Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[Eoline]

Just an FYI that the EF scale rating of newly-added historical events is being postponed until the new EF scale comes out around 2030. Basically this means historical ratings are not being changed until then unless I missed something.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

The thing is though, Enid WAS a context based rating. The highest rated DI was a barely anchored old farmhouse that almost certainly would not have deserved an EF4 rating on its own, and the DAT cites contextual factors as the basis for the intensity estimate at that exact damage point. The fact that this irrefutably proves that an office is allowed to hand out a violent rating based on violent contextual damage OVERRIDING clearly poor construction, sets a great precedent.

While there’s no such thing as tornado case law, any time anyone tries to say something like “Oh well you can’t use things like ground scouring, vegetation damage, and lofted heavy objects to upgrade a rating to EF4+ when the house is poorly built, because there are no official DIs for two out of those three things, and the construction quality is the primary thing that matters scientifically”, you can now call full BS on that with full confidence. Why? Because you can cite that recent damage point, especially given that NWS Norman, one of the most knowledgeable and trusted survey teams in the country, are the ones who made the call. It’s a small victory, but it’s something that is going to be incredibly useful in any debate against any dismissive contextual damage naysayers throughout the lead up to 2030, especially when combined with the fact that like half of the half of the EF4 damage points were just debarked/stubbed or root balled trees! Trust me, when anyone is dismissive of either of those two things, we’re going to love having the Enid survey to cite in the coming years.

Now the part that sucks is the windspeed estimate. It’s too low. There is now overwhelming evidence that this was a top of the scale tornado intensity wise, and perhaps more importantly we don’t want people associating the mid-EF4 range with contextual damage that looks like that. Yes the soil composition in that area made it look a little more dramatic, but there were plenty of overlapping contextual hallmarks to give full confidence that it was a very high-end tornado. It’s not like it was JUST the ground scouring alone, and it’s clear that grass was actually fully removed in some areas, not just stained by dirt. That’s why even if we don’t get it bumped up to EF5, getting it into the 190s would still be a big win. But another silver lining is that you can extrapolate this: if extreme contextual damage can get a frail old farmhouse up to 180 MPH EF4, just imagine what it could get a modern, anchor bolted home with a poured concrete foundation up to.

I appreciate this perspective and hope you're right. It's worth finding things to be positive about. I don't fully agree that Enid sets a good precedent, though. Even if the contextuals in the area did contribute to the 180 mph rating, the rating is still closer to the lower bound than the expected wind speed for DOD 10. If we were looking at a significant shift in the wind speed rating due to the surrounding contextuals it would be one thing, but only a few mph above the absolute minimum is not what you want to see.

I do agree that having more precedent for vegetative damage as a violent indicator is a positive. Especially considering the lack of sufficient structural damage overall in Enid.

I can definitely see both sides. I just lean a bit more skeptical (as always lol). Especially with the Shawnee downgrade, and lack of an explanation with that. Is anybody else completely fed up with the lack of transparency with these ratings? It's insane we constantly have to speculate about what the reasoning for ratings are when the surveyors should literally just be telling us.

 

[buckeye05]

Just an FYI that the EF scale rating of newly-added historical events is being postponed until the new EF scale comes out around 2030. Basically this means historical ratings are not being changed until then unless I missed something.

What do you mean by “newly added historical events”? I’m just a little unclear on what that refers to. Do you mean like controversial EF scale ratings since 2007? Or historical like pre 1950s?

I’m also very curious about where you heard this.

 

[jiharris0220]

Huh? That’s not Tim Marshall. In fact I don’t know who Timothy Vincent is at all.

Edit: Tim Vincent is the owner of the 190 MPH house in Bremen. This is literally just a random civilian who lost his house that he tried to build as sturdy as possible, and understandably isn’t happy with the rating. This has nothing to do with any EF Scale official, let alone Tim Marshall, expressing dissatisfaction with the rating. In fact Tim Marshall was quite neutral to a fault, if not dismissive of any dissent regarding the Mayfield rating, saying it didn’t look bad as Bridge Creek or something to that effect. You really gotta be careful and verify/fact check before you post, especially if it’s about a statement or general sentiment that you’re alleging someone expressed. In fact, this is at least the second or third Tim Marshall mis-quote I’ve seen on this forum.

I know? I said Tim, lol, I probably should’ve said the last name. My bad.

 

[Eoline]

What do you mean by “newly added historical events”? I’m just a little unclear on what that refers to. Do you mean like controversial EF scale ratings since 2007? Or historical like pre 1950s?

I’m also very curious about where you heard this.

I worded that poorly; older events in general that are either not officially acknowledged (ie undocumented events) or are officially rated (FU/EFU/Grazulis) are not being messed with until at least 2030 or when the new scale comes out. Unfortunate, but is what it is. This might also include re-rating older events (ie Oelwein/Valley Mills/Broken Bow) which is why I'm posting here but I'm just going to wait and see. Heard from Nick K, who is actively working with JAN and others and absolutely knows what's going on interior-wise.

 

[buckeye05]

I appreciate this perspective and hope you're right. It's worth finding things to be positive about. I don't fully agree that Enid sets a good precedent, though. Even if the contextuals in the area did contribute to the 180 mph rating, the rating is still closer to the lower bound than the expected wind speed for DOD 10. If we were looking at a significant shift in the wind speed rating due to the surrounding contextuals it would be one thing, but only a few mph above the absolute minimum is not what you want to see.

I do agree that having more precedent for vegetative damage as a violent indicator is a positive. Especially considering the lack of sufficient structural damage overall in Enid.

I can definitely see both sides. I just lean a bit more skeptical (as always lol). Especially with the Shawnee downgrade, and lack of an explanation with that. Is anybody else completely fed up with the lack of transparency with these ratings? It's insane we constantly have to speculate about what the reasoning for ratings are when the surveyors should literally just be telling us.

I think 180 is too low too, hence why I mentioned that I don’t want people associating that kind of contextual damage with mid EF4. So I’m with you there. That’s a a bad precedent.

But I think you’re completely missing the other part what I’m saying, which is that this damage point is a huge blow to the argument that contextuals cannot override poor construction anymore. I don’t really care as much about the number attached, all I care is that we can now provably cross that line from EF3 to EF4 based purely on context. The next time a poorly anchored home is swept away amid clearly violent contextuals and still gets rated EF3, and someone tries to say that’s the right call and that poor construction automatically overrides any and all contextual evidence, all we have to do is point to the Enid survey. For example, can you imagine if we had this to cite after the Matador “EF3”? That is exactly what I mean, it makes so easy to call BS on that type thing, with an official and recent NWS Norman decision to cite. It literally establishes the viability of context based violent ratings in the mid 2020s. That is HUGE, and has far more long term implications than yet another low-balled wind speed estimate. We see inappropriately low wind speed estimates all the time. We see precedent setting, citeable calls in our favor maybe once a year, if we are lucky. That’s a big win that I don’t think you’re fully grasping the implications of, regardless of if other WFOs follow suit or not.

I mean can you think of a single violent rated tornado in the past 6 years that had its highest-rated structural damage point based largely on surrounding contextual evidence? I can’t. That’s the kind of thing that got us ratings like Rainsville, which didn’t sweep away a single proper poured concrete foundation home. We lost context-based viotors many years ago, and having them back on the table is such a great thing.

 

[buckeye05]

I know? I said Tim, lol, I probably should’ve said the last name. My bad.

OH ok lol. I thought it was in reference to THE Tim we usually refer to on a first name basis, especially since you directly replied to a comment where I mentioned him.

 

[buckeye05]

Just an FYI that the EF scale rating of newly-added historical events is being postponed until the new EF scale comes out around 2030. Basically this means historical ratings are not being changed until then unless I missed something.

Ok I guess that makes sense, kinda. What I don’t understand is how it would impact pre-2007 ratings. That’s a whole different scale. Why would the implementation of the new scale have any impact on old events rated on the old scale?

 

[Eoline]

Ok I guess that makes sense, kinda. What I don’t understand is how it would impact pre-2007 ratings. That’s a whole different scale. Why would the implementation of the new scale have any impact on old events rated on the old scale?

My only explanation would be that they are waiting for the new scale to release so these events can be re-analyzed using said scale, but I really don't know.

 

[buckeye05]

My only explanation would be that they are waiting for the new scale to release so these events can be re-analyzed using said scale, but I really don't know.

If that were the case, it would likely entail an International Fujita Scale type conversion of the entire database. That would be a massive endeavor and idk how I would feel about it if such a thing were to happen.

 

[buckeye05]

Also I think decision to rate the highest Enid damage point based on context, also combined with a very tree-heavy basis for the rating, will be really helpful when it comes to addressing overuse of the high-end EF3 range, which I think I’ve described as the most abused section of the entire EF Scale. Why I say this is because it establishes that all we’re going to need to tip a lot of EF3-rated DOD 9 and DOD 10 homes over the EF4 threshold, would be the presence of nearby stubbed, debarked, or root-balled trees. How many times have we seen homes or businesses rated high-end EF3 with violent tree damage visible in the pics? Way too often: Whitman, Matador, Saloma, Andover etc. Those are just a few names off the top of my head, and they are all prime candidates for contextual upgrades to EF4. Enid establishes a citeable basis for such upgrades in the future.

 

[A Guy]

If that were the case, it would likely entail an International Fujita Scale type conversion of the entire database. That would be a massive endeavor and idk how I would feel about it if such a thing were to happen.

I personally think that historic ratings should generally be left as they are unless they're clearly wrong (e.g. Belmond).

 

[eep]

I personally think that historic ratings should generally be left as they are unless they're clearly wrong (e.g. Belmond).

To add on to this: the La Plata era revisions to historical records should probably be undone.