Sawmaster
Member
"The legacy F-scale wind speed ranges may ultimately provide a better estimate of peak tornado wind speeds at 10–15 m AGL for strong–violent tornadoes and a better damage-based intensity rating for all tornadoes."
So in their quest to improve the accuracy of damage-based wind speed estimates with the EF scale, they caused them to be more inaccurate? That's food for thought. What we have here is a comparison of two methods, both of which aren't measuring wind directly where the damage is being done, and both having some admitted inaccuracy involved.
I still clamor for actual wind measurements at ground-to-rooftop level. Though it could take many years to achieve the goal, by placing a grid of anemometers in areas known for strong tornadoes like Moore OK, Tanner AL, etal we could obtain those direct measurements eventually. Given today's low cost of manufacture and cheap compact data-logging it would probably be affordable enough to deploy hundreds of individual self-contained devices which could be analyzed post-event even if they were otherwise destroyed. They could be powered indefinitely by (what else?) wind, and this would have the advantage of measurement of any passing tornado- not just the strong ones. Devices blown away could be found and analyzed later, and the placement of them located to give best accuracy. Even with a 80% level of destroyed unreadable devices you'd still have maybe a dozen or more giving that accurate on-site data we've all been looking for. Even if 100% were destroyed, you'd still get an accurate measurement up to that point which would be of value anyway. Maybe Texas Tech could develop these devices given their expertise and available resources.
When what you are doing isn't giving the results you want, it's always good to consider other approaches to achieve your goals.
So in their quest to improve the accuracy of damage-based wind speed estimates with the EF scale, they caused them to be more inaccurate? That's food for thought. What we have here is a comparison of two methods, both of which aren't measuring wind directly where the damage is being done, and both having some admitted inaccuracy involved.
I still clamor for actual wind measurements at ground-to-rooftop level. Though it could take many years to achieve the goal, by placing a grid of anemometers in areas known for strong tornadoes like Moore OK, Tanner AL, etal we could obtain those direct measurements eventually. Given today's low cost of manufacture and cheap compact data-logging it would probably be affordable enough to deploy hundreds of individual self-contained devices which could be analyzed post-event even if they were otherwise destroyed. They could be powered indefinitely by (what else?) wind, and this would have the advantage of measurement of any passing tornado- not just the strong ones. Devices blown away could be found and analyzed later, and the placement of them located to give best accuracy. Even with a 80% level of destroyed unreadable devices you'd still have maybe a dozen or more giving that accurate on-site data we've all been looking for. Even if 100% were destroyed, you'd still get an accurate measurement up to that point which would be of value anyway. Maybe Texas Tech could develop these devices given their expertise and available resources.
When what you are doing isn't giving the results you want, it's always good to consider other approaches to achieve your goals.
