on the defense because the attitudes towards them are absolutely insane over such a simple disagreement.

Ok that’s it, I’m done biting my tongue. It goes beyond a simple disagreement at this stage. It’s a pattern of behavior. All you do is make nebulous “well that doesn’t really mean anything” type dismissive comments, that in your mind are logical, but in reality have zero substance or real world tornado event-linked basis. It’s just glimpse after glimpse of you not grasping the significance of various things, wrapped in a smugness that you most certainly have not earned. In the Rochelle conversation you managed to misconstrue concrete scouring in BOTH Rochelle and Henryville, and subsequently dismiss both based solely on your personal lack of understanding. If you don’t accurately know the facts of specific tornado events, you don’t have a reference point to build further understanding on. Instead, you just default to immediate to nit picking and skepticism, believing that this somehow this gives you an edge.

In reality, it’s people who have a highly detailed mental catalog of important instances of tornado damage who actually have an edge. My takes are rooted in many years of personal research and painstaking note taking, both independent and via official meteorology publications and presentations, and everything I say is rooted in real world tornado damage history. But I would bet my next paycheck that your viewpoints largely come from a feedback loop of nitpicking in a chat somewhere, that focuses more on hypotheticals and skepticism that is derived from those hypotheticals, than actual objective tornado event analysis. A vast majority of what you say just boils down to “Well I’m not that impressed and that’s just my opinion and I don’t want argue so..”, which does nothing to actually further your statements.

The New Wren pickup truck is another perfect example. It’s once again apparent that you don’t actually have a good mental catalog of how far vehicles have traveled in high-end tornado events. If you did, you’d know that the absolute most violent of the violent don’t typically do anything close to 2 miles, and that such an occurrence is essentially unprecedented in any remotely recent event. The only recent tornadoes that have come close (Camp Crook and Cisco) have default lower ratings due to a lack of good DIs. But you just heard about the truck, said “meh”, and moved on with yet another “Well I’m not impressed and that’s just what I believe”. That just simply isn’t good enough and has no depth or substance, and that’s the pattern I keep seeing with you.

 

[ColdFront]

That, and the “you all treat new members badly” attitude by him is so tiresome. Like we are some sort of college fraternity that hazes new members. It’s just complete asinine.

I can recall countless new members that became regular contributors here over the past few years that were always treated respectfully.

Now, if you come in here with a smug or arrogant attitude, odds are you’ll be called out. Rightfully so. We are all here to learn, talk shop, debate etc. However, holier than thou or smug attitudes SHOULD be called out. Especially if their opinions are incorrect. I don’t think anyone has ever been shut down on here over a “simple disagreement”.

 

[buckeye05]

That, and the “you all treat new members badly” attitude by him is so tiresome. Like we are some sort of college fraternity that hazes new members. It’s just complete asinine.

I can recall countless new members that became regular contributors here over the past few years that were always treated respectfully.

Now, if you come in here with a smug or arrogant attitude, odds are you’ll be called out. Rightfully so. We are all here to learn, talk shop, debate etc. However, holier than thou or smug attitudes SHOULD be called out. Especially if their opinions are incorrect. I don’t think anyone has ever been shut down on here over a “simple disagreement”.

I’m actually fine with smugness if there’s actually substance and real world evidence behind the individual’s viewpoint. What I’m not fine with is smugness that’s based on nothing deeper than “that’s just my opinion”. Or something that is presented as an example of a lack of significance, that in reality is just a manifestation of a lack of specific knowledge/facts (the concrete scouring comment in which Rochelle and Henryville were mentioned, the New Wren truck comments, etc) about tornado events.

 

[ColdFront]

Also, RE: TornadoTalk.

If you want to discuss their paywalling of images and articles, as well as their enforcement methods, fine by me.

However, this weird undercurrent of trying to discredit TornadoTalk by the same clique of users on here is just BS. It’s the same exact ones, and the same types of users. I have my own theories of why that is, but that’s a discussion for another day.

Their arguments boil down to “well, I just don’t trust TornadoTalk. They aren’t reliable or credible” etc.

 

[SweptSlab5]

That, and the “you all treat new members badly” attitude by him is so tiresome. Like we are some sort of college fraternity that hazes new members. It’s just complete asinine.

I can recall countless new members that became regular contributors here over the past few years that were always treated respectfully.

Now, if you come in here with a smug or arrogant attitude, odds are you’ll be called out. Rightfully so. We are all here to learn, talk shop, debate etc. However, holier than thou or smug attitudes SHOULD be called out. Especially if their opinions are incorrect. I don’t think anyone has ever been shut down on here over a “simple disagreement”.

I’ve been lurking for years, and have read most of this thread, and have only ever seen 3-4 major arguments. All were caused by inexperienced people acting like they knew everything/people claiming pseudoscience was facts.

 

[buckeye05]

I’ve been lurking for years, and have read most of this thread, and have only ever seen 3-4 major arguments. All were caused by inexperienced people acting like they knew everything/people claiming pseudoscience was facts.

I wouldn’t say pseudoscience. In fact, a lot of the very strict engineering principle based approaches to EF scale application are very much rooted in science. The problem is that over the years I’ve concluded that this approach is not viable if the goal is to accurately gauge the actual intensity of a tornado. It’s only viable if your goal is to come up with a minimum windspeed, which is a completely different thing than actual intensity.

 

[SweptSlab5]

I wouldn’t say pseudoscience. In fact, a lot of the very strict engineering principle based approaches to EF scale application is very much rooted in science. The problem is that over the years I’ve concluded that this approach is not viable if the goal is to accurately gauge the actual intensity of a tornado. It’s only viable if your goal is to come up with a minimum windspeed, which is a completely different thing than actual intensity.

There was a large argument a while ago about a user who’s changed now saying a bunch of crazy things about cycloid marks. Cant reply for like 12 hours so there’s not going to be a reply on this for a while.

 

[buckeye05]

There was a large argument a while ago about a user who’s changed now saying a bunch of crazy things about cycloid marks.

I don’t think that’s pseudo science either. I used to be skeptical of it, but spiral marking analysis is mathematics based and has recently gotten the thumbs up from field experts like Jim LaDue. It’s just not something being put in practice yet.

 

[TH2002]

That, and the “you all treat new members badly” attitude by him is so tiresome. Like we are some sort of college fraternity that hazes new members. It’s just complete asinine.

TW is definitely not a college fraternity. I don't have any college degrees.

I’m actually fine with smugness if there’s actually substance and real world evidence behind the individual’s viewpoint. What I’m not fine with is smugness that’s based on nothing deeper than “that’s just my opinion”.

 

[SweptSlab5]

I don’t think that’s pseudo science either. I used to be skeptical of it, but spiral marking analysis is mathematics based and has recently gotten the thumbs up from field experts like Jim LaDue. It’s just not something being put in practice yet.

Was fujita right on ratings like goessel then? Or was that on old version that did not work?

 

[ColdFront]

There was a large argument a while ago about a user who’s changed now saying a bunch of crazy things about cycloid marks. Cant reply for like 12 hours so there’s not going to be a reply on this for a while.

Saltical’s methods are actually scientifically sound. On top of that, I find them super interesting.

That large argument was the result of someone, not @Saltical Wx , who essentially misrepresented his findings with zero context and detail. When called out, this user dug their heels in instead of just deferring or elaborating that they actually didn’t know what they were talking about. Hand up, I let that create a false first impression when I shouldn’t have, through zero fault of Saltical. However, I’m all for any efforts and new methods that will get us more accurate tornado ratings and wind speeds.

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

How many times do I have to say it? Debris loading is only a significant factor if the destruction a specific structure can be linked to a specific airborne object or material. All tornadoes of significant intensity become debris loaded unless they remain in a rural area. There is no such thing as a non-debris loaded tornado impacting a town, and for some reason this only becomes an “issue” when a higher end rating is on the table. It’s a nothing-burger statement to make when it is brought up in a nebulous, ambiguous manner with zero specificity. By that logic, every tornado that impacts a semi-populated area should be downgraded by one EF scale ranking. Is that what the NWS actually does? No of course not, because that’s ridiculous, and it would eliminate literally every EF5 besides Philadelphia and Enderlin! If your interpretation of EF scale application is more stringent than that of actual NWS employees, you’ve lost the plot so much it’s not even funny. It’s like these discord chats create a loop of thought distortion reaffirmation that people just can’t see out of once they get swept up in it.

I am begging you people to actually use reasoning and independent thought, instead of just regurgitating things you’ve heard elsewhere without giving any critical thought to whether they actually make sense or not. It’s exhausting.

To sum it up:

What IS debris loading: Goldsby mobile home, Bowling Green duplex that got an entire warehouse smashed into it (still rated too low), that one Rochelle house that got hit by bits of the other nearby house

What IS NOT debris loading: E Wicker Street

 

[joshoctober16]

I hate that 200mph is even given out. It makes NO SENSE! At that point, you are 1mph from Ef5. 1! That 1 mph isn’t doing crap. Expected bound should be able to be upgraded to 201 if contextual damage is present.

apparently 110 mph was going to be the EF2 starting point and 200 mph was going to be the EF5 starting point, but some sort of mistake happened (at lest with the EF5) and got off by 1 mph , every 200 mph EF4 rated damage is F5 damage on the old scale, and there is some debate that 190 mph is on average were the old F5 rating would be.

 

[SweptSlab5]

Saltical’s methods are actually scientifically sound. On top of that, I find them super interesting.

That large argument was the result of someone, not @Saltical Wx , who essentially misrepresented his findings with zero context and detail. When called out, this user dug their heels in instead of just deferring or elaborating that they actually didn’t know what they were talking about. Hand up, I let that create a false first impression when I shouldn’t have, through zero fault of Saltical. However, I’m all for any efforts and new methods that will get us more accurate tornado ratings and wind speeds.

That’s the person I was talking about. The person who misrepresented him, I meant. I actually do think Salticals methods are good, it was just a random user spewing out garbage.

 

[joshoctober16]

How many times do I have to say it? Debris loading is only a significant factor if the destruction a specific structure can be linked to a specific airborne object or material. All tornadoes of significant intensity become debris loaded unless they remain in a rural area. There is no such thing as a non-debris loaded tornado impacting a town, and for some reason this only becomes an “issue” when a higher end rating is on the table. It’s a nothing-burger statement to make when it is brought up in a nebulous, ambiguous manner with zero specificity. By that logic, every tornado that impacts a semi-populated area should be downgraded by one EF scale ranking. Is that what the NWS actually does? No of course not, because that’s ridiculous, and it would eliminate literally every EF5 besides Philadelphia and Enderlin! If your interpretation of EF scale application is more stringent than that of actual NWS employees, you’ve lost the plot so much it’s not even funny. It’s like these discord chats create a loop of thought distortion reaffirmation that people just can’t see out of once they get swept up in it.

I am begging you people to actually use reasoning and independent thought, instead of just regurgitating things you’ve heard elsewhere without giving any critical thought to whether they actually make sense or not. It’s exhausting.

pretty sure Parkersburg , enderlin and possibly Greensburg are the only tornadoes to have 2+ EF5 ratings in spots were no debris could hit the DI.

 

[joshoctober16]

To sum it up:

What IS debris loading: Goldsby mobile home, Bowling Green duplex that got an entire warehouse smashed into it (still rated too low), that one Rochelle house that got hit by bits of the other nearby house

What IS NOT debris loading: E Wicker Street

when it comes with debris messing up the EF scale rating for some tornadoes .... the tornado that bothers me the most is bowling green on 2021.

a brick home was mostly all swept clean and it wasn't even the lowest resistance class , yet it got rated ... 120 (or 130) MPH EF2 ....

what im hearing is that they did this because there MIGHT of been a small chance debris hit the home ...


and there is a other swept clean home nearby that never got survey.

again .. why EF2 and not 165 mph EF3?

this seems very high end EF3 or low end EF4 to me.