• 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

Messages
1,004
Reaction score
767
Location
texas
the fact that a 30 meter wide vortex can form, rip a house to shreds and then dissipate within a few seconds leaving the trees 50 meters from the house with their leaves intact shows that using contextual damage to rate tornadoes at all is not very fair. that stuff happens. the wind boundries in tornadoes can be very sharp. 80 mph with 200 mph winds 20 feet away. unless your dealing with a consolidated wedge producing noticeable debarking and ground scouring without any randomness to the structure damage level not based on construction quality. than contextual damage needs to be thrown out of the window for the most part. this is why ground video and radar analysis should be used in rating tornadoes whenever possible. if the mayfield tornado showed a multivortex structure as it hit mayfield. im pretty sure that would explain the damage inconsistencies. but of course there are no good videos of it as it went through there. and radar is useless because its not fine scale enough for that scenerio.
 

pohnpei

Member
Messages
958
Reaction score
1,949
Location
shanghai
Mayfield in downtown had to be an extremely comlicated multi vortex tornado. It's still weird to see It did high end damage to factory/church/water tower/vehicle/commercial building/apartment but not for residence. Like only a few residence collapsed scattered around downtown with no one really showed high end feature.
 

UK_EF4

Member
Messages
549
Reaction score
1,221
Location
NW London
its real...but im not sure i like it. it seems to be getting more strict in some ways with the new upgrade........
I'm not particularly sure about that, at least I haven't seen anything to do with that. I think it will lead be significantly better - many tornadoes with high-end damage didn't get rated such due to that damage not having a DI... e.g: ground scouring near Cayce and other contextual damage from the W KY tornado. Given there isn't too much questionable rating *cough* Vilonia *cough* I think this scale could significantly improve rating accuracy. My question is whether windspeed thresholds will be closer to og Fujita scale or still EF4 - 167... EF5 - 201 mph etc.
 

A Guy

Member
Messages
140
Reaction score
271
Location
Australia


Just come across this... I initially thought it was fake news, but account is verified. Looks very exciting. Any thoughts?

Not going to solve the existing issues with application. The two changes are needed is that expected value is default, not lower bound, and lower bound is lower bound, none of the ratings under that we've seen. Basing the rating categories of ideals that exist only in engineer's heads/models needs to be a thing of the past, because it defeats the original intent of the rating system.
 
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
767
Location
texas
if the pembroke tornado stays as an EF3 im gonna lose my mind....3 or 4 well built, WELL BOLTED homes leveled or swept away. with pretty decent contextual damage to support at least a low end EF4 rating...uughhh...some of the anchore bolts were bent btw. and they had washers....
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
3,121
Reaction score
4,581
Location
Colorado
if the pembroke tornado stays as an EF3 im gonna lose my mind....3 or 4 well built, WELL BOLTED homes leveled or swept away. with pretty decent contextual damage to support at least a low end EF4 rating...uughhh...some of the anchore bolts were bent btw. and they had washers....
Keep complaining. It’s helping a lot.
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
3,121
Reaction score
4,581
Location
Colorado
View attachment 13321
WHAT IS THIS!? WHAT IS THIIIS!??? we should be past SUPER SIMPLIFIED SURVEYS!
I’m sorry but would you just can it for once? You’re genuinely obnoxious, and honestly haven’t been contributing anything of value. Nobody wants to see your childish all-caps ranting, and you are single-handedly bringing down the quality of discussion here.
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
3,121
Reaction score
4,581
Location
Colorado
View attachment 13322View attachment 13323
two different DOD's getting rated with the same wind estimate of 165mph...thats dumb
It’s not dumb, you are just clueless. Different DODs can receive the same wind speed estimate due to varying degrees of structural integrity. Plus, it’s still a placeholder for potential upgrades, which I already explained. Winterset was given a placeholder EF3 rating too, but apparently you’ve forgotten that within the span of about a month.
 

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
4,677
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
I’m sorry but would you just can it for once? You’re genuinely obnoxious, and honestly haven’t been contributing anything of value. Nobody wants to see your childish all-caps ranting, and you are single-handedly bringing down the quality of discussion here.
I mean... I don't disagree that he should work on making more useful contributions but at the same time I feel you've kinda been TRYING to start fights with people lately. I'd try to bring my blood pressure down if I were you.
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
3,121
Reaction score
4,581
Location
Colorado
I mean... I don't disagree that he should work on making more useful contributions but at the same time I feel you've kinda been TRYING to start fights with people lately. I'd try to bring my blood pressure down if I were you.
Sorry, I’m honestly trying not to, but I can’t bite my tongue around these types of “contributions”. This type of stuff used to be limited to weather weenie Twitter and YouTube comments, and now it’s here. It brings down the quality of the discussion and I can’t just sit back and not say anything.
 
Logo 468x120
Back
Top