Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[Lake Martin EF4]

Jarrell is a very solid contender for being the strongest ever recorded

Agreed. I was a doubter for the longest time, its #10 slot in my top 10 precarious and subject to change. Those days are over. Jarrell now rules #3 with an iron fist, and it's solely behind Tri-State and Piedmont in that order.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Agreed. I was a doubter for the longest time, its #10 slot in my top 10 precarious and subject to change. Those days are over. Jarrell now holds onto #3 with an iron grip, and it's solely behind Tri-State and Piedmont in that order.

I have it as a tie between those three. The fact it was moving upwards of 14 miles per hour on average (the “stall” is a myth; no idea where it came from but the start/end times and time it entered the DCE confirm this) and absolutely eviscerating every structure it touched is insane. If we want to talk about El Reno de-chassising cars, here’s what was left of a vehicle caught up in Jarrell:

Unfathomably violent. The intensity gradient is crazy as well; I’d argue 30-40% of its path area was at EF5 intensity.

 

[slenker]

Jarrell was probably the strongest we’ve ever seen IMO. It formed in an exceptionally unusual way (and said way likely contributed to its unusual power), produced extraordinary grass scouring before impacting any structures, and has the most ridiculous display of vertical motion I’ve ever seen on any video. Just look at the 5:30 mark in Wayne Persky’s video here:

You can also just see the debris cloud and how it looks. Notice how sharp the gradient is between regular ground and debris suddenly flying in the air at the base of the tornado, also the incredible vertical motion. To me, that has always seemed like a good indicator that a tornado is particularly powerful - but I’ve never seen it quite this defined, not even in tornadoes from 4/27/11. The only other day that had tornadoes with debris clouds looking almost as violent as Jarrell was 5/24/11; footage from Chickasha has really reminded me of this type of violent, monstrous debris cloud. But Chickasha, despite deserving EF5 in its own right, doesn’t come close to this level of pure blender-level terror.

EDIT: The video of the Smithville tornado from the Tombigbee plant workers, at least in the beginning of the video, also had some extraordinary vertical motion comparable to this too. It displayed a frighteningly violent rotation paired with it, and it looked most impressive right as (I believe) it was striking the B&B where the semi truck was embedded into the ground.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Jarrell was probably the strongest we’ve ever seen IMO. It formed in an exceptionally unusual way (and said way likely contributed to its unusual power), produced extraordinary grass scouring before impacting any structures, and has the most ridiculous display of vertical motion I’ve ever seen on any video. Just look at the 5:30 mark in Wayne Persky’s video here:

You can also just see the debris cloud and how it looks. Notice how sharp the gradient is between regular ground and debris suddenly flying in the air at the base of the tornado, also the incredible vertical motion. To me, that has always seemed like a good indicator that a tornado is particularly powerful - but I’ve never seen it quite this defined, not even in tornadoes from 4/27/11. The only other day that had tornadoes with debris clouds looking almost as violent as Jarrell was 5/24/11; footage from Chickasha has really reminded me of this type of violent, monstrous debris cloud. But Chickasha, despite deserving EF5 in its own right, doesn’t come close to this level of pure blender-level terror.

Look at the 0:45 mark of this video. Easily the fastest vertical motion I've ever seen.

 

[CheeselandSkies]

Crazy that what is widely agreed upon as one of if not the most violent tornadoes in history *by far* formed from what was essentially a "mesoscale accident," but that's our atmosphere for you. That's why all of us on here are on here.

 

[joshoctober16]

What makes El Reno so unique and hard to quantify intensity-wise is the fact that it was basically multiple small violent tornadoes within a huge circulation. I know this isn't damage-related but just look at this screencap:
View attachment 50812
I think if it had gone through, say, Warr Acres (where it was roughly aiming for before it lifted) I think the damage would've been uncomparable to anything we've seen - there would've been multiple defined sub-vortex areas that would have probably been in the EF4-EF5 range. Enderlin was just one monster wedge with a defined center.

a other thing to note about el reno 2013 , it did clear cycloidal marks around that time of the image.

 

[joshoctober16]

Jarrell was probably the strongest we’ve ever seen IMO. It formed in an exceptionally unusual way (and said way likely contributed to its unusual power), produced extraordinary grass scouring before impacting any structures, and has the most ridiculous display of vertical motion I’ve ever seen on any video. Just look at the 5:30 mark in Wayne Persky’s video here:

You can also just see the debris cloud and how it looks. Notice how sharp the gradient is between regular ground and debris suddenly flying in the air at the base of the tornado, also the incredible vertical motion. To me, that has always seemed like a good indicator that a tornado is particularly powerful - but I’ve never seen it quite this defined, not even in tornadoes from 4/27/11. The only other day that had tornadoes with debris clouds looking almost as violent as Jarrell was 5/24/11; footage from Chickasha has really reminded me of this type of violent, monstrous debris cloud. But Chickasha, despite deserving EF5 in its own right, doesn’t come close to this level of pure blender-level terror.

EDIT: The video of the Smithville tornado from the Tombigbee plant workers, at least in the beginning of the video, also had some extraordinary vertical motion comparable to this too. It displayed a frighteningly violent rotation paired with it, and it looked most impressive right as (I believe) it was striking the B&B where the semi truck was embedded into the ground.

somthing to remember that the jarrell tornado at that point is a fusion of 2 tornadoes.

the landspout merged with a new meso tornado and can both be seen on the ground at the same time.
there are videos of both as well , however there is no video showing both funnels and debris cloud the same time , they are either zoom in too much or the full clip isn't found.

one of the best image to show both is this one



the tornado is being fed by landspout tornadogenesis and supercell tornadogenesis the same time , the landspout was already likely F2+ as well.

having both is obviously going to create a violent tornado.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

I have it as a tie between those three.

The tree damage in all three events is very similar:

I know for a fact that both Jarrell and Piedmont completely debarked trees; I can't find a photo of the worst.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Thanks, it could be slow going and genuine results are not a guarantee, but it’s worth a shot if presented the right way.

With that said, finding a way to gather a negative takeaway and response to objectively good news is crazy work, especially given the highly speculative basis for your stance here. I can guarantee you that Tim Marshall has no investment in “appeasing” anyone. You did the same thing after Jim LaDue’s recent presentation in which he proposed a less conservative approach to damage surveying (a gripe related to lack of accountability for previous years of bad ratings, and somehow hearing his verbal support for responding to Lyza’s findings as a problematic statement). This is a topic where you take whatever forward progress you can get, and that’s all there is to it. When things start moving in the right direction, it really doesn’t matter who it’s coming from or what they said or did previously.

That's a very fair point. Especially about Ladue. I didn't know enough about him and assumed the worst., which was a mistake. However, I know a lot more about Tim Marshall and have more of an evidence based distrust of him lol.

 

[joshoctober16]

dont know if this is real or not but i do know it seems like the New EF scale is coming out 2030 and el reno 2013 is one on the list for being upgraded.

 

[Kds86z]

dont know if this is real or not but i do know it seems like the New EF scale is coming out 2030 and el reno 2013 is one on the list for being upgraded.

So far away

 

[slenker]

dont know if this is real or not but i do know it seems like the New EF scale is coming out 2030 and el reno 2013 is one on the list for being upgraded.

Only one I disagree with significantly is Minden/Harlan, if that’s real. Also, Greenfield because of wind turbines? Really? I’m skeptical.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Only one I disagree with significantly is Minden/Harlan, if that’s real. Also, Greenfield because of wind turbines? Really? I’m skeptical.

I think wind turbines will be a new DI but certainly not an EF5 one. The best I could find for those turbine models was a wind resistance rating of 120 mph according to the manufacturer. Tim Marshall confirmed that number in an interview he did with Fox Weather shortly after. I didn't save either of those sources so you'll just have to take my word for it lol.

I agree Minden/Harlan shouldn't have its rating changed, but I do believe it serves as a prime example of how the windspeed ranges attached to each rating are far too low.

 

[slenker]

I think wind turbines will be a new DI but certainly not an EF5 one. The best I could find for those turbine models was a wind resistance rating of 120 mph according to the manufacturer. Tim Marshall confirmed that number in an interview he did with Fox Weather shortly after. I didn't save either of those sources so you'll just have to take my word for it lol.

I agree Minden/Harlan shouldn't have its rating changed, but I do believe it serves as a prime example of how the windspeed ranges attached to each rating are far too low.

I agree. To be absolutely clear, as well, I don't disagree with Greenfield receiving an EF5 rating, I just think they should change wind turbines to the parking stops in Greenfield, unless there's something about the wind turbines that does genuinely point to EF5 intensity and just isn't common knowledge yet. But I am highly skeptical, a wind turbine doesn't strike me as something very resistant to powerful tornadoes.

 

[CheeselandSkies]

Minden/Harlan had a violent tornado "vibe" about it, but as far as I know there's no clear-cut damage that points to an upgrade. I'm not aware of what the DoW/other mobile radar measurements with it were either, not to say there couldn't be some.

 

[slenker]

Minden/Harlan had a violent tornado "vibe" about it, but as far as I know there's no clear-cut damage that points to an upgrade. I'm not aware of what the DoW/other mobile radar measurements with it were either, not to say there couldn't be some.

There was a DOW measurement of 224 mph like, 600 m AGL, which to me is absolutely both way too high up and not strong enough to yield an EF5 rating by itself. If you gave it a 170 EF4, I guess I'd be fine with it. But the graphic states "EF4/5" and I cannot get behind it being EF5.

EDIT: Also Sulphur Springs being EF5 would be a little odd to me too. IIRC, that was a ~216 mph reading. It was much closer to the ground than Minden's reading was, though.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Minden/Harlan had a violent tornado "vibe" about it, but as far as I know there's no clear-cut damage that points to an upgrade. I'm not aware of what the DoW/other mobile radar measurements with it were either, not to say there couldn't be some.

The most interesting aspect of the DOW measurement is the 224mph winds were occurring across almost 3,000 feet!

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Here's an interesting question. What do people think of cycloidal scarring as an EF4/EF5 indicator? I'd actually put it in the EF5 category, with the caveat that there has to be high-end damage around it.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Here's an interesting question. What do people think of cycloidal scarring as an EF4/EF5 indicator? I'd actually put it in the EF5 category, with the caveat that there has to be high-end damage around it.

The issue is that the only equation I've seen that verifies it is completely non-peer-reviewed and is often thrown around as an objective truth, despite nobody working to actually verify it besides the person who created it. Cycloidal scarring is extremely rare but it's essentially just a glorified version of ground scouring; I wouldn't assign a for-sure intensity to it due to the number of factors that likely play into it.

 

[slenker]

The issue is that the only equation I've seen that verifies it is completely non-peer-reviewed and is often thrown around as an objective truth, despite nobody working to actually verify it besides the person who created it. Cycloidal scarring is extremely rare but it's essentially just a glorified version of ground scouring; I wouldn't assign a for-sure intensity to it due to the number of factors that likely play into it.

This actually isn’t entirely true IIRC - Fujita et al. did have some papers on cycloidal markings. With the size and orientation of it you can get a very crude windspeed estimate. I’ll have to try to find the sources when I’m on my computer.

EDIT: Sorry, thought you were saying there isn’t any evidence of it that is peer reviewed. I know for a fact that there is though, may not have been Fujita himself but I’m pretty sure it was.