Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[Grand Poo Bah]

It's just a complete deriliction of duties at this point. They know its wrong. They know its bad for science. They know the public hates it. Yet they continue forward on this rudderless ship to nowhere. Is Fairview the worst car damage we've ever seen with an EF2? because I think it might be.

I've been worried the Enderlin rating would make the QRT and most offices cement themselves even deeper in terrible practices and it looks like that could be happening.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

"In the timeframe that tornadoes went through far southern Lower Michigan between 3-4 PM EST, both the Significant (EF2+) and Violent (EF4+) Tornado parameters were maximized (Figures 2 & 3) over far northern Indiana and far southern Lower Michigan. This does NOT mean tornadoes of this magnitude occurred but shows the environment is favorable for this type of intensity."

This right here. This is so beyond the pale It reads like satire. Tornado ratings have become a parody of themselves.

 

[slenker]

I can see that type of statement being a little insensitive, sure, but this isn’t problematic from a scientific standpoint.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

"In the timeframe that tornadoes went through far southern Lower Michigan between 3-4 PM EST, both the Significant (EF2+) and Violent (EF4+) Tornado parameters were maximized (Figures 2 & 3) over far northern Indiana and far southern Lower Michigan. This does NOT mean tornadoes of this magnitude occurred but shows the environment is favorable for this type of intensity."

This right here. This is so beyond the pale It reads like satire. Tornado ratings have become a parody of themselves.

That rubbed me the wrong way when I first read it, and I’m not someone who is usually an outspoken critic of the NWS. The fact they put “NOT” in all caps this on the event page tells me they might be an inexperienced office with these-type events.

 

[eep]

I can see that type of statement being a little insensitive, sure, but this isn’t problematic from a scientific standpoint.

Last night a set of storms in high VTP environment did nothing and got obliterated by a cold front. I get that the argument looks stupid when the tornado in question was in fact, violent, but in a vacuum the statement is fine.

 

[TH2002]

@TH2002 Do you know the google maps location of your unsurveyed Tuscaloosa home on Holt Peterson road?

Sorry for the late response, but here are the coordinates: 33°14'13.91"N 87°26'34.32"W

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

That rubbed me the wrong way when I first read it, and I’m not someone who is usually an outspoken critic of the NWS. The fact they put “NOT” in all caps this on the event page tells me they might be an inexperienced office with these-type events.

This is a very good point and an angle I hadn't considered. It makes me less irritated with that office specifically, but it says A LOT about the ratings culture at the NWS. I stand by my original statement that it's becoming satire at this point.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

I can see that type of statement being a little insensitive, sure, but this isn’t problematic from a scientific standpoint.

From a common sense standpoint it is. We all watched the videos. We saw what was clearly a violent tornado. It's like watching a violent high speed car crash and then someone telling you "hold on now, let's wait until we have all the facts! We don't actually know the crash was that bad."

And then later they tell you the cars weren't even actually going that fast, they they were just built poorly...

 

[TH2002]

It's just a complete deriliction of duties at this point. They know its wrong. They know its bad for science. They know the public hates it. Yet they continue forward on this rudderless ship to nowhere. Is Fairview the worst car damage we've ever seen with an EF2? because I think it might be.

I've been worried the Enderlin rating would make the QRT and most offices cement themselves even deeper in terrible practices and it looks like that could be happening.

OUN flip flops from being reasonable to being absurdly conservative, and unfortunately it's not a new habit either.

They've definitely trended much more towards "absurdly conservative" in the past few years, including the survey of the Feb. 2023 Cheyenne-Strong City "EF2" that debarked trees and caused some ground scouring.

 

[slenker]

From a common sense standpoint it is. We all watched the videos. We saw what was clearly a violent tornado. It's like watching a violent high speed car crash and then someone telling you "hold on now, let's wait until we have all the facts! We don't actually know the crash was that bad."

And then later they tell you the cars weren't even actually going that fast, they they were just built poorly...

As far as I can tell, this is a quote from a government entity that’s going to make sure any announcement they make is fully backed by the science, and they are waiting on what the EF rating of the tornado will be, because that’s the science right now.

Was this statement made officially before or after the preliminary rating of Union City was released? Because if it was made before, there isn’t a reason to view it in this light, and I think you’re being dismissive of the scientific process. If it was after, that’s a little strange to make a statement like that, I can agree with you.

 

[WIL9287]

Pretty ridiculous Fairview got an EF2 rating based on what it did to that vehicle. I just can't understand the mental disconnect of seeing that and rating it 115 mph.

Did you watch the news 9 helicopter fly over video? Aside from the car, there was nothing that screamed anything higher than low-end EF-2. Some trees were uprooted, a few barns lost sheet metal, and one home showed broken windows and stripped shingles. The only EF-2 level damage was double wooden power poles broken. Contextual damage doesn't support anything higher, either. The grass where the car landed was barely blown down.

 

[TH2002]

Did you watch the news 9 helicopter fly over video? Aside from the car, there was nothing that screamed anything higher than low-end EF-2. Some trees were uprooted, a few barns lost sheet metal, and one home showed broken windows and stripped shingles. The only EF-2 level damage was double wooden power poles broken. Contextual damage doesn't support anything higher, either. The grass where the car landed was barely blown down.

Honestly... find me an example of equivalent vehicle damage from a tornado of EF2 intensity, let alone low-end EF2. Doesn't exist because it's not possible.

With that said... I can understand the car being the only violent damage indicator on a path of otherwise unimpressive damage, but if that's the case, why not just go EF3? OUN would be well within their rights to do so.

 

[Kds86z]

hey there fellas. first message ever. does anyone still think piedmont is the strongest of all time? i know tri state has gained lots of attention recently, but ive been too lazy to look into it so i dont know. piedmont was crazy strong

What do you all think, Jarrell? I forget what the general consensus is. Or smithville, Moore 99..

Am curious as well..

@TH2002 @buckeye05 you may know

 

[speedbump305]

hey there fellas. first message ever. does anyone still think piedmont is the strongest of all time? i know tri state has gained lots of attention recently, but ive been too lazy to look into it so i dont know. piedmont was crazy strong

Jarrell, BCM 1999, Piedmont/El Reno 2011, Tri State, and Smithville are all in an extremely rare group where all 5 of them produced damage extreme enough to be could be considered the most violent ever recorded. There’s no definitive answer. It’s all subject to opinions. But all 5 of them are consistently ranked among the top!

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Jarrell, BCM 1999, Piedmont/El Reno 2011, Tri State, and Smithville are all in an extremely rare group where all 5 of them produced damage extreme enough to be could be considered the most violent ever recorded. There’s no definitive answer. It’s all subject to opinions. But all 5 of them are consistently ranked among the top!

Piedmont produced the most impressive damage indicator in recent history. There's probably been several tornadoes that were stronger but just didn't hit anything noteworthy.

You'd probably have a lot better luck asking your question in the significant tornado thread @iujkiaweatherman

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Moving this conversation from the severe weather thread.

With the exception of photogrammetry, the rating system does not work on the basis of the visual appearance of the tornado. In fact, with the exception of a few old cases that are largely disregarded, that’s actually never been the case. The reality of the situation is that tornadoes are rated based on damage, they’ve always primarily been rated based on damage throughout history, and you’re trying to put forth an idealistic personal perception-based version of the rating process that isn’t shared by anyone in the meteorological field, has never really existed, and therefore is not worth discussing. I’m here to discuss things within the confines of the EF Scale, not the Grand Poo Bah scale, which does not exist and therefore isn’t valid. You can scream about the way you want things to be as much as you want, but it doesn’t change reality, and I’m only interested in having a conversation either within the confines of the current reality of the scale, or within the confines of the proposed future of the scale. I’m not interested in discussing immeasurable opinion/visual perception-based concepts that aren’t realistically applicable, have no academic or scientific basis, and by all indications never will.

In an nutshell, an argument that essentially boils down to “that tornado looked crazy though” simply does not have any substance in terms real world scientific application, and if it’s not applicable, there’s nothing to discuss.

I'm not screaming. I'm very calmly sharing my thoughts on the Union City tornado and making a case for a higher rating. We all saw it was violent. Anyone with even moderate experience with tornadoes can see it was exceptional. It's not controversial to say its rating should reflect that.

Highly detailed video evidence is definitely applicable, and using it absolutely has a scientific basis. It's some of the best contextual evidence we have, and the argument "we've never done it this way" has never been a good case against progress. Especially when you consider how short of a timeframe cell phones capable of this type of footage have existed. You're giving me way too much credit by calling *using our eyeballs to reach common sense conclusions* the "Grand Poo Bah Scale" Lol. I think it just further reenforces the idea that we need a new scale for rating tornadoes if there's no room in the EF scale for video evidence.

Edit: To be clear I am not talking about giving it a higher rating based on the videos' "vibes" or anything. Photogrammetry or something of that nature could be used to verify the violent nature. I'm just saying in this case the video is strong evidence that should be used with the damage.

 

[buckeye05]

Moving this conversation from the severe weather thread.



I'm not screaming. I'm very calmly sharing my thoughts on the Union City tornado and making a case for a higher rating. We all saw it was violent. Anyone with even moderate experience with tornadoes can see it was exceptional. It's not controversial to say its rating should reflect that.

Highly detailed video evidence is definitely applicable, and using it absolutely has a scientific basis. It's some of the best contextual evidence we have, and the argument "we've never done it this way" has never been a good case against progress. Especially when you consider how short of a timeframe cell phones capable of this type of footage have existed. You're giving me way too much credit by calling *using our eyeballs to reach common sense conclusions* the "Grand Poo Bah Scale" Lol. I think it just further reenforces the idea that we need a new scale for rating tornadoes if there's no room in the EF scale for video evidence.

Edit: To be clear I am not talking about giving it a higher rating based on the videos' "vibes" or anything. Photogrammetry or something of that nature could be used to verify the violent nature. I'm just saying in this case the video is strong evidence that should be used with the damage.

And anyone who’s had more than moderate experience has dealt with enough outliers to know that what you’re saying isn’t statistically valid enough to be a real parameter. For elaboration on this, see my second post about how none of this matters due to demonstrable statistical variability between appearance and damage. It being “exceptional” based on video is not a definable, objectively accurate statement, nor does it hold any kind of actual scientific value in the world of intensity estimation. The main caveats are that similar looking tornadoes have occurred and produced damage below the EF4 threshold, and because it doesn’t have real merit because you can’t scientifically quantify or grade it, combined with enough aforementioned outliers to make it statistically dubious. At the end of the day your argument still just boils down to “yeah but just look at that crazy video though” no matter how you try to prop it up into something more than it really is. The only grain of validity here would be photogrammetry. Other than that it’s a very Reddit comments section level take.

Also sure, I agree that just because something isn’t an official parameter or hasn’t been used widely for intensity estimation doesn’t make it automatically invalid. I’m just saying this specific ambiguous “parameter” is invalid, and there’s a very good reason why it’s not factored into ratings. It’s still not applicable, I’ve explained why it isn’t pretty clearly. You simply don’t know better than the people who now, and throughout history haven’t factored this kind of thing in as basis for violent ratings, and who are able to grasp the reasons why that doesn’t happen.

 

[SweptSlab5]

I feel like if there was to be an EF4 upgrade, this house would be more of a candidate. The DAT lists "Swab cleaned. Sill plates were screwed into concrete ans ripped out (not broken)" (Why did they not fix the typo)

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

And anyone who’s had more than moderate experience has dealt with enough outliers to know that what you’re saying isn’t statistically valid enough to be a real parameter. For elaboration on this, see my second post about how none of this matters due to demonstrable statistical variability between appearance and damage. It being “exceptional” based on video is not a definable, objectively accurate statement, nor does it hold any kind of actual scientific value in the world of intensity estimation. The main caveats are that similar looking tornadoes have occurred and produced damage below the EF4 threshold, and because it doesn’t have real merit because you can’t scientifically quantify or grade it, combined with enough aforementioned outliers to make it statistically dubious. At the end of the day your argument still just boils down to “yeah but just look at that crazy video though” no matter how you try to prop it up into something more than it really is. The only grain of validity here would be photogrammetry. Other than that it’s a very Reddit comments section level take.

Also sure, I agree that just because something isn’t an official parameter or hasn’t been used widely for intensity estimation doesn’t make it automatically invalid. I’m just saying this specific ambiguous “parameter” is invalid, and there’s a very good reason why it’s not factored into ratings. It’s still not applicable, I’ve explained why it isn’t pretty clearly. You simply don’t know better than the people who now, and throughout history haven’t factored this kind of thing in as basis for violent ratings, and who are able to grasp the reasons why that doesn’t happen.

Agree with EF3. I’ll also note that one of the 160 homes (the one with the red subfloor) had significant fire damage in the wall joist area as well as rotted wood around the bolts; all of those amount to significant structural issues. The bolts themselves were rusted but it’s more likely that it’s surface rust.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

And anyone who’s had more than moderate experience has dealt with enough outliers to know that what you’re saying isn’t statistically valid enough to be a real parameter. For elaboration on this, see my second post about how none of this matters due to demonstrable statistical variability between appearance and damage. It being “exceptional” based on video is not a definable, objectively accurate statement, nor does it hold any kind of actual scientific value in the world of intensity estimation. The main caveats are that similar looking tornadoes have occurred and produced damage below the EF4 threshold, and because it doesn’t have real merit because you can’t scientifically quantify or grade it, combined with enough aforementioned outliers to make it statistically dubious. At the end of the day your argument still just boils down to “yeah but just look at that crazy video though” no matter how you try to prop it up into something more than it really is. The only grain of validity here would be photogrammetry. Other than that it’s a very Reddit comments section level take.

Also sure, I agree that just because something isn’t an official parameter or hasn’t been used widely for intensity estimation doesn’t make it automatically invalid. I’m just saying this specific ambiguous “parameter” is invalid, and there’s a very good reason why it’s not factored into ratings. It’s still not applicable, I’ve explained why it isn’t pretty clearly. You simply don’t know better than the people who now, and throughout history haven’t factored this kind of thing in as basis for violent ratings, and who are able to grasp the reasons why that doesn’t happen.

That's a valid take. I still disagree, but it's too early in the season to get up in arms about it. I just wish more offices were like Grand Forks. If they could spend 3 month analyzing a train car, Northern Indiana could at least ATTEMPT to analyze some video. There was no reason to rush it the way they did. Especially considering how significant the tornado was in Michigan history.