Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[ColdFront]

I guess I could see it that way as well. It really depends on how you interpret them going through so many steps for the rating; for some it could seem overly-complicated for a single number (to be fair, though, the first 5 since 2013 is incredibly significant and more than just a number), and for others it could mean that the checks are there to ensure quality over quantity.

I want to know if it’s always been like this, or when this change took place. Maybe La Plata? Maybe after the ASCE paper on Joplin?

I’m of the opinion it’s way too much just to rate a tornado. They even had to meet with the SPC. If the QRT/WFO are in agreement, then rate it as such. I understand giving the other offices a heads up, but 2 months worth?

It does give some credence to a previous user who stated he talked to surveyors from Paducah who wanted to give Mayfield a 5, but that the regional office squashed it. Again, this is completely unverified, but it does sound like it confirms a higher rating does need sign off from the WFOs parent or regional office.

What’s easier for some surveyors? Giving it a 3 and going on with the rest of the week. No extra meetings, coordination required etc. If it takes that much just to give a 5, I see why some offices leave it a lower rating. As Mindy said, they owed it to science. Not every office is going to go above and beyond.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

I want to know if it’s always been like this, or when this change took place. Maybe La Plata? Maybe after the ASCE paper on Joplin?

I wish I knew, but the closest I've ever come to any NWS office is over email. There had to have been a point where this process wasn't extant, though, because many of those 1960-1990 ratings seem slapped on, in a way. Sort of a cursory look and "well, it looks F5-ish so it must be F5!". Valley Mills is the quintessential example of this; I'm 99% sure that they saw a foundation and just marked it as F5 with no further checks, simply because it looked like what Fujita classified as F5 damage at the time.

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

I wish I knew, but the closest I've ever come to any NWS office is over email. There had to have been a point where this process wasn't extant, though, because many of those 1960-1990 ratings seem slapped on, in a way. Sort of a cursory look and "well, it looks F5-ish so it must be F5!". Valley Mills is the quintessential example of this; I'm 99% sure that they saw a foundation and just marked it as F5 with no further checks, simply because it looked like what Fujita classified as F5 damage at the time.

Not even a foundation, the Valley Mills rating was based on the movement of a pickup truck.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Not even a foundation, the Valley Mills rating was based on the movement of a pickup truck.

Oh, right! The one that was based off a report from an unidentified, so-called “reputable source”.

 

[buckeye05]

Sorry to backtrack a bit, but the whole thing about higher ups at the NWS creating roadblocks that result in assigning EF5 ratings being a nearly impossible process pretty much confirms some stuff that I was told in confidence last year. I’ve been biting my tongue for a while, but since it’s pretty much out in the open I’ll comment on it. Basically, from what I’ve heard, upgrading to EF5 is allegedly a long arduous process that entails meetings, paperwork, and all kinds of red tape. It’s such a pain and so lengthy, that a lot of WFOs reportedly just move on because it’s such an ordeal and they have other objectives. While I do still believe that inconsistency and a lack of standardization among WFOs is one of the primary problems, it’s apparent that the higher ups in the NWS have created a secondary barrier that discourages EF5 upgrades even further. Essentially, a lot of WFO’s just wouldn’t see it as being worth the time and effort as a result. This is a huge problem, as I have always believed the process of upgrading from EF4 to EF5 should involve the no more effort and stigma than upgrading from EF2 to EF3. It’s clearly stigmatized though, and not an equal process when compared to upgrades lower on the scale. But overall, it seems the EF5 drought didn’t fall solely on incompetent/inconsistent WFOs, nor did it solely fall on higher up NWS bureaucracy. It was caused by a mix of both that made it next to impossible.

The only silver lining I’d say is I do feel a “shift” after Enderlin, and once again, the same guy behind every piece of recent positive tornado rating/surveying related news once again came up as a key figure in the Enderlin rating process: Jim LaDue. He’s truly showing himself to be one of the few voices of reason amid this mess. I really hope his influence continues to grow, and that he supersedes Tim Marshall when it comes to being the “go-to guy” for rating decision consultation.

 

[andyhb]

Summary of what was said for those who haven’t seen the episode yet/want cliff notes.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Summary of what was said for those who haven’t seen the episode yet/want cliff notes.

I wonder who was requiring them to do all those meetings and get all those sign offs, and if it's just a policy thing when did it become policy? I doubt any other office has ever taken it that far in the last 13 years, so it seems like someone just kept trying to throw up as many roadblocks as humanly possible.

Imagine if it was a well built house they were trying to make an EF5 DI. There's no way it would've ever made it past review because there's so much bad precedent. If this is really the process, then the only reason Enderlin got its EF5 rating is because the train was such a unique DI and circumstance no one could argue against it.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Quickly off-topic, but the Coaling, AL EF3 from 4/27/2011 (the morning QLCS specifically) was more intense than I've always thought it was. Buried in BMX's event page for the event:

Excluding the what-if about whether it was anchored or not, the construction quality isn't horrendous, so this would probably be somewhere in the 160-170 range assuming it is unanchored. The max rating of the tornado is 155; the survey never directly rates this property.

 

[ColdFront]

I wonder who was requiring them to do all those meetings and get all those sign offs, and if it's just a policy thing when did it become policy? I doubt any other office has ever taken it that far in the last 13 years, so it seems like someone just kept trying to throw up as many roadblocks as humanly possible.

Imagine if it was a well built house they were trying to make an EF5 DI. There's no way it would've ever made it past review because there's so much bad precedent. If this is really the process, then the only reason Enderlin got its EF5 rating is because the train was such a unique DI and circumstance no one could argue against it.

It’s the right question to ask. I thought the policy change may have been La Plata, but you still had EF5 ratings from 2007-2013. La Plata gave us the QRF, but I really don’t think it gave us this policy.

My bet is on Joplin. The ASCE study came out June 2013. Not even a month after the drought started post Moore. I think that study either embarrassed Springfield and the NWS as a whole, unrightfully so, or it caused them to tighten up the entire process. Could be why Springfield is so notoriously conservative now.

I don’t think it was initially intentional, but the government is so sprawling it just slows down this entire process. I also think there is some “CYA” at play here. Props to Grand Forks for pushing this forward.

I also thought it was very weird they had to meet with the SPC. I understand the SPC is involved in all sorts of research, but outside of just briefing them, I thought that part was odd.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

I also thought it was very weird they had to meet with the SPC. I understand the SPC is involved in all sorts of research, but outside of just briefing them, I thought that part was odd.

I thought that was odd, too. I get going to them and saying "hey, here's our plans to upgrade this tornado, do you guys have any comments or concerns?" but I'm confused why the SPC would have been involved any further than that. Unless I'm missing something I don't think the SPC even hires people who specialize in forensic engineering.

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

It’s the right question to ask. I thought the policy change may have been La Plata, but you still had EF5 ratings from 2007-2013. La Plata gave us the QRF, but I really don’t think it gave us this policy.

My bet is on Joplin. The ASCE study came out June 2013. Not even a month after the drought started post Moore. I think that study either embarrassed Springfield and the NWS as a whole, unrightfully so, or it caused them to tighten up the entire process. Could be why Springfield is so notoriously conservative now.

I don’t think it was initially intentional, but the government is so sprawling it just slows down this entire process. I also think there is some “CYA” at play here. Props to Grand Forks for pushing this forward.

I also thought it was very weird they had to meet with the SPC. I understand the SPC is involved in all sorts of research, but outside of just briefing them, I thought that part was odd.

I think Vilonia had more to do with the drought than the Joplin study did. Vilonia proved that yes, it is absolutely possible to rate blatant EF5 damage EF4. It was the anti-La Plata, essentially.

(Also, while we're on the subject, I think Worcester 1953 was an underreported victim of La Plata - it unluckily had its reanalysis debate in 2005, when the syndrome was at its very worst.)

 

[SweptSlab5]

Sorry to backtrack a bit, but the whole thing about higher ups at the NWS creating roadblocks that result in assigning EF5 ratings being a nearly impossible process pretty much confirms some stuff that I was told in confidence last year. I’ve been biting my tongue for a while, but since it’s pretty much out in the open I’ll comment on it. Basically, from what I’ve heard, upgrading to EF5 is allegedly a long arduous process that entails meetings, paperwork, and all kinds of red tape. It’s such a pain and so lengthy, that a lot of WFOs reportedly just move on because it’s such an ordeal and they have other objectives. While I do still believe that inconsistency and a lack of standardization among WFOs is one of the primary problems, it’s apparent that the higher ups in the NWS have created a secondary barrier that discourages EF5 upgrades even further. Essentially, a lot of WFO’s just wouldn’t see it as being worth the time and effort as a result. This is a huge problem, as I have always believed the process of upgrading from EF4 to EF5 should involve the no more effort and stigma than upgrading from EF2 to EF3. It’s clearly stigmatized though, and not an equal process when compared to upgrades lower on the scale. But overall, it seems the EF5 drought didn’t fall solely on incompetent/inconsistent WFOs, nor did it solely fall on higher up NWS bureaucracy. It was caused by a mix of both that made it next to impossible.

The only silver lining I’d say is I do feel a “shift” after Enderlin, and once again, the same guy behind every piece of recent positive tornado rating/surveying related news once again came up as a key figure in the Enderlin rating process: Jim LaDue. He’s truly showing himself to be one of the few voices of reason amid this mess. I really hope his influence continues to grow, and that he supersedes Tim Marshall when it comes to being the “go-to guy” for rating decision consultation.

That would explain why a lot of borderline cases just get basically ignored. Why would you do all the meetings and work if the upgrade is only a maybe. That just means that only the very highest tornadoes will get EF5, or just someone dedicated like Grand Forks.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

I don't think this has ever been directly mentioned anywhere, but the Robinson, IL EF3 (the 2023 one, not the tornado yesterday) ripped apart an entire business jet:

It's impossible to say the condition of the plane under the rubble but based off the way the metal beams are piled around it I'm assuming not great.

 

[buckeye05]

Some EF scale updates from Tim Marshall per Nick on X:

-The bad news is Tim says the new scale could take as long as 2030 to be implemented.

-The good news is that he says there’s growing interest and internal support for reanalysis of previous tornadoes/EF5 candidate events, especially following Enderlin. This reanalysis would likely factor in mobile radar data. He says El Reno 2013 would likely be upgraded back to EF5 under this new approach.

This is all very hopeful and exciting. As mentioned, I’m working with a few other users to hopefully jumpstart some of the best candidates for reanalysis. We’re still in the “building a case” stage, but once we have something solid we will likely be forwarding what we have to the relevant people. I think this is the perfect time to do this little grassroots project given the internal momentum and newfound open minded approach I’m starting to see.

 

[Ozonelayer]

Some EF scale updates from Tim Marshall per Nick on X:

-The bad news is Tim says the new scale could take as long as 2030 to be implemented.

-The good news is that he says there’s growing interest and internal support for reanalysis of previous tornadoes/EF5 candidate events, especially following Enderlin. This reanalysis would likely factor in mobile radar data. He says El Reno 2013 would likely be upgraded back to EF5 under this new approach.

This is all very hopeful and exciting. As mentioned, I’m working with a few other users to hopefully jumpstart some of the best candidates for reanalysis. We’re still in the “building a case” stage, but once we have something solid we will likely be forwarding what we have to the relevant people. I think this is the perfect time to do this little grassroots project given the internal momentum and newfound open minded approach I’m starting to see.

Thats great! Hope they can start doing it soon. And props to you for trying to get the best candidates a shoe-in for quicker reassessment.

 

[andyhb]

Some EF scale updates from Tim Marshall per Nick on X:

-The bad news is Tim says the new scale could take as long as 2030 to be implemented.

-The good news is that he says there’s growing interest and internal support for reanalysis of previous tornadoes/EF5 candidate events, especially following Enderlin. This reanalysis would likely factor in mobile radar data. He says El Reno 2013 would likely be upgraded back to EF5 under this new approach.

This is all very hopeful and exciting. As mentioned, I’m working with a few other users to hopefully jumpstart some of the best candidates for reanalysis. We’re still in the “building a case” stage, but once we have something solid we will likely be forwarding what we have to the relevant people. I think this is the perfect time to do this little grassroots project given the internal momentum and newfound open minded approach I’m starting to see.

I was rushing here to post this, but unsurprisingly I was beaten to it. Here's the tweet nonetheless.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

-The bad news is Tim says the new scale could take as long as 2030 to be implemented.

Well, that sucks. Can’t complain though; everything takes time.

I was rushing here to post this, but unsurprisingly I was beaten to it. Here's the tweet nonetheless.

So, based off this they are moving away from a damage-based scale? Or are they incorporating radar? I don’t know how exactly I feel about that either way.

 

[andyhb]

Well, that sucks. Can’t complain though; everything takes time.

So, based off this they are moving away from a damage-based scale? Or are they incorporating radar? I don’t know how exactly I feel about that either way.

They are not moving away from a damage-based scale, but they are looking to incorporate radar data as supplemental information. I don't believe that the official rating can be changed solely based on radar data, but it could provide additional evidence to upgrade in borderline cases.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

I don't believe that the official rating can be changed solely based on radar data

That’s what I was wondering. I’m all for using radar measurements to help facilitate an upgrade, but relying solely on radar for an upgrade? I don’t know how well that would play out in practice. I’m surprised Tim said they would rate El Reno EF5 if it had happened post-implementation of this - I thought he was against using radar.

 

[ColdFront]

That’s what I was wondering. I’m all for using radar measurements to help facilitate an upgrade, but relying solely on radar for an upgrade? I don’t know how well that would play out in practice. I’m surprised Tim said they would rate El Reno EF5 if it had happened post-implementation of this - I thought he was against using radar.

Regular Radar or something like DOW/RAXPOL? The sample size for DOW/RAXPOL is going to be very small. That may end up actually upgrading, just estimating, 1-2 tornados every five years?

The two I can really think of are El Reno and Greenfield. However, those weren’t necessarily “borderline” EF4/EF5 damage wise. I’m sure the committee has worked a lot of this out behind the scenes though.