• 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

TLDR

So..."houses won't get a EF5 rating now, it's too strict!"

Enderlin is rated EF5, but oh, the calcs were off and the research isn't well developed enough. What side do you stand for? Because you are arguing against having better ratings by judging the non-traditional maths ways of things. We need to explore different branches of damage, and having all these extra options helps. Nothing will be perfect ever in this scale. But we have so much that is changing behind closed doors, so give it a bit. The scale is quite literally a "best guess" and best estimation. Who said the calcs were absolutely certain? They'll have flaws but you would be complaining if the NTP + Grand Forks never went through with giving those trains a chance! I don't get it.

You stand and advocate that this scale should be better yet find ways to dump on it with a conservative mindset that it seems a certain Discord holds essentially on that whole side of things.

Discord will never be as blunt as this place and a certain guy has over 10-15 years of researching this stuff, knowing the ins and outs of this scale. Sorry but he has more credentials than half the users on that forum are, and that's not to bump him up, but it's realistically true. You can't handle being blunt, fine. Maybe not everyone is suited for that, but don't scurry off and call certain people jerks

You are allowed to voice your opinions, who said that you couldn't? Yourself. Nobody is being hostile, it's quite literally being straightforward. You are a appreciated user on this forum for your findings, it's not like you are bashed consistently on a daily basis which is what you're making it out to be. I came onto this forum knowing very well that if you have a questionable opinion, you'll be called out for it. We aren't all perfect, we have all been susceptible to it. You just need to learn to take bluntness with them understanding that it is in good intent of only helping you improve your viewpoints and trying to understand. This message is in good intention too. You're a valued user but storming out because you feel like you receive unfair treatment when it's just really your argument has flaws, we've shown those but you've never changed nor conceded on it. Sorry if this is bordering a bit too blunt, but this is TalkWeather. What you see is what you get in return. And also, I'm aware this forum is not looked at as particularly liked on that same Discord. Don't twist the view for them, either if you end up deleting your acc.
 
I genuinely appreciate the glowing endorsement but I need to reiterate that officially speaking, I am not an expert. While this particular topic is one I’m quite confident about, I don’t know everything, and there are other people out there in the online tornado community who are more knowledgeable than me. I’m glad you all like what I have to say but I don’t want to be viewed as an actual authority on EF Scale science, as I am still learning too.
 
buckeye05 said:
I genuinely appreciate the glowing endorsement but I need to reiterate that officially speaking, I am not an expert. While this particular topic is one I’m quite confident about, I don’t know everything, and there are other people out there in the online tornado community who are more knowledgeable than me. I’m glad you all like what I have to say but I don’t want to be viewed as an actual authority on EF Scale science, as I am still learning too.
Click to expand...
Oh, absolutely. Nobody truly knows it all about damage, even the most experienced might not. It's legitimately a learning curve for all of us because we don't actually understand the limitations of all DIs. I didn't really want to seem like I was bumping you up huge but the behavior is pretty childish for what was a little "aside" comment you made.
 
slenker said:
The logic of thrown objects having inaccurate calculations due to factors that are not being taken into account can just as easily be applied to home DIs or other official DIs on the scale already,
Click to expand...
I think people are forgetting that the current EF-scale ranges were obtained through gathering expert opinions then hashing them together. At least one of those asked thought that houses would be swept away at 130 mph. I don't see why people treat them as seeming to be inherently much more accurate than other methods.

buckeye05 said:
While I definitely can’t guarantee perfectly uniform survey practices, I can 100% confirm that there is a wave of soon to be masters degree graduates who are far more interested in damage surveying than previous generations, and are very forward thinking about EF Scale science.
Click to expand...
I sure hope that some of these people are forward thinking enough that they think houses should be able to be rated EF-5. As John Robinson said that the reason why the threshold was shifted to be harder was that some EF-scale committee members (who generally seem to still be around) thought that house shouldn't be able to be rated EF-5 (despite the fact the Fujita scale was specifically based on houses). I also hope they're open minded enough that houses with basements can get an EF-5 rating, when it has been claimed that DoD 10 should only apply to slab constructions (which kind of defeats the point of DoDs having broad ranges in the first place).

That said I'm less optimistic than you. As the EF-scale is being made a standard, it will if anything be slower to update and correct as knowledge improves, which is the opposite of what's needed. It also means the meteorological community has effectively ceded primary control over it.
 
A Guy said:
I think people are forgetting that the current EF-scale ranges were obtained through gathering expert opinions then hashing them together. At least one of those asked thought that houses would be swept away at 130 mph. I don't see why people treat them as seeming to be inherently much more accurate than other methods.


I sure hope that some of these people are forward thinking enough that they think houses should be able to be rated EF-5. As John Robinson said that the reason why the threshold was shifted to be harder was that some EF-scale committee members (who generally seem to still be around) thought that house shouldn't be able to be rated EF-5 (despite the fact the Fujita scale was specifically based on houses). I also hope they're open minded enough that houses with basements can get an EF-5 rating, when it has been claimed that DoD 10 should only apply to slab constructions (which kind of defeats the point of DoDs having broad ranges in the first place).

That said I'm less optimistic than you. As the EF-scale is being made a standard, it will if anything be slower to update and correct as knowledge improves, which is the opposite of what's needed. It also means the meteorological community has effectively ceded primary control over it.
Click to expand...
Let me put in this way; the conversation entailed a collective desire to not only upgrade future tornadoes to EF5 based on house damage, but also to upgrade past tornadoes to EF5 based on house damage that I personally don’t even see as clear cut EF5. Specific DIs from specific events were discussed. It’s just one school, but I was shocked at how collectively liberal these soon to be masters graduates are when it comes to EF ratings. They are apparently very aware of the “EF5 drought” and view it as a largely human bias induced phenomenon, seemingly in line with Lyza’s recent sentiments and papers.

Now it does beg the question, will at some point during their training will they be steered away from that mindset and approach by higher ups within the NWS? That is entirely possible. But the fact that they don’t have some ridiculous interpretation of the scale and its application to begin with is encouraging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top