• 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

Does anyone else feel like grazulis in his 1974-2022 book just.. doesn't challenge almost any of the should be EF5 ratings? The only example I can find is that he says Chapman was "Near EF5" he also states that the Mayfield tornado had "several historic brick buildings judged too frail to be EF5" in town. He brushes off Rochelle-Fairdale 2015, and describes Parkersburg 2008 as a "Low end EF5" <- Just NO. He does say that Tuscaloosa 2011 was "Originally rated at EF5" though. The book was a great read, though and I would still recommend it. It's just kind of weird for a guy that used to just rerate F5 deserving tornadoes as F5 in his 1680-1991 book.
 
SweptSlab5 said:
Does anyone else feel like grazulis in his 1974-2022 book just.. doesn't challenge almost any of the should be EF5 ratings? The only example I can find is that he says Chapman was "Near EF5" he also states that the Mayfield tornado had "several historic brick buildings judged too frail to be EF5" in town. He brushes off Rochelle-Fairdale 2015, and describes Parkersburg 2008 as a "Low end EF5" <- Just NO. He does say that Tuscaloosa 2011 was "Originally rated at EF5" though. The book was a great read, though and I would still recommend it. It's just kind of weird for a guy that used to just rerate F5 deserving tornadoes as F5 in his 1680-1991 book.
Click to expand...
Definitely feels like there was a bit of outside interference.
 
Follow up on more correct thread for this:
Does anybody have any photos of the damage from the F5 that hit Camden, NJ on July 26, 1860? It reportedly destroyed a chemical plant with 22 inch thick brick walls. It had a path that was 2 miles long and 60 yards wide. Fascinating event, considering it's weird location and extreme intensity. Notes on the chemical plant: "It was a two-story brick structure, 200 feet long and 36 feet wide. Its walls were an impressive 22 inches thick, reinforced with internal and external pilasters for added strength. The primary girders, measuring 12 by 16 inches, were double-bitted and supported by posts of the same size. These girders rested on interior pilasters. Throughout the structure, white pine joists, each 3 by 14 inches and spaced 9 inches apart, were reinforced with truss-bridging. The roof was covered in slate and featured a surrounding gallery, indicating that no expense had been spared in making it a robust and comprehensive establishment. During the Coroner's inquest, a master carpenter and a bricklayer provided sworn testimony regarding the structural integrity of the building." according to tornadoarchive dot com.
 
SweptSlab5 said:
Follow up on more correct thread for this:
Does anybody have any photos of the damage from the F5 that hit Camden, NJ on July 26, 1860? It reportedly destroyed a chemical plant with 22 inch thick brick walls. It had a path that was 2 miles long and 60 yards wide. Fascinating event, considering it's weird location and extreme intensity. Notes on the chemical plant: "It was a two-story brick structure, 200 feet long and 36 feet wide. Its walls were an impressive 22 inches thick, reinforced with internal and external pilasters for added strength. The primary girders, measuring 12 by 16 inches, were double-bitted and supported by posts of the same size. These girders rested on interior pilasters. Throughout the structure, white pine joists, each 3 by 14 inches and spaced 9 inches apart, were reinforced with truss-bridging. The roof was covered in slate and featured a surrounding gallery, indicating that no expense had been spared in making it a robust and comprehensive establishment. During the Coroner's inquest, a master carpenter and a bricklayer provided sworn testimony regarding the structural integrity of the building." according to tornadoarchive dot com.
Click to expand...
If there were damage photos from it, the photos would likely be the oldest tornado damage photographs in existence.

The oldest tornado damage photographs I can definitively confirm are from the July 4, 1874 Lewistown, PA tornado, though a damage photo purportedly from the March 16, 1868 Toronto, ON tornado also exists.

While the Camden tornado did receive passing mentions in nationwide press, considering how expensive and finicky the photography process was back then, I doubt any serious photographers thought to take any photos of a localized event with a path length of less than two miles (photography was typically reserved for portraits and large scale events like the severe nationwide political crisis leading up to the Civil War during that time).

Also, the Tornado Archive has recently added many entries (including that one) for both pre-1880 tornadoes and more recent international tornadoes based on the work of author Blue Ayanami, who also unofficially assigned the ratings. Their research is reportedly very thorough and foolproof but I don't know anything about them beyond that.
 
TH2002 said:
If there were damage photos from it, the photos would likely be the oldest tornado damage photographs in existence.

The oldest tornado damage photographs I can definitively confirm are from the July 4, 1874 Lewistown, PA tornado, though a damage photo purportedly from the March 16, 1868 Toronto, ON tornado also exists.

While the Camden tornado did receive passing mentions in nationwide press, considering how expensive and finicky the photography process was back then, I doubt any serious photographers thought to take any photos of a localized event with a path length of less than two miles (photography was typically reserved for portraits and large scale events like the severe nationwide political crisis leading up to the Civil War during that time).

Also, the Tornado Archive has recently added many entries (including that one) for both pre-1880 tornadoes and more recent international tornadoes based on the work of author Blue Ayanami, who also unofficially assigned the ratings. Their research is reportedly very thorough and foolproof but I don't know anything about them beyond that.
Click to expand...
Would you consider this a significant F5 contender then?
 
BIG update regarding rating reanalysis:

Ok been biting my tongue for a while, but I’ve been hearing from reliable sources about a push to upgrade Enid from EF4 to EF5 in the near term. I FINALLY have an update on this. It’s kind of a mixed bag, but I’d say there’s more good news than bad news.

The bad news is that any plans for a near term Enid upgrade have been canceled, so it’s not going to be happening this year or next year. The reasoning is apparently DI related, as the basis for the upgrade comes down to tree damage and a lofted RV. Apparently, NWS Norman says they are holding back on an EF5 upgrade for now because the current tree scale only goes up to EF4, and because there is no current applicable DI for an RV. While I guess the tree scale reason makes sense, I don’t really understand why there being no official “RV” DI is an obstacle, because there was no official “train car” DI when they upgraded Enderlin. Oh well.

Now here’s the good news. This isn’t over yet, it’s just being delayed. Enid is actually just one of several controversial Oklahoma tornado ratings that NWS Norman is going to re-analyze. According to my own sources and news reports, NWS Norman simply says they aren’t upgrading Enid “yet”. But once the new updated EF scale is in place, with the tree damage scale going all the way up to EF5 and vehicle DIs in place, NWS Norman will take another look and it’s very possible, if not likely that they upgrade Enid to EF5. But it gets even better! NWS Norman says they will also be taking another look at the ratings for Chickasha 2011, Goldsby 2011, and El Reno 2013!
IMG_4180.jpeg
This is obviously VERY exciting news and will set a great precedent if all goes well. Now what’s crazy is that thanks to multiple private sources of mine, believe or not, I’ve actually known about the upcoming Enid/Chickasha/Goldsby/El Reno project for quite a while! But this was all told to me in confidence so I’ve had to bite my tongue and keep my mouth shut this whole time. You all have NO idea how hard it was to keep this exciting info to myself lol. But now that it’s public info, I finally feel comfortable sharing this. It’s also very affirming to get confirmation that my “insider” sources are definitely reliable.

So yeah, while it sucks that we will have to probably wait until 2030, at least we still have some good stuff to look forward to in the future. Also if NWS Norman’s rating reanalysis project goes well, it could usher in a new era of revised ratings, and that’s not even counting what Tony Lyza has planned. Overall, the 2030s could be the decade of EF scale reform that we’ve always hoped for. We will just have to see, but I’m optimistic. I’m really glad I found out about all this today, because I was starting to lose hope regarding forward movement in this field. Even if there’s a long delay, I’m happy to say that my sentiment that good things are around the corner still remains intact, and now I have even more reason to believe that.
 
buckeye05 said:
BIG update regarding rating reanalysis:

Ok been biting my tongue for a while, but I’ve been hearing from reliable sources about a push to upgrade Enid from EF4 to EF5 in the near term. I FINALLY have an update on this. It’s kind of a mixed bag, but I’d say there’s more good news than bad news.

The bad news is that any plans for a near term Enid upgrade have been canceled, so it’s not going to be happening this year or next year. The reasoning is apparently DI related, as the basis for the upgrade comes down to tree damage and a lofted RV. Apparently, NWS Norman says they are holding back on an EF5 upgrade for now because the current tree scale only goes up to EF4, and because there is no current applicable DI for an RV. While I guess the tree scale reason makes sense, I don’t really understand why there being no official “RV” DI is an obstacle, because there was no official “train car” DI when they upgraded Enderlin. Oh well.

Now here’s the good news. This isn’t over yet, it’s just being delayed. Enid is actually just one of several controversial Oklahoma tornado ratings that NWS Norman is going to re-analyze. According to my own sources and news reports, NWS Norman simply says they aren’t upgrading Enid “yet”. But once the new updated EF scale is in place, with the tree damage scale going all the way up to EF5 and vehicle DIs in place, NWS Norman will take another look and it’s very possible, if not likely that they upgrade Enid to EF5. But it gets even better! NWS Norman says they will also be taking another look at the ratings for Chickasha 2011, Goldsby 2011, and El Reno 2013!

This is obviously VERY exciting news and will set a great precedent if all goes well. Now what’s crazy is that thanks to multiple private sources of mine, believe or not, I’ve actually known about the upcoming Enid/Chickasha/Goldsby/El Reno project for quite a while! But this was all told to me in confidence so I’ve had to bite my tongue and keep my mouth shut this whole time. You all have NO idea how hard it was to keep this exciting info to myself lol. But now that it’s public info, I finally feel comfortable sharing this. It’s also very affirming to get confirmation that my “insider” sources are definitely reliable.

So yeah, while it sucks that we will have to probably wait until 2030, at least we still have some good stuff to look forward to in the future. Also if NWS Norman’s rating reanalysis project goes well, it could usher in a new era of revised ratings, and that’s not even counting what Tony Lyza has planned. Overall, the 2030s could be the decade of EF scale reform that we’ve always hoped for. We will just have to see, but I’m optimistic. I’m really glad I found out about all this today, because I was starting to lose hope regarding forward movement in this field. Even if there’s a long delay, I’m happy to say that my sentiment that good things are around the corner still remains intact, and now I have even more reason to believe that.
Click to expand...
This is excellent news. I would imagine the only reason why the RV is seen as more of a hurdle than the train car is because of the removal of mass while the RV is being lofted, which isn’t really a factor for train car calcs. That makes things a good amount more nontrivial without making some very generous assumptions.

Either way, good to see they’re taking these controversies seriously, especially because they might finally give the much needed EF5 ratings to Chickasha and Goldsby after so much time. I wouldn’t have even been that upset if Enid stayed EF4 due to reasons I’ve given in the past, but there’s no doubt in any of our minds it breached that EF5 threshold. This opens the door to other offices looking back at other bad ratings as well.
 
slenker said:
This is excellent news. I would imagine the only reason why the RV is seen as more of a hurdle than the train car is because of the removal of mass while the RV is being lofted, which isn’t really a factor for train car calcs. That makes things a good amount more nontrivial without making some very generous assumptions.

Either way, good to see they’re taking these controversies seriously, especially because they might finally give the much needed EF5 ratings to Chickasha and Goldsby after so much time. I wouldn’t have even been that upset if Enid stayed EF4 due to reasons I’ve given in the past, but there’s no doubt in any of our minds it breached that EF5 threshold. This opens the door to other offices looking back at other bad ratings as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s definitely an exciting development for sure. What’s crazy is that apparently from what I have heard, the current NWS Norman staff hasn’t been happy with the Goldsby/Chickasha ratings for quite some time now, and that this has been a long time coming. I actually heard about a tentative plan to potentially upgrade Chickasha and Goldsby a while ago, but that was told to me in private, and this is the first time I have seen it publicly and officially announced. I’m also curious about how they are going to approach those two. Are they going to try to upgrade based on some of the many slabbed houses? Or are they going to use “new” DIs and methods such as tree damage, lofted objects, etc?

Also I am totally with you regarding the Enid RV. It’s not as straightforward as the Enderlin train car due to the reasons you mentioned. I wonder if those are the “real” reasons, and the DI issues they are citing aren’t really the full story.
 
One thing that we have to keep in mind though, is that this is happening at an office that actually cares about ratings and is usually willing to go the extra mile. While it could inspire some offices to take another look at their past ratings, I can’t see an office like MEG caring enough to take that kind of initiative. That’s why Lyza’s proposed reanalysis project is so important though. If he gets a reanalysis team together, they’ll be able to go ahead with reanalysis even if the WFO where a questionable rating occurred isn’t interested in that type of endeavor.
 
John Robinson in the corner watching NWS Norman do this:
Ice T No GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon


Aside, this is genuinely fantastic news. Glad to see Norman finally taking the step further. Hope this also means reanalysis for other tors as such, I'd like to see Cheyenne 2023 honestly given a second look for a EF3 rating but that's getting into picky semantics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top