Killed it man! While damage continues to be the best way for surveying all tornadoes, it is a bit silly to not include other technologies available to us that can verify wind speed within tornadoes. DOW radar measurements being the best example when they are available. Refusing to use every tool available to us for the sake of only using what we’ve used in the past is just frankly, unscientific.
DOW's cannot be used to Dixie Alley tornadoes. Nor can they be used in the tornado that hit KY a year ago. Josh Wurman and Howard Bluestein, and their chase teams are not going to come to Dixie Alley (Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia), where there are too many trees and hills obscuring the view, plus high precipitation supercells spawning rain-wrapped tornadoes, and many occur, like this one did, at night. Reed Timmer does comes to other parts of the country outside the heartland of America but to my knowledge he doesn't use the DOW.
What about making a second scale that rates the current potential of the tornado (like how the El Reno and Kansas tornadoes had EF5-level winds at one point or another in their lifespans, yet only did EF3-level damage) and use that alongside the EF scale?
@@ILoveOldTWC DOW's can be used anywhere. It's just the placement strategy which makes use outside of the Plains problematic. It would be a lot more hit-and-miss in Dixie but it can definitely be done. Given the frequency of strong tornadoes there, placing one in the Tanner/Harvest area of AL would eventually pay off but I wouldn't assign more than maybe two to the area when they can be much better used in the Plains.
In general, wind speed should be the metric used to rank tornadoes. As damage is too random of a metric compared to something so substantial like wind speed
anything that uses subjective measuring standard it shouldn't be used to "judge" things We measure hurricanes by wind speed so should we measure tornados
@@Michael-sb8jf the cool thing about that is, you can fly into a hurricane and measure wind speeds directly from it…. Unfortunately, you can’t fly into a tornado & measure wind speed from it… also, a twister is a lot more complex than a hurricane. Wind can shift direction whenever, speed up and funnel tighter and tighter, or slow down, spread out and widen. You can also have multiple tornadoes inside of a larger tornado.… then there are a bunch of other factors that a company a supercell storm that can make things difficult.… downdraft and microbursts, straight line winds, tornadoes that are wrapped in high precipitation, topography problems, road hazards like downed trees and powerlines, ice and muddy conditions. The list can go on and on…. a lot easier to read a hurricane then it is a tornado
@@The_Joshuan_Empire EF3 was originally designed to try and record wind speed by measuring the destruction it left. We don't need to do this anymore because our technology is sufficient to directly record it. The video literally explains this, it's classified as EF3 even though El Reno has EF5 speeds, and is one of the largest and most powerful tornadoes that has ever been recorded.
@@The_Joshuan_Empire That's literally the whole point of the video, and the problem we've been discussing since Josh Wurman and his team recorded wind speeds in one of the Moore, OK tornadoes. Are you trolling, or just obtuse ?
I'd like to think if Ted Fujita was still alive, he would have already updated the rating system. I wish meteorologists/scientists would consider this.
Someone who was as forward thinking as he would definitely realize that we are misrepresenting. However, it is unlikely the grunts at NWS don't know this, but is more another case of our federal government being incompetent. Well, I would say that, but I am beginning to think its intentional overlooking because they don't actually care all that much as those in power don't care about anyone living in the Midwest.
@@TheKingSource The one named after him? ... Why do you want tornados to be stronger exactly? Is this like an action film for you? ''FACTS'' No, it's not even a good opinion.
I’ve been waiting for this video. I agree entirely. One needs only to examine the El Reno tornado to realize that the EF scale is garbage. That was a 5 if there ever was one. The true function of a rating system for these storms should be to establish some measurement of how strong the storm is, not what it incidentally happened to pass over. It is extremely misleading to categorize an exceptionally powerful tornado as anything less than that. One could also argue that it is more dangerous; for example, people being led to believe that EF5s basically never happen and EF4s are very rare could result in a more flippant attitude toward future storms when warnings are issued because they assume that their home will withstand an EF3. Conversely, if people were led to believe that more EF5 tornadoes are occurring than has been thus far portrayed by the EF rating scale, they may be more likely to take all tornadoes more seriously because of an increased sense of threat of the possibility of one being a high-end storm. Granted, that might be a bit of a reach, but I don’t see how it could hurt to do what is necessary to impress upon people the seriousness and danger of these storms. It is also ridiculous to examine the current “drought” of EF5s when clearly there have been several tornadoes since 2013 that could very sensibly be given that rating.
That's 100% true, I actually examined the range of wind speeds in each category (EF0 is 65-85mph, a width of 21mph, EF1 and EF2 have widths of 25mph, EF3 has a width of 30mph, and EF4 has a width of 35mph). Extending the EF scale further based on these range sizes would theoretically rate the El Reno tornado as an EF7 (EF5 would range from 201-240mph, EF6 from 241-285mph and EF7 from 286-335mph). Since the F scale's original max wind speed was 319mph, and tornadoes have come close to reaching that wind speed in the past, it would make sense to have these two extra categories to make things a bit clearer. For instance, the El Reno tornado had wind speeds of almost exactly 100mph greater than the minimum needed for an EF5, which is the same difference that can separate an EF0 tornado from an EF4 tornado. Rating a tornado as EF3 that could have easily killed tens of thousands of people had it hit only a handful of miles further to the east is pathetic. I'm surprised the EF scale has been used for as long as it has, judging by what was explained in the video.
That last sentence in particular is something that's been bugging me for years. There's not really a "drought" at all, the methodology's just flawed. When I can think of 3 storms off the top of my head that have measured winds exceeding the EF5 threshold (and there have certainly been more), there is a problem.
The previous scale, in my opinion needs to be used again. EF5 is any wind that surpasses 200 mph. But on the previous scale, F5 was 261-318. There was another tornado in the early 1990s (Andover outbreak) given an F4 rating, Red Rock, Oklahoma, but Howard Bluestein's early version of the DOW recorded 286 mph, clearly putting it in the F5 range. Another thing is that the size is not always an indication of the intensity. A giant wedge doesn't necessarily mean it's a violent tornado that F4 or F5. Pampa, Texas in 1995, was not, and it was an F4. It's easy to assume that the mile or more wide ones are the strongest (and many are). But there can be thinner tornadoes and still completely blow away strong buildings.
But it did no damage over EF3, it didn't even scour the earth or debark trees, a single measurement at 30 meters height says very little, specially since they measure instantenous velocity, not 3 second gust used in the EF scale.
@MrKittles1123 El Reno, El Reno, El Reno. That was a rare, exceptional tornado. It was clear-cut that the EF scale is a flawed scale. It's not garbage, that word it too harsh, but it's flawed (and it's replacement will be too, because there will never be a perfect way to rate tornadoes. But El Reno makes this look too simplistic, and it's not. It's so much more complex. Not every tornado will be similar in strength to El Reno, in fact, the vast majority of them won't be. It's also important to remember that it's not just super cell thunderstorms that spawn tornadoes. A QLCS (squall line) of thunderstorms produce short-lived tornadoes. Heck, even hurricanes produce tornadoes.
Something to note: the NWS is well aware of this as well. A revised EF scale that will include many more DIs and take into account things such as radar velocities has been in development for a few years now.
And like all government entities, it hasn’t been done. I don’t recommend holding my breath on it. These same idiots issued a flash flood warning for me earlier this year…..an HOUR after it had already started! By then, my backyard was a river, and roads had already flooded over. Typical NWS!
@@Nekirium i don’t ever remember a date it was “due” to come out. I know a few years ago, 2022 was an estimate, but covid messed it up. It takes time, and I’d rather them spend more time to make a more comprehensive product.
@@hansenfiet2539 flash flood warnings are issued whenever peoples houses are in damager after a certain flood stage has been reached and the ground saturation has reached a certain level, and additional rains are expected. If flooding occurs in general, a “flash flood watch, flood watch, or flood warning” are all used. There are very specific criteria to make it a flash flood warning which sounds WEA alerts. Have a way to recover other warnings and watches than just FFWs if you live in a flood prone area.
@@hansenfiet2539 the NWS and noaa have a huge list of upgrades and research projects they have to complete on a fairly tight budget. An upgrade to the EF scale is just one of those. (And it isn’t high on the list, as it is pertinent to life saving information). Also the NWS isn’t just responsible for the upgrade, and is a collaborative project between independent, university, and government researchers.
Let's not forget about the elephant in the room. The vast majority of employees at that candle factory knew the danger they were in and wanted to leave, but were told by upper management that they would be fired if they left the premises. This resulted in 8 tragic and completely unnecessary deaths. And, of course, thanks to good ol' corporate America... not a single soul was held accountable. Pathetic. That being said, this was an excellent presentation. Thanks for sharing, Chris. Keep up the amazing work, bud!
One other elephant in the room is that when people say "corporate america" they mean they want to limit the freedoms of their fellow americans instead of actually realizing what it means when corporations own the government...
Watching this explained what I have been thinking for years very well. The EF scale, while amazing, is definitely outdated. From what I've seen, the El Reno OK tornado was not only EF3, the Mayfield KY tornado was not only EF4, the Newnan GA tornado was not only EF4 (I didn't follow or look at the data of that one as closely as the El Reno and Mayfield tornadoes so ignore my thoughts on that one). I feel like they're hesitant to rate tornadoes EF5 now. It has definitely not been this long, since 2013, that there's been an EF5. I think for radar to be reliable to measure tornado wind speeds, they need to add more radar sites, because there's a lot of dead zones like what happens with cellphone service, and the radar beam goes up into the atmosphere so they won't be surface measurements. They'd have to do studies on finding out how much the height increased as the radar beam gets further away from the radar site, find out the distance between the beam and the ground at the point where the wind speed was measured, find out how much the wind speed would decrease in that height difference and then that'd be the measurement. It'd take time to get reliable information on that, so we'll just have to wait and see if they change anything. Wind speed measurements based on damage dealt is still great, but when damage is not done to anything, or very little things, that's where using any available information/technology we have would be useful, and combining radar measurements with measurements based off of damage would be even better in my opinion.
Long track, mutlivortex, wedge tordanos will always be F5s in my mind, espcially if they're a few miles wide. An F5 could strike an uninhabited grassy field and be rated an F0 if going solely by damage to property But hey's that's my own two sense! It's time for the RF scale! Revised/Refined Fujita Scale
I have to ask you this question? Suppose the damage it causes (if it hits a populated area) is not consistent with F5/EF5, despite it's size and appearance? Suppose homes are unroofed but the majority of exterior walls are intact? No buildings completely flattened?
not true. The EF scale is what brought into account non structural damage. 2011 was the first time a tornado was rated EF5 from ground scouring alone in Mississippi. EF4 is still a beast of a storm but EF5 is the extreme of all extremes and those are exceptionally rare.
Except that there was a 1.1 mile wide wedge in Denton TX a few years ago that directly impacted several structures and only produced EF1 damage. Can’t always judge be appearance. Although as a general rule, yeah a long track wedge is “usually” going to be a strong tornado. Don’t sleep on some of the smaller but extremely violent tornadoes either. Pampa TX ‘95, Elie,MB ‘07 , Plainfield, IL ‘90 etc…sometimes when those violent winds get constructed down into a smaller funnel the wind speeds can be exceedingly violent.
I have been looking at higher end tornado events for 20 years and I know extreme ground scouring, trees and low lying vegetation are completely stripped of all their bark, debris granulation, and vehicles turned to scrap are likely of F5/EF5 intensity. Something like the Westminster 2006 tornado that was rated high-end F3 should have been rated F5 based on not only slabbed houses but also extreme contextual damage.
Anna-Westminster, TX (2006) tornado is such a good example! That tornado was very strong but got only an F3 rating. Reminded me of the Cisco, TX (2015) tornado that also was rated EF3 despite video evidence (of the rotation motion) and vegetation damage. Cisco also threw vehicles over 1000 yards, which is incredible!
You are spot on! I never understood how they could determine rating when so focused on damage...and esp. not when I heard how they'd rated the El Reno tornado. Lunacy!
I find it odd in many of the high end EF4’s they find pockets of EF5 damage and scale it back to EF4 because of anchoring . Rochelle , Illinois 🌪 was rated EF5 but scaled back because of anchoring . You won’t see another EF5 until they change the surveying
They found some potential EF5 damage in the Maysfield and Rolling Forks tornadoes. Houses were wiped clean of their foundations and there was severe ground scoring. However, in both cases, they said that the anchor bolts and foundations of the structures were weakened from age. Seems stupid to me.
I agree with 99% of the things mentioned that would improve the EF scale, except for the ground scouring one. There are a ton of different types of soil and it would be impossible to make a scale for all of the types, plus rain softening the soil can have an effect on the scouring, making it nearly impossible to provide a 100% accurate rating based off ground scouring
I would go with using deep scouring contextually, say something like 10"- 12" plus. That level is generally hard virgin soil and therefore hard to dislodge. Less than that depth would need to take soil conditions into account and that would complicate what is already a too-confused situation.
@@ligmasack9038 Tilling depth is decided for a number of reasons, and such deep tilling is sometimes needed to allow groundwater to reach the surface. And of course you must till to the necessary root depth. And in hard-worked soil it's necessary to turn up unworked nutrient-rich soil that develops deeper to the surface. Where I live tilling never exceeds one foot depth as it's never needed. So you are as wrong as me. And you overlooked the word "generally, for there are always exceptions. This is why scouring can't be a primary DI without classifying soil conditions but it can give context to other DI's.
As someone that's taken way to many soil classes. Sometimes dirt is harder than rock. "Top soil" is a misnomer and half mile between locations can result in different degrees of soil development let alone type.
Worth noting too that the EF rating determines how much payout is given by insurance too. Rating these clearly EF5 tornadoes EF4 legitimately leaves people in the dust.
Actually that’s not true. But what I find interesting is contained in an interview with Dr Pham. He stressed that “overclassification” will lead to construction companies throwing their hands up and saying “EF5 is too strong, we can never be expected to build to that type of standard” And without actually coming right out and saying it, he insinuated that conservative ratings are encouraged on higher end tornado events for this very reason.
@@tid418 The portion of the cost to rebuild *that is covered by insurance* does matter based on the tornado's rating. That's the whole issue he's bringing up.
Well stated on all points. I never got the reason why, dating back to the May 3, 1999 Bridgecreek-Moore OK tornado, Doppler radar winds aren't ever at least INCLUDED as a part of the surveys. I get they likely aren't surface speeds, but the differential is not too far off from ground truth even with friction. That said, this current EF scale does seem really outdated and a modernization seems in order; include Doppler wind or even CC damage indicators for added support OF the Doppler indicated wind speeds, ground or pavement scouring/ground swirl patterns, debarked trees, etc.
It's not just outdated, It also only works in the US. House construction is very different around the World. For example, in Germany most houses are build with thick brick walls, concrete floors and thick roofs with strong wooden beams and heavy tiles. A Storm of a certain strengh would do much less damage there compared to when hitting houses in the US, which are significantly weaker structures.
The EF scale does account for how well a home was built. A mobile home being swept away would probably only constitute an EF2 or EF3 while a well built brick home swept off it’s foundation could justify an EF5.
@@titoslounge1946 Yeah in Europe we are switching to IF scale because EF scale is not made for European construction, meaning it wouldnt work. Its used in France and China outside the US but i do think IF scale is still better for here
@@Firemarioflower In Europe we have F and T scales everywhere, IF scale which is still in experimental phase but has been used on many tornadoes including the Czech IF4 and the EF scale in France
Thank you for producing this long overdue video. Your arguments are right on spot, and are something that I've been saying for quite some time. As a Meteorologist myself, I have been extremely lucky to have lived during the time of both the April 1974 super outbreak and the April 2011 super outbreak, not to mention the El Reno monster and last December's tragic pre-Christmas assault. Ted Fujita was a great man and scientist, creating a way to measure tornadoes and to compare them. But time and technology march on, and as scientists we have to keep up with both if we are to truly understand the awesome power of Mother Nature.
I'm a meteorology student and strongly agree. I was just randomly thinking the other day how the EF scale doesn't take into account movement speed. Slow/stationary tornadoes should cause more damage than a fast-moving tornado with the same wind speed (at least I assume so) due to a longer duration of tornadic wind speeds over a point. If you don't mind me asking, how do you like working as a meteorologist? I've struggled with finding a career path that feels right to me, but I've been passionate and fascinated with weather since I was a kid so it seems right to me
@@rektspresso7288 I fell in love with the weather as a child, as well. My forte was forecast meteorology, which has advanced light years since I was in college. Think about the area of meteorology that excites you the most, and pursue it with everything you've got. That doesn't mean that there won't be bumps and detours along the way. As long as you keep your eyes on the goal, you'll make it. I'm retired now, but I still love meteorology as much as I ever did. Feel free to respond back. Maybe I can help you narrow down your choices. What have you looked into so far? Are you still in school or have you graduated?
The Mayfield, KY tornado rating was a disgrace, and after having a long discussion with a very well respected tornado scientist (who I wont name since he is trying to have papers published) he also agrees. Im glad the scale is being revised.
Thanks Adam, I know you saw the Washington Illinois EF4, that is another high end tornado that could've had 200+ mph winds near Washington. Looking forward to that paper.
@@highriskchris Yes Washington for sure, especially when you consider the forward speed of 60mph it did that damage in just a few seconds. I was volunteering afterwards and one of the FEMA reps told me they held back on the 5 rating due to politics and the amount of extra coverage/scrutiny there would be over the event. I don't know how true that is, they're his words not mine, but nothing surprises me.
@@AdamLucio Glad you mentioned about politics and extra scrutiny as been thinking the same for a while. Seems like the government has said don't rate tornados EF5 unless you absolutely have to e.g Jarrel 97, Bridge Creek/Moore 99, Smithville, Phil Campbell/Hackleburg 2011 and El Reno 2011
I have mixed feeling about this video to be honest. But I have to agree, EF5 strength tornadoes have happened after Moore, the example that I believe in most is Jiangsu from China, since its a high end EF4, and they are known to often not rate tornadoes properly (they have to ask NWS if a tornado can be rated EF3+ ). Took them 2 years to upgrade a tornado that swept slabs clean and fully destroyed brick residences from mid range EF3 to high end EF4.
Totally agree, the NWS has gotten a bit more stringent with rating higher end tornadoes as of recent. The EF5 drought seems to be more related to this rather than a lack of high end tornadoes.
Another example from outside typical tornado alley are the two F4 tornadoes that caused damage around the Brazil/Argentina border back in 2009. The tornado that caused damage around rural communities in the municipality of Guaraciaba, Brazil, was so violent that it made debri to be found 90 miles away from the damage path. Not only that but it threw a well built house over a hill, about 230 feet away from its foundation. Tornadoes in the region are hard to study specially because of Appalachia like topography and because how well built construction tends to be (due to high heat and humidity leading wood frame homes to be unsuitable for the environment). Another example of severely underrated tornado in that region is the Dolores tornado of 2016. That thing was probably an EF5! The roar that footage captured out of that storm is terrifying and because it didn’t level every construction in town it was rated as an EF3. But the DIs in the EF scale are related to an North American context, and it doesn’t fit what is observed in South America. Heck, this tornado was initially rated as an EF2, despite clear evidence of a violent tornado observed in its violent motion (resembling the Rochelle tornado), and deafening sound.
@@wxchris2666 here is a playlist with great footage of the Dolores tornado. This is probably the most well captured tornado in the region! ua-cam.com/play/PLm8cfElEZ1iexfMJKtCMwxDo_fzPIESCO.html
I think we need two independent scales: The first is for damage potential. This one should be determined primarily by doppler radar wind speeds, and, if those are not available, by damage indicators. This scale is obviously needed for things like meteological investigations, as well as insurances etc. The second is for actual damage done. This one should be done by damage indicators soely, as well as maybe the width, damage path length, width etc. Basically you integrate the tornado damage over its lifetime and path width. This one would be a good scale for desaster response coordinations, like figureing out how much cleanup effort is needed.
I haven't even watched your video yet but saw the title and I say YES IT IS! They need to include updated technology and recorded wind speeds into the assessment
I agree 100% that more should be included in the rating system. Radar loops, velocity/wind speed measurements in radar data, photos, videos, interviews of residents involved along with the damage indicators. Radar data being the most important inclusion needed in the rating system.The NWS should spend more time in rating possible tornadoes than just the usual few days that it takes for many tornadoes. EMA offices should report all damage locations to the NWS as well, many even small damage areas are often missed due to lack of reporting that could warrant a higher rating. All factors should be carefully taken into the consideration and it shouldn't be a quick process in my opinion. We have multiple resources available for rating tornadoes and they are underutilized greatly. The time spent in surveys sometimes isn't thorough especially if the tornado is not a well publicized event, on a lower risk day or not in a highly populated area. Ratings should include all factors and should be many weeks if not months long process to settle on a final rating. An example is a tornado that occurred in my area in October of 2019. The tornado was initially rated a long track EF1 based primarily on a flyover that the NWS did along with reports that the local EMA office gave to the NWS with a couple spots here and there surveyed. However, there was a neighborhood where a well built house had its roof destroyed along with interior wall damage and an outbuilding beside the house was wiped clean off its foundation obviously at least EF2 damage. Local residents, storm spotters and a local meteorologist questioned the EF1 rating after this was found and the NWS upgraded it to an EF2.
There are many tornadoes that are overlooked for one reason or another. The three outlined in this video (El Reno, Mayfield, and Rochelle) were the most obvious examples. I think if the NWS were to contract independent surveyors it could decrease the work load and make the assessments less biased.
@@highriskchris I agree with that also. Have the NWS either increase surveying staff or like you said hire someone independent to do the surveying with all the information verified by the NWS before a final rating is approved.
@@tid418 But in the larger scale events (Like April 27, 2011, December 10-11, 2021, even a couple of weeks ago, in Alabama and Georgia (1/12/2023), more time should be spent. But I understand what you're saying there are so many of them, many are on the ground a couple of miles and gone, especially in the QLCS events, vs. the cellular mode.
7:01 A good friend of mine had this to say about that home: "While there were anchor bolts at this home, it was NOT a traditional sturdy slab foundation home. Instead, this was actually a block-foundation home that had a gravel fill poured into the empty space of the foundation, then a concrete slab was rested on top, apparently unanchored. When the tornado hit, the concrete floor slab slid off and broke into pieces. That is not good construction, and these photos show the barely debarked trees, the gravel fill and the unanchored concrete slab that broke." As far as Rochelle-Fairdale goes...my only guess is that the areas where the peak winds occurred were not completely wiped off the face of the Earth, which led to a lower rating. The wind speed argument isn't really that good because the same could be said for other intense storms like hurricanes that contain wind speeds below thresholds for long periods of times. That being said, I do think the EF scale has some more flaws than what the NWS would like to admit. Why doppler radar and observed wind speeds are not counted into the final rating is beyond me and I also feel like that the damage is going off of too many technicalities. I TRULY believe that the 2015 Rochelle-Fairdale tornado did reach EF5 intensity at some point. Other tornadoes I think were EF5s are the 2014 Vilonia, Arkansas, tornado, the 2020 Bassfield, Mississippi, tornado, and, of course, the 2013 El Reno tornado (I don't believe the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado reached EF5 strength, but it got pretty close to it). The EF scale, in my opinion, is not outdated, but needs more wiggle room. The EF5 drought is more like three years long, not almost ten.
This is an awesome take on the EF- scale. While personally, I am a bit questioning the Mayfield monster, I know for certain El-Reno and Fairdale were EF-5's. Fairdale had at one point completely scoured away a field, and clumped the mud up into rolls, an indicator of violent winds. Now, the small white car, while damaged, would make someone say "That's not EF-5." Sure, the car itself wasn't EF-5 damage. However, based on additional photos, it looks like the tornado kept rolling it around until it rested there.
The big flaw with both the EF and F scales, is the fact that we simply are relying on the infrastructure and buildings on the ground which are subject to all kinds of corner cuts, varying structure codes and building methods. I'm a scientist myself (though I'm an immunologist so....very different field) but I feel like with the way technology has moved on, I feel like the EF system is potentially limiting tornado study, especially these larger and more destructive tornados. You could have a large EF4 tornado that just happens to have its most destructive winds out in a field between two towns and this is missed. I can't imagine having to work with the same tech and methods my field had back in 2009! The only real downfall of that point is the number of radar holes, the height of scans (meaning that the winds detected arn't always accurate to on the ground wind speed) complicating matters. You're not going to have a DOW on every tornado. To quote my boss in our research lab, "these are imperfect tools, that give imperfect answers, but in this moment it is all we have" when we have something better, we start using that better method. This isn't my field so I can't speak to what the solution to the problem is but, thats the nature of science, we refine and work becomes more accurate.
Science needs to be subjective not objective. I get the feeling if Ted Fujita was around today he would make the scale solely based on wind speed if applicable and only use "destruction" to fill in the holes if needed
This is awesome and I absolutely agree with everything you had to say here. I believe ground scouring, debris granulation, and car damage should play a significant role in assessing damage.
You and everybody else on here has made their point about El Reno. I don't disagree with it either. But that event is being used to make blanket, simplistic statements stating the scale is antiquated.
@@ILoveOldTWC Not really, there have been many tornado's with close to 300 mph wind speeds that are rated nowhere close to the actual power they had, due to damage indicators not showing damage fitting the rating on the EF scale, and thus the tornado being underrated to EF 3 or 4, when in reality the wind speeds way exceeded 200 mph, even visibly so. You can see it literally just by looking at the footage of a tornado alone, how quick and violent the rotation is, there is a huge visible distinction for tornado's which reach extreme 250+ mph wind speeds that is unmistakable when you see it, let alone with doppler radar imaging which give accurate measurements of tornadic wind speeds and have shown many tornado's in recent years far stronger than their rating. Exactly as the research article shown in this video indicated.
0:15 my mom's side of the family lives in rural mayfield, when they took me to the town while i was visiting them I realized how much damage tornados can really do.
Makes perfect sense. So a tornado a mile wide with 300mph winds that plows through fallow fields and damages no structures would be downgraded. Then it’s not measuring the tornado.
How many EF-0's have caused EF-1 or 2 damage? Just within a 25 mile radius of my home, and within the last 5 years, a handful, all involved with embedded supercells, or QLCS.
Back in March of last year, there was a discussion about the updates to a second version of the EF scale. Some of these updates are developing new DIs (such as center pivot irrigation systems, religious buildings, passenger vehicles, and wind turbines) as well as redefining existing ones using knowledge gained from more than two additional decades of conducting damage evaluations using the original EF Scale.
The bassfield/soso tornado is an underrated tornado that is alot stronger than what most think and is a candidate for having potential ef5 damage but that damage was from the forests
@@alexlubbers1589 the issue with the scale is the inaccuracy of the estimated wind speeds and several civil engineers have brought this up. No doubt it hit 200mph like many others but 200mph isn't enough to cause EF5 damage and they are learning this. The DOW has recorded a handful of 200mph tornadoes that did not display F4 or F5 damage. The old fujita scale was likely more accurate.
My conclusion is that it is somewhat outdated mostly because of how we try to build things more cheaply with no anchor bolts (or few anchor bolts). That is how (and why) many possible EF-5s were only EF-4s. They plan to update the EF scale with more damage indicators and will use the radar measurements to help the rating.
IVE BEEN PREACHING THIS FOR SO LONG!!!!!!!! thank you sm for creating this video, it beautifully describes and analyzes the issues that NEED to be changed:) not only does the rating system scientifically fail us in the way that it was built, but it has also allowed for corrupt ratings as well. so let’s hope it all changes
The EF scale is an imperfect system, like its predecessor it is a damage scale first and a wind speed scale second. But all kinds of things can affect damage: The speed of the funnel, the angle of impact, the amount of time it takes for the entire funnel's winds to pass over a location, the surrounding environment and of course building codes and construction flaws.
@@Firemarioflower No, it was based primarily on damage. Then it was estimated what winds would be needed to produce that damage. The EF scale was made to reflect the fact that wind speeds could produce damage at lower levels than previously assumed, and to try to better account for structural differences.
Fully agree with you on all counts. I live about 20 or so miles away from where the Rochelle-Fairdale Tornado struck, in DeKalb, and I can confidently say that I also question the official rating of the tornado. 20 instances where the wind speed rating was at 200 mph, and it never ONCE went above that? Doubtful... I saw the homes in Deer Creek. Those homes were entirely slabbed and they were well-built, large, relatively new constructions. The reasoning for this? There was a home which had small bushes still in the ground infront of where the entire home once sat - that is legitimately one of the reasons given for not rating it EF-5 at that location... shrubbery. Meanwhile, the sidewalk leading up to one of the homes' front door was moved over 6" from where it sat prior. The lack of account for wind vortices and difference in wind velocity and force in one area as opposed to another inside of a tornado is very apparent here - and it's frustrating. Not saying rating it an EF-5 would change anything, really, but the seeming aversion to rating recent tornadoes EF-5 is questionable. It's giving people who don't have a wider understanding of the weather a false sense of security and it's doing more harm than good, in my opinion.
wait what if this was a legitimate excuse they used there could be a myriad of reasons for why a bush survived. one being the wind direction and reflection inside the vortices, or maybe debris fell on it to shield it "just enough" Now im taking this, you post, as truth and based solely on your post the experts seem to have a bias and we need to know why.
Definitely need to include ground scouring in the ratings. After seeing a breakdown of the New Wren EF3 from 2011, there's not doubt it would be rated EF5 if this was included.
@@Nekirium any EF3 that’s ground scouring should just be bumped up I don’t rate the tornado based on itself I rate it based on what it can do to the structure of everyday housing and flesh You can survive direct impact from “ some “ EF 3’s and 4’s but the damage is game changing That’s why I’d rather it be bumped down after proper assessment rather than underrated If you were there and it put the fear of god into you … report it for what it is and get out the way
@@AlabamaTrumpeter Yeah but in this case the tornado itself also did EF5 damage, the ground scouring is just a confidence builder. NWS never went to inspect the tornado itself and it was a rating based on photos. Its also the tornado before Smithville (arguably the strongest ever) and also had a violent core so it makes sense to be EF5
I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels like this. If we're going to keep the current criteria, then the description of the tornado should be the damage it caused and not even mention wind speed.
I agree. Tornado ratings matter especially in home owners insurance claims. Many times, when considered an EF0, home owners insurance won't cover the wind damage. I had to check my policy to make sure all wind damage was covered. Aside from that and other reasons, a tornado is a tornado no matter how strong or weak, has the ability to destroy a home. The way tornadoes skip homes up here and demolish others in northeastern Ohio is insane.
I just want to lay out some issues I had with this video and if I seem harsh I'm trying my best not to and just trying to put my input on this because I'm not expecting everyone to be a fantastic writer with little to no problems. The only nitpick I have is that you said that the 1974 Super Outbreak had the most tornadoes in 24 hours, which if I could have a source to back that up then consider this null and void but officially April 27th, 2011 had 207 tornadoes that day, beating 1974's 148. I know that's a nitpick but it just stood out to me like a sore thumb. I know that really only hardcore weather historians would care but my main issues with the video in question lie much deeper than that nitpick. Firstly, I will give kudos to the background regarding Dr. Fujita, that was genuinely interesting and something I didn't know until I saw this video. However the video jumps straight from how long to the F-scale was used then into the EF-Scale with no reason as to why the EF-scale was made in the first place. Without some explanation as to why the EF-Scale had to be made, it makes the F-Scale seem like it was updated for the sake of being updated. The EF-Scale was made, primarily, due to reasonable concerns of tornado being overrated but primarily because the wind speeds on the scale itself was too high. The two tornadoes that led to the EF-Scale being developed was Jarrell 1997, beginning with a paper written by Dr. Long Phan and Emil Simiu titled "Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale: A Critique Based on Observations of the Jarrell Tornado of May 27, 1997." The main tornado to raise concerns about the Fujita scale was the 1999 Moore F5 tornado. The heightened tornado winds was specifically a problem because buildings at the time that were destroyed by the F5 tornadoes of the time could have been flattened by tornadoes much weaker than the winds associated with F5 tornadoes. The engineers who were the primary critics of the Fujita Scale did not say the NWS was misusing the scale, but rather the Fujita Scale; while being fine for the time; did not take into consideration of construction quality and building codes which needed to be corrected. The process of the EF Scale being created was over the process of 5-7 years until the release of the scale in 2007. The NWS adopted the scale, but the scale itself was made by Texas Tech in collaboration with the ASCE and NIST. Without that context, people will just assume the scale was updated because...reasons. I'm not asking for an in-depth explanation as to how it was made, just a general "After Jarrell 1997, and Moore 1999, engineers and meteorologists began to voice concerns that the Fujita scale may be overrating the intensity of tornadoes and how the overrating of tornadoes weakens building codes, thus the scale needed to be adjusted . So over the next few years, the Enhanced Fujita Scale was created and adopted by the National Weather Service in 2007." Regarding the arguments made, I agree with most of them, the issue with using Doppler radar is that unless the radar is detecting those winds at the surface, then the winds the radar picks up are higher up in the atmosphere and are likely not related to the tornadic winds at the surface. Ground scouring as a damage indicator is a great addition, but the main issue with implementing it is that it HEAVILY depends on the soil composition, it's easy to see EF5 ground scouring when the soil is mostly clay, but other types of soil such as sand, silt, or marsh, the winds needed to cause extreme ground scouring tends to be less than the winds needed for the same ground scouring for clay. I must state that ground scouring is something that scientists (Engineers, and soil scientists (agrologists)) still don't truly understand fully. El Reno 2013's rating was actually an EF5 initially, but it wasn't the NWS who pushed back on the rating, but rather engineers who helped to create the EF-scale. More damage indicators, yeah that's something that is needed 100%. A lot of the issues regarding the scale were noted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) after Joplin, who stated that Joplin barely got the EF5 rating and the reasoning behind the EF5 rating did not use the damage indicators in the scale itself. The scale at the end of the day is a damage scale, and was the best way to measure it. But it took until 2017 before a committee was established because nobody truly owned the EF-Scale so there was confusion on how it could be changed without any one agency truly owning the scale itself. The new updated scale itself is taking into account radar imagery, and it expected to be a hybrid scale that is taking into account all of the criticisms of the EF Scale itself. However radar imagery and the like will not solely dictate a tornado's rating. The new scale is still in the works and engineers and meteorologists are working together to try and create the scale in a way to where it can accurately portray a tornado's intensity. It's also why I'm not truly that bothered about tornadoes ratings as much as others are, the fact that it's being fixed and the exact fixes that are going to be implemented are what weather enthusiasts want with the scale is greatly appreciated. But a tornado's legacy is not just defined by it's rating, but what it did to the hundreds of people the tornadoes affected. Again; I know this comment is long and I am trying my best to not sound like a prick, I just wanted to put my input in. The issues I pointed out did not seem like they were intentionally left out. If you have any issues with anything I said please let me know.
Thank you Alferia, I am familiar with your content/channel. Firstly, you are absolutely right about the number of tornadoes within one day, that was a mistake, I remember looking into it before but I somehow dropped the ball on that. As for your other critiques, I think they can all be summed up to I intentionally did not go into the exact details, especially with how the EF scale came to exist, because going into too much detail would have been bad for viewer retention. The point of the video was to show the logical flaws with fully depending on damage to assess a tornado, not the history of the EF scale. I take pacing and rhythm seriously when editing my videos. As for your statement that the EF rating of a tornado does not affect the historical significance of a tornado, I vehemently disagree with that statement. EF5 producing environments are looked over with a fine comb, while EF4 environments (except for Mayfield) will most likely get swept under the rug. Also, you never addressed the data found by Josh Wurman, Karen Kosiba and others that shows how the distribution of tornado intensities is extremely different with the DOW than what is found using traditional damage assessment methods, to me that tells the entire story. I appreciate your thorough response.
@@highriskchris I haven't read that analysis but I will definetly look into it at some point. Been busy with finals and all. I also understand the issue of viewer retention, it matters much more regarding watch time with shorter videos than longer videos. The issue of not reading that analysis paper is on me though.
The first half of that paper is quite fascinating and easy to follow, the back half gets a bit technical. Also, I understand how busy college is, you are still posting regularly so serious props. By the way I have a degree in mechanical engineering and worked as a structural engineer for two years in the aerospace industry, but tornadoes swept me off my feet ha good luck with finals
one thing to note , even if there going to fix the EF scale , are they going to fix the ratings of the past tornadoes? its kind of annoying hearing the it would be this strength today thing and not fixing it
Absolutely! That's why it's essential to have a NOAA Weather Radio in your home. They have a very loud alarm that will sound, and nobody will have trouble hearing it even when they are sleeping in the middle of the night. It will wake you up.
I have been saying this for almost 2 decades. The Fujita Scale should be based off windspeeds alone. Rating the ElReno tornado anything less than an EF 5 because it did not damage as many buildings (location) is ignorant and sends a false sense of security to the public who may be led to think, "Well the ElReno was only a 3 on the scale so this measley EF2 won't kill me, surely." It should be based on windspeed and size whether it was only over open plains or across a town should not matter!
It also affects for right or wrong research dollars and again for right or wrong building codes in storm prone areas. The researchers might know how strong these storms really are but tell that to the politicians that right the checks and building codes. " Oh there is not a significant risk of dramatically devastating storms? why bother"
If they really care about emphasizing how much damage something did, just add a "C" for "catastrophic" or something like that. I.E., EF-5 is a strong tornado that passes over empty fields; EF-C5 is a strong tornado that hits a town or kills people.
The fairdale il tornado. That is the closest tornado I’ve ever been to. (Big tornado a small one has went through my backyard) I was a good 20-30 minutes away but it took out stuff from the very far end of my city I was able to go see the damage so devastating
i feel like the andover ks tornado from april 29 of this year was capable of producing ef5 damage. seeing the drone video of it was insane. it was such a small, and decently fast moving tornado and still caused ef3 damage. in the matter of 1 second, multiple homes were hit by the winds of the tornado and had there roofs torn off and thrown hundreds of feet into the air with ease. it is so scary how those homes were only in the tornado for a second or 2 and instantly got torn apart so easily. i have no doubt in my mind that if that tornado was the same size as your average wedge, it would've caused ef5 damage. I also would like to add that i have heard that some study that was carried out by some European scientists presents evidence that the andover ks, april 29 tornado may have had wind speeds up to 264 miles per hour.
I love that you mention size. People need to get this idea out of their head that the size/width of a tornado determines strength. Tornadoes like Andover, KS (2022), Elie, Canada (2007), and Pampa, TX (1995) all prove that. Sometimes large tornadoes almost a mile wide are weak with 80-100 mph winds.
@@jm5390 yea size by no means determines strength, but if you put the wind speeds of a small tornado into a big one, it’ll cause more severe damage just because the structures will be exposed to the fast winds for a longer time.
@@jm5390 Very good point. I remember hiding in a basement at OU in 2015 as a 2/3 mile-wide tornado headed into town. Looked on the TV just like the Moore tornado two years earlier. Ended up being an EF1.
Some of these monsters can clearly be an EF5 or stronger. It makes me wonder if the rating is linked to how much money an impacted area receives for reconstruction and relief - if they get any money at all. Like how funds are linked to population without taking inflation into account.
Look I've been in 2 EF-4 tornados. One in 2005 when I was 11 in madisonville, the 2nd Dec 10 in dawson springs. The first one was scary don't get me wrong but even as a kid I didn't feel what I felt that night of Dec 10. Both times we took a direct hit, how I've survived the outrageous weather we've had in my region since 94 idk. But I will always deny the rating of an ef4 for Dec 10. That thing absolutely pierced through me, the pressure the lift and how we was thrown while seeing signs from out of state being thrown into the side foundation was unreal.
The Fairdale, IL / Rochelle, IL Tornado was without a doubt achieving EF5 wind speeds. As someone who lived in the area and still do, Fairdale was completely leveled. Screamed EF5 to me.
I was surprised when the Quad state tornado came by Benton Ky, and took my home, was rated EF-4. I found a map with rating along my track, and in my neighborhood it was rated EF-2. EF-2 tornadoes don’t completely wipe homes from foundations, or disintegrate mobile homes. I would have accepted high end EF-3 for my neighborhood, not EF-2.
Not a chance in hell that tornado was an EF4. The sheer amount of energy it took for that storm to be on the ground and that strong for that long but the winds never exceeded 190mph? Lunacy.
Well another good point to add is that radar readings for velocity come from higher in the storm where the actual wind speed is much greater than at ground level. The reasoning behind them not using Doppler radar as an indicator is because they’d either have to use that higher wind speed as the “official” wind speed of the tornado, which would cause public confusion because some people might not understand the fact that the reading would be from higher in the storm; or they’d have to do as they do now and estimate the ground wind speed except based off the Doppler radar speed, which as we’ve seen wouldn’t entirely accurate. Either way, it will be extremely difficult to attain a proper wind speed reading without a measuring device close to the tornado at ground level capable of withstanding the extreme winds.
That's not necessarily true, some research had actually shown that wind speeds are maximum right near the ground. This is stated and covered in the paper I mentioned in the video, I linked it in my description, strongly suggest you give it a read.
I was going to suggest using tenth decimals, but there's a much easier way: tornado rating = maximum wind speed, either by damage, recorded, by radar, or by visual observation. The categorization process is where the problem comes from. A gradient/spectrum system provides a clear strength indication. Just use measurements, maybe there's a way to factor in width and subvorticies, represented like a sports score: a 200-5000-3 is a tornado with 200mph winds, 5000 ft wide, with 3 subvorticies
The tornado that hit the candle factory in western Kentucky, also hit the town over from me in west Tennessee. It wiped out several historical houses in one of our oldest cities. My close friend lost her historical home that she had just renovated to look like it did originally. It was reduced to rubble. Her daughter and daughter's friend hid in an area under the stairs, the only part of the house that was still standing... Only the staircase. She lost one kitty, and the other she found days later, and I now have him. He's very scared of storms now but he's a very good boy. That tornado traveled over 200 miles destroying everything in its path. But it destroyed small towns so it wasn't talked about like others have been.
If EF-5 is complete devestation, how much is more than complete devastation? Perhaps there need to be more people to agree on EF5 actually taking place. Tuscaloosa 2011 comes to mind as an EF4 that was totally underrated for what reason I don't know. El Reno we know is way more than an EF3 but it didn't hit a stong structure. Great video on an extremely controversial topic.
It still blows my fucking mind that the widest tornado ever recorded, with the second highest wind speeds ever measured on planet fucking earth, is only an EF3. what an absolutely pathetic joke. ever since then i just haven't taken the EF scale seriously at all and refuse to take their ratings as fact.
@mpk 666 I would believe they did find that, do you happen to know where specifically? I've read the NWS reports on it as well as the BMX report of their findings. I will admit from what I saw it was not on par with what happened in Hackleburg or Phil Campbell. There were sections of asphalt missing out of the roadway and gas lines ripped out of the ground. But it only takes one indicator, SURELY there was that.
I agree totally. We don't judge the strength of earthquakes based on whether their location reduces or enhances damage capacity. It feels almost like willful misrepresentation of the intensity of storms when the technology to provide better ratings is increasingly accessible.
I'd throw the May 25th, 2016 tornado that hit Solomon, Abilene and Chapman, KS in there with underrated tornadoes. It bent railroad tracks horizontally!
6:37 Precisely. The Mayfield tornado was *OBJECTIVELY* an EF-5. There are no “if’s”, “and’s”, or “but’s”, about it. It damaged the foundation itself. Also, while not many people mention it, it sucked the water tower out of the ground. Completely destroyed it. An EF-4 can NOT do ANY of this, period. I of course share the same thoughts about the El Reno tornado being an EF-5. I do not care that the higher winds were only in the sub vortecies. Those are still a part of the tornado. And with this particular tornado, those sub vortecies were as WIDE AS FOOTBALL FIELDS. That is FAR larger than most tornadoes! Had they hit something like a well constructed building, one would have had no way to tell, and it would have been rated EF-5. Sorry for getting a bit spicy, I’m just so tired of tornadoes being rated incorrectly. It is a huge disservice to the victims of those tornadoes, if you ask me. Brilliant video displaying all of this.
I think the Billings Exit tornado on I-35 of April 26 1991 in Oklahoma was one of the few strongest to have ever occurred. I think it was F5-EF5 despite it's rating as F4.
@@ILoveOldTWC It was the strongest of them all. based upon my observation of the effects first-hand after watching it cross I-35.. I chased it and watched it from it's touchdown point until after it crossed I-35.
I’m with, it seems, the majority of comments: tornadoes should be ranked based on strength, not damage. 200 mph winds are 200 mph winds, whether in a wheat field or city.
with how much more we know about multi vortex tornadoes, i wouldnt be surprised if our current wind speed estimations are wildly incorrect. wind speeds over 400mph seem plausible in tornadoes where the parent circulation is over 200mph
Loved the video! Only thing is it’s “row-chelle” lol. I’m honestly happy to hear that tornado on a video.. I’ve not seen many on UA-cam. That one was about a half mile or so from my parents house just outside of Rochelle. I didn’t realize it was that close to being an ef5
I was a meteorology student when the EF Scale went live. The big discussion/concern was how would changing the damage rating scale affect tornado climatology. With the noticeable decline in EF-5/F5 rated tornadoes, if/when a revised rating system goes live, I wonder if questionable past tornado ratings will see reclassification?
Hey quick question, are you currently working as an employee for the national weather service? I'm looking for interviews on this topic, specifically current professional meteorologists who are critical of the EF scale. Thanks!
Another ridiculous one is the 2016 sulphur ok ef3 because on the damage assessment toolkit, it said on some homes “Destruction of engineered or well. Constructed residence, slab swept clean”
While I certainly agree that the EF scale is outdated, there is a problem with using doppler radar to try to measure wind speeds, mainly within radar holes. Since wind speeds are typically higher the higher you go up in a storm, solely using doppler radar would overestimate the ground wind speeds in these areas
I always considered using damage to scale tornado strength to be absolutely asinine. For starters, this isn’t 1950. With the advancement of technology, we have enough information on tornados to gauge their wind speed. Secondly, most tornados usually hit out in barren farmlands. Generally speaking, there aren’t a whole lot of things they can actually damage when they land out there. That essentially means that a tornado practically needs to hit a metropolitan area to garner higher EF ratings. Thirdly, sometimes the EF scale is misleading because cleanup efforts will start before the damage can be completely surveyed. I just can’t understand why we can’t use wind speed to rate tornado strength. I think the EF scale doesn’t do justice to just how dangerous tornados can be.
Because actual figures on wind speed are impossible to come by. Too many variables. The average person thinks Oklahoma or Kansas, where you can see for miles and miles on flat topography. But their occurrence is anything but unique to that part of the country. Mississippi, Alabama, Dixie Alley, we have a lot of trees, hills, many occur at night, and are wrapped in rain. Tell me how you will get an accurate wind speed in those, because the Deep South has as many violent tornadoes as the Great Plains, even with all the advanced technology.
There is no reason for El Reno and Mayfield to not be EF5s when they are both probably on the Mount Rushmore of most powerful tornadoes of all-time, alongside May 3rd and Tri-State. EF5s shouldn't be EF5 level damage to well-built structures AND 200 MPH, it should be EF5 level damage to well-built structures OR 200 MPH.
El Reno Chapman Violina Soso-Bassfield and mayfield should definitely be rated EF5. Worcester was also a very strong tornado however there was no doppler radar so it’s tough to tell how strong the winds were. Grazlius did rate it F5 though
The Chapman tornado would of been a EF5 if it hit Chapman directly and that's according to the nws. The Violina tornado was rated as a EF4 because one home was poorly anchor and some homes were nail to the foundation not bolted. The Violina tornado would of been a F5 on the old scale.
@@Sj430 Chapman was also under a slight risk day that too. Which I think slight risk isn’t really light. I think a level 2 out of 5 should be Low chance of severe weather. Slight/Low/Elevated/Significant/Extreme
While everyone talks El Reno, and for very good reasons, I will never buy the "high end" EF4 rating of the Tuscaloosa-Birmingham, Alabama tornado of April 27, 2011. EF5 damage was discovered at an apartment complex in Alberta City by one survey team. Another tornado that hit a less populated area, Hackleburg-Phil Campbell, on that same day, did get the EF5 rating. The EF Scale MUST have a revision and update. As for the 2013 El Reno storm, if that thing hits a densely populated area, everything would be gone, like what we saw in Joplin, Tuscaloosa, Parkersburg, Iowa, Jarrell, Texas, Andover, Kansas, and back in the 80s, Niles, Ohio/Wheatland, Pennsylvania. Total devastation. The kind of destruction it takes the places hit years to recover and rebuild from. It is and always will be a damage scale, but if more than just damage can be used to determine the rating process, such as the DOW's measurements (in the ones DOWs are used in), ground scouring, how far debris can get from it's point of origin (checks, papers, receipts), ALL of those should be used.
The Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale is based strictly on windspeeds while the F and EF scales are rated on the type of damage they cause. Measured windspeeds should be a DI.
It wasn't designed to be directly on wind speed. It was in fact, designed to be based on damage. That's the problem. How would we get an accurate measurement of wind speed other than the DOW? Because DOW's won't be used outside of Oklahoma, Texas, or Kansas, and tornadoes are far from unique to those states. Winds can't be DI is there's nothing for it to damage.
I fully agree Chris. Both you and I know that if you would have put El Reno in a heavy populated area, be that a town or city. That it would produce some of the most devastating tornado damage in all history of tornadoes. And to hear that it was only classified as an F3 drives me crazy.
In my opinion, for my response to the EF scale, I would add more degree of damages nature wise, including trees, shrubbery, etc, also visually looking at damages around, for example, when the December 10 tornado ripped through Bremen, the structures that it hit would still be at EF4 level but around the slabs, ground scouring and tree debarking should be noted, so while the structure failed at EF4 intensity, the area around it should be rated EF5, also, EF5s are slightly more common than meteorologists put it as, but not crazy common, just rare, you can take past tornadoes that possibly or have possessed EF5 wind speeds, like the May 15 2013 Granbury EF4, or the May 24 Chickasaw EF4, all did similar damages, tree debarking, ground scouring, slabs, but that is how I would put my response to the argument of how do we fix the EF scale
This is going to sound dumb, but I honestly feel as if the current EF scale is classist. The only way to get an EF5 in today’s standards is if it were to hit a major city where people have enough money to build extremely well built structures. If you live in a rural or poorer area, the tornado is going to cause even more havoc and slab your house but may only be rated an EF3 or 4 because people can’t afford stronger buildings. To me that just seems wrong.
Actually, no. The Hackleburg-Phil Campbell, Alabama tornado didn't hit a major city, it hit smaller towns, and still got EF-5 ratings, while Tuscaloosa-BIrmingham didn't.
I've always found it very arbitrary that tornadoes are not ranked on their actual wind speeds but the damage they caused in the EF scale. Sure, damage is a proxy for wind speed, and it isn't practical to get precise on the ground wind measurements for every single tornado, but the idea that one tornado in a field could have the same wind speed and intensity as another that hit a town, and the one in a field gets a vastly lower rating makes no sense to me. It means tornadoes get ranked on how much they interact with human constructions, rather than any objective measure of the tornado itself. I would think that if you can confirm wind speeds inside a tornado, that measurement would take priority over any other.
Biggest problem is it skews statistics and lulls people. "EF4s don't happen here. EF3s rarely do, so our mobile home is newer and ok." That kind of skewed perspective based on flawed statistics. You can't say, "we use damage to gather GUESSTIMATES of wind speed to judge them, then ignore legitimate measured wind speeds in a storm. It's ridiculous and a lie basically. So you can trust your best guess on debris but can't trust VERY advanced measuring equipment? What?! Better yet, doesn't matter that it had extreme organization on radar with an eye like a hurricane and extreme velocity couplets, still just an EF1 cause it hurt corn only. We are lying to ourselves because people are scared to say the wrong thing. Time to teach people the realities. You can run if you pay attention, you're more likely to see one that can tear your home to shreads, you're complacency will kill you. And the false information from experts contributes to that complacency because they trust the experts. More needs to be done.
I agree that the EF scale needs to be updated again. But it needs to keep Fujita's name because his brilliance and diligence was groundbreaking. Maybe we need Tech-supplemented Fujita -- a TF scale.
I think one of the greatest shortcomings of the current system is the lack of consideration for the movement speed of the tornado itself. The 2021 Mayfield tornado was a perfect example of this. The tornado was simply moving so fast that it did not remain over any given location for more than a few seconds at most. Compare this to the Jarrel Texas F5 that practically crawled along its path, providing much more time for the tornado to continue damaging anything it hit for several more seconds. Even if two tornadoes had the exact same size and wind speed, if one were moving slower than the other, it would obviously produce more damage than the faster one, causing it to be rated higher when it was no stronger than the other.
I was at the Southeast Severe Storms Symposium at Mississippi State University over the weekend (where one of the tornadoes missed us by about 40 miles to the north Friday night; Amory, Mississippi), and I talked to others specifically about this video. They seemed to agree that the DOW, and other things, not just damage alone, should be utilized in the rating process. El Reno, you put that thing in a densely populated area, it's wiped off the map. By the way, I think a High Risk should've been put out for parts of Mississippi Friday night, as there was a PDS Tornado Watch in effect.
I was on the ground in Mayfield, Dawson springs and Bremen. Mayfield/Dawson was high end ef4, Bremen was Ef5. There was finally granulated and wind rowed debris. This only happens in the highest level events.
Yeah it upsets me whenever I hear that El Reno was an EF3. That was as bad as the infamous May 3rd 1999 tornado. I don’t see how it wasn’t..wind speed may have been slightly lower (possibly) but it was even wider which has to hold some merit too. Once I found out that’s how they measure what strength the tornado is, I thought that really makes no sense at all..how could you measure 302 mph winds and say it’s an EF3?!
Killed it man! While damage continues to be the best way for surveying all tornadoes, it is a bit silly to not include other technologies available to us that can verify wind speed within tornadoes. DOW radar measurements being the best example when they are available. Refusing to use every tool available to us for the sake of only using what we’ve used in the past is just frankly, unscientific.
DOW's cannot be used to Dixie Alley tornadoes. Nor can they be used in the tornado that hit KY a year ago. Josh Wurman and Howard Bluestein, and their chase teams are not going to come to Dixie Alley (Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia), where there are too many trees and hills obscuring the view, plus high precipitation supercells spawning rain-wrapped tornadoes, and many occur, like this one did, at night. Reed Timmer does comes to other parts of the country outside the heartland of America but to my knowledge he doesn't use the DOW.
What about making a second scale that rates the current potential of the tornado (like how the El Reno and Kansas tornadoes had EF5-level winds at one point or another in their lifespans, yet only did EF3-level damage) and use that alongside the EF scale?
@@ILoveOldTWC DOW's can be used anywhere. It's just the placement strategy which makes use outside of the Plains problematic. It would be a lot more hit-and-miss in Dixie but it can definitely be done. Given the frequency of strong tornadoes there, placing one in the Tanner/Harvest area of AL would eventually pay off but I wouldn't assign more than maybe two to the area when they can be much better used in the Plains.
In general, wind speed should be the metric used to rank tornadoes. As damage is too random of a metric compared to something so substantial like wind speed
If you do that, you would have to reassign about 50 tornadoes in the SUPER OUTBREAK OF TEENTY ELEVEN TO EF6 STATUS.
When I first heard about El Reno, and the sheer monstrous unearthly power it had; I was absolutely dumbfounded to find that it was only EF3.
anything that uses subjective measuring standard it shouldn't be used to "judge" things
We measure hurricanes by wind speed so should we measure tornados
@@Michael-sb8jf the cool thing about that is, you can fly into a hurricane and measure wind speeds directly from it…. Unfortunately, you can’t fly into a tornado & measure wind speed from it… also, a twister is a lot more complex than a hurricane. Wind can shift direction whenever, speed up and funnel tighter and tighter, or slow down, spread out and widen. You can also have multiple tornadoes inside of a larger tornado.… then there are a bunch of other factors that a company a supercell storm that can make things difficult.… downdraft and microbursts, straight line winds, tornadoes that are wrapped in high precipitation, topography problems, road hazards like downed trees and powerlines, ice and muddy conditions. The list can go on and on…. a lot easier to read a hurricane then it is a tornado
Another thing that is stupid is EVREYONE CALLS IT A EF5 BECAUSE OF THE RECORDED WIND SPEED! It's a EF3. People need to get that in their mind.
@@The_Joshuan_Empire EF3 was originally designed to try and record wind speed by measuring the destruction it left. We don't need to do this anymore because our technology is sufficient to directly record it.
The video literally explains this, it's classified as EF3 even though El Reno has EF5 speeds, and is one of the largest and most powerful tornadoes that has ever been recorded.
@@The_Joshuan_Empire That's literally the whole point of the video, and the problem we've been discussing since Josh Wurman and his team recorded wind speeds in one of the Moore, OK tornadoes. Are you trolling, or just obtuse ?
I'd like to think if Ted Fujita was still alive, he would have already updated the rating system. I wish meteorologists/scientists would consider this.
FACTS! Far better then the EF scale!
Someone who was as forward thinking as he would definitely realize that we are misrepresenting. However, it is unlikely the grunts at NWS don't know this, but is more another case of our federal government being incompetent. Well, I would say that, but I am beginning to think its intentional overlooking because they don't actually care all that much as those in power don't care about anyone living in the Midwest.
Can you let the man be dead already? ''Dead famous person would agree with me'' This is just so low.
@@TheKingSource The one named after him? ... Why do you want tornados to be stronger exactly? Is this like an action film for you? ''FACTS'' No, it's not even a good opinion.
@@TheKingSource What would we call this new system
EF+ Scale
I’ve been waiting for this video. I agree entirely. One needs only to examine the El Reno tornado to realize that the EF scale is garbage. That was a 5 if there ever was one. The true function of a rating system for these storms should be to establish some measurement of how strong the storm is, not what it incidentally happened to pass over. It is extremely misleading to categorize an exceptionally powerful tornado as anything less than that.
One could also argue that it is more dangerous; for example, people being led to believe that EF5s basically never happen and EF4s are very rare could result in a more flippant attitude toward future storms when warnings are issued because they assume that their home will withstand an EF3. Conversely, if people were led to believe that more EF5 tornadoes are occurring than has been thus far portrayed by the EF rating scale, they may be more likely to take all tornadoes more seriously because of an increased sense of threat of the possibility of one being a high-end storm. Granted, that might be a bit of a reach, but I don’t see how it could hurt to do what is necessary to impress upon people the seriousness and danger of these storms.
It is also ridiculous to examine the current “drought” of EF5s when clearly there have been several tornadoes since 2013 that could very sensibly be given that rating.
That's 100% true, I actually examined the range of wind speeds in each category (EF0 is 65-85mph, a width of 21mph, EF1 and EF2 have widths of 25mph, EF3 has a width of 30mph, and EF4 has a width of 35mph). Extending the EF scale further based on these range sizes would theoretically rate the El Reno tornado as an EF7 (EF5 would range from 201-240mph, EF6 from 241-285mph and EF7 from 286-335mph). Since the F scale's original max wind speed was 319mph, and tornadoes have come close to reaching that wind speed in the past, it would make sense to have these two extra categories to make things a bit clearer. For instance, the El Reno tornado had wind speeds of almost exactly 100mph greater than the minimum needed for an EF5, which is the same difference that can separate an EF0 tornado from an EF4 tornado. Rating a tornado as EF3 that could have easily killed tens of thousands of people had it hit only a handful of miles further to the east is pathetic. I'm surprised the EF scale has been used for as long as it has, judging by what was explained in the video.
That last sentence in particular is something that's been bugging me for years. There's not really a "drought" at all, the methodology's just flawed.
When I can think of 3 storms off the top of my head that have measured winds exceeding the EF5 threshold (and there have certainly been more), there is a problem.
The previous scale, in my opinion needs to be used again. EF5 is any wind that surpasses 200 mph. But on the previous scale, F5 was 261-318. There was another tornado in the early 1990s (Andover outbreak) given an F4 rating, Red Rock, Oklahoma, but Howard Bluestein's early version of the DOW recorded 286 mph, clearly putting it in the F5 range. Another thing is that the size is not always an indication of the intensity. A giant wedge doesn't necessarily mean it's a violent tornado that F4 or F5. Pampa, Texas in 1995, was not, and it was an F4. It's easy to assume that the mile or more wide ones are the strongest (and many are). But there can be thinner tornadoes and still completely blow away strong buildings.
But it did no damage over EF3, it didn't even scour the earth or debark trees, a single measurement at 30 meters height says very little, specially since they measure instantenous velocity, not 3 second gust used in the EF scale.
@MrKittles1123 El Reno, El Reno, El Reno. That was a rare, exceptional tornado. It was clear-cut that the EF scale is a flawed scale. It's not garbage, that word it too harsh, but it's flawed (and it's replacement will be too, because there will never be a perfect way to rate tornadoes. But El Reno makes this look too simplistic, and it's not. It's so much more complex. Not every tornado will be similar in strength to El Reno, in fact, the vast majority of them won't be. It's also important to remember that it's not just super cell thunderstorms that spawn tornadoes. A QLCS (squall line) of thunderstorms produce short-lived tornadoes. Heck, even hurricanes produce tornadoes.
Something to note: the NWS is well aware of this as well. A revised EF scale that will include many more DIs and take into account things such as radar velocities has been in development for a few years now.
The EF Rating system was due to be upgraded this year, but I haven't heard squat about it recently.
And like all government entities, it hasn’t been done. I don’t recommend holding my breath on it. These same idiots issued a flash flood warning for me earlier this year…..an HOUR after it had already started! By then, my backyard was a river, and roads had already flooded over. Typical NWS!
@@Nekirium i don’t ever remember a date it was “due” to come out. I know a few years ago, 2022 was an estimate, but covid messed it up. It takes time, and I’d rather them spend more time to make a more comprehensive product.
@@hansenfiet2539 flash flood warnings are issued whenever peoples houses are in damager after a certain flood stage has been reached and the ground saturation has reached a certain level, and additional rains are expected. If flooding occurs in general, a “flash flood watch, flood watch, or flood warning” are all used. There are very specific criteria to make it a flash flood warning which sounds WEA alerts. Have a way to recover other warnings and watches than just FFWs if you live in a flood prone area.
@@hansenfiet2539 the NWS and noaa have a huge list of upgrades and research projects they have to complete on a fairly tight budget. An upgrade to the EF scale is just one of those. (And it isn’t high on the list, as it is pertinent to life saving information). Also the NWS isn’t just responsible for the upgrade, and is a collaborative project between independent, university, and government researchers.
Let's not forget about the elephant in the room. The vast majority of employees at that candle factory knew the danger they were in and wanted to leave, but were told by upper management that they would be fired if they left the premises. This resulted in 8 tragic and completely unnecessary deaths. And, of course, thanks to good ol' corporate America... not a single soul was held accountable. Pathetic.
That being said, this was an excellent presentation. Thanks for sharing, Chris. Keep up the amazing work, bud!
It’s a perfect example of the world we’re living in now. If productivity and profits mean dead workers, who cares? They can be easily replaced.
That's messed up like holy shit
Just another day in Biden America. No liability to Pfizer
If I had a gun I'd go and kill the bosses families...but I believe in gun control and would never abuse the 2nd amendment out of revenge or spite.
One other elephant in the room is that when people say "corporate america" they mean they want to limit the freedoms of their fellow americans instead of actually realizing what it means when corporations own the government...
Watching this explained what I have been thinking for years very well.
The EF scale, while amazing, is definitely outdated. From what I've seen, the El Reno OK tornado was not only EF3, the Mayfield KY tornado was not only EF4, the Newnan GA tornado was not only EF4 (I didn't follow or look at the data of that one as closely as the El Reno and Mayfield tornadoes so ignore my thoughts on that one). I feel like they're hesitant to rate tornadoes EF5 now. It has definitely not been this long, since 2013, that there's been an EF5.
I think for radar to be reliable to measure tornado wind speeds, they need to add more radar sites, because there's a lot of dead zones like what happens with cellphone service, and the radar beam goes up into the atmosphere so they won't be surface measurements. They'd have to do studies on finding out how much the height increased as the radar beam gets further away from the radar site, find out the distance between the beam and the ground at the point where the wind speed was measured, find out how much the wind speed would decrease in that height difference and then that'd be the measurement. It'd take time to get reliable information on that, so we'll just have to wait and see if they change anything. Wind speed measurements based on damage dealt is still great, but when damage is not done to anything, or very little things, that's where using any available information/technology we have would be useful, and combining radar measurements with measurements based off of damage would be even better in my opinion.
Well said. It would be possible to correlate high end known EF5 damage producing tornadoes with radar captured from that storm.
@@highriskchris - they did with the Moore tornado. I think the Texas tech mobile doppler was there with Josh Wormer.
I work in Mayfield and surveyed the damage in person. In Mayfield it was EF 4 for sure.
If Tim Marshall is surveying the damage, he will never rate any tornado EF5 regardless of how catastrophic it was.
I feel Newnan was a solid EF-4
Long track, mutlivortex, wedge tordanos will always be F5s in my mind, espcially if they're a few miles wide.
An F5 could strike an uninhabited grassy field and be rated an F0 if going solely by damage to property
But hey's that's my own two sense!
It's time for the RF scale! Revised/Refined Fujita Scale
I have to ask you this question? Suppose the damage it causes (if it hits a populated area) is not consistent with F5/EF5, despite it's size and appearance? Suppose homes are unroofed but the majority of exterior walls are intact? No buildings completely flattened?
not true. The EF scale is what brought into account non structural damage. 2011 was the first time a tornado was rated EF5 from ground scouring alone in Mississippi. EF4 is still a beast of a storm but EF5 is the extreme of all extremes and those are exceptionally rare.
No. We should get back to the old Fujita Scale or use the TORRO scale.
Except that there was a 1.1 mile wide wedge in Denton TX a few years ago that directly impacted several structures and only produced EF1 damage. Can’t always judge be appearance. Although as a general rule, yeah a long track wedge is “usually” going to be a strong tornado.
Don’t sleep on some of the smaller but extremely violent tornadoes either. Pampa TX ‘95, Elie,MB ‘07 , Plainfield, IL ‘90 etc…sometimes when those violent winds get constructed down into a smaller funnel the wind speeds can be exceedingly violent.
I have been looking at higher end tornado events for 20 years and I know extreme ground scouring, trees and low lying vegetation are completely stripped of all their bark, debris granulation, and vehicles turned to scrap are likely of F5/EF5 intensity. Something like the Westminster 2006 tornado that was rated high-end F3 should have been rated F5 based on not only slabbed houses but also extreme contextual damage.
Anna-Westminster, TX (2006) tornado is such a good example! That tornado was very strong but got only an F3 rating. Reminded me of the Cisco, TX (2015) tornado that also was rated EF3 despite video evidence (of the rotation motion) and vegetation damage. Cisco also threw vehicles over 1000 yards, which is incredible!
@@jm5390 Both tornadoes at the very minimum were both high-end F4/EF4
@@cubby091398 F4 and EF 4 are different things. An EF-4 is high end F2 to F3
You are spot on! I never understood how they could determine rating when so focused on damage...and esp. not when I heard how they'd rated the El Reno tornado. Lunacy!
I find it odd in many of the high end EF4’s they find pockets of EF5 damage and scale it back to EF4 because of anchoring . Rochelle , Illinois 🌪 was rated EF5 but scaled back because of anchoring . You won’t see another EF5 until they change the surveying
Not anchoring adequately reduces the wind speed required to achieve a given amount of damage, so it makes sense to take that into account.
They found some potential EF5 damage in the Maysfield and Rolling Forks tornadoes. Houses were wiped clean of their foundations and there was severe ground scoring. However, in both cases, they said that the anchor bolts and foundations of the structures were weakened from age. Seems stupid to me.
@@tid418 It still could've been over 200 mph winds.
But most of the time they're F3 strength
@@benwalter4842 *F5
I agree with 99% of the things mentioned that would improve the EF scale, except for the ground scouring one. There are a ton of different types of soil and it would be impossible to make a scale for all of the types, plus rain softening the soil can have an effect on the scouring, making it nearly impossible to provide a 100% accurate rating based off ground scouring
I would go with using deep scouring contextually, say something like 10"- 12" plus. That level is generally hard virgin soil and therefore hard to dislodge. Less than that depth would need to take soil conditions into account and that would complicate what is already a too-confused situation.
@@P_RO_ if that were the case, then famers wouldn't be tilling down 2 ft when they plow the fields. I'm just saying you are wrong.
@@ligmasack9038 Tilling depth is decided for a number of reasons, and such deep tilling is sometimes needed to allow groundwater to reach the surface. And of course you must till to the necessary root depth. And in hard-worked soil it's necessary to turn up unworked nutrient-rich soil that develops deeper to the surface. Where I live tilling never exceeds one foot depth as it's never needed.
So you are as wrong as me. And you overlooked the word "generally, for there are always exceptions. This is why scouring can't be a primary DI without classifying soil conditions but it can give context to other DI's.
As someone that's taken way to many soil classes. Sometimes dirt is harder than rock. "Top soil" is a misnomer and half mile between locations can result in different degrees of soil development let alone type.
@@P_RO_ that's GENERALLY not correct at all
Worth noting too that the EF rating determines how much payout is given by insurance too. Rating these clearly EF5 tornadoes EF4 legitimately leaves people in the dust.
The cost of rebuilding is the cost of rebuilding, regardless of the tornado's rating.
I think this unironically answers the whole question.
Actually that’s not true.
But what I find interesting is contained in an interview with Dr Pham. He stressed that “overclassification” will lead to construction companies throwing their hands up and saying “EF5 is too strong, we can never be expected to build to that type of standard” And without actually coming right out and saying it, he insinuated that conservative ratings are encouraged on higher end tornado events for this very reason.
@@tid418 The portion of the cost to rebuild *that is covered by insurance* does matter based on the tornado's rating. That's the whole issue he's bringing up.
@@carlmay9532 who gives a shit how the overclassification inpacts a company though. just give the real rating
Well stated on all points. I never got the reason why, dating back to the May 3, 1999 Bridgecreek-Moore OK tornado, Doppler radar winds aren't ever at least INCLUDED as a part of the surveys. I get they likely aren't surface speeds, but the differential is not too far off from ground truth even with friction. That said, this current EF scale does seem really outdated and a modernization seems in order; include Doppler wind or even CC damage indicators for added support OF the Doppler indicated wind speeds, ground or pavement scouring/ground swirl patterns, debarked trees, etc.
It's not just outdated, It also only works in the US. House construction is very different around the World. For example, in Germany most houses are build with thick brick walls, concrete floors and thick roofs with strong wooden beams and heavy tiles. A Storm of a certain strengh would do much less damage there compared to when hitting houses in the US, which are significantly weaker structures.
The EF scale does account for how well a home was built. A mobile home being swept away would probably only constitute an EF2 or EF3 while a well built brick home swept off it’s foundation could justify an EF5.
@@titoslounge1946 Yeah in Europe we are switching to IF scale because EF scale is not made for European construction, meaning it wouldnt work. Its used in France and China outside the US but i do think IF scale is still better for here
@@wxchris2666 In Europe we have the original Fujita Scale as well as the TORRO scale
@@Firemarioflower In Europe we have F and T scales everywhere, IF scale which is still in experimental phase but has been used on many tornadoes including the Czech IF4 and the EF scale in France
Thank you for producing this long overdue video. Your arguments are right on spot, and are something that I've been saying for quite some time. As a Meteorologist myself, I have been extremely lucky to have lived during the time of both the April 1974 super outbreak and the April 2011 super outbreak, not to mention the El Reno monster and last December's tragic pre-Christmas assault. Ted Fujita was a great man and scientist, creating a way to measure tornadoes and to compare them. But time and technology march on, and as scientists we have to keep up with both if we are to truly understand the awesome power of Mother Nature.
I'm a meteorology student and strongly agree. I was just randomly thinking the other day how the EF scale doesn't take into account movement speed. Slow/stationary tornadoes should cause more damage than a fast-moving tornado with the same wind speed (at least I assume so) due to a longer duration of tornadic wind speeds over a point.
If you don't mind me asking, how do you like working as a meteorologist? I've struggled with finding a career path that feels right to me, but I've been passionate and fascinated with weather since I was a kid so it seems right to me
@@rektspresso7288 I fell in love with the weather as a child, as well. My forte was forecast meteorology, which has advanced light years since I was in college. Think about the area of meteorology that excites you the most, and pursue it with everything you've got. That doesn't mean that there won't be bumps and detours along the way. As long as you keep your eyes on the goal, you'll make it. I'm retired now, but I still love meteorology as much as I ever did. Feel free to respond back. Maybe I can help you narrow down your choices. What have you looked into so far? Are you still in school or have you graduated?
The Mayfield, KY tornado rating was a disgrace, and after having a long discussion with a very well respected tornado scientist (who I wont name since he is trying to have papers published) he also agrees. Im glad the scale is being revised.
oh? well cant wait to see this paper , i hope you can somehow post a reply when its out.
Thanks Adam, I know you saw the Washington Illinois EF4, that is another high end tornado that could've had 200+ mph winds near Washington. Looking forward to that paper.
@@highriskchris Yes Washington for sure, especially when you consider the forward speed of 60mph it did that damage in just a few seconds. I was volunteering afterwards and one of the FEMA reps told me they held back on the 5 rating due to politics and the amount of extra coverage/scrutiny there would be over the event. I don't know how true that is, they're his words not mine, but nothing surprises me.
@@AdamLucio
Glad you mentioned about politics and extra scrutiny as been thinking the same for a while.
Seems like the government has said don't rate tornados EF5 unless you absolutely have to e.g Jarrel 97, Bridge Creek/Moore 99, Smithville, Phil Campbell/Hackleburg 2011 and El Reno 2011
I have mixed feeling about this video to be honest. But I have to agree, EF5 strength tornadoes have happened after Moore, the example that I believe in most is Jiangsu from China, since its a high end EF4, and they are known to often not rate tornadoes properly (they have to ask NWS if a tornado can be rated EF3+ ). Took them 2 years to upgrade a tornado that swept slabs clean and fully destroyed brick residences from mid range EF3 to high end EF4.
Totally agree, the NWS has gotten a bit more stringent with rating higher end tornadoes as of recent. The EF5 drought seems to be more related to this rather than a lack of high end tornadoes.
@@highriskchris I think that OU just didnt want to push CMA to EF5. Especially if its 2 years late bc of their weird rules.
Another example from outside typical tornado alley are the two F4 tornadoes that caused damage around the Brazil/Argentina border back in 2009. The tornado that caused damage around rural communities in the municipality of Guaraciaba, Brazil, was so violent that it made debri to be found 90 miles away from the damage path. Not only that but it threw a well built house over a hill, about 230 feet away from its foundation. Tornadoes in the region are hard to study specially because of Appalachia like topography and because how well built construction tends to be (due to high heat and humidity leading wood frame homes to be unsuitable for the environment).
Another example of severely underrated tornado in that region is the Dolores tornado of 2016. That thing was probably an EF5! The roar that footage captured out of that storm is terrifying and because it didn’t level every construction in town it was rated as an EF3. But the DIs in the EF scale are related to an North American context, and it doesn’t fit what is observed in South America. Heck, this tornado was initially rated as an EF2, despite clear evidence of a violent tornado observed in its violent motion (resembling the Rochelle tornado), and deafening sound.
@@wxchris2666 here is a playlist with great footage of the Dolores tornado. This is probably the most well captured tornado in the region! ua-cam.com/play/PLm8cfElEZ1iexfMJKtCMwxDo_fzPIESCO.html
@@galdutro Dolores is easily one of my favorite outside US tornadoes, after the France F4 from 2008 and Czech Republic 2021
I think we need two independent scales:
The first is for damage potential. This one should be determined primarily by doppler radar wind speeds, and, if those are not available, by damage indicators. This scale is obviously needed for things like meteological investigations, as well as insurances etc.
The second is for actual damage done. This one should be done by damage indicators soely, as well as maybe the width, damage path length, width etc. Basically you integrate the tornado damage over its lifetime and path width. This one would be a good scale for desaster response coordinations, like figureing out how much cleanup effort is needed.
Dopplar is inaccurate af.
@@davidmurray6176 That doesn't matter necessarily. That's what error bars are for.
I haven't even watched your video yet but saw the title and I say YES IT IS! They need to include updated technology and recorded wind speeds into the assessment
I agree 100% that more should be included in the rating system. Radar loops, velocity/wind speed measurements in radar data, photos, videos, interviews of residents involved along with the damage indicators. Radar data being the most important inclusion needed in the rating system.The NWS should spend more time in rating possible tornadoes than just the usual few days that it takes for many tornadoes. EMA offices should report all damage locations to the NWS as well, many even small damage areas are often missed due to lack of reporting that could warrant a higher rating. All factors should be carefully taken into the consideration and it shouldn't be a quick process in my opinion. We have multiple resources available for rating tornadoes and they are underutilized greatly. The time spent in surveys sometimes isn't thorough especially if the tornado is not a well publicized event, on a lower risk day or not in a highly populated area. Ratings should include all factors and should be many weeks if not months long process to settle on a final rating.
An example is a tornado that occurred in my area in October of 2019. The tornado was initially rated a long track EF1 based primarily on a flyover that the NWS did along with reports that the local EMA office gave to the NWS with a couple spots here and there surveyed. However, there was a neighborhood where a well built house had its roof destroyed along with interior wall damage and an outbuilding beside the house was wiped clean off its foundation obviously at least EF2 damage. Local residents, storm spotters and a local meteorologist questioned the EF1 rating after this was found and the NWS upgraded it to an EF2.
There are many tornadoes that are overlooked for one reason or another. The three outlined in this video (El Reno, Mayfield, and Rochelle) were the most obvious examples. I think if the NWS were to contract independent surveyors it could decrease the work load and make the assessments less biased.
@@highriskchris I agree with that also. Have the NWS either increase surveying staff or like you said hire someone independent to do the surveying with all the information verified by the NWS before a final rating is approved.
There are over a thousand tornadoes a year. It simply is not possible to spend the amount of effort you suggest in rating tornadoes.
@@highriskchris Can you give more examples? I think Tuscaloosa April 27, 2011 should've been EF5. The city was flattened.
@@tid418 But in the larger scale events (Like April 27, 2011, December 10-11, 2021, even a couple of weeks ago, in Alabama and Georgia (1/12/2023), more time should be spent. But I understand what you're saying there are so many of them, many are on the ground a couple of miles and gone, especially in the QLCS events, vs. the cellular mode.
7:01 A good friend of mine had this to say about that home:
"While there were anchor bolts at this home, it was NOT a traditional sturdy slab foundation home. Instead, this was actually a block-foundation home that had a gravel fill poured into the empty space of the foundation, then a concrete slab was rested on top, apparently unanchored. When the tornado hit, the concrete floor slab slid off and broke into pieces. That is not good construction, and these photos show the barely debarked trees, the gravel fill and the unanchored concrete slab that broke."
As far as Rochelle-Fairdale goes...my only guess is that the areas where the peak winds occurred were not completely wiped off the face of the Earth, which led to a lower rating. The wind speed argument isn't really that good because the same could be said for other intense storms like hurricanes that contain wind speeds below thresholds for long periods of times.
That being said, I do think the EF scale has some more flaws than what the NWS would like to admit. Why doppler radar and observed wind speeds are not counted into the final rating is beyond me and I also feel like that the damage is going off of too many technicalities. I TRULY believe that the 2015 Rochelle-Fairdale tornado did reach EF5 intensity at some point. Other tornadoes I think were EF5s are the 2014 Vilonia, Arkansas, tornado, the 2020 Bassfield, Mississippi, tornado, and, of course, the 2013 El Reno tornado (I don't believe the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado reached EF5 strength, but it got pretty close to it). The EF scale, in my opinion, is not outdated, but needs more wiggle room. The EF5 drought is more like three years long, not almost ten.
This is an awesome take on the EF- scale. While personally, I am a bit questioning the Mayfield monster, I know for certain El-Reno and Fairdale were EF-5's. Fairdale had at one point completely scoured away a field, and clumped the mud up into rolls, an indicator of violent winds. Now, the small white car, while damaged, would make someone say "That's not EF-5." Sure, the car itself wasn't EF-5 damage. However, based on additional photos, it looks like the tornado kept rolling it around until it rested there.
The big flaw with both the EF and F scales, is the fact that we simply are relying on the infrastructure and buildings on the ground which are subject to all kinds of corner cuts, varying structure codes and building methods. I'm a scientist myself (though I'm an immunologist so....very different field) but I feel like with the way technology has moved on, I feel like the EF system is potentially limiting tornado study, especially these larger and more destructive tornados. You could have a large EF4 tornado that just happens to have its most destructive winds out in a field between two towns and this is missed. I can't imagine having to work with the same tech and methods my field had back in 2009! The only real downfall of that point is the number of radar holes, the height of scans (meaning that the winds detected arn't always accurate to on the ground wind speed) complicating matters. You're not going to have a DOW on every tornado. To quote my boss in our research lab, "these are imperfect tools, that give imperfect answers, but in this moment it is all we have" when we have something better, we start using that better method. This isn't my field so I can't speak to what the solution to the problem is but, thats the nature of science, we refine and work becomes more accurate.
Science needs to be subjective not objective. I get the feeling if Ted Fujita was around today he would make the scale solely based on wind speed if applicable and only use "destruction" to fill in the holes if needed
You won't have a DOW in the vast majority of tornadoes. Try putting one in a brief, spin-up tornado that is produced by a squall line or QLCS.
@@Michael-sb8jf I agree!
This is exactly what I've been saying and thinking to myself for many years. Great video!!!!
This is awesome and I absolutely agree with everything you had to say here. I believe ground scouring, debris granulation, and car damage should play a significant role in assessing damage.
The El Reno Tornado was a freaking monster
You and everybody else on here has made their point about El Reno. I don't disagree with it either. But that event is being used to make blanket, simplistic statements stating the scale is antiquated.
@@ILoveOldTWC Not really, there have been many tornado's with close to 300 mph wind speeds that are rated nowhere close to the actual power they had, due to damage indicators not showing damage fitting the rating on the EF scale, and thus the tornado being underrated to EF 3 or 4, when in reality the wind speeds way exceeded 200 mph, even visibly so.
You can see it literally just by looking at the footage of a tornado alone, how quick and violent the rotation is, there is a huge visible distinction for tornado's which reach extreme 250+ mph wind speeds that is unmistakable when you see it, let alone with doppler radar imaging which give accurate measurements of tornadic wind speeds and have shown many tornado's in recent years far stronger than their rating.
Exactly as the research article shown in this video indicated.
@@luka188 The EF scale also overrates tornadoes. Joplin was an F3 as it only had speeds to 320kph
@@Firemarioflower It's an economic scale rather than a scientific scale. Complete nonsense.
0:15 my mom's side of the family lives in rural mayfield, when they took me to the town while i was visiting them I realized how much damage tornados can really do.
The El Reno tornado was not an EF 3. I agree with this assessment of the EF scale. The measured winds of this tornado were close to 300 mph.
Yep, they basically gave it an F2 rating when it was an F5!!!
On Damage, it was EF3. On wind speeds, it was not.
100%. It was massive, and had EF5 windspeeds. There’s no way that was an EF3
Makes perfect sense. So a tornado a mile wide with 300mph winds that plows through fallow fields and damages no structures would be downgraded. Then it’s not measuring the tornado.
How many EF-0's have caused EF-1 or 2 damage? Just within a 25 mile radius of my home, and within the last 5 years, a handful, all involved with embedded supercells, or QLCS.
Back in March of last year, there was a discussion about the updates to a second version of the EF scale. Some of these updates are developing new DIs (such as center pivot irrigation systems, religious buildings, passenger vehicles, and wind turbines) as well as redefining existing ones using knowledge gained from more than two additional decades of conducting damage evaluations using the original EF Scale.
This man is spitting straight facts
No, he's spitting his opinion. Notice he doesn't heart any comment like that disagrees with him.
The bassfield/soso tornado is an underrated tornado that is alot stronger than what most think and is a candidate for having potential ef5 damage but that damage was from the forests
I agree, Bassfield probably hit 200mph+ when it cleanly swept that cabin away and then went on to produce extreme debarking to a section of forest.
@@alexlubbers1589 even past bassfield it maintained pretty strong strength when entering soso at high end ef3 damage I think
@@alexlubbers1589 the issue with the scale is the inaccuracy of the estimated wind speeds and several civil engineers have brought this up. No doubt it hit 200mph like many others but 200mph isn't enough to cause EF5 damage and they are learning this. The DOW has recorded a handful of 200mph tornadoes that did not display F4 or F5 damage. The old fujita scale was likely more accurate.
My conclusion is that it is somewhat outdated mostly because of how we try to build things more cheaply with no anchor bolts (or few anchor bolts). That is how (and why) many possible EF-5s were only EF-4s.
They plan to update the EF scale with more damage indicators and will use the radar measurements to help the rating.
The EF scale already takes that into account. The F scale only considered "well built" houses.
@@tid418 The first F Scale was better. the upper limit on the EF Scale (5), is any winds above 200 mph. But the first F Scale had winds 261-318 mph.
IVE BEEN PREACHING THIS FOR SO LONG!!!!!!!! thank you sm for creating this video, it beautifully describes and analyzes the issues that NEED to be changed:) not only does the rating system scientifically fail us in the way that it was built, but it has also allowed for corrupt ratings as well. so let’s hope it all changes
The EF scale is an imperfect system, like its predecessor it is a damage scale first and a wind speed scale second. But all kinds of things can affect damage: The speed of the funnel, the angle of impact, the amount of time it takes for the entire funnel's winds to pass over a location, the surrounding environment and of course building codes and construction flaws.
WTF the original was not imperfect, it WAS BASED ON WIND SPEED
@@Firemarioflower No, it was based primarily on damage. Then it was estimated what winds would be needed to produce that damage. The EF scale was made to reflect the fact that wind speeds could produce damage at lower levels than previously assumed, and to try to better account for structural differences.
Fully agree with you on all counts. I live about 20 or so miles away from where the Rochelle-Fairdale Tornado struck, in DeKalb, and I can confidently say that I also question the official rating of the tornado. 20 instances where the wind speed rating was at 200 mph, and it never ONCE went above that? Doubtful... I saw the homes in Deer Creek. Those homes were entirely slabbed and they were well-built, large, relatively new constructions. The reasoning for this? There was a home which had small bushes still in the ground infront of where the entire home once sat - that is legitimately one of the reasons given for not rating it EF-5 at that location... shrubbery. Meanwhile, the sidewalk leading up to one of the homes' front door was moved over 6" from where it sat prior. The lack of account for wind vortices and difference in wind velocity and force in one area as opposed to another inside of a tornado is very apparent here - and it's frustrating. Not saying rating it an EF-5 would change anything, really, but the seeming aversion to rating recent tornadoes EF-5 is questionable. It's giving people who don't have a wider understanding of the weather a false sense of security and it's doing more harm than good, in my opinion.
wait what
if this was a legitimate excuse they used there could be a myriad of reasons for why a bush survived. one being the wind direction and reflection inside the vortices, or maybe debris fell on it to shield it "just enough"
Now im taking this, you post, as truth and based solely on your post the experts seem to have a bias and we need to know why.
Definitely need to include ground scouring in the ratings. After seeing a breakdown of the New Wren EF3 from 2011, there's not doubt it would be rated EF5 if this was included.
But ground scouring can also be evident with EF-3 TORs though, not only EF-4 and EF-5.
@@Nekirium any EF3 that’s ground scouring should just be bumped up
I don’t rate the tornado based on itself
I rate it based on what it can do to the structure of everyday housing and flesh
You can survive direct impact from “ some “ EF 3’s and 4’s but the damage is game changing
That’s why I’d rather it be bumped down after proper assessment rather than underrated
If you were there and it put the fear of god into you … report it for what it is and get out the way
Ground scouring is not exclusive to EF-5 tornadoes.
New Wren is EF5 even without the scouring
@@AlabamaTrumpeter Yeah but in this case the tornado itself also did EF5 damage, the ground scouring is just a confidence builder. NWS never went to inspect the tornado itself and it was a rating based on photos. Its also the tornado before Smithville (arguably the strongest ever) and also had a violent core so it makes sense to be EF5
I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels like this.
If we're going to keep the current criteria, then the description of the tornado should be the damage it caused and not even mention wind speed.
I agree. Tornado ratings matter especially in home owners insurance claims. Many times, when considered an EF0, home owners insurance won't cover the wind damage. I had to check my policy to make sure all wind damage was covered. Aside from that and other reasons, a tornado is a tornado no matter how strong or weak, has the ability to destroy a home. The way tornadoes skip homes up here and demolish others in northeastern Ohio is insane.
In summary: If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? That's the EF scale.
Agreed. The EF scale is outdated and needs to incorporate modern technologies to measure tornadic strength.
One of the best videos I have seen also I can’t wait until they upgrade the scale for it being more accurate
I just want to lay out some issues I had with this video and if I seem harsh I'm trying my best not to and just trying to put my input on this because I'm not expecting everyone to be a fantastic writer with little to no problems.
The only nitpick I have is that you said that the 1974 Super Outbreak had the most tornadoes in 24 hours, which if I could have a source to back that up then consider this null and void but officially April 27th, 2011 had 207 tornadoes that day, beating 1974's 148. I know that's a nitpick but it just stood out to me like a sore thumb. I know that really only hardcore weather historians would care but my main issues with the video in question lie much deeper than that nitpick.
Firstly, I will give kudos to the background regarding Dr. Fujita, that was genuinely interesting and something I didn't know until I saw this video. However the video jumps straight from how long to the F-scale was used then into the EF-Scale with no reason as to why the EF-scale was made in the first place. Without some explanation as to why the EF-Scale had to be made, it makes the F-Scale seem like it was updated for the sake of being updated. The EF-Scale was made, primarily, due to reasonable concerns of tornado being overrated but primarily because the wind speeds on the scale itself was too high. The two tornadoes that led to the EF-Scale being developed was Jarrell 1997, beginning with a paper written by Dr. Long Phan and Emil Simiu titled "Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale: A Critique Based on Observations of the Jarrell Tornado of May 27, 1997." The main tornado to raise concerns about the Fujita scale was the 1999 Moore F5 tornado. The heightened tornado winds was specifically a problem because buildings at the time that were destroyed by the F5 tornadoes of the time could have been flattened by tornadoes much weaker than the winds associated with F5 tornadoes. The engineers who were the primary critics of the Fujita Scale did not say the NWS was misusing the scale, but rather the Fujita Scale; while being fine for the time; did not take into consideration of construction quality and building codes which needed to be corrected. The process of the EF Scale being created was over the process of 5-7 years until the release of the scale in 2007. The NWS adopted the scale, but the scale itself was made by Texas Tech in collaboration with the ASCE and NIST. Without that context, people will just assume the scale was updated because...reasons. I'm not asking for an in-depth explanation as to how it was made, just a general
"After Jarrell 1997, and Moore 1999, engineers and meteorologists began to voice concerns that the Fujita scale may be overrating the intensity of tornadoes and how the overrating of tornadoes weakens building codes, thus the scale needed to be adjusted . So over the next few years, the Enhanced Fujita Scale was created and adopted by the National Weather Service in 2007."
Regarding the arguments made, I agree with most of them, the issue with using Doppler radar is that unless the radar is detecting those winds at the surface, then the winds the radar picks up are higher up in the atmosphere and are likely not related to the tornadic winds at the surface. Ground scouring as a damage indicator is a great addition, but the main issue with implementing it is that it HEAVILY depends on the soil composition, it's easy to see EF5 ground scouring when the soil is mostly clay, but other types of soil such as sand, silt, or marsh, the winds needed to cause extreme ground scouring tends to be less than the winds needed for the same ground scouring for clay. I must state that ground scouring is something that scientists (Engineers, and soil scientists (agrologists)) still don't truly understand fully.
El Reno 2013's rating was actually an EF5 initially, but it wasn't the NWS who pushed back on the rating, but rather engineers who helped to create the EF-scale.
More damage indicators, yeah that's something that is needed 100%.
A lot of the issues regarding the scale were noted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) after Joplin, who stated that Joplin barely got the EF5 rating and the reasoning behind the EF5 rating did not use the damage indicators in the scale itself. The scale at the end of the day is a damage scale, and was the best way to measure it. But it took until 2017 before a committee was established because nobody truly owned the EF-Scale so there was confusion on how it could be changed without any one agency truly owning the scale itself.
The new updated scale itself is taking into account radar imagery, and it expected to be a hybrid scale that is taking into account all of the criticisms of the EF Scale itself. However radar imagery and the like will not solely dictate a tornado's rating. The new scale is still in the works and engineers and meteorologists are working together to try and create the scale in a way to where it can accurately portray a tornado's intensity. It's also why I'm not truly that bothered about tornadoes ratings as much as others are, the fact that it's being fixed and the exact fixes that are going to be implemented are what weather enthusiasts want with the scale is greatly appreciated. But a tornado's legacy is not just defined by it's rating, but what it did to the hundreds of people the tornadoes affected.
Again; I know this comment is long and I am trying my best to not sound like a prick, I just wanted to put my input in. The issues I pointed out did not seem like they were intentionally left out. If you have any issues with anything I said please let me know.
Thank you Alferia, I am familiar with your content/channel. Firstly, you are absolutely right about the number of tornadoes within one day, that was a mistake, I remember looking into it before but I somehow dropped the ball on that. As for your other critiques, I think they can all be summed up to I intentionally did not go into the exact details, especially with how the EF scale came to exist, because going into too much detail would have been bad for viewer retention. The point of the video was to show the logical flaws with fully depending on damage to assess a tornado, not the history of the EF scale. I take pacing and rhythm seriously when editing my videos. As for your statement that the EF rating of a tornado does not affect the historical significance of a tornado, I vehemently disagree with that statement. EF5 producing environments are looked over with a fine comb, while EF4 environments (except for Mayfield) will most likely get swept under the rug. Also, you never addressed the data found by Josh Wurman, Karen Kosiba and others that shows how the distribution of tornado intensities is extremely different with the DOW than what is found using traditional damage assessment methods, to me that tells the entire story. I appreciate your thorough response.
@@highriskchris I haven't read that analysis but I will definetly look into it at some point. Been busy with finals and all. I also understand the issue of viewer retention, it matters much more regarding watch time with shorter videos than longer videos. The issue of not reading that analysis paper is on me though.
The first half of that paper is quite fascinating and easy to follow, the back half gets a bit technical. Also, I understand how busy college is, you are still posting regularly so serious props. By the way I have a degree in mechanical engineering and worked as a structural engineer for two years in the aerospace industry, but tornadoes swept me off my feet ha good luck with finals
Lol looks like Alferia just posted his next script in your comment section 😂
one thing to note , even if there going to fix the EF scale , are they going to fix the ratings of the past tornadoes? its kind of annoying hearing the it would be this strength today thing and not fixing it
Night time tornadoes are a thing of absolute nightmares. Great video!
Absolutely! That's why it's essential to have a NOAA Weather Radio in your home. They have a very loud alarm that will sound, and nobody will have trouble hearing it even when they are sleeping in the middle of the night. It will wake you up.
Underrated channel tbh
Good video dude, can't wait for The Enhanced - Enhanced Fujita Scale
Mayflower Voliana Tornado of 2014 should've been EF5, brick homes that were well built were swept clean and dirt paths occured as well
I agree. That was probably the strongest tornado in the last 10 years
I have been saying this for almost 2 decades. The Fujita Scale should be based off windspeeds alone. Rating the ElReno tornado anything less than an EF 5 because it did not damage as many buildings (location) is ignorant and sends a false sense of security to the public who may be led to think, "Well the ElReno was only a 3 on the scale so this measley EF2 won't kill me, surely."
It should be based on windspeed and size whether it was only over open plains or across a town should not matter!
It also affects for right or wrong research dollars and again for right or wrong building codes in storm prone areas. The researchers might know how strong these storms really are but tell that to the politicians that right the checks and building codes. " Oh there is not a significant risk of dramatically devastating storms? why bother"
Had that same El Reno tornado were to have hit Manhattan, it would've actually been an F7 tornado.
Yes, a densely populated area would've been wiped off the map.
Firmly believe if that had hit a populated area, it would've been worse than anything we've ever seen
If they really care about emphasizing how much damage something did, just add a "C" for "catastrophic" or something like that. I.E., EF-5 is a strong tornado that passes over empty fields; EF-C5 is a strong tornado that hits a town or kills people.
Driving through western Kentucky yesterday, crossing the path of the 2021 tornado, I was thinking the same thing.
This video was really well made and informative! I will be sharing it with all my friends whether they care about this sort of thing or not. 😄
Thanks Jav. Get the word out!! Lol
@@highriskchris Yessir!
The fairdale il tornado. That is the closest tornado I’ve ever been to. (Big tornado a small one has went through my backyard) I was a good 20-30 minutes away but it took out stuff from the very far end of my city I was able to go see the damage so devastating
As a former part time chaser I completely agree with the premise of this video. The EF scale is bass ackwards.
i feel like the andover ks tornado from april 29 of this year was capable of producing ef5 damage. seeing the drone video of it was insane. it was such a small, and decently fast moving tornado and still caused ef3 damage. in the matter of 1 second, multiple homes were hit by the winds of the tornado and had there roofs torn off and thrown hundreds of feet into the air with ease. it is so scary how those homes were only in the tornado for a second or 2 and instantly got torn apart so easily. i have no doubt in my mind that if that tornado was the same size as your average wedge, it would've caused ef5 damage. I also would like to add that i have heard that some study that was carried out by some European scientists presents evidence that the andover ks, april 29 tornado may have had wind speeds up to 264 miles per hour.
The Ef scale is wildly outdated right now it needs updated
I love that you mention size. People need to get this idea out of their head that the size/width of a tornado determines strength. Tornadoes like Andover, KS (2022), Elie, Canada (2007), and Pampa, TX (1995) all prove that. Sometimes large tornadoes almost a mile wide are weak with 80-100 mph winds.
@@jm5390 yea size by no means determines strength, but if you put the wind speeds of a small tornado into a big one, it’ll cause more severe damage just because the structures will be exposed to the fast winds for a longer time.
@@jm5390 Very good point. I remember hiding in a basement at OU in 2015 as a 2/3 mile-wide tornado headed into town. Looked on the TV just like the Moore tornado two years earlier. Ended up being an EF1.
Yes! I lived in Wichita and saw the damage and was very surprised it only rated a e-f3
Some of these monsters can clearly be an EF5 or stronger. It makes me wonder if the rating is linked to how much money an impacted area receives for reconstruction and relief - if they get any money at all. Like how funds are linked to population without taking inflation into account.
Look I've been in 2 EF-4 tornados. One in 2005 when I was 11 in madisonville, the 2nd Dec 10 in dawson springs. The first one was scary don't get me wrong but even as a kid I didn't feel what I felt that night of Dec 10. Both times we took a direct hit, how I've survived the outrageous weather we've had in my region since 94 idk. But I will always deny the rating of an ef4 for Dec 10. That thing absolutely pierced through me, the pressure the lift and how we was thrown while seeing signs from out of state being thrown into the side foundation was unreal.
Wow. Surviving one violent tornado is incredible, but two? That's insane. Glad you made it through both tornadoes.
The Fairdale, IL / Rochelle, IL Tornado was without a doubt achieving EF5 wind speeds. As someone who lived in the area and still do, Fairdale was completely leveled. Screamed EF5 to me.
I was surprised when the Quad state tornado came by Benton Ky, and took my home, was rated EF-4. I found a map with rating along my track, and in my neighborhood it was rated EF-2. EF-2 tornadoes don’t completely wipe homes from foundations, or disintegrate mobile homes. I would have accepted high end EF-3 for my neighborhood, not EF-2.
They do if the houses are not well anchored.
Not a chance in hell that tornado was an EF4. The sheer amount of energy it took for that storm to be on the ground and that strong for that long but the winds never exceeded 190mph?
Lunacy.
Quad state supercell. Storm surveys didn't see one continuous path.
Well another good point to add is that radar readings for velocity come from higher in the storm where the actual wind speed is much greater than at ground level. The reasoning behind them not using Doppler radar as an indicator is because they’d either have to use that higher wind speed as the “official” wind speed of the tornado, which would cause public confusion because some people might not understand the fact that the reading would be from higher in the storm; or they’d have to do as they do now and estimate the ground wind speed except based off the Doppler radar speed, which as we’ve seen wouldn’t entirely accurate. Either way, it will be extremely difficult to attain a proper wind speed reading without a measuring device close to the tornado at ground level capable of withstanding the extreme winds.
That's not necessarily true, some research had actually shown that wind speeds are maximum right near the ground. This is stated and covered in the paper I mentioned in the video, I linked it in my description, strongly suggest you give it a read.
I was going to suggest using tenth decimals, but there's a much easier way: tornado rating = maximum wind speed, either by damage, recorded, by radar, or by visual observation. The categorization process is where the problem comes from. A gradient/spectrum system provides a clear strength indication. Just use measurements, maybe there's a way to factor in width and subvorticies, represented like a sports score: a 200-5000-3 is a tornado with 200mph winds, 5000 ft wide, with 3 subvorticies
The tornado that hit the candle factory in western Kentucky, also hit the town over from me in west Tennessee. It wiped out several historical houses in one of our oldest cities. My close friend lost her historical home that she had just renovated to look like it did originally. It was reduced to rubble. Her daughter and daughter's friend hid in an area under the stairs, the only part of the house that was still standing... Only the staircase. She lost one kitty, and the other she found days later, and I now have him. He's very scared of storms now but he's a very good boy.
That tornado traveled over 200 miles destroying everything in its path. But it destroyed small towns so it wasn't talked about like others have been.
Wow what a story. Poor souls (the surviving cat and your friend)
If EF-5 is complete devestation, how much is more than complete devastation? Perhaps there need to be more people to agree on EF5 actually taking place. Tuscaloosa 2011 comes to mind as an EF4 that was totally underrated for what reason I don't know. El Reno we know is way more than an EF3 but it didn't hit a stong structure. Great video on an extremely controversial topic.
It still blows my fucking mind that the widest tornado ever recorded, with the second highest wind speeds ever measured on planet fucking earth, is only an EF3. what an absolutely pathetic joke. ever since then i just haven't taken the EF scale seriously at all and refuse to take their ratings as fact.
They actually found EF-5 damage in Tuscaloosa and still chose to rate it an EF-4
@mpk 666 I would believe they did find that, do you happen to know where specifically? I've read the NWS reports on it as well as the BMX report of their findings. I will admit from what I saw it was not on par with what happened in Hackleburg or Phil Campbell. There were sections of asphalt missing out of the roadway and gas lines ripped out of the ground. But it only takes one indicator, SURELY there was that.
@@GravyHucker It was at some apartment buildings in Tuscaloosa. Not sure exactly where, but it was mentioned in the report IIRC.
@mpk 666 Rosedale Court I bet. I will look at that tomorrow, thanks!
I agree totally. We don't judge the strength of earthquakes based on whether their location reduces or enhances damage capacity. It feels almost like willful misrepresentation of the intensity of storms when the technology to provide better ratings is increasingly accessible.
I'd throw the May 25th, 2016 tornado that hit Solomon, Abilene and Chapman, KS in there with underrated tornadoes. It bent railroad tracks horizontally!
6:37
Precisely. The Mayfield tornado was *OBJECTIVELY* an EF-5. There are no “if’s”, “and’s”, or “but’s”, about it. It damaged the foundation itself. Also, while not many people mention it, it sucked the water tower out of the ground. Completely destroyed it. An EF-4 can NOT do ANY of this, period.
I of course share the same thoughts about the El Reno tornado being an EF-5. I do not care that the higher winds were only in the sub vortecies. Those are still a part of the tornado. And with this particular tornado, those sub vortecies were as WIDE AS FOOTBALL FIELDS. That is FAR larger than most tornadoes! Had they hit something like a well constructed building, one would have had no way to tell, and it would have been rated EF-5.
Sorry for getting a bit spicy, I’m just so tired of tornadoes being rated incorrectly. It is a huge disservice to the victims of those tornadoes, if you ask me. Brilliant video displaying all of this.
I think the Billings Exit tornado on I-35 of April 26 1991 in Oklahoma was one of the few strongest to have ever occurred. I think it was F5-EF5 despite it's rating as F4.
Howard Bluestein's early version of the portable doppler radar put in it the F5 range, clearly. Measurement 286 mph.
@@ILoveOldTWC I could see the effect too. It eroded the packed settled soil between the paved lanes of !-35.
That was the same outbreak as Andover, Kansas (First one).
@@ILoveOldTWC It was the strongest of them all. based upon my observation of the effects first-hand after watching it cross I-35.. I chased it and watched it from it's touchdown point until after it crossed I-35.
I’m with, it seems, the majority of comments: tornadoes should be ranked based on strength, not damage. 200 mph winds are 200 mph winds, whether in a wheat field or city.
with how much more we know about multi vortex tornadoes, i wouldnt be surprised if our current wind speed estimations are wildly incorrect. wind speeds over 400mph seem plausible in tornadoes where the parent circulation is over 200mph
Loved the video! Only thing is it’s “row-chelle” lol. I’m honestly happy to hear that tornado on a video.. I’ve not seen many on UA-cam. That one was about a half mile or so from my parents house just outside of Rochelle. I didn’t realize it was that close to being an ef5
I'm from Chicago, I say it as a Chicagoan would say it
@@highriskchris That much difference in pronunciation?
I was a meteorology student when the EF Scale went live. The big discussion/concern was how would changing the damage rating scale affect tornado climatology. With the noticeable decline in EF-5/F5 rated tornadoes, if/when a revised rating system goes live, I wonder if questionable past tornado ratings will see reclassification?
Hey quick question, are you currently working as an employee for the national weather service? I'm looking for interviews on this topic, specifically current professional meteorologists who are critical of the EF scale. Thanks!
@@chromaslime626 I'm not. I had to find another career path.
I've been saying this for a while now, but you've said it so much better than I could have!
A handful
Of tornadoes that occurred on April 27th could
Of received a EF5 rankings but it was a busy day
Another ridiculous one is the 2016 sulphur ok ef3 because on the damage assessment toolkit, it said on some homes “Destruction of engineered or well. Constructed residence, slab swept clean”
Well done. The NWS underestimates because they are concerned about public panic. (Silly in my opinion)
Panic after the tornado is gone?
While I certainly agree that the EF scale is outdated, there is a problem with using doppler radar to try to measure wind speeds, mainly within radar holes. Since wind speeds are typically higher the higher you go up in a storm, solely using doppler radar would overestimate the ground wind speeds in these areas
The 24 hour tornado record was broke in 2011 by the super outbreak there was over 200 in a 24 hour period
I always considered using damage to scale tornado strength to be absolutely asinine.
For starters, this isn’t 1950. With the advancement of technology, we have enough information on tornados to gauge their wind speed.
Secondly, most tornados usually hit out in barren farmlands. Generally speaking, there aren’t a whole lot of things they can actually damage when they land out there. That essentially means that a tornado practically needs to hit a metropolitan area to garner higher EF ratings.
Thirdly, sometimes the EF scale is misleading because cleanup efforts will start before the damage can be completely surveyed.
I just can’t understand why we can’t use wind speed to rate tornado strength. I think the EF scale doesn’t do justice to just how dangerous tornados can be.
Because actual figures on wind speed are impossible to come by. Too many variables. The average person thinks Oklahoma or Kansas, where you can see for miles and miles on flat topography. But their occurrence is anything but unique to that part of the country. Mississippi, Alabama, Dixie Alley, we have a lot of trees, hills, many occur at night, and are wrapped in rain. Tell me how you will get an accurate wind speed in those, because the Deep South has as many violent tornadoes as the Great Plains, even with all the advanced technology.
I've been wondering for sometime if they've been deliberately underating the tornado for some unknown reason.
There is no reason for El Reno and Mayfield to not be EF5s when they are both probably on the Mount Rushmore of most powerful tornadoes of all-time, alongside May 3rd and Tri-State. EF5s shouldn't be EF5 level damage to well-built structures AND 200 MPH, it should be EF5 level damage to well-built structures OR 200 MPH.
El Reno Chapman Violina Soso-Bassfield and mayfield should definitely be rated EF5. Worcester was also a very strong tornado however there was no doppler radar so it’s tough to tell how strong the winds were. Grazlius did rate it F5 though
The Chapman tornado would of been a EF5 if it hit Chapman directly and that's according to the nws. The Violina tornado was rated as a EF4 because one home was poorly anchor and some homes were nail to the foundation not bolted. The Violina tornado would of been a F5 on the old scale.
@@Sj430 Chapman was also under a slight risk day that too. Which I think slight risk isn’t really light. I think a level 2 out of 5 should be Low chance of severe weather.
Slight/Low/Elevated/Significant/Extreme
Another example is Funing EF4 from China. The problem was that china barely rates tornadoes EF4, talk about EF5
Grazulis is a genius
While everyone talks El Reno, and for very good reasons, I will never buy the "high end" EF4 rating of the Tuscaloosa-Birmingham, Alabama tornado of April 27, 2011. EF5 damage was discovered at an apartment complex in Alberta City by one survey team. Another tornado that hit a less populated area, Hackleburg-Phil Campbell, on that same day, did get the EF5 rating. The EF Scale MUST have a revision and update.
As for the 2013 El Reno storm, if that thing hits a densely populated area, everything would be gone, like what we saw in Joplin, Tuscaloosa, Parkersburg, Iowa, Jarrell, Texas, Andover, Kansas, and back in the 80s, Niles, Ohio/Wheatland, Pennsylvania. Total devastation. The kind of destruction it takes the places hit years to recover and rebuild from.
It is and always will be a damage scale, but if more than just damage can be used to determine the rating process, such as the DOW's measurements (in the ones DOWs are used in), ground scouring, how far debris can get from it's point of origin (checks, papers, receipts), ALL of those should be used.
Personally I'm amazed that it isn't still just based off of wind speed, regardless of the damage it actually dealt.
The Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale is based strictly on windspeeds while the F and EF scales are rated on the type of damage they cause. Measured windspeeds should be a DI.
It wasn't designed to be directly on wind speed. It was in fact, designed to be based on damage. That's the problem. How would we get an accurate measurement of wind speed other than the DOW? Because DOW's won't be used outside of Oklahoma, Texas, or Kansas, and tornadoes are far from unique to those states. Winds can't be DI is there's nothing for it to damage.
I fully agree Chris. Both you and I know that if you would have put El Reno in a heavy populated area, be that a town or city. That it would produce some of the most devastating tornado damage in all history of tornadoes. And to hear that it was only classified as an F3 drives me crazy.
I'm not gonna lie I feel like there is a tornado bigger than ef5
Thats called a hurricane 🌀 . Lol
Technically El Reno from 2013. It broke a lot of rules that were previously “set in stone”
@@nocturnalvisions7782also Lubbock 1970 and Xenia 1974
In my opinion, for my response to the EF scale, I would add more degree of damages nature wise, including trees, shrubbery, etc, also visually looking at damages around, for example, when the December 10 tornado ripped through Bremen, the structures that it hit would still be at EF4 level but around the slabs, ground scouring and tree debarking should be noted, so while the structure failed at EF4 intensity, the area around it should be rated EF5, also, EF5s are slightly more common than meteorologists put it as, but not crazy common, just rare, you can take past tornadoes that possibly or have possessed EF5 wind speeds, like the May 15 2013 Granbury EF4, or the May 24 Chickasaw EF4, all did similar damages, tree debarking, ground scouring, slabs, but that is how I would put my response to the argument of how do we fix the EF scale
I would say at a minimum at least 5 to 10% of all tornadoes reach EF4 or EF5 strength each year.
Because most of them are F3s in essence
This is going to sound dumb, but I honestly feel as if the current EF scale is classist. The only way to get an EF5 in today’s standards is if it were to hit a major city where people have enough money to build extremely well built structures. If you live in a rural or poorer area, the tornado is going to cause even more havoc and slab your house but may only be rated an EF3 or 4 because people can’t afford stronger buildings. To me that just seems wrong.
The damage done is the damage done. It doesn't matter what the rating is.
Actually, no. The Hackleburg-Phil Campbell, Alabama tornado didn't hit a major city, it hit smaller towns, and still got EF-5 ratings, while Tuscaloosa-BIrmingham didn't.
@@tid418 It does matter. It should be about windspeed
I've always found it very arbitrary that tornadoes are not ranked on their actual wind speeds but the damage they caused in the EF scale. Sure, damage is a proxy for wind speed, and it isn't practical to get precise on the ground wind measurements for every single tornado, but the idea that one tornado in a field could have the same wind speed and intensity as another that hit a town, and the one in a field gets a vastly lower rating makes no sense to me. It means tornadoes get ranked on how much they interact with human constructions, rather than any objective measure of the tornado itself. I would think that if you can confirm wind speeds inside a tornado, that measurement would take priority over any other.
Note that candle factory the managers threatened them and kept them there.
Yes, I agree where and we have more mobile Doppler nowadays.
Biggest problem is it skews statistics and lulls people. "EF4s don't happen here. EF3s rarely do, so our mobile home is newer and ok." That kind of skewed perspective based on flawed statistics.
You can't say, "we use damage to gather GUESSTIMATES of wind speed to judge them, then ignore legitimate measured wind speeds in a storm. It's ridiculous and a lie basically. So you can trust your best guess on debris but can't trust VERY advanced measuring equipment? What?! Better yet, doesn't matter that it had extreme organization on radar with an eye like a hurricane and extreme velocity couplets, still just an EF1 cause it hurt corn only. We are lying to ourselves because people are scared to say the wrong thing. Time to teach people the realities. You can run if you pay attention, you're more likely to see one that can tear your home to shreads, you're complacency will kill you. And the false information from experts contributes to that complacency because they trust the experts. More needs to be done.
only in ohio 💀
not funny at all
I agree that the EF scale needs to be updated again. But it needs to keep Fujita's name because his brilliance and diligence was groundbreaking. Maybe we need Tech-supplemented Fujita -- a TF scale.
I think one of the greatest shortcomings of the current system is the lack of consideration for the movement speed of the tornado itself. The 2021 Mayfield tornado was a perfect example of this. The tornado was simply moving so fast that it did not remain over any given location for more than a few seconds at most. Compare this to the Jarrel Texas F5 that practically crawled along its path, providing much more time for the tornado to continue damaging anything it hit for several more seconds. Even if two tornadoes had the exact same size and wind speed, if one were moving slower than the other, it would obviously produce more damage than the faster one, causing it to be rated higher when it was no stronger than the other.
I was at the Southeast Severe Storms Symposium at Mississippi State University over the weekend (where one of the tornadoes missed us by about 40 miles to the north Friday night; Amory, Mississippi), and I talked to others specifically about this video. They seemed to agree that the DOW, and other things, not just damage alone, should be utilized in the rating process. El Reno, you put that thing in a densely populated area, it's wiped off the map.
By the way, I think a High Risk should've been put out for parts of Mississippi Friday night, as there was a PDS Tornado Watch in effect.
I was on the ground in Mayfield, Dawson springs and Bremen. Mayfield/Dawson was high end ef4, Bremen was Ef5. There was finally granulated and wind rowed debris. This only happens in the highest level events.
Yeah it upsets me whenever I hear that El Reno was an EF3. That was as bad as the infamous May 3rd 1999 tornado. I don’t see how it wasn’t..wind speed may have been slightly lower (possibly) but it was even wider which has to hold some merit too. Once I found out that’s how they measure what strength the tornado is, I thought that really makes no sense at all..how could you measure 302 mph winds and say it’s an EF3?!
Im here from Celton's channel. Subbed my guy.
Thanks!