• 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

Severe WX Severe Weather Threat 3/14-3/16

UncleJuJu98 said:
What qualifies as a ef5 indicator?
Click to expand...
VERY well built home swept clean , with the anchored bolts snap off, no sign of debris anywhere , every tree 100 yards away are missing (if there is one standing then it will be downgraded), if any homes are close by then it will be downgraded because likely debris from it hit the well built home.... also need severe scouring.... it has to do this specific thing to more then 2 areas but also not be too close or else debris will downgrade the whole thing.
 
TH2002 said:
[PDF] Damage Survey of the June 12, 1899 New Richmond, Wisconsin Tornado

Engineers from the NIST and ASCE went back in time and conducted a damage survey of tornado damage in New Richmond, Wisconsin after the tornado of 1899. While officially rated F5, the highest damage found corresponded to a rating of high-end EF3 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale, with winds of approximately 165 MPH. The structures in the area were poorly built, with no anchor bolts present. The brick hotel that was leveled to its first floor, while it was a candidate for a low-end EF4 rating, engineers found it had been pummeled by debris from other structures, exacerbating the level of destruction. The hardwood trees could have been debarked by wind speeds as low as the EF2 range.

Meteorologist Ted Fujita dissented, but we decided he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
Click to expand...
can you post us a link to this Link?
 
Last edited:
ColdFront said:
I agree I have seen the RAP do that in certain proximity soundings. Especially with some of the 4/27/11 tornados when actual obs were much higher.

I was really just trying to use it as an example that you don’t need 2500+ CAPE to have a violent tornado. Like I said it helps, but it’s not a requirement.
Click to expand...

I never said it was a requirement. We were having a conversation about why the storm underperformed the models, and I presented the theory that CAPE being too low was part of it. I'm not sure why it's controversial to say tornadoes typically need access to high available energy to maintain high strength for extended periods.

@andyhb was absolutely right to correct me yesterday when I said 500-1000 cape "probably wasn't enough to support strong tornadoes for long." Because I misunderstood just how incredibly effecient those storms were. I apologized for that too. It really is a testament to the strength of the variables at play yesterday. Those cells were taking every little pocket of remotely hot air they found and immediately turning it into violent rotation.

Is it at least fair to say, the less cape, the more effecient storms need to be to make use of it for cyclogenesis?
 
jiharris0220 said:
“engineers found it had been pummeled by debris from other structures”

I’m sorry for the language and ranty off topic comment I’m about to use here, but this is by far one of the most retarded mental gymnastics I’ve seen.

What do they mean? So I guess for a tornado to even have a chance of having a ef4 rating it needs to hit a structure in the middle of nowhere? Any tornado that goes through a high density area is simply capped at ef3 using this logic.

These doofuses are telling us that the complete decimation of that town was caused by mid level cat4 wind gust?

I thought the Jarrel and Joplin survey were IQ debilitating but wow, no wonder Fujita threw this survey to the trash, because that’s exactly what it is.
Click to expand...
I'd like to present to you:

Thread 'Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread'
https://talkweather.com/threads/enhanced-fujita-ratings-debate-thread.270/

You'd fit in wonderfully and we'd love to have you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top