• 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

Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

slenker said:
What specifically are you referring to when you say “the math proving higher windspeeds has always been there?”
Click to expand...

Here's at least one I found recently WIND SPEEDS REQUIRED TO UPSET VEHICLES (2003)
At F2 wind speeds of about 56 m/s (125mi/hr), “Cars, vans, and pickups may be moved but fewer than 10% are tipped over.”
At F3 wind speeds of about 70 m/s (155mi/hr), “Cars, vans, and pickups are moved and 10% to 50% are tipped over. Vehicles that are tipped over may be rolled or lifted and thrown.”
At F4 wind speeds of about 90 m/s (200mi/hr), “More than 50% of cars, vans, and pickups are tipped over. Vehicles that are tipped over may be rolled or lifted and thrown.”
Click to expand...
I always wondered why wind tunnels were never used to study vehicle displacement. It turns out they were, and this was the conclusion they reached. If over 50% of cars in a location are tossed, it is likely due to 200 MPH+ wind speeds.

There's also the fact Ethan Moriarty has shown very clearly, using standard engineering wind calculations that several structures prove greater than 220 mph winds when destroyed or displaced.

1. The Enderlin train car - 260 mph
2. The Rolling Fork Water Tower 229 mph
3. Parkersburg, IA home 273 MPH
4. The Greenfield parking stops - 247 mph
5. Rochelle-Fairdale, IL 226 MPH (Later rescinded)
6. Tri-State tornado - 289 MPH

Say what you want about the guy, but he actually shows the math, which the Texas Tech engineers consistently refuse to do. All these structures he calculated existed and have been hit by tornadoes prior to the year 2000 when Texas Tech made those claims, as well. If they actually wanted the EF scale to be more accurate they'd use some of this methodology instead of throwing out anything that can be calculated over 200 mph as "debris loading" or other bogus outliers. How is that even remotely scientific? How can you claim "this is science" when half the evidence has been thrown out for 30 years?

It's not science. That's literally my entire point. It's conjecture, and has been conjecture the entire time. Even the methodology you listed behind the conception of the EF scale is conjecture. Just because it was a panel of experts, doesn't make their numbers any less arbitrary. Plus, half the panel was made up by Texas Tech's camp. Almost every single mathematical study that has been done on high-end tornado winds goes against Texas Tech's claims about maximum winds, yet they are still propped up as truth. Why is that? There is no remotely adequate explanation.
 
Last edited:
@slenker I think the truth of the matter is somewhere between our two viewpoints. I can definitely get carried away on my end, but I think your arguments are fringing on naivety. I don't know what the middle-ground is. All I know is none of this is going to be fixed while the Texas Tech folks are in charge.

Sawmaster put it best

Sawmaster said:
Systemic problems almost always arise from poor management. If you don't fix that first not only does the problem recur continually, but similar problems emerge in other places until you end up with an essentially unfixable system.

The fish rots from the head down.
Click to expand...

Either get rid of Tim Marshall, Texas Tech, and co. or deal with these problems forever.
 
I’m enjoying the debate here.

One thing I’ll add, and again, this isn’t conspiracy. Re: Texas Tech. I’m not a conspiracy theorist at all when it comes to the EF scale. On the subject of Texas Tech Wind engineers, Doswell very candidly called them out in one of his great blog postings on the EF scale. Essentially saying for years Texas Tech engineers denied (and in the face of video evidence) that vehicles were not lofted by tornados. He theorized this was because they had partnered and were pushing a tornado safe room that vehicle impact would render useless.

There’s science, and then there’s denying indisputable evidence (cars flying) because of a commercial interest. This may have only been a few people at Texas Tech at the time with these beliefs, so I don’t mean to paint with a broad brush, but Doswell did seem to pretty clearly not hold them in a very good light.

This has no bearing on the current EF scale application, but just wanted to give some context about why Texas Tech has this sort of reputation amongst some in the community.
 
ColdFront said:
I’m enjoying the debate here.

One thing I’ll add, and again, this isn’t conspiracy. Re: Texas Tech. I’m not a conspiracy theorist at all when it comes to the EF scale. On the subject of Texas Tech Wind engineers, Doswell very candidly called them out in one of his great blog postings on the EF scale. Essentially saying for years Texas Tech engineers denied (and in the face of video evidence) that vehicles were not lofted by tornados. He theorized this was because they had partnered and were pushing a tornado safe room that vehicle impact would render useless.

There’s science, and then there’s denying indisputable evidence (cars flying) because of a commercial interest. This may have only been a few people at Texas Tech at the time with these beliefs, so I don’t mean to paint with a broad brush, but Doswell did seem to pretty clearly not hold them in a very good light.

This has no bearing on the current EF scale application, but just wanted to give some context about why Texas Tech has this sort of reputation amongst some in the community.
Click to expand...

Man, that's crazy. I feel like Texas Tech gets so much slack, precisely because there's no good logical explanation for them to lie. "You're telling me they're saying cars don't get thrown because they want to sell tornado shelters?! That's preposterous!!" And the truth of the matter is it IS preposterous, but that doesn't make it untrue. And like I said earlier whether they're trying to sell storm shelters, or just acting like contrarians it makes no difference. The result is exactly the same. The lack of a clear motive doesn't make the lie any less harmful or malicious. I'm just sick of people saying "Surely, they have noble, science based reasons to deny reality!" Because it's a contradiction.

Plus, it's Texas... Not exactly the mecca of scientific progress, am I right?

Maybe the fact Tim Marshall works for one of the largest engineering consulting firms in the country is a conflict of interest, or maybe underrating tornadoes has no impact on construction practices whatsoever. Do we really need to uncover a motive to see the harm that is being done?
 
Last edited:
If anything, I've always been very positive on Ethan Moriarty's stances and his calculations, and I know all of these as well. Do keep in mind I have legitimately never said I distrust him in the slightest. I don't agree with some of his takes, like his stance on Vilonia 2014, but he is a legitimate engineer. But also, the same math Texas Tech uses is literally the same math Moriarty uses. They likely make different assumptions to perhaps simplify the calculation more, or they have different parameters for certain things, but ultimately it follows the exact same logic. In order:

1. Enderlin was rated EF5 because of this train car throw. This also was shown in the 2024 paper, so again, it's not conspiracy.
2. Rolling Fork's water tower had corrosion and was not built in one piece, which the 229 mph wind calc comes from assuming. If you omit these two major assumptions the resultant wind velocity would go down drastically.
3. Parkersburg was rated EF5, and this was at an EF5 rated home. Again, there's also some major assumptions made to simplify the calculation, although with this one a 279 mph calc is not going to go down far enough even with other factors taken into account to try to downgrade that. It's too overwhelming of a number.
4. Greenfield's parking stops are a valid thing to critique about that survey IMO, as I have parroted quite often on this very thread. Even if they are broken or weakened, the resultant wind calculation is still exceeding 200 mph.
5. Rochelle-Fairdale's sidewalk shifting was very unlikely to have been caused purely by wind. This was discussed a few pages ago.
6. Tri-State was rated F5. Also, again, this assumes the same thing as the Rolling Fork water tower calc. This also happened in 1925.

And not only that, all of these wind calculations come from a plethora of other assumptions that people and researchers can and will critique. If anything, this just points more to the fact that the issue is mostly not the scale itself; when the EF scale is correctly applied, it works very well, as we know from the majority of ratings given from 2007-2013. The issues arise from the inconsistency in its application across different parts of the country. Greenfield, IA had parking stops removed and thrown far enough distances to potentially justify EF5 intensity, but it was not taken into account - however, Joplin was allowed to have parking stops be a legitimate reason behind its EF5 intensity. Matador, TX was given an EF3 and we know that's a horrendous one, and would've likely been given a high end EF4 rating in any other more competent WFO, even based on home damage. Vilonia inflicted full-stop EF5 damage but was omitted the rating because of "trees standing a couple dozen yards away" or something, yet Rainsville had supposed EF5 damage within 80 feet of undisturbed trees. This is clearly the biggest issue with the scale without a doubt in my mind. The Vilonia rating also directly led to the overly conservative surveying we see today, and if you want to blame somebody for it, I think John Robinson is your guy.

Tim Marshall isn't some boogeyman. Sure, it's a conflict of interest for him to be with HAAG and also survey tornadoes. I don't even like the guy, the way he talked to his wife in his Bridge Creek storm chase was gross to me. These are by no means a smoking gun that he's intentionally ruining the field and making insinuations that he is doing so is just a ridiculous accusation without verifiable evidence, in my opinion. He's a leading expert in this niche field, and that is a fact. And he is the guy who, after the ASCE report that tried to downgrade Joplin's intensity, went back and surveyed 22 homes and gave them EF5 intensity. He also very clearly disagreed with the rating for Matador in 2023 based on his demeanor on that tornado, and he literally is one of the main reasons why Enderlin is an EF5 right now. At the end of the day, he isn't the ultimate authority on every tornado getting their rating, but he is one of the most experienced surveyors out there and as such researchers and NWS offices look for his approval to give ratings: That's up to the individual WFOs whether or not they want to listen to him.

I'm not saying I agree with Texas Tech fully, they were responsible for Matador and they clearly have some outdated ideas with damage indicators. I'm not saying I agree with every WFOs decision to give some tornado this rating for this reason and blah blah blah, I'm saying that there is a scientific basis for their generation of the EF scale, and that is inarguable. The NWS decided to make it the standard, and that was their decision. People can assume all they want about what every single Texas Tech engineer says just based on Doswell's blog post alone, but that doesn't change the fact that people's opinions change over time and that includes scientific researchers. A big part of the issue I have with your posts is that you're saying there isn't progress and it isn't science being done, and somehow Marshall / Texas Tech is responsible for that. That is objectively false. Doing science includes doing the wrong thing first sometimes, realizing your mistakes, and fixing them. That's literally what is happening with the new scale, especially if we take the post by @joshoctober16 earlier in this thread (page 210) to be the truth. That's exactly what occurred with the original F-scale, which was also an inaccurate scale in the other direction. There is constant work being done, constant research being done, and attempts to mend this scale that can be peer-reviewed and fixed accordingly. In my eyes, trying to argue that the F-scale was better than the EF-scale in terms of how things were rated is blatantly wrong. You saw some of the most undeserving tornadoes get F5 and F4 ratings with the original F-scale. The winds for violent tornadoes may have been closer to what they really are in the original F-scale, but the issue was construction quality was not taken into account nearly as much as it is today, an issue Fujita himself acknowledged and encouraged to be taken into account when granting ratings in 1992 (Source: The La Plata, MD Tornado: Issues involving the F-scale by Tim Marshall - I would directly link it, but I can't find a good pdf for it online that isn't directly downloadable).

I don't think I'm being naive by not immediately believing Marshall is a problem in this field of science because there's something you can point to that indicates a conflict of interest, especially considering his contributions to this field.
 
slenker said:
If anything, I've always been very positive on Ethan Moriarty's stances and his calculations, and I know all of these as well. Do keep in mind I have legitimately never said I distrust him in the slightest. I don't agree with some of his takes, like his stance on Vilonia 2014, but he is a legitimate engineer. But also, the same math Texas Tech uses is literally the same math Moriarty uses. They likely make different assumptions to perhaps simplify the calculation more, or they have different parameters for certain things, but ultimately it follows the exact same logic. In order:

1. Enderlin was rated EF5 because of this train car throw. This also was shown in the 2024 paper, so again, it's not conspiracy.
2. Rolling Fork's water tower had corrosion and was not built in one piece, which the 229 mph wind calc comes from assuming. If you omit these two major assumptions the resultant wind velocity would go down drastically.
3. Parkersburg was rated EF5, and this was at an EF5 rated home. Again, there's also some major assumptions made to simplify the calculation, although with this one a 279 mph calc is not going to go down far enough even with other factors taken into account to try to downgrade that. It's too overwhelming of a number.
4. Greenfield's parking stops are a valid thing to critique about that survey IMO, as I have parroted quite often on this very thread. Even if they are broken or weakened, the resultant wind calculation is still exceeding 200 mph.
5. Rochelle-Fairdale's sidewalk shifting was very unlikely to have been caused purely by wind. This was discussed a few pages ago.
6. Tri-State was rated F5. Also, again, this assumes the same thing as the Rolling Fork water tower calc. This also happened in 1925.

And not only that, all of these wind calculations come from a plethora of other assumptions that people and researchers can and will critique. If anything, this just points more to the fact that the issue is mostly not the scale itself; when the EF scale is correctly applied, it works very well, as we know from the majority of ratings given from 2007-2013. The issues arise from the inconsistency in its application across different parts of the country. Greenfield, IA had parking stops removed and thrown far enough distances to potentially justify EF5 intensity, but it was not taken into account - however, Joplin was allowed to have parking stops be a legitimate reason behind its EF5 intensity. Matador, TX was given an EF3 and we know that's a horrendous one, and would've likely been given a high end EF4 rating in any other more competent WFO, even based on home damage. Vilonia inflicted full-stop EF5 damage but was omitted the rating because of "trees standing a couple dozen yards away" or something, yet Rainsville had supposed EF5 damage within 80 feet of undisturbed trees. This is clearly the biggest issue with the scale without a doubt in my mind. The Vilonia rating also directly led to the overly conservative surveying we see today, and if you want to blame somebody for it, I think John Robinson is your guy.

Tim Marshall isn't some boogeyman. Sure, it's a conflict of interest for him to be with HAAG and also survey tornadoes. I don't even like the guy, the way he talked to his wife in his Bridge Creek storm chase was gross to me. These are by no means a smoking gun that he's intentionally ruining the field and making insinuations that he is doing so is just a ridiculous accusation without verifiable evidence, in my opinion. He's a leading expert in this niche field, and that is a fact. And he is the guy who, after the ASCE report that tried to downgrade Joplin's intensity, went back and surveyed 22 homes and gave them EF5 intensity. He also very clearly disagreed with the rating for Matador in 2023 based on his demeanor on that tornado, and he literally is one of the main reasons why Enderlin is an EF5 right now. At the end of the day, he isn't the ultimate authority on every tornado getting their rating, but he is one of the most experienced surveyors out there and as such researchers and NWS offices look for his approval to give ratings: That's up to the individual WFOs whether or not they want to listen to him.

I'm not saying I agree with Texas Tech fully, they were responsible for Matador and they clearly have some outdated ideas with damage indicators. I'm not saying I agree with every WFOs decision to give some tornado this rating for this reason and blah blah blah, I'm saying that there is a scientific basis for their generation of the EF scale, and that is inarguable. The NWS decided to make it the standard, and that was their decision. People can assume all they want about what every single Texas Tech engineer says just based on Doswell's blog post alone, but that doesn't change the fact that people's opinions change over time and that includes scientific researchers. A big part of the issue I have with your posts is that you're saying there isn't progress and it isn't science being done, and somehow Marshall / Texas Tech is responsible for that. That is objectively false. Doing science includes doing the wrong thing first sometimes, realizing your mistakes, and fixing them. That's literally what is happening with the new scale, especially if we take the post by @joshoctober16 earlier in this thread (page 210) to be the truth. That's exactly what occurred with the original F-scale, which was also an inaccurate scale in the other direction. There is constant work being done, constant research being done, and attempts to mend this scale that can be peer-reviewed and fixed accordingly. In my eyes, trying to argue that the F-scale was better than the EF-scale in terms of how things were rated is blatantly wrong. You saw some of the most undeserving tornadoes get F5 and F4 ratings with the original F-scale. The winds for violent tornadoes may have been closer to what they really are in the original F-scale, but the issue was construction quality was not taken into account nearly as much as it is today, an issue Fujita himself acknowledged and encouraged to be taken into account when granting ratings in 1992 (Source: The La Plata, MD Tornado: Issues involving the F-scale by Tim Marshall - I would directly link it, but I can't find a good pdf for it online that isn't directly downloadable).

I don't think I'm being naive by not immediately believing Marshall is a problem in this field of science because there's something you can point to that indicates a conflict of interest, especially considering his contributions to this field.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're arguing. What I'm saying is Texas Tech convinced the whole meteorology world that there was zero evidence of winds above 218 mph EVER occuring based on damage. That was a blatant lie. It wasn't a misunderstanding, or a miscalculation, it was a lie. I'm referencing Moriarty's calculations because they prove there are several common structures that take greater than 218 mph winds to destroy and he reached those conclusions using the same mathematics all engineers are supposed to use. Hell, he not only found evidence of 218 mph+ winds from the Tri-State tornado, he blew past that arbitrary threshold by a whole 70 mph. Are you trying to say Texas Tech didn't have access to those DIs?

Texas Tech claiming the evidence didn't exist wasn't just a lie, it's THE lie. Everything that has happened to tornado surveying in the last 30 years can be pegged to that one giant lie. It's indefensible.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
I'm not sure what you're arguing. What I'm saying is Texas Tech convinced the whole meteorology world that there was zero evidence of winds above 218 mph EVER occuring based on damage. That was a blatant lie. It wasn't a misunderstanding, or a miscalculation, it was a lie. I'm referencing Moriarty's calculations because they prove there are several common structures that take greater than 218 mph winds to destroy and he reached those conclusions using the same mathematics all engineers are supposed to use. Hell, he not only found evidence of 218 mph+ winds from the Tri-State tornado, he blew past that arbitrary threshold by a whole 70 mph. Are you trying to say Texas Tech didn't have access to those DIs?

Texas Tech claiming the evidence didn't exist wasn't just a lie, it's THE lie. Everything that has happened to tornado surveying in the last 30 years can be pegged to that one giant lie. It's indefensible.
Click to expand...
They clearly didn’t convince the whole meteorology world that 218 mph winds were the maximum found if there are researchers that are actively finding things that dispute this. And not only that, Grazulis is paraphrasing what they stated. They 100% are stating this based on their methodology and what they deemed to be fully accurate. The Texas Tech engineers are clearly extremely stingy with what they are stating to be evident of those windspeeds. They never stated it was impossible for winds above 218 mph to exist, they are saying that with their methodology they can’t accurately ascertain anything above 218 mph. This doesn’t need to be explicitly stated to be extrapolated from the quotes you picked. This is

1. No doubt, an outdated statement. You’re taking Grazulis’s words he wrote about them some time ago as something that they definitely still believe and as if they haven’t evolved themselves, also as something 100% fact despite it not being from the direct source, and
2. Considering a wind calculation for Tri-State that I am skeptical of being done during the time period where the EF scale was being devised. Additionally, there’s plenty of reasons to doubt this DI in particular, especially when it would’ve been the only good example of such a thing occurring at the time that people could point to.

I’m arguing that those statements in Grazulis’s book are still grounded in science and have a defined methodology behind them, despite how much you or I may disagree with some of its aspects. You’re jumping to the conclusion that they lied and may have some sort of malicious intent based on three short passages from Grazulis’s work, and I strongly disagree with that take.
 
slenker said:
They clearly didn’t convince the whole meteorology world that 218 mph winds were the maximum found if there are researchers that are actively finding things that dispute this. And not only that, Grazulis is paraphrasing what they stated. They 100% are stating this based on their methodology and what they deemed to be fully accurate. The Texas Tech engineers are clearly extremely stingy with what they are stating to be evident of those windspeeds. They never stated it was impossible for winds above 218 mph to exist, they are saying that with their methodology they can’t accurately ascertain anything above 218 mph. This doesn’t need to be explicitly stated to be extrapolated from the quotes you picked. This is

1. No doubt, an outdated statement. You’re taking Grazulis’s words he wrote about them some time ago as something that they definitely still believe and as if they haven’t evolved themselves, also as something 100% fact despite it not being from the direct source, and
2. Considering a wind calculation for Tri-State that I am skeptical of being done during the time period where the EF scale was being devised. Additionally, there’s plenty of reasons to doubt this DI in particular, especially when it would’ve been the only good example of such a thing occurring at the time that people could point to.

I’m arguing that those statements in Grazulis’s book are still grounded in science and have a defined methodology behind them, despite how much you or I may disagree with some of its aspects. You’re jumping to the conclusion that they lied and may have some sort of malicious intent based on three short passages from Grazulis’s work, and I strongly disagree with that take.
Click to expand...

What methodology?! Moriarty's methodology IS the methodology. If an engineering college isn't using engineering principals to make their calculations what are they using? Grazulis's paper was written in 2001. Regardless of if Texas Tech's views have changed since then, it doesn't change the fact that it was a lie then.

Also, according to Tim Marshall's Wikipedia page he was the surveyor for La Plata. Can anyone confirm this? I wish people would quit pretending he isn't the de facto leader of the Quick Response Team, and that the quick response team isn't involved with every single EF3+ tornado in the country. I'm tired of people solely focusing on his positive contributions, while completely ignoring all of his negative ones.
 
Last edited:
Grand Poo Bah said:
What methodology?! Moriarty's methodology IS the methodology. If an engineering college isn't using engineering principals to make their calculations what are they using? Grazulis's paper was written in 2001. Regardless of if Texas Tech's views have changed since then, it doesn't change the fact that it was a lie then.

Also, according to Tim Marshall's Wikipedia page he was the surveyor for La Plata. Can anyone confirm this? Also I wish people would quit pretending he isn't the de facto leader of the Quick Response Team, and that the quick response team isn't involved with every single EF3+ tornado in the country. I'm tired of people solely focusing on his positive contributions, while completely ignoring all of his negative ones.
Click to expand...
I literally stated this in my post. The Texas Tech methodology follows in the same vein as Moriarty’s. It likely isn’t the exact same thing, though. Additionally, it wasn’t a lie, and there was zero malicious intent behind the statement. Both of these things can be simultaneously true.

I will reiterate again: The Tri-State calculation he carried out has multiple caveats to it that Texas Tech no doubt would have issues with, due to their stingy nature. They operate under calculations that require the least amount of assumptions to be made that can still be trivially carried out. And this is assuming that someone at Texas Tech carried out this calculation to the water tower from Tri-State in the first place, which I think is an extremely generous assumption in the first place.

What is the point of them lying and putting the science back? There’s zero point, they aren’t lying, they’re just stingy about it. And the fact that this work from Grazulis was written in 2001 legitimately isn’t helping your case at all, it just hurts it more - the paper you sent about vehicles moving in the F1-F4 thresholds came out in 2003.

You are jumping the gun drastically based on a paraphrased statement that Grazulis wrote in three small sections in his paper.
 
slenker said:
I literally stated this in my post. The Texas Tech methodology follows in the same vein as Moriarty’s. It likely isn’t the exact same thing, though. Additionally, it wasn’t a lie, and there was zero malicious intent behind the statement. Both of these things can be simultaneously true.

I will reiterate again: The Tri-State calculation he carried out has multiple caveats to it that Texas Tech no doubt would have issues with, due to their stingy nature. They operate under calculations that require the least amount of assumptions to be made that can still be trivially carried out. And this is assuming that someone at Texas Tech carried out this calculation to the water tower from Tri-State in the first place, which I think is an extremely generous assumption in the first place.

What is the point of them lying and putting the science back? There’s zero point, they aren’t lying, they’re just stingy about it. And the fact that this work from Grazulis was written in 2001 legitimately isn’t helping your case at all, it just hurts it more - the paper you sent about vehicles moving in the F1-F4 thresholds came out in 2003.

You are jumping the gun drastically based on a paraphrased statement that Grazulis wrote in three small sections in his paper.
Click to expand...

Also to add: Assuming negative/conspiratorial intent with science you don't agree with is a great way to start a lunatical psuedoscience movement. It's ok to be critical but this kind of thought is the source of a lot of BS in the modern world.
 
A train car, a water tower, a concrete stem wall, parking stops, and a sidewalk slab. Those are what Moriarty calculated. None of these are unique structures, and their like have been hit by tornadoes many times prior to 2001. There has also been much more extreme damage than what Moriarty has calculated and much of it is well documented.

Again. Why do we have to uncover the motive, to acknowledge the lie and the harm it has caused? Regardless of how you feel about the intent, the fact remains that there is plenty of damage throughout history where engineering and forensic analysis points to winds well over 218 mph. The burden of proof was on Texas Tech. They were the ones peddling pseudo-science, and fighting for influence. They spearheaded the EF scale. I wouldn't be calling it a lie if the claim "no damage evidence in history exists of F5 wind speeds" wasn't so blatantly and egregiously false.
 
Central Ohio Wx said:
While the reasoning is odd I do agree with 145 mph for this specific DI:
View attachment 52126
EF Wars: Episode V – Unanchored Walls Strike Back
Click to expand...

I agree as well. Old farm house, on half CMU half stone basement walls, just collapsed off to the side rather than blown apart or away, and relatively unaffected trees within 10-20 feet. The lazy explanations certainly don't do the NWS any favors.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
I guess my main question at this point is why are people so dead set on Texas Tech being involved with tornado ratings? What about Tim Marshall?
Click to expand...
I don't know why Texas Tech was the main driver of a lot of these discussions, but my guess is it is simply because of the fact that they decided to be the deepest divers into the damage and whatnot when this science was still in its infancy. Different college departments have varying levels of expertise in different fields - for example, Ohio State and West Virginia have large astronomy departments and have a lot of high end research occurring at those schools in that field. However, Ohio State doesn't have nearly as significant of a atmospheric sciences department (it still exists), and as such doesn't produce nearly as many tornado damage surveyors as somewhere like, say, University of Oklahoma would, because their meteorology department is much more well-established.

Tim Marshall is because, similar to how LaDue is viewed, he's a leading expert on damage and he's surveyed hundreds of strong+ tornadoes. He isn't the only one who is viewed in this light, though. He also has a meteorology degree in addition to his engineering degrees IIRC, which means he has a good understanding of the true physics going on too, and what may or may not deem to be valid damage indicators. He's very likely the most experienced surveyor, and if he isn't, he's definitely in the top ten. So, offices will naturally look to him for his support on ratings.

Bringing up my earlier point on this, though - I don't agree with how stingy Texas Tech is. It's also a common theme in engineering departments to be like this (speaking from my own experience working alongside engineers in classes and whatnot), and it's because they tend to be very conservative with estimates. Even today, they (Texas Tech in particular) seem to only strictly analyze things from a purely structural standpoint and omit contextual damage, including extreme vehicle mangling and disassembly, in their rating process. This is evident from the Matador survey they conducted - completely disregarding all contextual indicators of a very high-end event. That's lazy surveying, especially nowadays. I was only saying that stating what they're doing isn't science and needs to be omitted completely is not correct, they still have valuable opinions in the scientific world. Texas Tech and Tim Marshall, amongst others' contribution to the EF scale is still a positive for the scientific community, and researchers are building off of it to improve the science. When more niche wind calcs revealing higher wind velocities become more believable, mainstream, and proven to said engineers, I have little doubt they would have no issues including it in surveying.

Additionally, the precedent Enderlin has set will no doubt affect how other tornadoes are surveyed. Having Marshall and LaDue so deeply involved in that rating process is a giant plus, WFOs (at least the good ones) are likely going to take thrown objects into account now, especially with Marshall's support of such an idea. Good science takes time. The Northern Tornadoes Project has shown a very strong case for higher winds than expected being involved with thrown objects, and I have little doubt it will be incorporated going forwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top