Hello, if you are seeing this, then that means you see that I have semi-disowned this video. Unlike other videos that I've made that I do not like anymore, I can simply remake them (And I have plans to do so). This video is the exception, or one of them since the Tor-E video also isn't getting remade. Since I said, Semi-disowned and not fully disowned, I want to go over what I still stand by, and what I do not stand by. What I Stand By: - Introduction - Brief Overview of the F Scale - Problems with the original Fujita Scale - A brief overview of the EF Scale and how it works (Not the Joplin Segment) - Ground scouring as a damage indicator isn't simple - Using Radar for rating assessments - The Issue with US Infrastructure (The first half) - The conclusion (Does a tornado’s final rating, accurate or inaccurate, really matter to human society? The answer is yes, and no.) Those segments were either not problematic as they were providing context, or were written well enough to understand what I was talking about. As to what I do not stand by: The Joplin Segment: This video came out roughly a year before I released by documentary on the Joplin Tornado. And it shows. Badly. The way it was written seems to suggest that I was skeptical of Joplin's rating when it isn't up for debate; it's EF5, this was confirmed over with Tim Marshall's survey alongside other people's surveys. I talk about it more in my Joplin video but the real take away that should have been hammered home was the fact that Joplin, along with other tornadoes, cemented the need for additional damage indicators. Since I didn't read the full report that I was citing (The NIST Report) at the time this video was made, I lacked the proper understanding as to how that lack of DIs was found, and given that, I realized the critical flaws with the NIST report for both Joplin, and Jarrell to a somewhat lesser extent, is that the methodology of building surveys did NOT justify a tornado's rating due to a small sample size. I should have EXPANDED the segment by explaining the methodology, and the flaws with it, and then conclude with the study's final statements. "Corrupting the Tornado Database": I am mixed on this because I don't get why the discorse is so major but at the same time, I'm NOT OKAY with how the segment was written like I was white knighting the NWS. A problem that a lot of these early EF-Scale discussions I have made have. The Tornadoes are not hurricanes bit: Entirely unnecessary given that barely anybody actually believes the initial claim I was refuting. The Second Half of the Infrastructure segment: A lot of my arguments here, even in the first half, were made with second person evidence with no link to them, just based on what I saw. I should have gone out of my way to find the videos in question. That problem is entirely why a bit of the Joplin video was taken out. In terms of the second half, I went on a crusade on local towns "not caring" because building codes weren't being updated. It was an angry unhinged rant since I didn't even think about the implications of this lovely game called "Politics." Given that, and the stuff I learned from doing the Joplin video, makes this segment kinda dull. Overall, while I think I had the heart in the right place, and the conclusion pretty well solidified, this video suffered from poor and rushed writing and logic. While I agree with some of the points I made in the actual "Rant" segment, I would definitely argue my stance differently with more evidence and less editorializing. I editorialized a lot, it's an opinion based rant to be fair, but to a point of where it hurt the video. Given everything negative that I am not proud of, I have decided to semi-disown the video, which some may say is overdramatic, but again, the more I look back at this, and the rants in the December 10th video and the El Reno video, the more I cringe at how unnecessarily angry, and flawed my arguments were. Since I still stand by MOST of the video, I will keep this up publically. Only the segments I just mentioned are the ones I disagree with now.
I’d really like for you to make some sort of collab with June First. Would make for an interesting video. As abit extra (slight rant). The scale should be upgraded. An argument i see constantly is “people died, EF scale doesn’t matter” argument against the EF scale. This argument just doesn’t work. No one wants someone to die or even get their house destroyed. It’s heartbreaking seeing the damage. But it should not stop a tornado from getting an accurate rating and then recorded into the data base. The argument for an upgrade EF scale is to ensure that a tornado is rated based on all areas of data and not a single area. Just to make my argument clear. This is not an “oh Mayfield, El Reno, etc were EF5, bad scale”. This is just about wanting an accurate record.
Good stuff, thank you! I initially came down to the comments to show appreciation for taking so much time to educate people. Researching, writing, editing these must be a big undertaking! And I get to just sit back and absorb the final product 😂 So yeah, thanks! But seeing that you also care enough about the quality of your work to make an amendment like this, if I wasn’t already Im definitely subscribing now!
What I'd like to see is a solid definition of "well built structure." Building codes vary from state to state, and "well built" to withstand a hurricane in Florida, and "well built" to survive a tornado in Oklahoma are two different critters.
1. Asphalt shingles 2. Plywood/OSB or wood plank roof deck 3. Prefabricated wood trusses or wood joists and rafters 4. Brick veneer, wood panels, stucco, EIFS, vinyl or metal siding 5. Toenailed wood stud walls 6. Anchor bolts every 8 feet Obviously the construction only matters to the damaged part. Whether or not the house had asphalt shingles won't matter if the whole house is gone.
A big issue with America’s definition of “well built” is it’s objectively lower in quality compared to other developed countries. It also varies between state to state, and company to company.
@Ozone and it's wrong. They think alabama code doesn't have anything in it for tornado safety. Which it does. The nws shouldn't decide what's good enough to withhold wind
I think I started questioning the EF scale with the 2013 El Reno tornado. It had massive size, extremely high winds on radar, the deadliest storm chaser tornado and yet, it was EF3 only because it didn't go over any man made structures. We do need a EF scale but perhaps taking more accounts into effect other than just damage could help. But of course, the most important things is those affected by the tornadoes, regardless of the ratings.
I'm an oklahoma resident as well, and to be honest, the scale really doesn't matter to me personally i treat all tornados as deadly (which they are) but to me they might as all be EF5s even if they are not.
If I were to remake the EF scale I would probably make it where it takes into account of the previous scale and the current scale. If wind speeds aren't recorded during the tornado, the EF scale side is put into play, if wind speed was recorded, the F scale side is put into play. But seriously it feels like The El Reno should have been an EF5. The EF scale is sometimes accurate. Other times, like with El Reno, it can be inaccurate. Look at the last recorded tornado in the Old Fujita Scale, that was the most powerful tornado recorded on that scale. And not only that, it also left damage that was EF5 scale What I would do is have the scale be like the Enhanced Fujita scales rating numbers, but not only would I account just the damage but also the tornado's windspeed Edit: To avoid confusion, Instead of it being based on the stuff that was majorly damaged (as stated in the video some structures are built different. Literally.) It would factor everything damaged for the EF side of the Advanced Fujita Scale (that what I would call it) Like if it hits a forest, I would pay attention to the different tree types, as some Trees are stronger than others.
The Fujita scale had its problems, so they tweaked it and came up with the Enhanced Fujita scale. The Enhanced Fujita scale has its problems so they are currently working on tweaking it and we will have a new scale. That new scale will also have its problems and the cycle will continue. The scientists who study weather and related topics will repeat this procedure until they come up with a metric for rating tornadoes that suits their needs. Since I am not one of those people, I don't really care if a tornado is over rated or under rated, or how good of a metric they are using. Well, I do admit to a certain amount of idle curiosity (I did watch this video, after all) but not enough to consume my interest to any great extent. When it comes to tornadoes, my interests are more self centered. I take great interest in tornado watches. Once it has passed, I want to know the economic impact it will have on me; unless of course, the tornado shoved an eight foot 2x4 though my chest (something I would dearly like to avoid, hence my interest in watches), in which case I am not going to care if an EF0 or an EF5 did it.
Maybe there could be two ratings, a damage EF rating and a "W" wind rating for tornadoes that have reliable wind measurements. For example you could say the 2013 El Reno tornado has an EF3 damage rating and a W5 wind rating, indicating it contained winds that could potentially have caused EF5 damage. Most tornadoes won't have a W rating because most won't have a reliable wind measurement but for the ones that do, it would help indicate the true strength of the tornado. Considering the EF scale is a damage scale that's attempting to estimate wind speeds, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to just ignore wind data if we have it.
I'm not saying it isn't silly I'm saying find a way to measure wind speed at the surface of a tornado internally otherwise this is all we have. The old Fujita scale thought houses couldn't be destroyed in 200 mph wind... no system is perfect. It's just what we have at the time. Science will improve. In time the data will get better... Science always evolves
So, I work in a molecular biology lab, totally different field, but what my boss says to me kinda applies here, “these tools are imperfect, but they are the best tools we have right in this moment right now.” The longer that goes on from the EF scales inception and implementation, the more outdated it becomes. It will, eventually, be superseded by a new scale, that is simply how science works. As our ability to measure and update as science progresses, and as the field comes to a consensus that we have stepped forward. That takes just a lot of time, a really long time, in any field.
Well EF scale needs a serious update. You can have an EF5 in a field & it get a false rank just because it doesn't have something to hit. It's messed up.
F scale assumed wind speeds. EF scale uses damage to infer wind speeds. Now, if wind speeds are ACTUALLY known, that should be what the rating is based upon, not upon the damage. The entire reason for damage indicators was to approximate the wind speed.
Solid 👍🏻. El Rino is a really good example of why we are pushing hard for change. Everyone knows it was an EF5 after satellite wind readings on radar came back at over 200mph. In my eyes that tornado will stay an EF5. It's wrongly ranked as an EF3 just because it didn't do much damage.
Considering the original Fujita scale estimated wind speed based on damage because we couldn't measure the wind speed with radar I'd think that if actually wind speed measurements are available, they should be used instead of estimates.
Thank you! Which would mean the most notorious example - the El Reno tornado - definitely was an EF5! I'm almost thinking since ef4 and ef5 damage is difficult to differentiate (think the Tuscaloosa 2011 compared to any of the other EF5s that day) they should knock off 5 and just have ef0-4
@@jaredpatterson1701 I’ll agree the Tuscaloosa tornado was horrible and by numbers it was just as bad as others and if you’re in the way of it, there’s no difference in EF4 or EF5 honestly. But the tornado in Philadelphia, MS, Rainsville or DeKalb county Alabama and Phil Campbell were much stronger in the damage it dealt, but didn’t go over near as populated of an area. The one in Mississippi left a trench three feet into the ground. And some of the damage reported in DeKalb county was just insane whereas the one in Tuscaloosa was a high end EF4 that just hit a densely populated area of people and was pretty strong.
It adds *nothing* to science if the El Reno tornado gets changed to an EF5. People need to quit fighting over a rating. There's more to the storm than just the tornado, there's the cost of people and homes. Some folks are too obsessed with the rating and talk about a tornado like they would about a nascar race, sometimes completely ignoring the lives impacted.
@@thatoneannoyingtornadosire8755 Incorrect. Keeping an accurate account of how powerful these storms are, even when they don't actually hit anything significant, is very important. Also keeping in mind the original PURPOSE of the Fujita scale is also important. Yes, the human toll is important. But so is accurately tracking and keeping record of how powerful the tornadoes were/are. The new EF scale skews things a bit too much, and misses the fact that the primary purpose of the original scale in the first place was to assess wind speeds.
Couple things real quick that I've noticed here: One: I didn't go over it too much but I want to say that even though I trust the professionals and their ratings, they do say that they got it wrong after the fact. Really only the Chickasaw EF4 From May 24, 2011 comes to mind where NWS Norman said they would rate it EF5 if they could rate it again. My main argument is that I'm more likely to trust the people with degrees than Little Timmy on Twitter. That's the main argument I'm going for. The professionals are human, and sometimes make mistakes. It's just that the errors they make are often few and far between. Just look at the amount of tornadoes on that wikipedia list that came before 2007 and after. The number before 2007 is immense and way more bloated. Yes because more data, but also just the list does not include anything from 2017-2020 at the least. Second, I Just want to point out that I've gotten plenty of comments saying that the F Scale just assigned winds when it didn't. Its the exact same way the EF Scale is used in principle. They BOTH USE THE DAMAGE AFTER THE FACT TO DETERMINE THE POTENTIAL WIND SPEEDS OF THAT TORNADO!!! The Fujita scale (F-Scale; /fuˈdʒiːtə/), or Fujita-Pearson scale (FPP scale), is a scale for rating tornado intensity, based primarily on the damage tornadoes inflict on human-built structures and vegetation. The only differences are the wind speed estimates and one takes into account construction quality while the other does not.
Can you do a video on everything we don’t know about tornados? I’ve been studying tornados for a long time, and it amazes me thag ppl believe tornados are explained easily by science. Maybe so, but we don’t know the science as of yet (except AI does lol)…..,… also maybe go over some important factors such as how landscaping plays a role, etc…….. and lastly, can you theorize the ground scouring? This really amazes me bc it shows how intense a tornado really is……. Sorry, but one thing I’ve noticed about tornado genesis, is that it usually starts (visually) with one to two vortex and then it rises back up and it comes back down with many vortexes and is usually much bigger. I always wondered what causes this? And why does the tornado stretch? If you look at some of this drone footage, it seems like the cloud (isolated super cell) is moving faster than the tornado on the ground. And stuff usually gets damaged before the actual visual tornado hits the area. Just weird. Experiencing a tornado is something else. I got to experience my first one here of recent, and the rain and wind was as if it was coming from the ground. It was hitting my chin and not my head. Until the winds went more upwards and then it was like hitting me on the side. I dk thanks good video!
This might be your best video yet. I think a lot of us are inherently “WELL ACKCHUALLY” types of people, and it’s just fun to debate or “defend” the tornadoes that pique our interest the most (Joplin for me). I am inherently fascinated by extremes and get caught up in the details of everything i.e.- what is the fastest tornado wind speed, the widest, what are the tallest buildings on earth, where is the hottest place on earth, coldest, and on and on. It IS pointless but oh so fun. Thanks for the video and I appreciate all that you do.
The EF scale is necessary especially when it was implemented in 2007. However it does need upgrades and some modifications to modern standards. The current damage indicators are quite limited especially when it comes unique structures and rare Tornado damage like Trenching. Also Tornadoes are extremely erratic in damage output. Mother nature is extremely complicated and we are only scratching the surface of it.
Its close to impossible to take scientific readings inside the funnel. Until instruments are built that won't get destroyed by one, tornadoes will be a mystery
@@tornadoclips2022 Yes and that is happening but bureaucracy is making it go at a snails pace, and the problem is that to be considered reliable data, science takes time. It can’t be updated overnight.
I'm sure some of the people calling for an updated scale do so with a misunderstanding of the application of the EF scale. However, most of us want if for a couple things. First off, we want to make sure that we have an accurate dataset for tornado strength. Accuracy in data is important. Without it we can't properly assess risks of living in certain areas or moving into a home. Also, it's not that we think the EF scale is useless. It's a damage index, and that's known, however just because a tornado only did "EF3 damage" doesn't mean that it wasn't at EF5 Strength. I think that it's okay for us to want to know how strong these violent weather events are. You mentioned that the goal is to prevent loss of life, and I think that having accurate tornado strength measured and published will lead to better building codes and public awareness. Now, while I disagree with some of your opinions on the importance of accurately rating tornado strength, I will say that I generally appreciate your natural inclination to try and debunk the conspiracy theorists who like to claim that tornadoes like the Mayfield EF4 we're rated down for *reasons*. So, just know that most of us who want to update tornado strength ratings are not the weebs who "foam at the mouth". 😉
I think that accurate representation of strength like you said is the goal. I don't think that building codes need to be updated to try to build a tornado proof house or one that will survive. That is not economically viable. What I would say instead is that single family homes in these area's more likely to be hit with these storms should be MANDATED to have stormshelters if they are new construction and grants should be given to have older properties retrofitted to have storm shelters installed. The house can go away so long as the people survive in their shelters. And once we have a guage of the likelihood of these events we can also have more public shelters mandated as well for mobile home parks. I think people concentrate too much on the whole building better angle. My house was built in 76 so I know the studs in my walls were not toenailed, that doesn't mean my house with a basement was built poorly and an EF3 tornado is going to delete it from existence, what it means is a EF4 high or low end is going to take the house or render it uninhabitable which is exactly what it would do to a "well built" structure. I should survive in my shelter though and that is what is ultimately more important.
I chased and helped with cleanup for Rochelle 2015. It's one thing to see pictures of damage, but it's a completely different experience cleaning up the remnants of people's houses. The subdivision we were assigned at, all 4 houses on that side of the road were wiped clean. All that being said, the Rochelle tornado had almost 20 different DIs with wind speeds noted as 200mph and shown as EF4 rated DIs. If you look at Moore 2013, it had a few DIs also noted at 200mph, but they were shown as EF5 rated DIs. Then I look at something like the DIs from the 2022 Pembroke-Black Creek EF4 and I see the exact same description and identical damage (bent/toenailing bolts from the foundation) as Moore but it was only estimated at 185MPH. I look forward to new/updated DIs being implemented because I am hard pressed to find any observable difference in damage between 200 and 201mph. Shit, even the difference between damage at 185 and 201 is extremely minimal. Maybe the update will also implement/truly define the terms "low end/high end." Rochelle being described as "very high end EF4" and "being near EF5 in intensity" adds unofficial categorizations and utterly confusing terminology that tend to fuel rating discussions. Like someone said earlier in a comment, I don't think it's wrong or insensitive to ask questions and challenge the status quo. It should be normal to question things and question why things are done a certain way, isn't that why the scale got upgraded? I don't think Twitter really helps with this though, since IMO it's a cesspool of information and opinions that probably shouldn't be announced to the world, but that's for a different debate. At least in a UA-cam comment sections there isn't a character limit so more well thought out ideas and opinions can be shared vs the usual Twitter herp derp EL RENO WAS AN EF5.
Haven't had a tornado rated EF5 since the May, 2013 Moore, Ok tornado. I realize EF 4/5s are rare but some folks dont want to give proper ratings for financial reasons
Yeah some of the high end EF4s have me scratching my head at times. There are some where they explain and show clearly why its high end EF4 vs EF5, such as with the rolling fork EF4+ where they showed the high end EF4 damage which still had some debris remaining. Maybe the actual concrete materials used might play a factor? "Well built" is a bit vague and building codes vary from place to place. Perhaps building materials and the quality of said materials could be taken into account as well.
I disagree, you need to build better shelters because after a certain point (EF3) the construction methods used don't matter the house is gone or so damaged that it will never be inhabitable again. Too much emphasis is placed on "Build quality" when more emphasis should be placed on homes in these area's having well built reinforced shelters. The house is disposable, protect the people and make a single point in the home or on the property essentially bomb proof. Put your money there not into a house that will be swept off the foundation all the same.
Another thing with ratings: Disaster ratings can make a huge difference when it comes to recovery and aid. You could have your entire life blown away by an EF3, but because its /not/ an EF5, you may not receive the same level of aid as you would have if the tornado were to have been rated higher. That can mean the difference between living in a trailer next to your pile of rubble for 6 months- or 6 years. I just got back from visiting my BFF right outside of Mayfield KY and it is still DEVASTATING out there. I was particularly stricken with how the traffic lights were still standing downtown, twisted like bread ties, and replaced by stop signs- because why put up new traffic lights when there's no traffic to stop? No blind corners around no buildings? Also if you are from the Madison-Watkinsville-Crawford area I'm going to lose my mind. Highway 441 baybEEEEEEEEEE
Furthermore, insurance companies are more than likely looking at ratings for what the payout is going to be. If the engineer shows up and says your house was blown away by an EF3, your insurance may lowball the payout since your house was indirectly declared substandard.
This is a systemic problem more than a rating problem. Recovery efforts should be sent based on impact, not rating. It honestly sounds more like an excuse not to use resources to save money. This isn't the fujita scales fault, this is the fault of greedy cooperate clowns.
Out of curiosity, do you have any references for this? I tried looking on FEMA but couldn't find anything specific. Since the ratings are damage based, a higher EF rating tornado _by definition_ has caused more damage and thus will need more funds (if hitting the same sized population center, of course). The main question I have is is for EF4 tornados on the edge of an EF5 rating, and if there is a marked decrease in the amount of aid that is given, specifically informed by the rating. I'm not American so I'm also less familiar with what this process looks like. It would be nice to have something to point to that is concrete if you have it!
The Enhanced Fujita scale is actually a very good scale, and it determines tornado intensity with pretty good accuracy. The problems that people have are that the National Weather Service does not recognize the validity of wind speeds determined using dual-polarized radar in close proximity to the tornado, but that is where I tell you that WSR-88D & TDWR radars are almost always sampling winds that aren’t near the surface. Winds near the surface are the ones that do the IMPACT, and damage rating is literally the only surface-level measurement that can be consistently conducted, so rating based off damage IS actually the best estimator we can use in the absence of DOW (Doppler on Wheels) data. I will say the need for new damage indicators is a real concern, but that is currently being addressed, and I’m a bit tired of armchair meteorologists/weather weenies complaining about the wrong things.
Very well said, and I agree 100 %. People need to remember that what matters most is protecting lives & property. The NWS has teams of surveyors and will even bring in engineers to help estimate wind speeds. Why should it matter what the tornado was potentially capable of when they’re trying to survey what it actually did? I think the general public just needs to be more informed that rating doesn’t mean everything, & certainly doesn’t always mean one tornado was stronger than the other. Hell, you could argue El Reno being an EF3 is a good thing, because people will see that and realize that it doesn’t take an EF4 or EF5 to be extremely dangerous. All tornadoes are dangerous.
What helps keep my perspective on the EF Scale debate is also in regards to a conversation I had with my 9 year old nephew who is fascinated with tornadoes. While he is mainly fixated and fascinated by the storms and the damage left behind, I always remind him that the damage was once someone’s life & property.
In relation to hurricanes Francis was a cat 2 according to its wind speed but did cat 4 damage in places because it stalled out for a day. it’s rare for tornadoes to stall but construction is huge when it comes to surviving a storm, great job explaining it all
Good vid - lots of work went into this. As a meteorologist (specializing in tornado field research 35 yrs.) & applied mechanical engineering, this video asks some important questions regarding the practicality of the current EF scale. IMO, I never thought the scale was accurate at all because there are too many dynamics going on inside of major tornadoes - all at the same time. T. Fujita did a great job getting the analysis started, but could only do so much with the tech/data available back then. Storm intensity analysis is greatly influenced by one's background - and there has been discussions in the engineering fields for decades about adding an F/EF 6 into the mix for 'once-in-a-lifetime' storms that do damage that's beyond our current understandings of atmospheric physics. The field of meteorology is limited in its scope - storm intensity/damage analysis is better quantified by those with strong backgrounds in advanced physics, engineering, material science, & quantum mechanics fields. Mobile doppler units are good for meso-scale analysis, but really aren't capable of capturing real-time micro scale wind loading/dynamics in large F/EF 5+ tornadoes - these are new fields - and although much data has been gathered lately, 'storm intensity analysis' is still in its infancy. Storms that devastate cities, commercial, or heavy industry are really on another order of magnitude from those that destroy neighborhoods, farms, forests. Well built homes will not survive a direct hit with even an F/EF3, let alone a 4 or 5+, because of several factors: wind loads, debris loads, time, funnel geometries, local topography - meaning, a house could be reinforced inside & out to withstand 150mph winds for a few minutes, but in major tornadoes, everything nearby becomes an airborne missile - that means the neighbors' houses, trees, cars/trucks, telephone poles, porches, patios, school buses, asphalt, etc. have all been documented at speeds over 120mph going around funnel boundaries - so how will a 'hardened' home withstand being impacted by a Chevy Suburban or Ford F-350 being thrown @120/150mph followed by everything else listed earlier? - short answer...it won't - that's the reality of major storms - in commercial or heavy industrial areas, it gets even worse - Joplin Mo. 2011 (May 22, 2011 torqued upper floors of main hospital tower out of vertical up to 6 inches), El Reno/Moore Ok. 2011, (El Reno lifted/rolled 900 ton Cactus 117 oil drilling rig) Niles Oh.Wheatland Pa. 1985 (massive steel i beams bent, twisted, sheared, penetrated at a destroyed steel mill - partial parking lot removal) - these sustained damage that left rescue, EMT, fire crews in shock - civil engineers left speechless - assessing damage that was unrecognizable, pulverized, granulated - wind velocities calculated above 380 - 400mph+ - explosive power to structures, infrastructure, & industry built to the highest construction standards/codes available today. There are no wind labs/ computer simulations in the world that can model F/EF5+ dynamics - not even close. In summary, with weaker storms, the F/EF scales could be used in areas that are rural, on a prairie or field (no effects due to major debris impacts) - with extensive damage in cities, large commercial or heavy industry, another updated scale should be used - in increments of 50mph - going up to the F/EF6+. Joplin, Moore, El Reno, Niles/Wheatland (among others) found out what 'air' could do. Respect the power of Mother Nature.
Definitely push for change. Here's why: You can have an massive EF5 in a field but get ranked an EF2 because it doesn't hit much. See the issue here? El Rino OK 2013 is my go-to example of this very issue. That tornado will stay an EF5 in my eyes. It literally left trenches in the ground. The one thing the current scale isn't taking into account is that most tornado wind speeds are strong closer to the core compared to the outer edges. Only then can you see how strong a tornado really is. It bugs the hell out of me there's still no new update. I have an idea scientists should try: use wind tunnel effect to fully determine the true speed it takes for wind itself to knock something down vs wind with debris knocking something down. I believe that's what really needs to be done to know the truth. I know some things related to this have been done, but if it means taking a jet engine to replicate a tornado in a wind tunnel then do it. It's not impossible. 😊
Great comment- I do have a question: Can you point me towards the calcs that found potential wind velocities of 380-400? I don't necessarily doubt you (Punctured steel beams?!), especially if it's for very localized sections of the wind field, but I'd love to see the work calculating that. Thank you for your time, and have a wonderful day!
@@garethfuller2700 Thanks for your question - I understand your skepticism - I felt the same way about wind velocities that high in major storms - that all changed when I did more research into the aeronautical engineering fields that have been developing more accurate sensors for wing loading dynamics/ per velocities - basically, engineers look at dynamics more precisely than meteorologist - the calculations you seek may not be found - I read these documents in 'WeatherWise' magazine in the mid 1980's - and yes, massive steel girders do get penetrated, sheared, twisted, etc. in the strongest storms - all documented. In a particular storm in the 1970's, a major interstate long-spanning bridge (over the Mississippi R. I believe) took a direct hit - structural engineers were brought in to survey the damage to determine if the bridge needed to be closed for repairs - what they found astonished them - several holes of various sizes (approx. several inches to maybe 1 foot dia.) were found in otherwise well maintained robust steel girders (these were massive main span girders that joined the concrete supports crossing the river) - they noted there was no weathering damage, corrosion, rust - the bridge was in good condition & well maintained before the storm - they didn't find any debris laying around that could explain the perforation - and it was in a rural area - no commercial development nearby, just the river - the team went back to their lab & ran some calculations on materials & wind velocities known at the time & came up with 380-400+mph winds shot some very dense debris into the girders, which then exploded after impact, or went through & sank in the river, regardless, they were shocked at the intensity of the damage & made a report to that states' DOT that the bridge didn't need to be closed & a welding crew made the repairs to the holes - that's it on that storm, but there are numerous cases of damage so extreme, some calculations approach the speed of sound (mach 1) - this is new research not readily covered in textbooks yet, but that will be changing with the sampling methods used by various teams of researchers. In short, this is beyond the scope of meteorology & more applies to those with backgrounds in advanced physics/engineering. To learn more about this topic in general, much has been written about 'multiple suction vortices, laminar flow, vortex shedding, shock loading, & harmonic resonance stress loading' on materials - there is a fair amount of peer-reviewed data on this, but due to the erratic nature of major F/EF5+ storms, it is impossible to measure & quantify actual wind loading during an emergency - sensors don't survive direct hits, and trained personnel don't want to die in the pursuit of gathering data - these are not conditions that can be replicated in a lab-controlled experiment - not even close - (the worst damage paths I've personally surveyed were F/EF3-4). In summary, the science of damage assessment is still in its infancy really, but with advancing technologies, approaches, & sensors, the extreme real-world conditions are being realized in these rare, once in a lifetime storms - it's fascinating research, & we all have a lot to learn - respect the power of Mother Nature - & have a great day too!
At the rate the Ef scale is going, there might not be another Ef5 until a big boi decides to knock on the door of a major plains city, I myself have figured out that major tornadoes strike the central Oklahoman region every 8-12 years (which probably is on the longer side more like 12-15 but that’s what modern data shows) so it might only be a few years before they have no choice but to rate a tornado ef5
The only real building codes for tornanic activities are In Mainly Oklahoma due to its insane tornado rates, and plus they are very new SCHOOLS DIDNT EVEN HAVE SHELTERS UNTIL 2013 AND 7 CHILDREN PAID THE PRICE FOR IT
@@Ty91681 It's not the only section as Michigan and Wisconsin are very overdue for EF-4/EF-5 type tornadoes possibly in a Palm Sunday type outbreak setting (a once every 40-50 year event) and Wisconsin's prone to mid-summer EF-5s about once every 20 or so years. Michigan hasn't had an EF-4 let alone a EF-5 in 45 years and historically, EF-5s/F-5s are a once every 45 year event in Michigan with F-4s a much more frequent once every 10 years historically until they suddenly stopped in the late 1970s. Edit: It leaves two very ripe regions very due for an untimely/timely violently tornado as Michigan and Wisconsin's more damage prone areas are very densely populated in able to make contact with something well-constructed.
It wouldn’t be a problem if these areas had tornado codes but the area most likely to be hit in central Oklahoma is the Edmond area to the north of the main metro where there is little to no codes outside of schools, and for the Upper plains…. It’s only a matter of time before a 190Mph Ef4 tornado comes a knocking
@@the-angel-of-light-gardevoir8 You might even need a Chapman, Kansas 180 mph EF-4 to just hit a densely populated core somewhere. As in the contexual damage indicators not on the EF-5 list as they're materialist science/metallurgy matters or exceedingly rare (bending of railroad tracks mounted to the ground) thus leaving the structural damage of what may have not been a direct hit with EF-4 damage.
I think having a dual rating one for damage and the other for winds may be warranted. For example call one an EF 1.4. It's outer bands only hit a shed and knocked it over but its core winds were measured by doppler to be 180mph.
I think the EF scale doesn't know what it wants to be. It's described as a tornado intensity scale, not as a damage scale. The purpose of the Fujita scale was to estimate wind speed from damage. If we have wind speed measurements that are reliable indicating wind speeds within a certain range, then labeling a tornado a lower category because it happened to not directly hit structures or traveled through an open field seems contrary to its intended purpose as an intensity scale. If we have the wind speed, then there's no need to estimate wind speed from damage anyway. I think maybe adding a qualifier to the ratings could help. For example, if El Reno 2013 had 318 mph winds indicated by instruments, but the damage observed indicated the wind speeds were in the EF3 range, then maybe it should be rated as an >= EF3, since we know the wind speeds were greater than or equal to the EF3 range from the damage.
I wanted to make a deep dive on a history of tornadoes from an engineering perspective. This video is so good, you actually made me mad. Props bro, this is a very well made video.
If rating don't matter, then why do we have ratings? It must matter, or we wouldn't have a rating system. So now that we acknowledged there is a reason for a rating, then why is is there rating? To make people safer? Does giving a rf5 rating make people safer? I say no. Does giving a er4, 3, 2 or 1 help people? I 'd say yes, because then it allows surveyors to point out what could of been done better to make people safer. So this means more funding or research. If you give a tornado a ef 5 rating, it doesn't allow for any of that. A ef5 rating means know matter how well built your structure was, it was coming down. It doesn't allow for flaws and money to help pay for better built homes when the rebuilding begins. So by not getting that ef5 rating, your not helping those folks, but your helping the next time a tornado hits that town or city.
I think we need both a damage scale and an intensity scale. A tornado may be at EF5 intensity at its peak, but would receive a low rating due to not hitting much. Having two scales will give it appropriate ratings based on BOTH intensity and how much damage it caused.
Also a problem with Using Dows would be that Ef5 tornadoes would probably Disproportionately bring from the central plains (TX,OK,KS ect.) due to most DOWs being based in Those states, especially Oklahoma….
And stationary radars might upgrade a tornado like the one near Dequincy, Louisiana from EF-2 to high-end EF-3 or low EF-4 (181 mph inflow-outflow difference or well above EF-4 threshold) the other day despite damage never exceeding a still robust EF-2. But with the NWS radars moving in sweeps of every 5 to 6 minutes, a Dequincy type upgrade would be most commonplace in rural areas with tornadoes that were already strong to stronger or violent.
@@Eibarwoman except dow windspeeds are actually reliable to due measuring it at ground level and stationary radars measure winds at like 3k feet above ground level which make it not reliable
@@offcomets2727 There's been someone doing graduate research on convering Nexrad speeds to at the ground speeds for tornadoes. I think we're maybe 5-10 years from being able to use that type of contextual data given the peer review process and what not. Edit: The DOWs are vastly stronger in accuracy but have the limitation of rarely appearing outside of the Great Plains which probably explains the Nexrad conversion research study I mentioned being 5+ years away for EF usage
bit of insight from a friend who covers weather-related insurance, their decisions are influenced by nws assessments as well as private investigation. ratings play very little role, and the findings that lead to those ratings are more important. for example, if 20 houses are slabbed but their client’s is still standing, those 20 houses won’t influence their decision. if 20 houses including the clients are slabbed, they’ll include those findings in their own assessment. if their client is the only home slabbed, it can lead the private investigation to conclude a structural fault of some sort or the building simply being constructed too weakly to withstand the storm. obviously this isn’t the full extent of the assessments they complete, as those assessments can take days, but it’s just a general idea of how it works.
Fun aside since I work with in-situ+excavated soils.... they vary. They're not a nice, homogeneous mix. You have pockets and varying layers and varying size of particulate/gravel. I've seen sites where there's 3 or more different soils within it and that's not counting when you start going deeper. Granted, you can get results, but you have times where numbers do not match what you experience. So ground scouring would be a nightmare to standardize because you need to grab soil prior to the storm ripping the shit out of it or soil close to where scouring occurred and then figure out what the hell you test with it. How do you know how long the tornado sat on it? The wind speed? If debris actually contributed to initiation by ripping up grass, etc. God I would love to sit in a meeting for hypothetically testing ground scour. Personally alongside whatever EF is morphed into could have a paired scale for local damage or something. Equating wind speed with damage can be varying based on construction and something separate might give better insight (?) into how the same event impacted one community (or hell, a street) from another. These people suffered level 5 damage and their houses were flattened and the people three streets over got level 3 damage with roofs blown off, etc. Just shooting the shit as someone not that in this neck of the woods. Could also help in giving people help they need for what they suffered, but that's a new can of worms (I know the FEMA issues too well). And all of this is after the fact! Overall EF isn't /that/ bad. Very neat video seeing how everything kind of crystallized into now. Honestly do not envy whoever is standardizing damage on different structures because good lord that will be a lot of work. It seems only stuff that really pushes the scale (usually involving a lot of death/destruction...) is also compounded by how difficult it is to confirm windspeed! Maybe better techniques and equipment may shed more light into what happens during a storm event, but like a new scale it's something not coming for a while. And oh boy construction. 38:54 Jobs are always done by the least paid man and they know where to cut corners so it takes an act of god to reveal what they did. Sometimes even time constraints add into this. But usually it is cost, plain and simple. House not anchored properly? You'd see that when a tornado rips it or after the business is long disbanded if at all! You kind of hit that pretty squarely, imo. Shit's old and everything new is fucking expensive. When I moved into where I live now I had to do an asbestos test due to the age lmao! (Engineers will build to account for wind speeds, but whoever uses their plans may have other ideas... And since everything atm is estimates and getting a clear dial of wind speed isn't either, someone could argue winds were just over the designed amount anyways. My worry would be a false sense of security if someone calls their structure "ef4 safe!")
Great video, 35:28 I LOL'd too loudly. It always cracks me up whenever I see people already saying that's an EF-whatever while the storm is happening. I like the EF scale because it's interesting to see what the tornado was rated. But it ultimately doesn't matter and at the end of the day anyone who has been directly hit by a tornado or has lost everything or loved ones doesn't care what a tornado is rated. I think a lot of people want a tornado to be rated as high as possible for the same reason that people want to be the sickest, or the be darkest, or want to have experienced the worst. Like, "look the tornado, in my town, was more deadly than yours. Baffles me why humans always want to have the worst experiences, but brag about having the best lives.
As someone I know just recently put it, "I'd have a lot more respect for discussion about the EF scale if the people discussing it weren't the weather equivalent of shonen anime powerscalers having slapfights over the internet about biggest tornado evar."
The scale gives people a false sense of the actual strength of a tornado. If a tornado with EF-5 strength winds hits nothing but a trailer park , or if it's in open fields and does minimal damage, you're never going to see it rated as an EF-5, although the wind speed was over 200 mph. Also, these different rating numbers along a tornado's path doesn't mean the tornado weakened or strengthened. It just might mean that it hit something that wasn't well-constructed. I hear a lot of people say a tornado strengthened as it entered a town or city, or that a tornado weakened soon after it left a town or city. They act totally oblivious to the fact that tornadoes are rated by their appetite. That's why they seem to strengthen as they enter towns or cities. They eat more. They are more likely to come into contact with structures that are built better. There's a lot more debris to help with the destruction associated with those objects crashing into each other. I personally think the F scale and the EF both have major flaws in those areas. Radars are a lot better than what they used to be. We can see what the wind speed is, at least down to a certain point in the atmosphere. But since those radars can't see what the wind speed at ground level is, and until they come up with a solution for that problem, tornado strength scales will remain flawed.
That Nexrad-based predictor is interesting. I wonder if they're accounting for the reality of windspeeds picked up above the ground often being considerably higher than the winds doing the damage, or if that's being deliberately ignored out of respect for the tradition of associating tornadoes with their highest doppler-detected windspeed, such as with Moore 1999 or Red Rock.
this was an incredible video, i feel the reason a lot of people are quick to bicker and fight over the issues with the ef scale is because a lot of the information in this video isnt what someone starting to get intrested in these storms will see, they will see powerful tornadoes potentially being underrated and not see a lot of the sucess that the ef scale still has in rating tornadoes. incorrectly rated tornadoes, if i were to guess, are probably an outlier with the scale and its use. thousands of tornadoes have been correctly rated, with only a handful of examples of them being rated wrong. all of those examples are also with extremely destructive tornadoes, some of the most uncommon. i dont think ive ever seen people bicker over weather a tornado was an ef0 or an ef1. or even if it was an ef2 vs. an ef3. its all over the high end tornadoes which can be hard to get data for due to their infrequency. before this video i definately thought the ef scale was more of an issue than it is, but most likely becuase im only starting to really get into weather and tornadoes, i hope to go storm chasing one day, but theres not too much going on in alberta compared to the states.
Before they update this scale they need to plug all the radar holes. I live on the edge of one and Centralia Illinois already had a NOAA station at its airport but no radar. Salem got tickled by a twister a few weeks back and they only barely saw it on radar.
I absolutely cannot wait for a new tweaked scale. In fact, I hope its more than just a little "tweaked". I'm not a scientist not veey educated about storm cells and tornadoes, but I am obsessed with them and have enough sense to know the F and Ef are "wrong". And As I see some tornadoes (such as El Reno) completely and inaccurately underrated it drives me nuts.
I think the big issue is potential vs. actual. The El Reno tornado in a populated area would have been an EF5 if the 300+ mph winds from DOW were accurate. A well-built house would most likely have been wiped from its foundation. I think the scale should contain both potential and actual. You could call the El Reno tornado a P5/A3 tornado: Potential EF5 with actual EF3 damage indicators. It's like the age-old question: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound?
I think what is needed is a 2-dimensional scale. One axis for damage potential, which should be based on wind measurements. This is important for the scientists investigating tornadoes. The other axis for actual damage done, which is done by the usual damage indicators. This would be the important one for desaster relief efforts.
The only issue with the EF scale, is that they don’t convey the damage, or threat. If you’re screaming at people it’s an F0 and to take extreme shelter, is a completely different response if you tell them F5. That’s the issue. It’s not about damage, it’s about potential. That’s why we need a new dual scale. Hey this thing is back 5 winds, damage so far is a 2. That will help people understand the potential. The common public. Most people hear F0-1. They want to see it. Not, oh it just hasn’t hit anything yet, but it’s 5 miles wide, has 2,000 mph winds, but it’s an F0, because, damage. No. We have the technology now to understand radar scans, and we have a good idea when there is a bad one on the ground.
What is the EF scale anyway... should you receive a tornado strike of an EF-2 and you're in a trailer home, it can kill you just the same as an EF-5. Any tornado from an EF-3 and up are big tornados, and we need to respect all weather warnings that come out. We have no idea what the storm will dish out until it does. By that time, it's too late.
THANK YOU so much for this!!! Thanks for a science based explanation of the EF scale based on actual research rather than analysis done by 12-year-olds on twitter who think they know better than scientists with PHDs I basically agree with everything you said: there is simply so much we don't know about the meteorology behind tornadoes that there's no perfect solution to rating them. I agree that we need an update to the scale that considers contextual evidence. I'm also interested in if we can add something that considers video of the tornado, as recent research has shown we can estimate wind speed using video of debris in the air. A couple of years ago there was an EF3 not too far from where I live, and I saw the damage firsthand. The EF3 rating was solely based on one poorly-anchored home that was leveled. It was probably a mutli-vortex tornado, and the house next to it (only a few yards away) only sustained EF1 damage, and a house maybe a hundred feet from the destroyed house had no damage at all (to the best of my knowledge, all of the homes had similar construction). My point here is that tornado winds may vary so significantly in a short distance that it is almost impossible to actually determine how strong a tornado is, so focusing on the exact wind speed is pointless. I won't be surprised if some random EF-0 tornado that happened in a rural field in the plains had winds over 200 mph at some point, but we simply didn't know about it since it was in an open field. Having said that, I do think maybe tornadoes that we can confidently say were violent should be included in violent tornado environment datasets. Lets say you're looking at which environmental factors are most favorable for violent tornadoes. Even though there were no EF4+ tornadoes on May 31, 2013, I wouldn't have a problem with you including that day in your violent tornado dataset because there's no doubt El Reno had violent winds But at the end of the day all that really matters is the impact. As you said, its childish and immature to go on social media and start arguing about the exact rating (especially after really devastating tornadoes like Mayfield). If you lost everything in the storm, the EF rating is just an irrelevant number. Weather weenies need to stop focusing on the exact rating and start focusing on the true impact. For the 1 year anniversary of 12/10/21, Jennifer Narramore on tornado talk posted an article listing every person who died in the outbreak and about who they were. The article left me in tears because honestly thats what matters. Weather weenies can argue on twitter all day about if Mayfield was an EF-5, but I think about the 89 people who lost their lives that night, and their families who will never be the same.
Hypothetical: City A, which has only poorly built, or non-well made structures, then it's impossible to be hit by an EF-5 tornado? (Assuming the only damage is in City A)
You have my attention. I had no idea that an update to the EF scale is coming. Great video. Glad to know that we have new generations of meteorologists on their way.
Great video, Alferia! I just have one comment, possibly question. I understand that we have come to know more about tornadoes since the EF scale was implemented, but since 2013, many tornadoes have had devastating impacts that rival that of Joplin and other tornadoes, especially in the 2011 super outbreak, yet have had all mentions of slabbed homes be labeled as not well built. I want to question this, as I have never seen a clear definition of a well built house. Is a well built house one that would be standing after an EF-5 tornado? No, then it would be rated EF-4 or EF-3. Well, is it one that would be demolished by an EF-5? Well, yes, but EF-4 tornadoes can also do that. What I’m getting at is that there isn’t enough room between an EF-4 and an EF-5, as there can be well built homes (depending on the surveyor, of course) that can be slabbed without an EF-5 rating. A system that I like is the International Fujita Scale, which has a 0-5 scale, but instead of just on whole numbers, you have half steps as well. Now, the wind estimates in the International Fujita Scale are unrealistic, but I would imagine if we were to take that concept and apply it to the current EF scale, it would work more. We already have wordings of high-end ratings, or low-end ratings, which can be used to determine if a tornado is, for example, an IF-4 or an IF-4.5. In my personal opinion, the tornado that struck Marietta, Oklahoma on April 27, 2024 was rates a low-end EF-4. In the ideal IF scale, this would correlate to an IF-4. However, if you look at the Mayfield or Rolling Fork tornadoes, they were both rated as high-end EF-4 tornadoes, which would ideally correlate to IF-4.5 tornadoes. My basic beliefs is just that there should be more than just 6 rating possibilities, but instead, much more to really narrow down how intense the tornado was.
Personally, i think there is still a place for damage based wind estimation, because we cant have a doppler radar right next to every storm, so oftentimes the readings we get are from higher up in the storm and could have very different values than tornadoes on the ground. However, doppler on wheels has gotten some up close measurements near or possibly over 300mph directly inside the tornado funnel near the ground in the 2013 and 2011 El Reno tornado, and the bridge creek-moore tornado. I dont think this kind of data should be ignored, although since 2 of the 3 actually hit something at peak strength, they were rated f5 and ef5 anyway. Maybe find a way that weighs observed wind speed, when the data is available, against an updated ef scale to include more damage indicators. And i do think it is important for a tornado to be rated ef5 if it is one, or just rated properly in general. The common person will see an ef4 hit someplace on the news, and while they know that can be very damaging, will think "oh well, it could have been worse" and be less likely to donate to the relief fund, things like that. Plus, it is very important for historical accuracy. Tornadoes like Rochelle/Fairdale and Mayfield had damage indicators right at 200mph. How can they be so sure the wind never got 1mph faster in one of those places? We are currently in the longest ef5 or f5 drought ever despite having had some very intense tornadoes, and i feel that is partially due to the tendency to under rate tornadoes and a seeming unwillingness to assign ef5 damage for some reason. Then again, people much smarter than I am do these surveys, they may know something I dont, I just think with technology and our knowledge of storms having increased alot since the creation of the ef scale, it is time to either update it or entirely create a new one.
Ok. I watched the full video and I love how you explained everything and every topic and controversies around the EF scale. I agreed with almost everything in the video. One problem I have is that you didn’t mention much about how we can make tornado science better. You talked about ground scouring but kind of dismissed it like it shouldn’t be added to the scale. Maybe I am misunderstanding but what I would have said is something like this. “A simpler kind of solution would be to make every NWS Damage surveyor take a course on basic top solid ground geology.” But you noted that we didn’t have much information on what exactly is ground scouring and I agree but in the video you could have added why we should add ground scouring therefore how we could make the change to better understand like how and why it happens and then add it to the new/updated scale. In my opinion ground scouring should be added to a new updated scale the problem is that we don’t have enough research and science around that. So we do need to make more better tornado science around it but like you said it takes time. But in my opinion it’s necessary to make these changes therefore we understand the tornadoes better in the first place to then make better changes to home designs ECT ECT therefore returns and helps the rating of the tornado. Also I don’t use Twitter so I don’t rant and get caught in the mayfield arguments [(🛑I hate the fact that the weather community is getting ruined from tiktok, clout, and other mental health effects caused by social media because they are bleeding into the weather community🛑)] but I am a weather nerd and there is many weather needs who don’t want clout and just want better results and research and changes around tornadoes. I am a big fan of Reed Timmer because I want to do something that helps tornado research like he does. [(🟩JUST LOOK AT MY CHANNEL! And the research I am trying to do🟩)]
The scale needs to be a 2 part scale. Damage inflicted, and the measured wind speeds. That gets rid of any confusion. El Reno. F3 damage-F5 wind speed. So it would be an F3/5. So the bad boys would be like Moore. F5/5. Highest damage. Highest winds.
EDIT: Also to add windspeed and damage. Like a complete hybrid. Hit nothing but super strong? F5-EF0. Hit everything and super strong? F5-EF5. Just throwing my silly ideas out there. My super-genius solution to the scale debate: USE BOTH. No wind speed data? Use damage. No damage? Use wind speed. None of either? Make an estimation. Have a marker for when it's only an estimation. For example, a AEF4. Assumption EF4. Idk. The acronyms are for people actually good at acronyms. You get my point.
Actually, there was a scale called the Pearson scale that was developed alongside the Fujita scale to supplement the F-scale. It assigned a tornado a rating based on path length and width. It never entered widespread use and was forgotten, but it adds another layer of classification that may help cover some of the EF-scale's shortfalls.
What they should have is 2 ratings for tornadoes. One for the highest wind speeds recorded out of a tornado and one for damage. The el reno tornado had winds speeds at 295MPH so that is clearly an F5 but had F3 damage. Many times i seen tornadoes rated lower then what wind speeds were pushing so they should really have 2 ratings, a wind speed rating and a damage rating
I don’t wanna be that person but I remember before the western Kentucky tornado got its rating, Reed Timmer said it was some of the most intense damage he’s seen and he even called it “high end ef5 damage” and he has seen his fair share of ef5 damage chasing tornadoes. But yea I’m fully aware that you can’t rate a tornado from just taking a quick glance at the damage
@@randomvideos2235 no but hes clearly one of the most experienced people in weather. Hes seen some shit and done A LOT of shit. You gain at least a basic level of understanding when you're in proximity to the science for that long.
My issue is if building codes keep getting more and more strict and houses built better and better, eventually an average person won't be able to afford to live in one. That's already becoming the way it is. After being homeless for 3 years, I'd rather have a weak house and die in a tornado than only have expensive castles available to me and live in the street and die from the tornado anyway.
Happy to contribute with your top notch work! I've always been fascinated with tornadoes and their shenanigans but still haven't got a chance to see one yet. That's why I watch your awesome videos. Cheers!
Since my sound system is dead and since I don't trust YT's captioning, I can't tell what is discussed. I suppose my main issue with the Fujita Scales, both of them, is that they evaluate solely on the damage twisters cause to developed areas. Back in the day when Theodore Fujita created that scale based on hs experience assessing the damage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was admittedly the only way to assess (or, to be precise, guess) wind intensities. Since then, however, even with the reboot of that scale in 2007, evolution in radar technology has made it possible for radar to measure wind speeds, which is something the Fujita Scales totally ignore. They still estimate solely by damage left behind...so, we could have a tornado as intense as the Moore sweeper of 1999; but if it touches down on barren land with no human development, it would be classified as an EF-0. I mean, sure, the immediate concern is how tornadoes ruin people's days...but with increasing interest in weather patterns, climate variations, etc., which are independent of human influence, damage assessment after the fact is not an accurate means to rely on. What we need is something that accommodates newer, more accurate on-site measurements of wind as well as damage: If actual wind-speed measurements can be had, those must be the precedent to rate a tornado's power; if such measurements aren't possible at that time, then damage assessment can be the backup means of rating a tornado's power. Just my opinion...
It's obvious, that Dorothy's house was the victim of poor construction; it's obvious, that a EF-0 tornado could have lofted Dorothy's house up in the air, but it's also obvious, that poor construction of houses is a major problem being ignored & the money to correct this problem in older constructed houses is unavailable...!!! It's one reason why insurance companies are abandoning Florida because of hurricanes...!!! Ya'd think that threats to the lives of Americans are being ignored; ya'd think aid would be offered to the public to afford storm shelters in neighborhoods that were easily accessible when tornado &/or hurricane threats were deemed life-threatening. Seeing a steel safe lofted & torn apart by a tornado 🌪 is quite depressing & not everyone in the deep south & in Florida can afford to build or purchase a prefabricated storm shelter. Seeing the Univ of Texas shooting 2x4's into house structures that penatrate into & through home structures like mine where basements are very rare, makes my interior bathroom look like a death trap & many areas in Florida can NOT build underground storm shelters...! Many shelters in schools would NOT protect the public in a serious tornado...!!! Florida Republicans, think climate change is a hoax, but the insurance companies don't; its the reason insurance companies are abandoning Florida...! It kinda makes me wish Florida Republicans would be blown away during the next major hurricane 🌀 or tornado🌪 for ignoring the threats to the public living in Florida for profits & land grabs to build condominiums on the beach after a disaster...! Trumpites here believe Trump's "ALTERED" Nattional Hurricane Center's "Impact & Landfall Chart", issued by experts; Trump thinks the "National Hurricane Center" issued "Fake News"...!!! 😮😮😮😮
I went through an EF-4 that slabbed a couple houses in 2012, and people here absolutely cared about the rating. I've heard stories of people from Joplin that have said that the EF-5 rating gave them a form of closure about what occured. I live near Mayfield, and have heard people from the towns impacted saying the same thing. Just saying that the ratings DO matter to some of those affected in some way or another. Saying they don't matter to the victims is one thing that always annoys me when it comes up, as I've directly heard the opposite from people who lived through these events. It may not matter in the short term, but it can help mentally in the long term.
The thing is, the label of EF5 is rare and elusive. It grabs a LOT more attention than EF4, hence why people obsess over it. It makes sense why having such a strong label represent their town would help them cope, but if the label gets thrown around too much it loses its signifigance.
I'm confused what at 200mph wind speed breaks that 199mph wind speed doesn't? They need to to a damage assessments and a wind speed range two different things to rate tornados.
In my opinion I am no expert, there are two examples and three tornadoes that severely question the accuracy and effectiveness of EF scale. Number one would be comparing the 1997 Jarrell Texas F5 and the 2021 Mayfield Kentucky EF4 damage reports. The Jarrell tornado had an average forward wind speed of 15 miles an hour and the Mayfield tornado had a forward speed of 60 miles an hour. Using damage as a primary measurement for rating a tornado is not accurate unless you also include forward speed. Number two, The 2013 El Reno Oklahoma tornado. With the ability to get wind speed data from major tornados more common today. Doppler wind speed data should be the primary tool to measure tornados with damage and forward movement also included. Just because the El Reno tornado did not hit a populated area doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been rated an EF5.
It is a dream of mine to see a tornado in my lifetime! I'm horrified, but I'd also like to be in the eye of a hurricane and experience the wall hit me. It's weird. I wanted to be a storm chaser back when that show was popular back in like 08'. Man did I watch that show religiously.
I'm certain there's a lot more to it, but it seems like the most intense areas of ground scouring I've seen occur immediately after a high-end tornado passes through structures and/or a dense forest. And so I always assumed it was caused by a combination of loose soil, intense wind speed, but, most of all, a sudden influx of debris which is what I thought actually scrapes off the top layers of soil. But I never hear anyone ever mention the effect that circulating debris would have on scouring. I would think it'd be a pretty significant factor as not everything gets lofted high into the circulating updraft, especially the heavier debris which I imagine would easily displace soil when moving at high speed.
This was a good video. I am sad I didn't have any popcorn to go with it though. Your final point in the video feels very spot on - I hate to blame everything on social media but everytime I turn around on the internet that seems to be the root of so many issues 😅 Everyone on twitter has an opinion and wants to share it. Even taking out the bad actors there are plenty of well meaning but rather dense people out there (basically everyone between the ages of 15-25 going off my own recollections of how i was during that 10 year span of life...) ready to weigh in. All of it from the safe anonymity of the internet reacting to sound bites and videos and forgetting that while they debate from their swivel chairs, people in the path of a storm just had everything they care about turned into confetti. As you note, if a tornado were to turn my home into an insurance write-off and leave me incapable of classifying myself as bipedal any longer, then I'm not really gonna care what the EF rating is. Maybe in fifty years when I'm old and showing off my peg leg I'd brag about surviving the great EF-5 of Whenever Whatever but that's not really what's important.
Let's be honest if some of the people who complained about the fact certain tornadoes should be rated EF-5. They would probably rate every tornado EF-5. Instead the ones that cause the highest amounts of damage are rated EF-5 which makes sense. But if the Fujita scale was based on wind speed, which kind of can't happen unless we have a dopplar on wheels (DOW) which also can't always happen because number one those vehicles are slow and in major outbreaks you can't just have a dow every 100 miles. And having a dopplar radar in every city is also unlikely because ultimately not enough funding. Another thing I'd like to mention, if we heard from multiple people about the tornado saying "we heard the roar." I've seen compilation videos where someone would say "I hear a roar." But the only roar I hear is that of the tornado siren.
Exactly, in my personal opinion, I think more usage of Doppler on wheels during tornado impact would be useful, IF POSSIBLE. Considering that’s why the El Reno 2011 tornado got the windspeed estimates that it did.
@@SylveonMujigaeOfficial my boy there were two of them. On may 2011 an ef5 hit El Reno, it tossed an oil tanker truck a whole mile along with windspeeds measured at 295 mph with those 2 indicators giving it the ef5 rating.
I think the main problem I have is the fact that both the old and new scales use damage to infer wind speed. If they report "EF5 = 201+, etc." and have wind speed data that would categorize it into one of those then why wouldn't that be immediately used? I know its unrealistic to get wind data for every tornado but when available why not use? Thats my biggest confusion with the scale I think. The issue mainly comes from confusion as to why they would ignore a key component that would help tell the story.
Limiting housing supply to those only compliant with codes requiring them to withstand tornadoes obviously increases the price. Some people would rather risk the small chance their home is destroyed than not having one to begin with
Notice how the problem is OVER classification of tornadoes NOT under-classification of tornadoes. because if an EF 3 tornado does EF 5 damage to a poorly built home with no distinction between the well-built and poorly-built homes, then it could laziness in construction quality with the idea that it is impossible to build tornado safe homes. but if an EF 5 tornado (wind speed wise) can only do EF 3 damage, then those homes are literally doing their job in withstanding the worst of a tornado and in the EF scale that specifies construction quality, there is no corruption of data happening as it tell contractors that their efforts are literally causing the need for the tornado scale to change as their houses aren't being damaged as what would be expected.
when you said that in the old days, Newnan could’ve been an F5, i laughed so hard i began coughing. Saw the damage firsthand. These videos are really fun to watch
Yeah I never understood why it was based on surveyed damage when hurricanes aren’t rated the same way. If a hurricane reaches a certain wind speed it’s classified accordingly.
When we have more evidence of a tornado being a certain rating. Specifically windspeed. And even a TV stations radar is advanced enough today to accurately depict velocities. Then it needs to get the rating it has. My biggest problem lately, is they aren't giving tornadoes an ef5 rating when they probably deserve one. Wonder why it's been so long since the last ef5? All because they aren't rating it.
I took 2 classes on soil 500 lvl etc university classes I'm no expert far from it but Ground scouring is all dependent soil type. How deep each soil layer goes. I seen dirt that was harder than concrete oh and "top soil" is a misnomer
We can keep the scale if it gets upgraded in my opinion. I think it needs to include ground damage along with structural damage. As mentioned in the video and other comments, more damage indicators, radar data and build quality need accounted for when rating tornadoes. Like with Chickasha and Rochelle, the ground damage and smaller plants torn apart likely (not confirmed) supported EF5 damage but with a structure based scale, they didn't get rated higher because we don't have enough information to support it being a sign of a violent tornadoes quite yet. In simple terms, I think we need more data from the radar and satellites and more research into the tornadoes themselves to properly rate them.
Suggestion: Could you do a video over the August 10, 2020 Midwest derecho? I live in Iowa, and while my area didn't receive much damage (if at all), Cedar Rapids and the Quad Cities suffered major damage. Could you do a video over it?
…politics… I’m not going further than that! Ok dude this is a very well thought out an info focused video, and I’m really glad you still posted it. 👏👏💚💚💚💚
I don't think this was a full-on rant at all. It was educational and helpful. I think people need to remember that there is no surefire way to accurately quantify the impact a tornado has on a community. No matter what we do, and no matter how far technology progresses, there will always be unknowns. Someone once said that perfecting a tornado scale is the equivalent of measuring every grain of salt that goes into a dish. We can measure and we can estimate, but there's no real way to know beyond any shadow of any doubt exactly how many granules are in a dish. There's no real way to know beyond any shadow of any doubt what a specific tornado does at every moment of its lifecycle, and I honestly believe there never will be. Great video. One of my favorites in the weather community. ❤
Personally, in a rework of the EF scale, I would like to see the surveyors assessing damage to take into consideration how fast the storm was traveling. Even if jarrel only had 150mph winds, it will do far and wide more damage to whatever it hits, given how slow it was moving, as opposed to a tornado with 200mph winds that is moving across the area at 60mph, ie storms similar to the mayfield tornado. This is my non professional weather opinion, but I’d love to hear a discussion on the thought I never hear people mention this, but if you consider the EF scale as any kind of hybrid scale, to find the wind speed, that has to be taken into account
Having grown up in Indiana where tornados are common and then living in Florida for the last 16 years, there is definitely a difference. In Indiana, we had tornado sirens. In the part of Florida where I live, there is nothing but EBS and tv or radio. Just last week an area neat Patrick Space Force Base had a small tornado. No one had warning. Luckily it was a low EF0, but it still took people by suprise.
Wow, you really weren't exaggerating. This is the top comment as of writing this: "With storms like 2015's Rochelle tornado and the 2021 Kentucky killer, I find it very hard to believe that there hasn't been an EF5 in a decade. The Tuscaloosa tornado of 2011 was, in all likelihood, also an EF5. The F5 of Elie, Manitoba of 2007 would have been rated a 4 if it were not for the video that shows it literally sweeping an entire two-storey home into the air." I'd say "no shade" but either they didn't finish the video, completely missed the point, or don't care. Same for all the people who liked and responded to it.
That’s what my first guess was (or at least that you hadn’t finished the video). I agree with Alferia that most people aren’t being malicious or intending to be insensitive. You proved this by removing your comment and apologizing. It was honestly less about your comment and more the fact that it was the *TOP* comment (at the time I think it had like 33 likes when I posted this) and was spawning discussions nearly identical to what was mentioned in the video. Not to mention the one person who assumed I was trying to argue about the science… It was one of the more innocuous comments and I’m sorry that I made you feel bad specifically because several of the people replying and probably some who liked your comment were acting much worse, but again, I was just baffled. It seems the comment section is a lot better now as far as highly rated ones go, but at the time, it was a bunch of comments like yours. That’s why I intentionally left your name out and am leaving it out in this reply because I didn’t think it was malicious. It was just the top comment, which is a testament to the good points you brought up, if that’s any consolation.
@@MajiggerRose I know in the end that people who've lost their homes/loved ones don't give a crap about whether or not the storm was a "5". Any tornado (other natural disasters) is traumatic and one must keep in mind the lifelong emotional consequences that these people will go through. Also, even so-called "weak" tornadoes (EF0/1) can kill and cause severe damage, hence storm knowledge and awareness are needed as much as ever.
The problem with the F scale in general is as you said at the top of the video it's subjective because it relies exclusively on damage indicators. And on top of that said damage indicators have an issue as well, time. Going back to your hypothetical take make both houses have stay bolts. But have one of them be 20 or 30 years old. What would the result be? Concrete and steel are excellent. But they aren't immune to father time. And I'm just talking about the foundation. I'm not taking the structure itself into account. So at the end of the day it doesn't matter what they change in the scale. Unless they come up with something that is purely based on meteorological data. The Fujita scale will always be fallible.
The elephant in the room, El Reno, 2013. Sure, tossing a car a quarter mile while ripping the engine off the mounts is surely EF3 damage, but its not higher? Dang.
Maybe. But that thing was pretty wide. So it might’ve rolled the car on the ground right? Smashing something with a hammer is easier than trying to pull it apart right? Does that make sense?
My point is, the EF damage ratings seem to be tunnel-visioned to structures. The typical Ef-3 may roll a small lightweight car, but an SUV for 200 yards, or like i mentioned, rip the engine off the mounts? Those things are probably not on the checklist, right? I kinda think the damage was there, and the doppler measurements should have underscored that it was a stronger tornado than a 3. I get it, they may have felt their hands were tied.
@@windwatcher11 definitely. It has to demolish a super sturdy structure to get a high rating. There’s not many structures around and not many of them are sturdy.
I think ground survey teams from the National Weather service do their job as per the scale the best way they can. I have no problem with that part at all. They are given a list of requirements and they survey the damage. They are doing an amazing job with that. My problem is with the way the requirements are written. Just because a structure COULD be demolished by an EF3 tornado minimum DOES NOT necessarily mean the tornado isn't an EF4 or an EF5 either. It just means that is the minimum tornado strength needed to do that damage. If we are to believe that, then there are hundreds of towns in the United States that could never have an EF5 rating no matter what happened. There is my problem. In a way, we are already giving a maximum possible rating to a tornado that hasn't even happened yet. For example. Town A is poorly built with non-anchored houses. Therefore, even if a tornado the strength of the Moore-Bridge Creek one hit this fictional town, the highest possible rating it could ever get is an EF3. We might as well see the building codes for structures and start a database as to how they are anchored, etc. That way a survey crew can go out and see lots of damage and rate it an EF3 or EF4. That is all I am saying.
In the end, as you said, the EF scale is scientfically needed. But it is the human impact that matters the most and should matter most when the storm is ongoing. An EF0 or EF5 can kill you. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. A motto in my house, especially during hurricane season. We take all warnings seriously here.
Mysticious here. I finally changed my name from my e-mail. Anyway; I'm glad you made this. I was afraid you wouldn't since you like to keep stuff neutral. With that said, this video was very informative, fair to both sides, and carried a message each viewer can take away at the end to stir their inner debate. That's the point of informative videos, imo. Great job, friend. If I weren't broke, I'd donate more. EDIT: Oh, and I think the scale needs to measure wind speed for its scale placement. Not damage. That just seems morbid and pointless. And as other said, "well built" homes is not a very linear definition.
Hello, if you are seeing this, then that means you see that I have semi-disowned this video. Unlike other videos that I've made that I do not like anymore, I can simply remake them (And I have plans to do so). This video is the exception, or one of them since the Tor-E video also isn't getting remade. Since I said, Semi-disowned and not fully disowned, I want to go over what I still stand by, and what I do not stand by.
What I Stand By:
- Introduction
- Brief Overview of the F Scale
- Problems with the original Fujita Scale
- A brief overview of the EF Scale and how it works (Not the Joplin Segment)
- Ground scouring as a damage indicator isn't simple
- Using Radar for rating assessments
- The Issue with US Infrastructure (The first half)
- The conclusion (Does a tornado’s final rating, accurate or inaccurate, really matter to human society? The answer is yes, and no.)
Those segments were either not problematic as they were providing context, or were written well enough to understand what I was talking about. As to what I do not stand by:
The Joplin Segment: This video came out roughly a year before I released by documentary on the Joplin Tornado. And it shows. Badly. The way it was written seems to suggest that I was skeptical of Joplin's rating when it isn't up for debate; it's EF5, this was confirmed over with Tim Marshall's survey alongside other people's surveys. I talk about it more in my Joplin video but the real take away that should have been hammered home was the fact that Joplin, along with other tornadoes, cemented the need for additional damage indicators. Since I didn't read the full report that I was citing (The NIST Report) at the time this video was made, I lacked the proper understanding as to how that lack of DIs was found, and given that, I realized the critical flaws with the NIST report for both Joplin, and Jarrell to a somewhat lesser extent, is that the methodology of building surveys did NOT justify a tornado's rating due to a small sample size. I should have EXPANDED the segment by explaining the methodology, and the flaws with it, and then conclude with the study's final statements.
"Corrupting the Tornado Database": I am mixed on this because I don't get why the discorse is so major but at the same time, I'm NOT OKAY with how the segment was written like I was white knighting the NWS. A problem that a lot of these early EF-Scale discussions I have made have.
The Tornadoes are not hurricanes bit: Entirely unnecessary given that barely anybody actually believes the initial claim I was refuting.
The Second Half of the Infrastructure segment: A lot of my arguments here, even in the first half, were made with second person evidence with no link to them, just based on what I saw. I should have gone out of my way to find the videos in question. That problem is entirely why a bit of the Joplin video was taken out. In terms of the second half, I went on a crusade on local towns "not caring" because building codes weren't being updated. It was an angry unhinged rant since I didn't even think about the implications of this lovely game called "Politics." Given that, and the stuff I learned from doing the Joplin video, makes this segment kinda dull.
Overall, while I think I had the heart in the right place, and the conclusion pretty well solidified, this video suffered from poor and rushed writing and logic. While I agree with some of the points I made in the actual "Rant" segment, I would definitely argue my stance differently with more evidence and less editorializing. I editorialized a lot, it's an opinion based rant to be fair, but to a point of where it hurt the video.
Given everything negative that I am not proud of, I have decided to semi-disown the video, which some may say is overdramatic, but again, the more I look back at this, and the rants in the December 10th video and the El Reno video, the more I cringe at how unnecessarily angry, and flawed my arguments were. Since I still stand by MOST of the video, I will keep this up publically. Only the segments I just mentioned are the ones I disagree with now.
I’d really like for you to make some sort of collab with June First. Would make for an interesting video.
As abit extra (slight rant). The scale should be upgraded. An argument i see constantly is “people died, EF scale doesn’t matter” argument against the EF scale. This argument just doesn’t work.
No one wants someone to die or even get their house destroyed. It’s heartbreaking seeing the damage. But it should not stop a tornado from getting an accurate rating and then recorded into the data base.
The argument for an upgrade EF scale is to ensure that a tornado is rated based on all areas of data and not a single area. Just to make my argument clear. This is not an “oh Mayfield, El Reno, etc were EF5, bad scale”. This is just about wanting an accurate record.
Good stuff, thank you! I initially came down to the comments to show appreciation for taking so much time to educate people. Researching, writing, editing these must be a big undertaking! And I get to just sit back and absorb the final product 😂 So yeah, thanks! But seeing that you also care enough about the quality of your work to make an amendment like this, if I wasn’t already Im definitely subscribing now!
Autism
What I'd like to see is a solid definition of "well built structure." Building codes vary from state to state, and "well built" to withstand a hurricane in Florida, and "well built" to survive a tornado in Oklahoma are two different critters.
1. Asphalt shingles
2. Plywood/OSB or wood plank roof deck
3. Prefabricated wood trusses or wood joists and rafters
4. Brick veneer, wood panels, stucco, EIFS, vinyl or metal siding
5. Toenailed wood stud walls
6. Anchor bolts every 8 feet
Obviously the construction only matters to the damaged part. Whether or not the house had asphalt shingles won't matter if the whole house is gone.
A big issue with America’s definition of “well built” is it’s objectively lower in quality compared to other developed countries. It also varies between state to state, and company to company.
@@thelouster5815 There's a standardize definition by the NWS
@Ozone and it's wrong. They think alabama code doesn't have anything in it for tornado safety. Which it does. The nws shouldn't decide what's good enough to withhold wind
@@marshallpeters1437 What does this have to do with Alabama code. And yes they should decide, because they know the most about it.
I think I started questioning the EF scale with the 2013 El Reno tornado. It had massive size, extremely high winds on radar, the deadliest storm chaser tornado and yet, it was EF3 only because it didn't go over any man made structures. We do need a EF scale but perhaps taking more accounts into effect other than just damage could help. But of course, the most important things is those affected by the tornadoes, regardless of the ratings.
I'm an oklahoma resident as well, and to be honest, the scale really doesn't matter to me personally i treat all tornados as deadly (which they are) but to me they might as all be EF5s even if they are not.
If I were to remake the EF scale I would probably make it where it takes into account of the previous scale and the current scale. If wind speeds aren't recorded during the tornado, the EF scale side is put into play, if wind speed was recorded, the F scale side is put into play.
But seriously it feels like The El Reno should have been an EF5. The EF scale is sometimes accurate. Other times, like with El Reno, it can be inaccurate.
Look at the last recorded tornado in the Old Fujita Scale, that was the most powerful tornado recorded on that scale. And not only that, it also left damage that was EF5 scale
What I would do is have the scale be like the Enhanced Fujita scales rating numbers, but not only would I account just the damage but also the tornado's windspeed
Edit: To avoid confusion, Instead of it being based on the stuff that was majorly damaged (as stated in the video some structures are built different. Literally.) It would factor everything damaged for the EF side of the Advanced Fujita Scale (that what I would call it) Like if it hits a forest, I would pay attention to the different tree types, as some Trees are stronger than others.
The Fujita scale had its problems, so they tweaked it and came up with the Enhanced Fujita scale. The Enhanced Fujita scale has its problems so they are currently working on tweaking it and we will have a new scale. That new scale will also have its problems and the cycle will continue. The scientists who study weather and related topics will repeat this procedure until they come up with a metric for rating tornadoes that suits their needs. Since I am not one of those people, I don't really care if a tornado is over rated or under rated, or how good of a metric they are using. Well, I do admit to a certain amount of idle curiosity (I did watch this video, after all) but not enough to consume my interest to any great extent.
When it comes to tornadoes, my interests are more self centered. I take great interest in tornado watches. Once it has passed, I want to know the economic impact it will have on me; unless of course, the tornado shoved an eight foot 2x4 though my chest (something I would dearly like to avoid, hence my interest in watches), in which case I am not going to care if an EF0 or an EF5 did it.
rip tim and the rest of twistex
The size of the El Reno tornado alone should qualify as F5.
Maybe there could be two ratings, a damage EF rating and a "W" wind rating for tornadoes that have reliable wind measurements. For example you could say the 2013 El Reno tornado has an EF3 damage rating and a W5 wind rating, indicating it contained winds that could potentially have caused EF5 damage. Most tornadoes won't have a W rating because most won't have a reliable wind measurement but for the ones that do, it would help indicate the true strength of the tornado. Considering the EF scale is a damage scale that's attempting to estimate wind speeds, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to just ignore wind data if we have it.
This is the best option
@@thejerk4478 fr
Wind speed is mostly estimated. That's one of the hardest thing to measure is the wind speed on the ground of a tornado
@Kelley yes but with the EF system, a 350mph Tornado could be rated an EF3 if doesn't hit any strong structures. Doesn't that seem silly?
I'm not saying it isn't silly I'm saying find a way to measure wind speed at the surface of a tornado internally otherwise this is all we have. The old Fujita scale thought houses couldn't be destroyed in 200 mph wind... no system is perfect. It's just what we have at the time. Science will improve. In time the data will get better... Science always evolves
So, I work in a molecular biology lab, totally different field, but what my boss says to me kinda applies here, “these tools are imperfect, but they are the best tools we have right in this moment right now.” The longer that goes on from the EF scales inception and implementation, the more outdated it becomes. It will, eventually, be superseded by a new scale, that is simply how science works. As our ability to measure and update as science progresses, and as the field comes to a consensus that we have stepped forward. That takes just a lot of time, a really long time, in any field.
Took 35 years to update the original Fujita scale. Will probably take a similar amount of time to improve upon the EF scale
The scale won't change until u can accurately get wind measurements in tornadic events from the surface. There's no way to measure surface wind speeds
Well EF scale needs a serious update. You can have an EF5 in a field & it get a false rank just because it doesn't have something to hit. It's messed up.
F scale assumed wind speeds. EF scale uses damage to infer wind speeds. Now, if wind speeds are ACTUALLY known, that should be what the rating is based upon, not upon the damage. The entire reason for damage indicators was to approximate the wind speed.
👍
Solid 👍🏻. El Rino is a really good example of why we are pushing hard for change. Everyone knows it was an EF5 after satellite wind readings on radar came back at over 200mph. In my eyes that tornado will stay an EF5. It's wrongly ranked as an EF3 just because it didn't do much damage.
@@StormChaserMaci.it was a EF5 just was wrongfully downgraded
@@Kierohn I know.... That's what I said.
@@StormChaserMaci. *F5
Considering the original Fujita scale estimated wind speed based on damage because we couldn't measure the wind speed with radar I'd think that if actually wind speed measurements are available, they should be used instead of estimates.
Well said👏👏👏
Thank you! Which would mean the most notorious example - the El Reno tornado - definitely was an EF5! I'm almost thinking since ef4 and ef5 damage is difficult to differentiate (think the Tuscaloosa 2011 compared to any of the other EF5s that day) they should knock off 5 and just have ef0-4
@@jaredpatterson1701 I’ll agree the Tuscaloosa tornado was horrible and by numbers it was just as bad as others and if you’re in the way of it, there’s no difference in EF4 or EF5 honestly. But the tornado in Philadelphia, MS, Rainsville or DeKalb county Alabama and Phil Campbell were much stronger in the damage it dealt, but didn’t go over near as populated of an area. The one in Mississippi left a trench three feet into the ground. And some of the damage reported in DeKalb county was just insane whereas the one in Tuscaloosa was a high end EF4 that just hit a densely populated area of people and was pretty strong.
I say they should create a separate scale.
This! When higher, actual wind speed measured during an event should trump inferred wind speed from damage.
I agree the most important part is the human impact!!!! The EF2 that kills 20 people is still more devastating than the EF5 that has zero fatalities.
It adds *nothing* to science if the El Reno tornado gets changed to an EF5.
People need to quit fighting over a rating. There's more to the storm than just the tornado, there's the cost of people and homes. Some folks are too obsessed with the rating and talk about a tornado like they would about a nascar race, sometimes completely ignoring the lives impacted.
@@thatoneannoyingtornadosire8755 Sorry..you can argue that all day long...ain't EVAH gonna happen...
@@thatoneannoyingtornadosire8755 Incorrect. Keeping an accurate account of how powerful these storms are, even when they don't actually hit anything significant, is very important. Also keeping in mind the original PURPOSE of the Fujita scale is also important.
Yes, the human toll is important. But so is accurately tracking and keeping record of how powerful the tornadoes were/are. The new EF scale skews things a bit too much, and misses the fact that the primary purpose of the original scale in the first place was to assess wind speeds.
@@realtsavobut you still didnt explain why its very important
Couple things real quick that I've noticed here:
One: I didn't go over it too much but I want to say that even though I trust the professionals and their ratings, they do say that they got it wrong after the fact. Really only the Chickasaw EF4 From May 24, 2011 comes to mind where NWS Norman said they would rate it EF5 if they could rate it again. My main argument is that I'm more likely to trust the people with degrees than Little Timmy on Twitter. That's the main argument I'm going for. The professionals are human, and sometimes make mistakes. It's just that the errors they make are often few and far between. Just look at the amount of tornadoes on that wikipedia list that came before 2007 and after. The number before 2007 is immense and way more bloated. Yes because more data, but also just the list does not include anything from 2017-2020 at the least.
Second, I Just want to point out that I've gotten plenty of comments saying that the F Scale just assigned winds when it didn't. Its the exact same way the EF Scale is used in principle. They BOTH USE THE DAMAGE AFTER THE FACT TO DETERMINE THE POTENTIAL WIND SPEEDS OF THAT TORNADO!!!
The Fujita scale (F-Scale; /fuˈdʒiːtə/), or Fujita-Pearson scale (FPP scale), is a scale for rating tornado intensity, based primarily on the damage tornadoes inflict on human-built structures and vegetation.
The only differences are the wind speed estimates and one takes into account construction quality while the other does not.
Well said.
Its honestly sad the amount of people that didn't see that
Can you do a video on everything we don’t know about tornados? I’ve been studying tornados for a long time, and it amazes me thag ppl believe tornados are explained easily by science. Maybe so, but we don’t know the science as of yet (except AI does lol)…..,… also maybe go over some important factors such as how landscaping plays a role, etc…….. and lastly, can you theorize the ground scouring? This really amazes me bc it shows how intense a tornado really is…….
Sorry, but one thing I’ve noticed about tornado genesis, is that it usually starts (visually) with one to two vortex and then it rises back up and it comes back down with many vortexes and is usually much bigger. I always wondered what causes this? And why does the tornado stretch? If you look at some of this drone footage, it seems like the cloud (isolated super cell) is moving faster than the tornado on the ground. And stuff usually gets damaged before the actual visual tornado hits the area. Just weird.
Experiencing a tornado is something else. I got to experience my first one here of recent, and the rain and wind was as if it was coming from the ground. It was hitting my chin and not my head. Until the winds went more upwards and then it was like hitting me on the side. I dk thanks good video!
69th like lol
@@Cascada2009 Well done
This might be your best video yet. I think a lot of us are inherently “WELL ACKCHUALLY” types of people, and it’s just fun to debate or “defend” the tornadoes that pique our interest the most (Joplin for me). I am inherently fascinated by extremes and get caught up in the details of everything i.e.- what is the fastest tornado wind speed, the widest, what are the tallest buildings on earth, where is the hottest place on earth, coldest, and on and on. It IS pointless but oh so fun. Thanks for the video and I appreciate all that you do.
I agree. I love it when a video stirs debate. That's what art does, it gets you talking.
The EF scale is necessary especially when it was implemented in 2007. However it does need upgrades and some modifications to modern standards. The current damage indicators are quite limited especially when it comes unique structures and rare Tornado damage like Trenching. Also Tornadoes are extremely erratic in damage output. Mother nature is extremely complicated and we are only scratching the surface of it.
I second that
Its close to impossible to take scientific readings inside the funnel. Until instruments are built that won't get destroyed by one, tornadoes will be a mystery
El Rino is an EF5 based on Satellite wind readings & it got ranked wrongly as an EF3 just because it didn't hit much.
"trenching"? What's that?
@@superdarklinkthink he means scouring
New Alferia, Weatherbox, and Carly videos within 3 days of each other and a Swegle video less than two weeks ago? It's been a good couple of weeks.
yes!
The bottom line for me is that the EF Scale is better than nothing, but it badly needs to be improved upon and then abolished as technology advances.
Yes, comparing the tech from 2007 to now is drastically different. It needs an update asap
@@tornadoclips2022 Yes and that is happening but bureaucracy is making it go at a snails pace, and the problem is that to be considered reliable data, science takes time. It can’t be updated overnight.
@@sjeason 👍🏼
Better than nothing???? The Fujita Scale isn't 'nothing' you clown. IT's far better.
I'm sure some of the people calling for an updated scale do so with a misunderstanding of the application of the EF scale. However, most of us want if for a couple things. First off, we want to make sure that we have an accurate dataset for tornado strength. Accuracy in data is important. Without it we can't properly assess risks of living in certain areas or moving into a home. Also, it's not that we think the EF scale is useless. It's a damage index, and that's known, however just because a tornado only did "EF3 damage" doesn't mean that it wasn't at EF5 Strength. I think that it's okay for us to want to know how strong these violent weather events are. You mentioned that the goal is to prevent loss of life, and I think that having accurate tornado strength measured and published will lead to better building codes and public awareness.
Now, while I disagree with some of your opinions on the importance of accurately rating tornado strength, I will say that I generally appreciate your natural inclination to try and debunk the conspiracy theorists who like to claim that tornadoes like the Mayfield EF4 we're rated down for *reasons*. So, just know that most of us who want to update tornado strength ratings are not the weebs who "foam at the mouth". 😉
I think that accurate representation of strength like you said is the goal. I don't think that building codes need to be updated to try to build a tornado proof house or one that will survive. That is not economically viable. What I would say instead is that single family homes in these area's more likely to be hit with these storms should be MANDATED to have stormshelters if they are new construction and grants should be given to have older properties retrofitted to have storm shelters installed. The house can go away so long as the people survive in their shelters. And once we have a guage of the likelihood of these events we can also have more public shelters mandated as well for mobile home parks.
I think people concentrate too much on the whole building better angle. My house was built in 76 so I know the studs in my walls were not toenailed, that doesn't mean my house with a basement was built poorly and an EF3 tornado is going to delete it from existence, what it means is a EF4 high or low end is going to take the house or render it uninhabitable which is exactly what it would do to a "well built" structure. I should survive in my shelter though and that is what is ultimately more important.
I chased and helped with cleanup for Rochelle 2015. It's one thing to see pictures of damage, but it's a completely different experience cleaning up the remnants of people's houses. The subdivision we were assigned at, all 4 houses on that side of the road were wiped clean.
All that being said, the Rochelle tornado had almost 20 different DIs with wind speeds noted as 200mph and shown as EF4 rated DIs. If you look at Moore 2013, it had a few DIs also noted at 200mph, but they were shown as EF5 rated DIs. Then I look at something like the DIs from the 2022 Pembroke-Black Creek EF4 and I see the exact same description and identical damage (bent/toenailing bolts from the foundation) as Moore but it was only estimated at 185MPH.
I look forward to new/updated DIs being implemented because I am hard pressed to find any observable difference in damage between 200 and 201mph. Shit, even the difference between damage at 185 and 201 is extremely minimal. Maybe the update will also implement/truly define the terms "low end/high end." Rochelle being described as "very high end EF4" and "being near EF5 in intensity" adds unofficial categorizations and utterly confusing terminology that tend to fuel rating discussions.
Like someone said earlier in a comment, I don't think it's wrong or insensitive to ask questions and challenge the status quo. It should be normal to question things and question why things are done a certain way, isn't that why the scale got upgraded? I don't think Twitter really helps with this though, since IMO it's a cesspool of information and opinions that probably shouldn't be announced to the world, but that's for a different debate. At least in a UA-cam comment sections there isn't a character limit so more well thought out ideas and opinions can be shared vs the usual Twitter herp derp EL RENO WAS AN EF5.
Haven't had a tornado rated EF5 since the May, 2013 Moore, Ok tornado. I realize EF 4/5s are rare but some folks dont want to give proper ratings for financial reasons
Yeah some of the high end EF4s have me scratching my head at times. There are some where they explain and show clearly why its high end EF4 vs EF5, such as with the rolling fork EF4+ where they showed the high end EF4 damage which still had some debris remaining. Maybe the actual concrete materials used might play a factor? "Well built" is a bit vague and building codes vary from place to place. Perhaps building materials and the quality of said materials could be taken into account as well.
Completely agree. We need to build better, and do more to help more, no matter the strength. The human toll of severe weather is horrible. 😢
I disagree, you need to build better shelters because after a certain point (EF3) the construction methods used don't matter the house is gone or so damaged that it will never be inhabitable again. Too much emphasis is placed on "Build quality" when more emphasis should be placed on homes in these area's having well built reinforced shelters. The house is disposable, protect the people and make a single point in the home or on the property essentially bomb proof. Put your money there not into a house that will be swept off the foundation all the same.
Really, if people would stop ignoring warnings then the deaths would go down. There really isn't much death from tornado's thanks to early warning.
You going to provide the funding for everyone to have concrete dome houses with storm shelters?
Another thing with ratings: Disaster ratings can make a huge difference when it comes to recovery and aid. You could have your entire life blown away by an EF3, but because its /not/ an EF5, you may not receive the same level of aid as you would have if the tornado were to have been rated higher. That can mean the difference between living in a trailer next to your pile of rubble for 6 months- or 6 years.
I just got back from visiting my BFF right outside of Mayfield KY and it is still DEVASTATING out there. I was particularly stricken with how the traffic lights were still standing downtown, twisted like bread ties, and replaced by stop signs- because why put up new traffic lights when there's no traffic to stop? No blind corners around no buildings?
Also if you are from the Madison-Watkinsville-Crawford area I'm going to lose my mind. Highway 441 baybEEEEEEEEEE
Furthermore, insurance companies are more than likely looking at ratings for what the payout is going to be. If the engineer shows up and says your house was blown away by an EF3, your insurance may lowball the payout since your house was indirectly declared substandard.
That's how that works? That's stupid 😞
This is a systemic problem more than a rating problem.
Recovery efforts should be sent based on impact, not rating. It honestly sounds more like an excuse not to use resources to save money. This isn't the fujita scales fault, this is the fault of greedy cooperate clowns.
Out of curiosity, do you have any references for this? I tried looking on FEMA but couldn't find anything specific. Since the ratings are damage based, a higher EF rating tornado _by definition_ has caused more damage and thus will need more funds (if hitting the same sized population center, of course).
The main question I have is is for EF4 tornados on the edge of an EF5 rating, and if there is a marked decrease in the amount of aid that is given, specifically informed by the rating. I'm not American so I'm also less familiar with what this process looks like. It would be nice to have something to point to that is concrete if you have it!
The Enhanced Fujita scale is actually a very good scale, and it determines tornado intensity with pretty good accuracy. The problems that people have are that the National Weather Service does not recognize the validity of wind speeds determined using dual-polarized radar in close proximity to the tornado, but that is where I tell you that WSR-88D & TDWR radars are almost always sampling winds that aren’t near the surface. Winds near the surface are the ones that do the IMPACT, and damage rating is literally the only surface-level measurement that can be consistently conducted, so rating based off damage IS actually the best estimator we can use in the absence of DOW (Doppler on Wheels) data. I will say the need for new damage indicators is a real concern, but that is currently being addressed, and I’m a bit tired of armchair meteorologists/weather weenies complaining about the wrong things.
Very well said, and I agree 100 %. People need to remember that what matters most is protecting lives & property. The NWS has teams of surveyors and will even bring in engineers to help estimate wind speeds. Why should it matter what the tornado was potentially capable of when they’re trying to survey what it actually did? I think the general public just needs to be more informed that rating doesn’t mean everything, & certainly doesn’t always mean one tornado was stronger than the other. Hell, you could argue El Reno being an EF3 is a good thing, because people will see that and realize that it doesn’t take an EF4 or EF5 to be extremely dangerous. All tornadoes are dangerous.
What helps keep my perspective on the EF Scale debate is also in regards to a conversation I had with my 9 year old nephew who is fascinated with tornadoes. While he is mainly fixated and fascinated by the storms and the damage left behind, I always remind him that the damage was once someone’s life & property.
In relation to hurricanes Francis was a cat 2 according to its wind speed but did cat 4 damage in places because it stalled out for a day. it’s rare for tornadoes to stall but construction is huge when it comes to surviving a storm, great job explaining it all
Good vid - lots of work went into this. As a meteorologist (specializing in tornado field research 35 yrs.) & applied mechanical engineering, this video asks some important questions regarding the practicality of the current EF scale. IMO, I never thought the scale was accurate at all because there are too many dynamics going on inside of major tornadoes - all at the same time. T. Fujita did a great job getting the analysis started, but could only do so much with the tech/data available back then. Storm intensity analysis is greatly influenced by one's background - and there has been discussions in the engineering fields for decades about adding an F/EF 6 into the mix for 'once-in-a-lifetime' storms that do damage that's beyond our current understandings of atmospheric physics. The field of meteorology is limited in its scope - storm intensity/damage analysis is better quantified by those with strong backgrounds in advanced physics, engineering, material science, & quantum mechanics fields. Mobile doppler units are good for meso-scale analysis, but really aren't capable of capturing real-time micro scale wind loading/dynamics in large F/EF 5+ tornadoes - these are new fields - and although much data has been gathered lately, 'storm intensity analysis' is still in its infancy. Storms that devastate cities, commercial, or heavy industry are really on another order of magnitude from those that destroy neighborhoods, farms, forests. Well built homes will not survive a direct hit with even an F/EF3, let alone a 4 or 5+, because of several factors: wind loads, debris loads, time, funnel geometries, local topography - meaning, a house could be reinforced inside & out to withstand 150mph winds for a few minutes, but in major tornadoes, everything nearby becomes an airborne missile - that means the neighbors' houses, trees, cars/trucks, telephone poles, porches, patios, school buses, asphalt, etc. have all been documented at speeds over 120mph going around funnel boundaries - so how will a 'hardened' home withstand being impacted by a Chevy Suburban or Ford F-350 being thrown @120/150mph followed by everything else listed earlier? - short answer...it won't - that's the reality of major storms - in commercial or heavy industrial areas, it gets even worse - Joplin Mo. 2011 (May 22, 2011 torqued upper floors of main hospital tower out of vertical up to 6 inches), El Reno/Moore Ok. 2011, (El Reno lifted/rolled 900 ton Cactus 117 oil drilling rig) Niles Oh.Wheatland Pa. 1985 (massive steel i beams bent, twisted, sheared, penetrated at a destroyed steel mill - partial parking lot removal) - these sustained damage that left rescue, EMT, fire crews in shock - civil engineers left speechless - assessing damage that was unrecognizable, pulverized, granulated - wind velocities calculated above 380 - 400mph+ - explosive power to structures, infrastructure, & industry built to the highest construction standards/codes available today. There are no wind labs/ computer simulations in the world that can model F/EF5+ dynamics - not even close. In summary, with weaker storms, the F/EF scales could be used in areas that are rural, on a prairie or field (no effects due to major debris impacts) - with extensive damage in cities, large commercial or heavy industry, another updated scale should be used - in increments of 50mph - going up to the F/EF6+. Joplin, Moore, El Reno, Niles/Wheatland (among others) found out what 'air' could do. Respect the power of Mother Nature.
Definitely push for change. Here's why: You can have an massive EF5 in a field but get ranked an EF2 because it doesn't hit much. See the issue here? El Rino OK 2013 is my go-to example of this very issue. That tornado will stay an EF5 in my eyes. It literally left trenches in the ground. The one thing the current scale isn't taking into account is that most tornado wind speeds are strong closer to the core compared to the outer edges. Only then can you see how strong a tornado really is. It bugs the hell out of me there's still no new update. I have an idea scientists should try: use wind tunnel effect to fully determine the true speed it takes for wind itself to knock something down vs wind with debris knocking something down. I believe that's what really needs to be done to know the truth. I know some things related to this have been done, but if it means taking a jet engine to replicate a tornado in a wind tunnel then do it. It's not impossible. 😊
Great comment- I do have a question: Can you point me towards the calcs that found potential wind velocities of 380-400? I don't necessarily doubt you (Punctured steel beams?!), especially if it's for very localized sections of the wind field, but I'd love to see the work calculating that.
Thank you for your time, and have a wonderful day!
@@garethfuller2700 Thanks for your question - I understand your skepticism - I felt the same way about wind velocities that high in major storms - that all changed when I did more research into the aeronautical engineering fields that have been developing more accurate sensors for wing loading dynamics/ per velocities - basically, engineers look at dynamics more precisely than meteorologist - the calculations you seek may not be found - I read these documents in 'WeatherWise' magazine in the mid 1980's - and yes, massive steel girders do get penetrated, sheared, twisted, etc. in the strongest storms - all documented. In a particular storm in the 1970's, a major interstate long-spanning bridge (over the Mississippi R. I believe) took a direct hit - structural engineers were brought in to survey the damage to determine if the bridge needed to be closed for repairs - what they found astonished them - several holes of various sizes (approx. several inches to maybe 1 foot dia.) were found in otherwise well maintained robust steel girders (these were massive main span girders that joined the concrete supports crossing the river) - they noted there was no weathering damage, corrosion, rust - the bridge was in good condition & well maintained before the storm - they didn't find any debris laying around that could explain the perforation - and it was in a rural area - no commercial development nearby, just the river - the team went back to their lab & ran some calculations on materials & wind velocities known at the time & came up with 380-400+mph winds shot some very dense debris into the girders, which then exploded after impact, or went through & sank in the river, regardless, they were shocked at the intensity of the damage & made a report to that states' DOT that the bridge didn't need to be closed & a welding crew made the repairs to the holes - that's it on that storm, but there are numerous cases of damage so extreme, some calculations approach the speed of sound (mach 1) - this is new research not readily covered in textbooks yet, but that will be changing with the sampling methods used by various teams of researchers. In short, this is beyond the scope of meteorology & more applies to those with backgrounds in advanced physics/engineering. To learn more about this topic in general, much has been written about 'multiple suction vortices, laminar flow, vortex shedding, shock loading, & harmonic resonance stress loading' on materials - there is a fair amount of peer-reviewed data on this, but due to the erratic nature of major F/EF5+ storms, it is impossible to measure & quantify actual wind loading during an emergency - sensors don't survive direct hits, and trained personnel don't want to die in the pursuit of gathering data - these are not conditions that can be replicated in a lab-controlled experiment - not even close - (the worst damage paths I've personally surveyed were F/EF3-4). In summary, the science of damage assessment is still in its infancy really, but with advancing technologies, approaches, & sensors, the extreme real-world conditions are being realized in these rare, once in a lifetime storms - it's fascinating research, & we all have a lot to learn - respect the power of Mother Nature - & have a great day too!
The EF scale isn't why ppl don't take it seriously. It's because they issue tornado warning after tornado warning with no tornado.
At the rate the Ef scale is going, there might not be another Ef5 until a big boi decides to knock on the door of a major plains city, I myself have figured out that major tornadoes strike the central Oklahoman region every 8-12 years (which probably is on the longer side more like 12-15 but that’s what modern data shows) so it might only be a few years before they have no choice but to rate a tornado ef5
The only real building codes for tornanic activities are In Mainly Oklahoma due to its insane tornado rates, and plus they are very new SCHOOLS DIDNT EVEN HAVE SHELTERS UNTIL 2013 AND 7 CHILDREN PAID THE PRICE FOR IT
They're definitely due for a strong one if modern data is correct
@@Ty91681 It's not the only section as Michigan and Wisconsin are very overdue for EF-4/EF-5 type tornadoes possibly in a Palm Sunday type outbreak setting (a once every 40-50 year event) and Wisconsin's prone to mid-summer EF-5s about once every 20 or so years. Michigan hasn't had an EF-4 let alone a EF-5 in 45 years and historically, EF-5s/F-5s are a once every 45 year event in Michigan with F-4s a much more frequent once every 10 years historically until they suddenly stopped in the late 1970s.
Edit: It leaves two very ripe regions very due for an untimely/timely violently tornado as Michigan and Wisconsin's more damage prone areas are very densely populated in able to make contact with something well-constructed.
It wouldn’t be a problem if these areas had tornado codes but the area most likely to be hit in central Oklahoma is the Edmond area to the north of the main metro where there is little to no codes outside of schools, and for the Upper plains…. It’s only a matter of time before a 190Mph Ef4 tornado comes a knocking
@@the-angel-of-light-gardevoir8 You might even need a Chapman, Kansas 180 mph EF-4 to just hit a densely populated core somewhere. As in the contexual damage indicators not on the EF-5 list as they're materialist science/metallurgy matters or exceedingly rare (bending of railroad tracks mounted to the ground) thus leaving the structural damage of what may have not been a direct hit with EF-4 damage.
I think having a dual rating one for damage and the other for winds may be warranted. For example call one an EF 1.4. It's outer bands only hit a shed and knocked it over but its core winds were measured by doppler to be 180mph.
I think the EF scale doesn't know what it wants to be. It's described as a tornado intensity scale, not as a damage scale. The purpose of the Fujita scale was to estimate wind speed from damage. If we have wind speed measurements that are reliable indicating wind speeds within a certain range, then labeling a tornado a lower category because it happened to not directly hit structures or traveled through an open field seems contrary to its intended purpose as an intensity scale. If we have the wind speed, then there's no need to estimate wind speed from damage anyway. I think maybe adding a qualifier to the ratings could help. For example, if El Reno 2013 had 318 mph winds indicated by instruments, but the damage observed indicated the wind speeds were in the EF3 range, then maybe it should be rated as an >= EF3, since we know the wind speeds were greater than or equal to the EF3 range from the damage.
I wanted to make a deep dive on a history of tornadoes from an engineering perspective. This video is so good, you actually made me mad. Props bro, this is a very well made video.
If rating don't matter, then why do we have ratings? It must matter, or we wouldn't have a rating system. So now that we acknowledged there is a reason for a rating, then why is is there rating? To make people safer? Does giving a rf5 rating make people safer? I say no. Does giving a er4, 3, 2 or 1 help people? I 'd say yes, because then it allows surveyors to point out what could of been done better to make people safer. So this means more funding or research. If you give a tornado a ef 5 rating, it doesn't allow for any of that. A ef5 rating means know matter how well built your structure was, it was coming down. It doesn't allow for flaws and money to help pay for better built homes when the rebuilding begins. So by not getting that ef5 rating, your not helping those folks, but your helping the next time a tornado hits that town or city.
I think we need both a damage scale and an intensity scale. A tornado may be at EF5 intensity at its peak, but would receive a low rating due to not hitting much. Having two scales will give it appropriate ratings based on BOTH intensity and how much damage it caused.
Exactly
Also a problem with Using Dows would be that Ef5 tornadoes would probably Disproportionately bring from the central plains (TX,OK,KS ect.) due to most DOWs being based in Those states, especially Oklahoma….
Not to mention terrain
And stationary radars might upgrade a tornado like the one near Dequincy, Louisiana from EF-2 to high-end EF-3 or low EF-4 (181 mph inflow-outflow difference or well above EF-4 threshold) the other day despite damage never exceeding a still robust EF-2. But with the NWS radars moving in sweeps of every 5 to 6 minutes, a Dequincy type upgrade would be most commonplace in rural areas with tornadoes that were already strong to stronger or violent.
@@Eibarwoman except dow windspeeds are actually reliable to due measuring it at ground level and stationary radars measure winds at like 3k feet above ground level which make it not reliable
@@offcomets2727 There's been someone doing graduate research on convering Nexrad speeds to at the ground speeds for tornadoes. I think we're maybe 5-10 years from being able to use that type of contextual data given the peer review process and what not.
Edit: The DOWs are vastly stronger in accuracy but have the limitation of rarely appearing outside of the Great Plains which probably explains the Nexrad conversion research study I mentioned being 5+ years away for EF usage
We need lots more DOWs. I'll drive one!!!!!!
bit of insight from a friend who covers weather-related insurance, their decisions are influenced by nws assessments as well as private investigation. ratings play very little role, and the findings that lead to those ratings are more important. for example, if 20 houses are slabbed but their client’s is still standing, those 20 houses won’t influence their decision. if 20 houses including the clients are slabbed, they’ll include those findings in their own assessment. if their client is the only home slabbed, it can lead the private investigation to conclude a structural fault of some sort or the building simply being constructed too weakly to withstand the storm. obviously this isn’t the full extent of the assessments they complete, as those assessments can take days, but it’s just a general idea of how it works.
Fun aside since I work with in-situ+excavated soils.... they vary. They're not a nice, homogeneous mix. You have pockets and varying layers and varying size of particulate/gravel. I've seen sites where there's 3 or more different soils within it and that's not counting when you start going deeper. Granted, you can get results, but you have times where numbers do not match what you experience. So ground scouring would be a nightmare to standardize because you need to grab soil prior to the storm ripping the shit out of it or soil close to where scouring occurred and then figure out what the hell you test with it. How do you know how long the tornado sat on it? The wind speed? If debris actually contributed to initiation by ripping up grass, etc. God I would love to sit in a meeting for hypothetically testing ground scour.
Personally alongside whatever EF is morphed into could have a paired scale for local damage or something. Equating wind speed with damage can be varying based on construction and something separate might give better insight (?) into how the same event impacted one community (or hell, a street) from another. These people suffered level 5 damage and their houses were flattened and the people three streets over got level 3 damage with roofs blown off, etc. Just shooting the shit as someone not that in this neck of the woods. Could also help in giving people help they need for what they suffered, but that's a new can of worms (I know the FEMA issues too well). And all of this is after the fact!
Overall EF isn't /that/ bad. Very neat video seeing how everything kind of crystallized into now. Honestly do not envy whoever is standardizing damage on different structures because good lord that will be a lot of work. It seems only stuff that really pushes the scale (usually involving a lot of death/destruction...) is also compounded by how difficult it is to confirm windspeed! Maybe better techniques and equipment may shed more light into what happens during a storm event, but like a new scale it's something not coming for a while.
And oh boy construction. 38:54 Jobs are always done by the least paid man and they know where to cut corners so it takes an act of god to reveal what they did. Sometimes even time constraints add into this. But usually it is cost, plain and simple. House not anchored properly? You'd see that when a tornado rips it or after the business is long disbanded if at all! You kind of hit that pretty squarely, imo. Shit's old and everything new is fucking expensive. When I moved into where I live now I had to do an asbestos test due to the age lmao!
(Engineers will build to account for wind speeds, but whoever uses their plans may have other ideas... And since everything atm is estimates and getting a clear dial of wind speed isn't either, someone could argue winds were just over the designed amount anyways. My worry would be a false sense of security if someone calls their structure "ef4 safe!")
“Do you SEE an issue with the hypothetical presented”
Lol I was cracking up! Great video as always alfie !
Great video, 35:28 I LOL'd too loudly. It always cracks me up whenever I see people already saying that's an EF-whatever while the storm is happening. I like the EF scale because it's interesting to see what the tornado was rated. But it ultimately doesn't matter and at the end of the day anyone who has been directly hit by a tornado or has lost everything or loved ones doesn't care what a tornado is rated. I think a lot of people want a tornado to be rated as high as possible for the same reason that people want to be the sickest, or the be darkest, or want to have experienced the worst. Like, "look the tornado, in my town, was more deadly than yours. Baffles me why humans always want to have the worst experiences, but brag about having the best lives.
As someone I know just recently put it, "I'd have a lot more respect for discussion about the EF scale if the people discussing it weren't the weather equivalent of shonen anime powerscalers having slapfights over the internet about biggest tornado evar."
The scale gives people a false sense of the actual strength of a tornado. If a tornado with EF-5 strength winds hits nothing but a trailer park , or if it's in open fields and does minimal damage, you're never going to see it rated as an EF-5, although the wind speed was over 200 mph.
Also, these different rating numbers along a tornado's path doesn't mean the tornado weakened or strengthened. It just might mean that it hit something that wasn't well-constructed.
I hear a lot of people say a tornado strengthened as it entered a town or city, or that a tornado weakened soon after it left a town or city. They act totally oblivious to the fact that tornadoes are rated by their appetite. That's why they seem to strengthen as they enter towns or cities. They eat more. They are more likely to come into contact with structures that are built better. There's a lot more debris to help with the destruction associated with those objects crashing into each other.
I personally think the F scale and the EF both have major flaws in those areas.
Radars are a lot better than what they used to be. We can see what the wind speed is, at least down to a certain point in the atmosphere. But since those radars can't see what the wind speed at ground level is, and until they come up with a solution for that problem, tornado strength scales will remain flawed.
lol @ Geometry Dash level editor
Didn't realize there were such crazy peoples in the "abolish the EF scale!!!" crowd. D:
That Nexrad-based predictor is interesting. I wonder if they're accounting for the reality of windspeeds picked up above the ground often being considerably higher than the winds doing the damage, or if that's being deliberately ignored out of respect for the tradition of associating tornadoes with their highest doppler-detected windspeed, such as with Moore 1999 or Red Rock.
this was an incredible video, i feel the reason a lot of people are quick to bicker and fight over the issues with the ef scale is because a lot of the information in this video isnt what someone starting to get intrested in these storms will see, they will see powerful tornadoes potentially being underrated and not see a lot of the sucess that the ef scale still has in rating tornadoes. incorrectly rated tornadoes, if i were to guess, are probably an outlier with the scale and its use. thousands of tornadoes have been correctly rated, with only a handful of examples of them being rated wrong. all of those examples are also with extremely destructive tornadoes, some of the most uncommon. i dont think ive ever seen people bicker over weather a tornado was an ef0 or an ef1. or even if it was an ef2 vs. an ef3. its all over the high end tornadoes which can be hard to get data for due to their infrequency. before this video i definately thought the ef scale was more of an issue than it is, but most likely becuase im only starting to really get into weather and tornadoes, i hope to go storm chasing one day, but theres not too much going on in alberta compared to the states.
Before they update this scale they need to plug all the radar holes. I live on the edge of one and Centralia Illinois already had a NOAA station at its airport but no radar. Salem got tickled by a twister a few weeks back and they only barely saw it on radar.
I absolutely cannot wait for a new tweaked scale. In fact, I hope its more than just a little "tweaked". I'm not a scientist not veey educated about storm cells and tornadoes, but I am obsessed with them and have enough sense to know the F and Ef are "wrong". And As I see some tornadoes (such as El Reno) completely and inaccurately underrated it drives me nuts.
I think the big issue is potential vs. actual. The El Reno tornado in a populated area would have been an EF5 if the 300+ mph winds from DOW were accurate. A well-built house would most likely have been wiped from its foundation. I think the scale should contain both potential and actual. You could call the El Reno tornado a P5/A3 tornado: Potential EF5 with actual EF3 damage indicators. It's like the age-old question: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound?
I think what is needed is a 2-dimensional scale. One axis for damage potential, which should be based on wind measurements. This is important for the scientists investigating tornadoes. The other axis for actual damage done, which is done by the usual damage indicators. This would be the important one for desaster relief efforts.
I do disaster relief and I love your videos. I’d absolutely love if you started doing videos on every hurricane that’s made landfall on the US.
We humans are trying to use what we can to quantify a natural thing that we still can't fully understand. Thank you for making this. I liked it.
The only issue with the EF scale, is that they don’t convey the damage, or threat. If you’re screaming at people it’s an F0 and to take extreme shelter, is a completely different response if you tell them F5. That’s the issue. It’s not about damage, it’s about potential. That’s why we need a new dual scale. Hey this thing is back 5 winds, damage so far is a 2. That will help people understand the potential. The common public. Most people hear F0-1. They want to see it. Not, oh it just hasn’t hit anything yet, but it’s 5 miles wide, has 2,000 mph winds, but it’s an F0, because, damage. No. We have the technology now to understand radar scans, and we have a good idea when there is a bad one on the ground.
What is the EF scale anyway... should you receive a tornado strike of an EF-2 and you're in a trailer home, it can kill you just the same as an EF-5. Any tornado from an EF-3 and up are big tornados, and we need to respect all weather warnings that come out. We have no idea what the storm will dish out until it does. By that time, it's too late.
who said strong tornado were big? like look at the elie Manitoba Canada tornado from 2007
THANK YOU so much for this!!!
Thanks for a science based explanation of the EF scale based on actual research rather than analysis done by 12-year-olds on twitter who think they know better than scientists with PHDs
I basically agree with everything you said: there is simply so much we don't know about the meteorology behind tornadoes that there's no perfect solution to rating them. I agree that we need an update to the scale that considers contextual evidence. I'm also interested in if we can add something that considers video of the tornado, as recent research has shown we can estimate wind speed using video of debris in the air.
A couple of years ago there was an EF3 not too far from where I live, and I saw the damage firsthand. The EF3 rating was solely based on one poorly-anchored home that was leveled. It was probably a mutli-vortex tornado, and the house next to it (only a few yards away) only sustained EF1 damage, and a house maybe a hundred feet from the destroyed house had no damage at all (to the best of my knowledge, all of the homes had similar construction). My point here is that tornado winds may vary so significantly in a short distance that it is almost impossible to actually determine how strong a tornado is, so focusing on the exact wind speed is pointless. I won't be surprised if some random EF-0 tornado that happened in a rural field in the plains had winds over 200 mph at some point, but we simply didn't know about it since it was in an open field.
Having said that, I do think maybe tornadoes that we can confidently say were violent should be included in violent tornado environment datasets. Lets say you're looking at which environmental factors are most favorable for violent tornadoes. Even though there were no EF4+ tornadoes on May 31, 2013, I wouldn't have a problem with you including that day in your violent tornado dataset because there's no doubt El Reno had violent winds
But at the end of the day all that really matters is the impact. As you said, its childish and immature to go on social media and start arguing about the exact rating (especially after really devastating tornadoes like Mayfield). If you lost everything in the storm, the EF rating is just an irrelevant number. Weather weenies need to stop focusing on the exact rating and start focusing on the true impact. For the 1 year anniversary of 12/10/21, Jennifer Narramore on tornado talk posted an article listing every person who died in the outbreak and about who they were. The article left me in tears because honestly thats what matters. Weather weenies can argue on twitter all day about if Mayfield was an EF-5, but I think about the 89 people who lost their lives that night, and their families who will never be the same.
Hypothetical: City A, which has only poorly built, or non-well made structures, then it's impossible to be hit by an EF-5 tornado?
(Assuming the only damage is in City A)
You have my attention. I had no idea that an update to the EF scale is coming. Great video. Glad to know that we have new generations of meteorologists on their way.
The problem is we can’t really recreate tornado winds. We can create streamline winds, but those don’t correlate to the winds coming from vortices.
Great video, Alferia! I just have one comment, possibly question. I understand that we have come to know more about tornadoes since the EF scale was implemented, but since 2013, many tornadoes have had devastating impacts that rival that of Joplin and other tornadoes, especially in the 2011 super outbreak, yet have had all mentions of slabbed homes be labeled as not well built. I want to question this, as I have never seen a clear definition of a well built house. Is a well built house one that would be standing after an EF-5 tornado? No, then it would be rated EF-4 or EF-3. Well, is it one that would be demolished by an EF-5? Well, yes, but EF-4 tornadoes can also do that. What I’m getting at is that there isn’t enough room between an EF-4 and an EF-5, as there can be well built homes (depending on the surveyor, of course) that can be slabbed without an EF-5 rating. A system that I like is the International Fujita Scale, which has a 0-5 scale, but instead of just on whole numbers, you have half steps as well. Now, the wind estimates in the International Fujita Scale are unrealistic, but I would imagine if we were to take that concept and apply it to the current EF scale, it would work more. We already have wordings of high-end ratings, or low-end ratings, which can be used to determine if a tornado is, for example, an IF-4 or an IF-4.5. In my personal opinion, the tornado that struck Marietta, Oklahoma on April 27, 2024 was rates a low-end EF-4. In the ideal IF scale, this would correlate to an IF-4. However, if you look at the Mayfield or Rolling Fork tornadoes, they were both rated as high-end EF-4 tornadoes, which would ideally correlate to IF-4.5 tornadoes. My basic beliefs is just that there should be more than just 6 rating possibilities, but instead, much more to really narrow down how intense the tornado was.
Personally, i think there is still a place for damage based wind estimation, because we cant have a doppler radar right next to every storm, so oftentimes the readings we get are from higher up in the storm and could have very different values than tornadoes on the ground. However, doppler on wheels has gotten some up close measurements near or possibly over 300mph directly inside the tornado funnel near the ground in the 2013 and 2011 El Reno tornado, and the bridge creek-moore tornado. I dont think this kind of data should be ignored, although since 2 of the 3 actually hit something at peak strength, they were rated f5 and ef5 anyway. Maybe find a way that weighs observed wind speed, when the data is available, against an updated ef scale to include more damage indicators. And i do think it is important for a tornado to be rated ef5 if it is one, or just rated properly in general. The common person will see an ef4 hit someplace on the news, and while they know that can be very damaging, will think "oh well, it could have been worse" and be less likely to donate to the relief fund, things like that. Plus, it is very important for historical accuracy. Tornadoes like Rochelle/Fairdale and Mayfield had damage indicators right at 200mph. How can they be so sure the wind never got 1mph faster in one of those places? We are currently in the longest ef5 or f5 drought ever despite having had some very intense tornadoes, and i feel that is partially due to the tendency to under rate tornadoes and a seeming unwillingness to assign ef5 damage for some reason. Then again, people much smarter than I am do these surveys, they may know something I dont, I just think with technology and our knowledge of storms having increased alot since the creation of the ef scale, it is time to either update it or entirely create a new one.
2011 Joplin tornado should’ve been a major sign of change
Of the 9 EF5 tornadoes the Joplin tornado is the only one I have a issue being a EF5.
Ok. I watched the full video and I love how you explained everything and every topic and controversies around the EF scale. I agreed with almost everything in the video. One problem I have is that you didn’t mention much about how we can make tornado science better. You talked about ground scouring but kind of dismissed it like it shouldn’t be added to the scale. Maybe I am misunderstanding but what I would have said is something like this. “A simpler kind of solution would be to make every NWS Damage surveyor take a course on basic top solid ground geology.” But you noted that we didn’t have much information on what exactly is ground scouring and I agree but in the video you could have added why we should add ground scouring therefore how we could make the change to better understand like how and why it happens and then add it to the new/updated scale. In my opinion ground scouring should be added to a new updated scale the problem is that we don’t have enough research and science around that. So we do need to make more better tornado science around it but like you said it takes time. But in my opinion it’s necessary to make these changes therefore we understand the tornadoes better in the first place to then make better changes to home designs ECT ECT therefore returns and helps the rating of the tornado. Also I don’t use Twitter so I don’t rant and get caught in the mayfield arguments [(🛑I hate the fact that the weather community is getting ruined from tiktok, clout, and other mental health effects caused by social media because they are bleeding into the weather community🛑)] but I am a weather nerd and there is many weather needs who don’t want clout and just want better results and research and changes around tornadoes. I am a big fan of Reed Timmer because I want to do something that helps tornado research like he does. [(🟩JUST LOOK AT MY CHANNEL! And the research I am trying to do🟩)]
I’ve got my own request for the new name of the updated updated scale… They should call it the Vegeta scale.
The scale needs to be a 2 part scale. Damage inflicted, and the measured wind speeds. That gets rid of any confusion. El Reno. F3 damage-F5 wind speed. So it would be an F3/5. So the bad boys would be like Moore. F5/5. Highest damage. Highest winds.
EDIT: Also to add windspeed and damage. Like a complete hybrid. Hit nothing but super strong? F5-EF0. Hit everything and super strong? F5-EF5. Just throwing my silly ideas out there.
My super-genius solution to the scale debate: USE BOTH.
No wind speed data?
Use damage.
No damage?
Use wind speed.
None of either? Make an estimation.
Have a marker for when it's only an estimation. For example, a AEF4. Assumption EF4. Idk. The acronyms are for people actually good at acronyms. You get my point.
i love your stills btw. they're adorable and provide a unique charm to your channel.
I can’t believe you referenced that Top 10 Hottest Sonic Characters video
it took 2 months but someone finally got it.
Actually, there was a scale called the Pearson scale that was developed alongside the Fujita scale to supplement the F-scale. It assigned a tornado a rating based on path length and width. It never entered widespread use and was forgotten, but it adds another layer of classification that may help cover some of the EF-scale's shortfalls.
the way the captions call it the Vegeta scale is killing me 😭
What they should have is 2 ratings for tornadoes. One for the highest wind speeds recorded out of a tornado and one for damage. The el reno tornado had winds speeds at 295MPH so that is clearly an F5 but had F3 damage. Many times i seen tornadoes rated lower then what wind speeds were pushing so they should really have 2 ratings, a wind speed rating and a damage rating
I don’t wanna be that person but I remember before the western Kentucky tornado got its rating, Reed Timmer said it was some of the most intense damage he’s seen and he even called it “high end ef5 damage” and he has seen his fair share of ef5 damage chasing tornadoes. But yea I’m fully aware that you can’t rate a tornado from just taking a quick glance at the damage
He said it in a discussion posted on his UA-cam channel shortly after the tornado outbreak happened
I remember feeling that way when I saw the Parkersburg damage. It's not how completely it sweeps the house away, it's how small the pieces are.
but reed timmer isn’t a damage assessment person
@@randomvideos2235 he isn’t, but his experience kinda makes up for it.
@@randomvideos2235 no but hes clearly one of the most experienced people in weather. Hes seen some shit and done A LOT of shit. You gain at least a basic level of understanding when you're in proximity to the science for that long.
My issue is if building codes keep getting more and more strict and houses built better and better, eventually an average person won't be able to afford to live in one. That's already becoming the way it is. After being homeless for 3 years, I'd rather have a weak house and die in a tornado than only have expensive castles available to me and live in the street and die from the tornado anyway.
Happy to contribute with your top notch work!
I've always been fascinated with tornadoes and their shenanigans but still haven't got a chance to see one yet.
That's why I watch your awesome videos. Cheers!
Since my sound system is dead and since I don't trust YT's captioning, I can't tell what is discussed. I suppose my main issue with the Fujita Scales, both of them, is that they evaluate solely on the damage twisters cause to developed areas. Back in the day when Theodore Fujita created that scale based on hs experience assessing the damage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was admittedly the only way to assess (or, to be precise, guess) wind intensities. Since then, however, even with the reboot of that scale in 2007, evolution in radar technology has made it possible for radar to measure wind speeds, which is something the Fujita Scales totally ignore. They still estimate solely by damage left behind...so, we could have a tornado as intense as the Moore sweeper of 1999; but if it touches down on barren land with no human development, it would be classified as an EF-0. I mean, sure, the immediate concern is how tornadoes ruin people's days...but with increasing interest in weather patterns, climate variations, etc., which are independent of human influence, damage assessment after the fact is not an accurate means to rely on. What we need is something that accommodates newer, more accurate on-site measurements of wind as well as damage: If actual wind-speed measurements can be had, those must be the precedent to rate a tornado's power; if such measurements aren't possible at that time, then damage assessment can be the backup means of rating a tornado's power. Just my opinion...
Thank you so much for explaining this, I always wondered why it changed
It's obvious, that Dorothy's house was the victim of poor construction; it's obvious, that a EF-0 tornado could have lofted Dorothy's house up in the air, but it's also obvious, that poor construction of houses is a major problem being ignored & the money to correct this problem in older constructed houses is unavailable...!!! It's one reason why insurance companies are abandoning Florida because of hurricanes...!!! Ya'd think that threats to the lives of Americans are being ignored; ya'd think aid would be offered to the public to afford storm shelters in neighborhoods that were easily accessible when tornado &/or hurricane threats were deemed life-threatening. Seeing a steel safe lofted & torn apart by a tornado 🌪 is quite depressing & not everyone in the deep south & in Florida can afford to build or purchase a prefabricated storm shelter. Seeing the Univ of Texas shooting 2x4's into house structures that penatrate into & through home structures like mine where basements are very rare, makes my interior bathroom look like a death trap & many areas in Florida can NOT build underground storm shelters...! Many shelters in schools would NOT protect the public in a serious tornado...!!! Florida Republicans, think climate change is a hoax, but the insurance companies don't; its the reason insurance companies are abandoning Florida...! It kinda makes me wish Florida Republicans would be blown away during the next major hurricane 🌀 or tornado🌪 for ignoring the threats to the public living in Florida for profits & land grabs to build condominiums on the beach after a disaster...! Trumpites here believe Trump's "ALTERED" Nattional Hurricane Center's "Impact & Landfall Chart", issued by experts; Trump thinks the "National Hurricane Center" issued "Fake News"...!!! 😮😮😮😮
Not to mention Project 2025’s guidance to abolish the NWS
I went through an EF-4 that slabbed a couple houses in 2012, and people here absolutely cared about the rating.
I've heard stories of people from Joplin that have said that the EF-5 rating gave them a form of closure about what occured.
I live near Mayfield, and have heard people from the towns impacted saying the same thing.
Just saying that the ratings DO matter to some of those affected in some way or another. Saying they don't matter to the victims is one thing that always annoys me when it comes up, as I've directly heard the opposite from people who lived through these events. It may not matter in the short term, but it can help mentally in the long term.
The thing is, the label of EF5 is rare and elusive. It grabs a LOT more attention than EF4, hence why people obsess over it. It makes sense why having such a strong label represent their town would help them cope, but if the label gets thrown around too much it loses its signifigance.
I'm confused what at 200mph wind speed breaks that 199mph wind speed doesn't? They need to to a damage assessments and a wind speed range two different things to rate tornados.
In my opinion I am no expert, there are two examples and three tornadoes that severely question the accuracy and effectiveness of EF scale. Number one would be comparing the 1997 Jarrell Texas F5 and the 2021 Mayfield Kentucky EF4 damage reports. The Jarrell tornado had an average forward wind speed of 15 miles an hour and the Mayfield tornado had a forward speed of 60 miles an hour. Using damage as a primary measurement for rating a tornado is not accurate unless you also include forward speed.
Number two, The 2013 El Reno Oklahoma tornado. With the ability to get wind speed data from major tornados more common today. Doppler wind speed data should be the primary tool to measure tornados with damage and forward movement also included. Just because the El Reno tornado did not hit a populated area doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been rated an EF5.
It is a dream of mine to see a tornado in my lifetime! I'm horrified, but I'd also like to be in the eye of a hurricane and experience the wall hit me. It's weird. I wanted to be a storm chaser back when that show was popular back in like 08'. Man did I watch that show religiously.
I'm certain there's a lot more to it, but it seems like the most intense areas of ground scouring I've seen occur immediately after a high-end tornado passes through structures and/or a dense forest. And so I always assumed it was caused by a combination of loose soil, intense wind speed, but, most of all, a sudden influx of debris which is what I thought actually scrapes off the top layers of soil. But I never hear anyone ever mention the effect that circulating debris would have on scouring. I would think it'd be a pretty significant factor as not everything gets lofted high into the circulating updraft, especially the heavier debris which I imagine would easily displace soil when moving at high speed.
That scouring in Phil, Ms tho...... yikes
This was a good video. I am sad I didn't have any popcorn to go with it though. Your final point in the video feels very spot on - I hate to blame everything on social media but everytime I turn around on the internet that seems to be the root of so many issues 😅
Everyone on twitter has an opinion and wants to share it. Even taking out the bad actors there are plenty of well meaning but rather dense people out there (basically everyone between the ages of 15-25 going off my own recollections of how i was during that 10 year span of life...) ready to weigh in. All of it from the safe anonymity of the internet reacting to sound bites and videos and forgetting that while they debate from their swivel chairs, people in the path of a storm just had everything they care about turned into confetti.
As you note, if a tornado were to turn my home into an insurance write-off and leave me incapable of classifying myself as bipedal any longer, then I'm not really gonna care what the EF rating is. Maybe in fifty years when I'm old and showing off my peg leg I'd brag about surviving the great EF-5 of Whenever Whatever but that's not really what's important.
Let's be honest if some of the people who complained about the fact certain tornadoes should be rated EF-5. They would probably rate every tornado EF-5. Instead the ones that cause the highest amounts of damage are rated EF-5 which makes sense. But if the Fujita scale was based on wind speed, which kind of can't happen unless we have a dopplar on wheels (DOW) which also can't always happen because number one those vehicles are slow and in major outbreaks you can't just have a dow every 100 miles. And having a dopplar radar in every city is also unlikely because ultimately not enough funding. Another thing I'd like to mention, if we heard from multiple people about the tornado saying "we heard the roar." I've seen compilation videos where someone would say "I hear a roar." But the only roar I hear is that of the tornado siren.
Exactly, in my personal opinion, I think more usage of Doppler on wheels during tornado impact would be useful, IF POSSIBLE. Considering that’s why the El Reno 2011 tornado got the windspeed estimates that it did.
@@ia1n673The El Reno tornado occurred in 2013, not 2011.
@@SylveonMujigaeOfficial my boy there were two of them. On may 2011 an ef5 hit El Reno, it tossed an oil tanker truck a whole mile along with windspeeds measured at 295 mph with those 2 indicators giving it the ef5 rating.
I think the main problem I have is the fact that both the old and new scales use damage to infer wind speed. If they report "EF5 = 201+, etc." and have wind speed data that would categorize it into one of those then why wouldn't that be immediately used? I know its unrealistic to get wind data for every tornado but when available why not use? Thats my biggest confusion with the scale I think. The issue mainly comes from confusion as to why they would ignore a key component that would help tell the story.
Limiting housing supply to those only compliant with codes requiring them to withstand tornadoes obviously increases the price. Some people would rather risk the small chance their home is destroyed than not having one to begin with
Notice how the problem is OVER classification of tornadoes NOT under-classification of tornadoes. because if an EF 3 tornado does EF 5 damage to a poorly built home with no distinction between the well-built and poorly-built homes, then it could laziness in construction quality with the idea that it is impossible to build tornado safe homes. but if an EF 5 tornado (wind speed wise) can only do EF 3 damage, then those homes are literally doing their job in withstanding the worst of a tornado and in the EF scale that specifies construction quality, there is no corruption of data happening as it tell contractors that their efforts are literally causing the need for the tornado scale to change as their houses aren't being damaged as what would be expected.
I appreciate that you go out and do new research and talk to the people directly instead of rehashing stuff that has already been said
when you said that in the old days, Newnan could’ve been an F5, i laughed so hard i began coughing. Saw the damage firsthand. These videos are really fun to watch
Yeah I never understood why it was based on surveyed damage when hurricanes aren’t rated the same way. If a hurricane reaches a certain wind speed it’s classified accordingly.
When we have more evidence of a tornado being a certain rating. Specifically windspeed. And even a TV stations radar is advanced enough today to accurately depict velocities. Then it needs to get the rating it has. My biggest problem lately, is they aren't giving tornadoes an ef5 rating when they probably deserve one. Wonder why it's been so long since the last ef5? All because they aren't rating it.
it’s always a good day when Alferia posts
I took 2 classes on soil 500 lvl etc university classes I'm no expert far from it but
Ground scouring is all dependent soil type. How deep each soil layer goes. I seen dirt that was harder than concrete
oh and "top soil" is a misnomer
We can keep the scale if it gets upgraded in my opinion. I think it needs to include ground damage along with structural damage. As mentioned in the video and other comments, more damage indicators, radar data and build quality need accounted for when rating tornadoes. Like with Chickasha and Rochelle, the ground damage and smaller plants torn apart likely (not confirmed) supported EF5 damage but with a structure based scale, they didn't get rated higher because we don't have enough information to support it being a sign of a violent tornadoes quite yet. In simple terms, I think we need more data from the radar and satellites and more research into the tornadoes themselves to properly rate them.
I’m early! Love the storm content you make, thanks for the videos!
Suggestion: Could you do a video over the August 10, 2020 Midwest derecho? I live in Iowa, and while my area didn't receive much damage (if at all), Cedar Rapids and the Quad Cities suffered major damage. Could you do a video over it?
…politics… I’m not going further than that! Ok dude this is a very well thought out an info focused video, and I’m really glad you still posted it. 👏👏💚💚💚💚
I don't think this was a full-on rant at all. It was educational and helpful.
I think people need to remember that there is no surefire way to accurately quantify the impact a tornado has on a community. No matter what we do, and no matter how far technology progresses, there will always be unknowns.
Someone once said that perfecting a tornado scale is the equivalent of measuring every grain of salt that goes into a dish. We can measure and we can estimate, but there's no real way to know beyond any shadow of any doubt exactly how many granules are in a dish. There's no real way to know beyond any shadow of any doubt what a specific tornado does at every moment of its lifecycle, and I honestly believe there never will be.
Great video. One of my favorites in the weather community. ❤
I wouldn't say the EF scale is bad, just outdated. It needs upgrading.
Personally, in a rework of the EF scale, I would like to see the surveyors assessing damage to take into consideration how fast the storm was traveling.
Even if jarrel only had 150mph winds, it will do far and wide more damage to whatever it hits, given how slow it was moving, as opposed to a tornado with 200mph winds that is moving across the area at 60mph, ie storms similar to the mayfield tornado.
This is my non professional weather opinion, but I’d love to hear a discussion on the thought
I never hear people mention this, but if you consider the EF scale as any kind of hybrid scale, to find the wind speed, that has to be taken into account
Having grown up in Indiana where tornados are common and then living in Florida for the last 16 years, there is definitely a difference. In Indiana, we had tornado sirens. In the part of Florida where I live, there is nothing but EBS and tv or radio. Just last week an area neat Patrick Space Force Base had a small tornado. No one had warning. Luckily it was a low EF0, but it still took people by suprise.
Wow, you really weren't exaggerating. This is the top comment as of writing this:
"With storms like 2015's Rochelle tornado and the 2021 Kentucky killer, I find it very hard to believe that there hasn't been an EF5 in a decade. The Tuscaloosa tornado of 2011 was, in all likelihood, also an EF5. The F5 of Elie, Manitoba of 2007 would have been rated a 4 if it were not for the video that shows it literally sweeping an entire two-storey home into the air."
I'd say "no shade" but either they didn't finish the video, completely missed the point, or don't care. Same for all the people who liked and responded to it.
I apologise for seeming insensitive. I commented before the video began. I've since removed the comment.
No
That’s what my first guess was (or at least that you hadn’t finished the video). I agree with Alferia that most people aren’t being malicious or intending to be insensitive. You proved this by removing your comment and apologizing.
It was honestly less about your comment and more the fact that it was the *TOP* comment (at the time I think it had like 33 likes when I posted this) and was spawning discussions nearly identical to what was mentioned in the video. Not to mention the one person who assumed I was trying to argue about the science…
It was one of the more innocuous comments and I’m sorry that I made you feel bad specifically because several of the people replying and probably some who liked your comment were acting much worse, but again, I was just baffled.
It seems the comment section is a lot better now as far as highly rated ones go, but at the time, it was a bunch of comments like yours.
That’s why I intentionally left your name out and am leaving it out in this reply because I didn’t think it was malicious. It was just the top comment, which is a testament to the good points you brought up, if that’s any consolation.
@@MajiggerRose I know in the end that people who've lost their homes/loved ones don't give a crap about whether or not the storm was a "5". Any tornado (other natural disasters) is traumatic and one must keep in mind the lifelong emotional consequences that these people will go through. Also, even so-called "weak" tornadoes (EF0/1) can kill and cause severe damage, hence storm knowledge and awareness are needed as much as ever.
The problem with the F scale in general is as you said at the top of the video it's subjective because it relies exclusively on damage indicators. And on top of that said damage indicators have an issue as well, time. Going back to your hypothetical take make both houses have stay bolts. But have one of them be 20 or 30 years old. What would the result be? Concrete and steel are excellent. But they aren't immune to father time. And I'm just talking about the foundation. I'm not taking the structure itself into account.
So at the end of the day it doesn't matter what they change in the scale. Unless they come up with something that is purely based on meteorological data. The Fujita scale will always be fallible.
Just out of curiosity, can a destroyed vehicle be considered a damage indicator for a tornado?
The elephant in the room, El Reno, 2013. Sure, tossing a car a quarter mile while ripping the engine off the mounts is surely EF3 damage, but its not higher? Dang.
It simply did not hit enough damage indicators. That's it.
Maybe. But that thing was pretty wide. So it might’ve rolled the car on the ground right? Smashing something with a hammer is easier than trying to pull it apart right? Does that make sense?
My point is, the EF damage ratings seem to be tunnel-visioned to structures. The typical Ef-3 may roll a small lightweight car, but an SUV for 200 yards, or like i mentioned, rip the engine off the mounts? Those things are probably not on the checklist, right? I kinda think the damage was there, and the doppler measurements should have underscored that it was a stronger tornado than a 3. I get it, they may have felt their hands were tied.
@@moblinmajorgeneral Yeah, if it hit El Reno directly, it most likely would have earned an EF-5 rating
@@windwatcher11 definitely. It has to demolish a super sturdy structure to get a high rating. There’s not many structures around and not many of them are sturdy.
I think ground survey teams from the National Weather service do their job as per the scale the best way they can. I have no problem with that part at all. They are given a list of requirements and they survey the damage. They are doing an amazing job with that. My problem is with the way the requirements are written. Just because a structure COULD be demolished by an EF3 tornado minimum DOES NOT necessarily mean the tornado isn't an EF4 or an EF5 either. It just means that is the minimum tornado strength needed to do that damage. If we are to believe that, then there are hundreds of towns in the United States that could never have an EF5 rating no matter what happened. There is my problem. In a way, we are already giving a maximum possible rating to a tornado that hasn't even happened yet. For example. Town A is poorly built with non-anchored houses. Therefore, even if a tornado the strength of the Moore-Bridge Creek one hit this fictional town, the highest possible rating it could ever get is an EF3. We might as well see the building codes for structures and start a database as to how they are anchored, etc. That way a survey crew can go out and see lots of damage and rate it an EF3 or EF4. That is all I am saying.
Liked the video. Very insightful and FUUUUULL of information!! I'm a tornado freak myself. Keep up the great work man!!
In the end, as you said, the EF scale is scientfically needed. But it is the human impact that matters the most and should matter most when the storm is ongoing. An EF0 or EF5 can kill you. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. A motto in my house, especially during hurricane season. We take all warnings seriously here.
Mysticious here. I finally changed my name from my e-mail. Anyway; I'm glad you made this. I was afraid you wouldn't since you like to keep stuff neutral. With that said, this video was very informative, fair to both sides, and carried a message each viewer can take away at the end to stir their inner debate. That's the point of informative videos, imo. Great job, friend. If I weren't broke, I'd donate more.
EDIT: Oh, and I think the scale needs to measure wind speed for its scale placement. Not damage. That just seems morbid and pointless. And as other said, "well built" homes is not a very linear definition.
And when I said wind speed, I mean measured during the storm. Like that monster in El Reno. 300+ winds. That thing should have been an EF5.