How Tornadoes are Rated - The Enhanced Fujita Scale
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 04. 2022
- The Enhanced Fujita Scale is how tornadoes are classified, but what really goes into rating a tornado and how does the scale even work. This goes through how the scale works, it's strengths and weaknesses, and the future of the EF Scale.
FOLLOW JUNE FIRST:
www.junefirstweather.com/
/ junefirstweather
junefirstwx?lang=en
/ emoriartywx
JUNE FIRST PODCAST:
open.spotify.com/show/1Pj1SAV...
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
www.buzzsprout.com/1860666/
SUPPORT JUNE FIRST:
Merch: www.junefirstweather.com/shop
#Tornadoes #EFscale #EnhancedFujitaScale - Věda a technologie
Good stuff man. I think the 2013 El Reno tornado being downgraded to an EF3 really was the eyeopener for a lot of people to the need for an update to or replacement of the EF scale. But where I think weather twitter gets lost sometimes is difference between EF5 level winds and EF5 level damage - as you pointed out about the EF scale really being a DI scale not a windspeed scale.
Yeah, consider that the Elie tornado from 2007 was rated an EF5 because of a video showing it throwing an entire house into the air!
@@galdutro That was incredible! Craziest F5 I've ever hard of. Tornadoes can be crazy and unpredictable, and that one took the cake! It looped back on it's own track 3 TIMES! It hit a tool shed or something at the start of it's career and went back to strike it again, as if the storm wasn't satisfied with the results!
@@galdutro Speaking of entire houses picked up and F5's, here is an early quote of that vary thing!
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper dated March 20, 1925:
"All morning, before the tornado, it had rained. The day was dark and gloomy. The air was heavy. There was no wind. Then the drizzle increased. The heavens seemed to open, pouring down a flood. The day grew black…"
"Then the air was filled with 10,000 things. Boards, poles, cans, garments, stoves, whole sides of the little frame houses, in some cases the houses themselves, were picked up and smashed to earth."
@@d.dementedengineerc99isurf26 very interesting excerpt!
I do not live in the US. But where I live back in 2009 there was a tornado that is the biggest contender for the first EF5 rating in the country’s history! In the evening of September 7, 2009, national holiday celebration Brazils Independence Day, a monster tornado tore through a small community in the municipality of Guaraciaba, in the state of Santa Catarina.
One of the most incredible damage indicator of this storm was a house that was launched to the top of a hill, about 70 meters away from its foundation. There was a family inside and incredibly everyone survived!
@@galdutro That quote is a report about the notorious "Tri-State Tornado" of 18 March, 1925. Second deadliest tornado in recorded history and the deadliest in USA, killing 689 and tracking well over a hundred miles.
It had many of the now-recognized trademarks of an F5, even though the Fujita scale was still 50 years away. It was so bad, Dr. Fujita himself surveyed the aerial damage that was recorded on film. It was in fact his original prototype of the F5 rating!
Excellent job explaining how the Enhanced Fujita scale works. All I'll say is that if Fujita was around today I think he would absolutely take into consideration radar measurements when classifying tornadoes. Great imagery selection, and I am really digging the animations.
Agreed! Very curious to see how this new scale shapes up with added classifying methods beyond DIs, especially with some of these drill bit-type tornadoes with vortex breakdowns potentially breaking the sound barrier.
Of course he would, he was a man of science!
@@Freakingbean well it is not included in the current ef scale, which is a problem in my opinion. Although they are supposedly updating the scale, they've been saying this for years and still nothing has come of it.
@@junefirstwould you mind elaborating on "vortex breakdown"?
Also, if you have an understanding about two celled structure (downdrafts in tornado cores I think is the "simplest" explanation, to my understanding), I'd love to hear about that too.
No he wouldn't, because if they measure the wind speeds in above the surface, and the rotation doesn't touch the ground, it's not even a tornado. That's why they only consider what happens at the surface. The El Reno tornado would have been rated higher if they had damage to trees, poles, or other things that indicated higher wind speeds at the surface.
Maybe there could be two ratings, a damage EF rating and a "W" wind rating for tornadoes that have reliable wind measurements. For example you could say the 2013 El Reno tornado has an EF3 damage rating and a W5 wind rating, indicating it contained winds that could potentially have caused EF5 damage. Most tornadoes won't have a W rating because most won't have a reliable wind measurement but for the ones that do, it would help indicate the true strength of the tornado.
That’s exactly what we need. A wind speed for them. And an accurately estimated speed instead of 200mph max like the ef5s of the 2011 super outbreak.
EF rating as in funnel wind rating, and add a D rating as in damage rating.
cause in majority people knowledge, most public already assume EF as in wind speed.
then there’s EW (enhnaced wind)
@@leatherDarkhorseno?
That's a great idea
My understanding of an EF-5 tornado, was bark stripped from trees, homes completely sucked off their foundations, including everything from the basement if equipped, making sheltering in your basement from an EF-5 futile.
Ground/pavement also torn upon or ripped clean/scoured.
Ef5 would go beyond debarking trees
I live in the same county as Mayfield, and seeing the damage on the news and in person just days after made me realize how strong this tornado was. I was completely shocked when they gave it an EF-4 rating, as it had destroyed half of the town beyond recognition. I have known Mayfield my entire life, yet I had to use google maps to be able to find my way through town. It was genuinely devastating to such a high degree, it’s incomparable to any other event I have ever experienced.
All of the things you mentioned have been recorded in EF4 tornados, some even in EF2 and EF3.
@@friedtoaster4059 No, it wouldn't. The evidence is already in. Everytime I drive through Greensburg, KS I see the debarked trees. They're still there.
Direct hits from EF5s have killed people in normal residential basements, but it's not common at all. The prevailing wisdom is "survival cannot be guaranteed" during a direct hit from an EF5. In the case of the Phil Campbell EF5, the pictures I saw of one notable victim showed his house was built into a hillside and the basement was breeze-block, not poured concrete. Thus the basement was destroyed when the foot of loose soil on that side was blasted away, allowing the cinderblocks to be displaced inwards.
I suspect a poured reinforced concrete basement, storm shelter or safe room is going to protect you from essentially 100% of the tornadoes you'll ever see in your life. If an EF5 is coming for you, it'll be lighting up the velocity radar like a Christmas tree, so many pay attention to how serious that couplet looks?
Well done. As former power system engineer and CEO i will never forget helping cleanup in Tuscaloosa, AL after the 2004 tornado outbreak. I examined the path the F4 and at times F5 twister cut thru the city. My heart sunk as i heard the stories and loss of life. I examined a recently constructed power substation which had been built less than a year before the storm. The station was directly in the middle of the tornado's path. The steel I-beams had been ripped out of the concrete with only portions of the galvanized steel anchor bolts broke off and twisted over. Those people never had a chance.
People fail to take into account the speed of the tornado, a tornado moving at 10mph will sit over an area for longer doing more damage, vs a tornado moving at 50mph with higher windspeed that may do less overall damage.
That’s an interesting take I’ve never even thought of before.
Yep. That's why I don't think Jerell should be viewed as one of the strongest tornados. If you took any EF4/5 and placed it over a subdivision for that long at peak intensity and width, you'd probably see the same level of damage. If Jerell had blown through that subdivision at 40 mph I doubt it would have been rated F5.
@@EmeraldBayMoviesyour definitely right but I feel like it was deserved based on damage. That's where I feel wind speeds don't necessarily matter
@@EmeraldBayMovies it definitely wouldn’t has been as bad but I think it would still get the rating, that thing looked like a beast
It was, a very strong multivortex beast. But it was a very unusual tornado, especially in its slow creep forward. Only the most noticeable part of its oddity.
Tornado * picks up skyscraper, mangles it, and throws it 235k miles to the moon.
NWS: yes, it was a high end EF4 200mph, because there was a rusty nail found 16.2 miles from the scene.
Actually there was two rusty nails and some Elmers Glue, so it was actually an EF0.
@@thelouster5815 bahhhhhhhhh shoooot 😂😂😂
Tornado: flings Atlanta, Georgia to a different multiverse
NWS: EF1
Tornado: Tosses the entire frigging state of Kansas into Planet X
NWS: Yeah but a chunk of Kansas was left behind... EF2!
Tornado: Blows the multiverse into a nonexistent space
NWS: Yeah but we are still alive and the multiverse wasn’t even destroyed
When the 2021 Western Kentucky Tornado swept through Bremen it was noted that several well built homes were destroyed with several being "swept away", earlier near Mayfield another community was hit which again several homes were considered to be "completely swept away" yet the highest winds were rated to be 190 mph, radar indicated winds reached an excess of 203 mph meaning it had ef5 class winds yet it seems the Nws seems to think otherwise, the Ef scale has been changed over time, it seems like homes being "swept away" no longer is ef5, when tim marshall and several other academics released a docuement on the tornado they stated "had it encountered more wind resistant structures or been slower, its possible it could've been rated ef5." Despite the fact that most of the ef5 indicators are specificslly meant for well built common structures (like well built anchored homes) which had been swept away in this tornado, along with several metal light postings being RIPPED OUT OF THERE CONCRETE FOUNDATION, it still wasn't appearentally enough to earn it an ef5 rating, also I looked for any particular reason for why it was only ef4 maybe the homes were structurally inept? I found no such descriptions for any of the well built homes that were completely swept away. Tldr: we need to clarify what is and isnt ef5 indicators for future ratings and correct past ratings to be more accurate.
I didn't understand the toe nailing explanation either, or the need to brackets to anchor studs in a 2x4 wall. Those Walls are held firmly into concrete with steel lag bolts, it takes many magnitudes of force greater than the shear strength of a nail or the leveraging of the walls off the footer to remove the footer (base) 2x4 in such a stud wall. And by in by Toe nailing didn't become standard in construction until the wide spread use and distribution of framing nailers capable of driving a 3.5" farming nail, this came about in the 80's and didn't become standard practice until then so if a tornado hits an older home it is unlikely to have these improved building methods. getting to the point though, we just saw in pictures in this video that the walls were gone, I wont dispute that it doesn't take 200mph winds to do that damage. But look at the other damage staring you right in the face and what is missing from those pictures. Large sections of the footer boards from the stud walls are missing from the perimeter of the home. 3/8" steel lagbolts shear strength north of 3500lbs, every 2 feet, those boards are sucked down into the concrete when those bolts are torqued. Those boards are largely missing, how is that not an indication of much higher windspeeds than EF4? Those boards are held down by a compressive force and in more modern builds a construction adhesive that helps permanently bond wood and concrete is also places down. Every other part of the wall can be missing / cleaved off but those should stay. I have seen a truck hit the side of a house at 40mph (person fainted made a full recovery.) All the vertical studs were obviously obliterated, and to fix the wall we had to remove the remnants of the stud walls. It is not a light feat to accomplish even with a 6' burke bar, and all the fun power tools at our disposal, so the fact that wind essentially deleted those pieces is mind boggling. Do we need a tornado to destroy a literal steel reinforced, 2' thick concrete walls bomb shelter for people to say, "Yeah that's an EF5." ?
I’m from Evansville area and to this day when you head to Kentucky lake you can see the tornadoes path still in 2024. When it happened it look like someone took a weed eater and just went and leveled a path thru the country side for like 80 miles straight
The nexrad radar business doesn't get very accurate and high resolution radar. So it's not reliable for that. Only good for detecting tornadoes but no super detailed information on them. That's why damage ratings exist but they're also flawed.
Seriously a top notch deconstruction of both scales.
The biggest misconception surrounding the F and EF scales is that they are merely extensions of other wind scales like the Beaufort or Saffir-Simpson scales, and that they have simply been adapted for tornadoes. In actuality, the Fujita scales are much closer in nature to something like the Modified Mercalli scale, the damage scale counterpart to the Richter Moment Magnitude scale for earthquakes (although the RMM can take precedent over the Mercalli due to the vast array of seismic sensors across the world, something a wind speed scale for tornadoes doesn't have the luxury of).
Very excited to see where Tim and crew take the scale in attempting to incorporate more factors. Following VORTEX1 in the mid 90s, Joshua Wurman theorized the creation of a "PF" or Potential Fujita scale that took all measured factors (damage, radar measurements, in-situ measurements, visual analysis, etc) into account, assigning it a rating based on what the peak winds of the tornado could have done had they hit structures.
I was talking about this with a buddy of mine. If an EF3 twister sits on even a well built house for more than 10 or 20 seconds it can achieve EF5 damage. Wind speed should be the KEY rating criteria
Jarrell, Tx.
if a tornado sits on an inhabited area for a very long time, that makes it an extremely dangerous tornado and the rating should reflect that, the wind speed just isn't really as relevant without all other factors involved
Not exactly
An ef3 could sit on a town for an entire day and will never leave behind the scoured sand blasted wasteland that the jarrell tornado did
7:18. In the mayfield example, the picture shown also had bolted bottom plates removed, leaving the empty bolts. So accordingly, still should have been rated higher.
yeah theres literally no way 'quad state' wasnt ef5 but the system is a meme to protect from having to build stronger houses
@@bearzdlc2172as an Oklahoman considerably close to Moore , YES, I swear it’s a way to save money because If it was an ef 5, they’d have to spend so much more money to rebuilt , while if it’s lower they don’t have to help as much because it’s a “weaker” tornado . I’ve seen this excuse used before time and and time again, even with lower type tornados like a ef4 they’ll try and deny in, for example at this moment all the news stations are trying to say this one tornado that hit this one town was “just an ef 3”
When the national weather service said their putting it as a ef 3 temporarily cause that’s the LOWEST it COULD be , not that it’s confirmed, and states multiple times their NOT DONE SURVEYING, yet the news brushes it of.
Unfortunately when it comes down to tornado ratings you have to remember the people rating the tornados also have to help pay for revcovery efforts alot , they work with the state after all , so ofc they’ll try to do what they can do lower the amount of money they have to spend
@@bearzdlc2172 What do you think would happen if there was suddenly a requirement to build homes that can withstand a tornado? How much higher do you think the prices would be? You wouldn't be able to have a garage. You wouldn't be able to have windows. These are the main culprits that allow the winds to get inside a home and cause them to be destroyed. I can see some sort of incentive for a safe room to be built in to a home, but you won't be able to make a home tornado proof, ever.
@@bearzdlc2172wouldn’t it make more sense to rate it higher than it actually is then? If a house is badly built, giving the tornado a higher rating would justify excessive damage.
I've always wondered how much time effects the damage. Obviously facing ten seconds of 200 mph winds like in the case of a fast-moving tornado is going to cause much less damage than facing the exact same winds for minutes, like in the case of a stalled tornado like Greensburg 2007.
That's kinda why they rate tornadoes by the damage they cause and not the wind speed of the tornado. An EF2 wind speed would probably leave a bare slab and ground scouring if it was sitting in one place long enough.
Jarrel has entered the chat
The EF scale gives estimates of the highest wind speed for a 3 second burst(gust) of wind.
I am an insurance agent and we had 7 clients who completely lost their homes the other week. We know these people. They could care less whether it was an ef3 that destroyed their homes or an ef5. All they know is they lost what they have collected over the years. The only bright side to this is that they collected on the insurance they have been paying for, and this will help them to get their lives back in order. The end of the video that acknowledged their lives was truly the best part of the video.
Thanks for the jump scare man. I nearly shit myself. 0:00. Gave me flashbacks to when I was a child. When the EAS test would go off. Every day at noon. At my grandmas house. Every time I heard it, I thought an angry dog was on the loose or a tornado was gonna kill me. That damn sound…
It scared me too but it's probably bc of what happened Monday and still haven't recovered from the thought that a real tornado went over my house and somehow still have a home
@@codycallaway9057 dude I had a tornado warning on Monday, I freaking jumped when the alert went out. Dude I jumped higher in fear than the ISS in space man, I was orbiting Neptune or something man.
@@justcallmeBIG_L I wasn't too scared until the power began to flicker then I really started panicking, thankfully my dad was there to help get the dogs put away before it hit. But thankfully our house is fine with minor damage, and a hole in our wall from debris hitting our house
Nice work June First, thanks for the well presented info.
Follow you on twitter and finally checked out your channel. Great content dude. The animations are great and your videos overall are a step above alot of other storm chasing content out there 👍🏼
That means a lot to me! I have a lot of fun making these videos and educating, but it requires a lot of work. Seeing comments like these let me know that the effort is worth it.
Great video man, you put a ton of work into this!
Excellent video! Great explanation and information. We continue to learn so much about tornadoes and this is a key vital part of it. Thanks for sharing this great information!
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks!
I hope that the new ratting scale could leave in consideration more contextual indicators, like the amount of debris aloft and even things like how the debris from previous destroyed structures is influencing in the destruction potential of the tornado. (E.g. a tornado over a city comprised of mostly masonry brick buildings, due to high mass to surface area of the bricks when compared to wood, will greatly reduce the debris scattering distance and thus will reduce the amount of material being thrown on other structures during impact, reducing the cascade effect of the storm.)
The Mayfield Kentucky tornado had higher gate to gate winds than the El Reno tornado. The scale needs to be reformed a second time honestly.
@@Litch016 "Gate to gate?" What do you mean?
True, different debris in the tornado will behave differently and impact that damage indicator. A wall of 2 by 4's is quite different than a wall of bricks, for instance.
@@d.dementedengineerc99isurf26 gate to gate if I’m not mistaken is the biggest difference in speed*direction between two pixels right next to each other in a Doppler scan.
@@Litch016 yea but for mayfield it did have higher gate gate but the radar was scanning about 1000 ft off the ground and for el Reno it was Doppler on wheels so it was scanning very close to the ground
Amazing video, this channel deserves much more recognition than it gets.
6:32PM June 12, 2022.
@@pepsihat Happens
@@nicholaskrasznavolgyi6340 The drought ends.
6:32PM June 12, 2022.
I appreciate that! Thank you!
Watching more and more of your channel and I've been seeing other channels shout you out. Keep up the good work I believe you're going places with this.
This is a great vid. You have an exceptional speaking voice. Thankyou.
I really hope a new scale is gonna be released soon, cause I have a theory, the EF5 tornado happens a lot more often then we think. It just doesn't hit towns all that much, so it doesn't get classified. If I'm correct, I hope I'm not, but if I am it's pretty scary to think about.
Edit: WTH is happening in this thread?
The NWS already gave a little preview of the new scale
They do. Since 2013, there have been many tornadoes that have most likely been EF5 intensity, but didn’t strike any structures at peak intensity. For example, the 2016 Sulfur, OK tornado, the 2021 Mayfield, Kentucky tornado, and the 2020 Bassfield, Ms tornado
@@ozone8897 didn’t know they gave a preview of it. do you have a link to it?
@@lewkeee That's an article on the revised scale
While I the EF5 count might be slightly higher, I think this method has artificially skewed tornadoes to the low end. If a EF2 impacts nothing but farmland, its actually an EF0, and is recorded as such. So the majority of tornadoes appear as weak EF0-1. This impacts statistics. It will be interesting to see if more EF2-4 tornadoes occur and we don't know it
Amazing video! Thank you!
Thoughtful. Well presented.
As someone who lived through both Moore tornadoes the damage photos in the beginning were definitely not EF5 damage.
Well done. Good stuff man.
Excellent work.
Your diagrams and visuals were top notch 👌
Great video, explained very well.
Really great video!
Very well done, and your closing words are very well said. I saw this on my timeline some time ago, and amidst all the discussion over the recent Greenfield (as of now a preliminary EF4) tornado, I decided to visit it. I do feel like the Greenfield tornado will be a good case study of how effective and accurate the current EF scale truly is, possibly more than the Mayfield tornado. The DOW certainly recorded EF5 windspeeds, but whether that will factor into the tornado's EF rating is, for now, unclear.
That said, you're absolutely correct in how an EF rating brings no solace or comfort to those affected. In the venomous keeping community, there's a saying: "The most venomous snake in the world, is the one that just bit you."
If you're in the line of fire of a tornado, then the most powerful tornado in the world, in that moment, is the one headed for you.
That was a neat bit of acousmatic composition at the start there.
Absolutely lovely video.
Great video!
Amazing video, I can only thank you for the work you have done and for the explanation of this scale.
Vengo dall’Italia e qui i tornado sono molto rari, specialmente quelli EF4 e EF5, però seguo sempre le live stream dagli USA nella stagione dei tornado.
Fate davvero un grande lavoro.
I vostri concittadini dovrebbero essere fieri e grati per ciò che fate.
A lot of love for all storm chaser out there 💞.
Very well produced!!
Glad to see anyone learning how to drive a manual. It’s very normal for someone unaware of how it all works to have these problems, that said nothing is more rewarding once you get all down right. Good to see your patience JH, also thanks for teaching your girl how to drive a bolt action. #savethemanuals
I really like your videos I love tornadoes, been Through a few of them in my life, ive always been interested in them, But your videos are good they're very educational and scientific, I like that. Entertaining and educational. buddy great work. 👍
Thank you for the thoughtful reply! It means more than you realize and I'm really appreciative of that. Really happy to see people enjoy the work we make!
THIS IS AMAZING, WOW
The best information and most accurate scale and measurements will still never be any match for the staggering ignorance of the general public.
Great video 🌪
Great video 👍🏼👍🏼
Well done
The Henryville tornado March 2nd 2012 should have been rated an EF5. It ripped an entire sub station from its bolted foundation and chucked it. It also twisted steel I beams in the school like twizzlers. Damage path was huge and extremely devastating/destructive.
I personally think it should be rated off wind speed. Hurricanes are not rated off the damage they do but the wind speed and other storm related criteria. El Reno is a prime example. Because it was in the middle of nowhere and didn’t hit much it was rated as an ef3 when we all know that was an ef5 tornado with insane wind speeds.
It's a bit different, though. Hurricanes are massive and can be measured from any number of locations, and can even be flown through with a specialized plane and crew. They're spotted well in advance. Tornadoes on the other hand are very flash-in-the-pan events that, if you want to measure them, require a lot of setup ahead of time that you can deploy in a hurry. Storm chasers specialize in this but they aren't always there. Radar can indicate wind speeds, but it's not necessarily accurate.
Personally, I think the EF scale is fine as it is, since it's been used for so long to measure the damage a tornado did. These days, I think we can figure out better ways to measure the wind speeds of a tornado. Like... Just stating the wind speeds.
We can just say outright that the El Reno tornado was an EF3 tornado with wind speeds of 300+ mph. That tells you way more than saying it was an EF5. Saying it was an EF5 implies it destroyed a city. But it didn't. It did EF3 damage. But it had wind speeds of 300+ damage and was 2.5+ miles wide. That's much more descriptive, don't you think?
The thing that I believe calls the F and EF scales into question is a criticism I haven't heard anyone make and that stems, ironically, from one of Fujita's other innovations - the understanding of multiple suction vortices within storms. Say you have a large wedge tornado that is capable of doing EF4 damage but there is a vortex within (or even a satellite vortex) that produces EF5 damage, with higher recorded windspeeds.
At what point are we able to gauge individual vortices? Remember, it's thought to be ONE continuous vortex that tossed the Weather Channel crew and killed the Twistex team. A vortex that was moving so fast within the parent system that there was no way to avoid it.
As he said in the video, the EF rating of a tornado is based on the highest wind speed DI. So if EF5 damage was produced by that vortex or satellite vortex and recorded, the tornado as a whole would earn an EF5 rating.
I wish I could hear the forecasting meteorologist say “…tornado is heading to x area with 300mph winds…” because that way I’d understand if I could ride it out in my home or needed to leave the area, in advance. For now I try to listen for terms and traits like multi-vortices, long track, large debris ball, heavy debris, violent, wedge, mile wide, etc. The problem with that is the tornado would already be on its way, potentially too close for me to escape. My town was hit by a tornado just a few days ago, and according to the trip odometer, we were 1/10th of a mile from the edge of the tornado. It was an EF2/EF3, but it had just developed. If it was the Moore tornado, it would have been large enough to encompass my entire addition, and we would not have had a safe place to be. No underground shelter, no basement, no safe room, just a half-bath.
Thank you for this!!! So many people think they know better than the nws or that they're under rating because of insurances but I don't think that's the case. The nws is just following their guidelines plus they're the ones who have had the most training for this stuff and the ones ACTUALLY seeing the damages firsthand and not just through a photograph you know? Plus in ones like the Mayfield Kentucky tornado tim Marshall was surveying it and if ANYONE knows what they're doing with this stuff it's him!
I don't get the insurance conspiracy to be honest. Insurance is going to have to fork out a fortune regardless of rating if it levels a town.
Thanks for jumpscaring me in the intro ;-;
Good presentation with an effective explanation. An observation from another science to consider: Astronomy has two scales to determine the brightness of any given star with an Absolute Magnitude and an Apparent Magnitude. Would an analog of those two scales work for a tornado? 🧐
I like that thinking. I'd almost approach it that way since I think measuring a tornado itself versus analyzing damage are quite different practices, but I doubt the powers making the new version will do that. Why confuse people more with a 2nd scale when you can just modify the existing one.
@@junefirst That is true. However, turbulence is difficult to properly model and a tornado is definitely the most violent thereof! Although somewhat flawed, the EF scale is nonetheless methodical and uses many different damage indicators, which is good. Perhaps the update will improve it more.
@@junefirst Stars and tornadoes have several things in common. 1. Both are powerful natural phenomena that have great impact on their local environments, and 2. both will give different intensities depending on one's frame of reference. The EF scale seems more akin to apparent magnitude, whereas Doppler Radar readings are more like absolute magnitude.
Have you seen the preview that the NWS gave of the new EF scale?
as a builder and framer we build walls on the deck "laying down"..once the wall is built we stand it up and put it in its place and either nail the plate down to wood or bolt it down to concrete.....this is pretty standard framing practice for many years....big posts, strong walls, shear panels and beams get hardware from simpson but have never seen a house where every stud was toe nailed along with nails thru the plate....i have taken apart studs by hand that were toe nailed and its not much different than plate nails (if you pull the stud apart in the direction of the nail).....too many nails in a 2x4 will weaken the lumber......learning something on paper vs physically dealing with it daily are not same thing....seriously doubt a tornado with swirling winds are only pulling straight up, lol.......they are pulling every direction
the scale should be windspeed and windspeed alone....that is an undisputed fact that cant be refuted......
I don't think you know what the word "undisputed" means...
If the Fajita scale is meant to define wind speeds of the Tornado and damage done is only a signal or a point of measure, than any radar able to detect the wind speeds is more than enough too classify the tornado.
False. They cannot ever use radar estimated speeds because they aren't measuring windspeeds at the surface where the damage occurs.
@@reformcongress That method of measuring wind speeds where the damage occurred was only made out of desperation when no system existed to measure wind speeds other than a spiny 3 cup thing, back when Radars couldn't do it, back when the computers where not powerful enough to use radar data streams to see it. Now computers are powerful enough and radar systems have a high resolution feed back enough to actually measure wind speeds directly from the wind that is moving in the air. Just because the wind that hits your building directly isn't EF5 doesn't mean the wind that missed your building isn't EF5. Building damage can't measure what doesn't hit it but radar can measure it, so you are wrong.
The original purpose of the scale was and is to measure wind speed itself, not measure the damage itself. You are forgetting that when you are a damage as a measure purist. radars now days are high resolution enough and processors and memory on the computers are powerful enough to actually see that wind speeds from the radar sensor directly. If you can't accept what the original method of measure was originally for and how todays technology can measure it wind speeds directly from sensor systems, then you are choosing ignorance and dogma or trying to create false drama threw deceit for clicks and views.
Great job explaining how it work! Btw idk if you heard but the EF scale might be getting an upgrade soon😮
Yup! The new version has been in the works for several years now. When more details are available, I'll be sure to do a follow up video!
The NWS already gave a preview of it!
@@junefirst The NWS already gave a preview of it!
He says that in the video...
I really like the explanation of how walls are constructed in houses. I have seen too many houses get completely built within weeks. Makes me wonder how these new houses will withstand a tornado. Is ground scouring a DI??? It should be. I only heard of EF4/5s doing that.
Ground Scouring is very tough to quantify given how much soils and ground composition varies across the country. Its something I'd like to explore more, but I'd want to get the opinions of a civil engineer that specializes in soils before I dive too deep into it.
@@junefirstthe Philadelphia Ms EF5 rating was determined by ground scouring. It was a lot more than chicken scratches in the dirt like you get with an EF4 tho. 2 foot deep trenches. Now that's worthy of the EF5 rating. EF5 ground scouring includes tearing pavement from roadways too. Also noteworthy is when a real EF5 strips a house from it's foundation it looks like it was done with a vacuum cleaner. When an EF4 strips a house from it's foundation it looks like it was done with a wrecking ball. Ef4 leaves a bare slab but theres large debris scattered around. EF5 leaves a bare slab but there's no sizeable debris. And that won't be just one house. It'll be multiple houses. Also cool things happen in a real EF5 like having basement walls dislodged or storm cellars that are heaved out of the ground a little bit. Show me where any of that happened in Mayfield or the "2.6" mile wide El Reno tornadoes.
@@somethin_cool493 Also, in the case where there is debris found on a foundation slab that is rated EF5, it is debris that was wind rowed from another structure. I actually think they outlined what high-end EF4 damage actually is with the Rolling Fork tornado. That 195 mph DI should be used as a benchmark for determining the difference between high-end EF4 versus EF5 damage since it was a very clear and well described example.
One of the examples is the Sulphur ef3 tornado
It was mile wide monster, it destroyed well built homes including one with anchors, it also reached winds of 200 miles per hour, meaning it was capable of producing ef5 damage, but it still got an ef3 for odd reason, it did destroyed good homes
El reno tornado 2013 is also one of the examples, it reached winds of 295 miles per hour, plus it was 2.6 miles, it was given a ef5 rating beacuse of those winds, but later after damage exams it was given ef3
Eh, the sulpher tornado damage didn't look that bad. Homes were collapsed but not even close to swept clean. That looked like textbook EF3/F3 damage to me.
We can measure tornadic winds now. It makes sense to use that in lieu of damage.
I concur man. Those studs ,at a minimum ,should have had hurricane brackets on each side.
Thanks for sharing 👍
I live in western KY near where the tornado went through and it didn’t actually hit Benton it went a little north of it.
The intro got me bc it’s storming in my area right now
The problem is that they are always taking in defects in the building that occurs most of time due to building Age
When they get the new enhanced scaled, I wonder if they can revisit the older ones. They have video, photos, etc.
You would think actual measured wind speed would supersede physical damage. If a wind speed was not measured, then physical damage would be the second option to "estimate" wind speed
It is tough to say though. Some tornados build up speed, then slow down, then build up speed, etc. So I guess measuring the tornados speed when a tornado is at it's slow point could also mess up the numbers lol
Wind speed at the surface, not a couple hundred feet above the surface. Follow the warnings for a severe thunderstorm, then go check the wind reports. A Severe Thunderstorm warning could say, "70mph winds", but that is indicated by radar above the surface, but you will likely have to search through hundreds or even thousands of wind reports to find one that matches a storm warning's radar indicated windspeed.
One of only two tornados in Wisconsin was in Barneveld. It almost wiped the town of the map. Nine people died and nearly two hundred were injured.
el reno should have been ef5 from the oil rig
It was. The tornado that struck the oil rig was the 2011 El Reno-Piedmont tornado, it got an EF5. The controversial and more infamous one is the 2013 EF3
i think there should be two scales the normal ef scale with some tweaks and a separate scale that just determines windspeed so people don't complain
one problem is these tornadoes did do ef5 damage but the NWS either missed the damage or didn't properly rate it because they are bad at measuring the specific damage DI's we should get june first to rate these tornadoes
We could call it Miles Per Hour.
I think the NWS is going out of their way to not rate any tornado EF-5. It scares people.
Which Is Stupid.
Yeah I think damage looks and or factors like radar and mobile readings should impact more. And maybe haveing them say that it was at least a ef3 due to Damage rather saying it is an ef3
It really depends on how well the building is built and how old it is.
I have a question. At about 8:20 in the video it mentions how in 1974 we didn’t have technology to “accurately measure” wind speeds in a tornado.
Does that mean that now in 2023 we do? I ask because from my understanding a DOW reading is NOT an actual measurement but a range of +/- 20mph for example. Also, if I’m correct the radar beam isn’t getting this reading at ground level where the damage is occurring, but at different heights according to distance from the tornado.
Please feel free to educate me on what I may be missing.
Thanks.
We didn’t have widespread doppler radar available in 1974, those came with NEXRAD along with dual polarization allowing correlation coefficients to highlight debris. You could see there were clouds and they had that classic hook shape, but not a whole lot more. Part of the issue with relying on radar indicated winds though as you mentioned is the fact it’s difficult to measure wind at or even near the surface and usually you’re measuring hundreds if not thousands of feet above the ground. That being said, direct measurements of wind speed are imo more telling of actual intensity than damage on the ground.
Hi Carl, good question!
In 2023, we still cannot measure wind speeds inside a tornado for every instance, however, mobile radar (like the UIUC's DOW or OU's RaXPol) has been able to measure tangential velocities in select tornadoes with reasonable accuracy (probably way more accurately than damage estimates, to be honest). With mobile radar, due to how close they are to tornadoes relative to their WSR-88D counterparts, they can slice through tornadoes, though not quite at the elevation of most structures, which you pointed out.
No measurement is ever going to be completely nominal; there will always be a tolerance/range to which how accurate the reading will be. This improve over time. The new science up and coming for estimating tornado windspeeds is photogrammetry, which high resolution footage is used to gather 3D information frame by frame to estimate wind speeds. That'll likely be the next big leap in assessing tornado wind speeds.
Hopefully that answers your question!
Best,
Ethan with June First
@@junefirst Thanks for the reply. Regarding photogrammetry I have a very basic idea of what it is. For example the 1995 Pampa TX F4 I’m told photogrammetry was used and Grazulis said “if there was ever any evidence of 300mph surface wind speeds, Pampa was it”. My question is, how does that work if you have a tornado with such a chaotic debris field with unknown weights and sizes of debris? How does it determine a speed range if the weight of any particular debris is unknown?
We should switch to the Vegeta Scale, it goes over 9000.
Personally, if I could give them a suggestion:
Keep the EF scale to rate damage caused, and bring back the original F scale for windspeed rating. To use El Reno as an example, using my suggestion it was an F5 tornado that caused EF3 damage.
Estimating windspeeds based solely on damage caused is too inaccurate to be realistic, it does not account for a tornado's forward motion or how close the tornado was to the damage site.
Just my two cents, and only my opinion.
I think you would be the best person to talk about the previous Fujita scale. For example, an F5 was stated to require wind speeds of 261 mph or more. However, high-end EF4's nowadays sometimes have enough force to inflict identical damage. Maybe you could use your physics and mechanical engineering expertise to explain and/or confirm why this is the case and compare your work to those of the first people who suggested the enhancement of the Fujita scale. Two authors that might be worth checking out for that video are Thomas P. Grazulis and Long T. Phan. Great video, Ethan! 👍
The reason why F5s back then cause as much damage as high end EF4s now is because the original F scale was completely wrong. Fajita actually guessed the wind speeds with little to no evidence. An F5 tornado could theoretically have wind speeds as low as 130mph (EF2)
@@ozone8897Citation needed
But again, how do you know there EF rating? Does someone go into the field and pull up the tornados skirts?
Excellent explanation... You're absolutely right, people who argue against the validity of the F/EF scale typically don't understand it. They seem to think it's based 100% on wind speed, when in fact it's based on damage estimations of wind speed. Now that we've had the technology to accurately measure wind speed remotely for years, we really should add that to the scale somehow for those who still don't quite understand how the EF scale works. It's actually very common for a tornado to have "EF5 potential" without it actually doing EF5 level damage.
Just like a thunderstorm that can have severe level winds of say 70mph, but the winds at the surface are only 55 maximum that are observed by actual weather stations. The radar does not measure winds at the surface like weather stations do. Right now, the wind 100 feet above me is probably 20 or 30mph higher than at the surface without any convective system nearby.
We can even just say "200 mph EF0." Just from that alone, you know that there was a powerful tornado that barely hit anything, if it hit anything at all. What's so weird about that? Why even stick to a scale when we can just say the wind speed and add on the EF scale for an idea of the damage? People get so weird about the EF scale.
@@NetherStray Because it's not truthful. The method for rating storms is in the EF Scale publication. It isn't anyone else's place to change it.
@@NetherStray Additionally, the rating is for a 3 second burst of wind in the EF Scale.
@@NetherStray Weathermen already do report the measured wind speeds along with the EF rating, but people still get confused. We still need a damage scale either way, to asses the aftermath of a tornado, and EF scale works great for that... it's just difficult for some people to understand.
It's like they said in Twister. "It's a measure of how much it eats"
A ef2 hit my house in bartlesville ok on Monday
So, as buildings get made cheaper and cheaper, the rating will go down. Sounds like insurance companies don't want to pay out to me.
"Now introducing..the Advanced EF scale!"
Town still exists somewhat so: Aef1-3
No trace: aef4-5
I find it interesting how the EF scale is applied to historical tornados, for which no radar or windspeed measurements exist. For example, a tornado of 1764, at Woldegk, northern Germany. This one had extremely detailed descriptions of effects and damage, thanks to investigations of a priest. It included debarked trees and destroyed, massive stone houses, was therefore rated as likely EF5.
What's so insane about the way the rated the El Reno tornado.....
This storm had winds of 302mph which on the original Fujita scale already makes it an F5....however some scientists claim the gusts were as high as 336mph. Remember the F5 on the original F scale topped out at 318mph...so theoretically the El Reno and Bridge Creek Moore(possibly 324mph) tornadoes were F6 tornadoes. Meaning we not only could have had the widest(tho i believe the Mulhall tornado was wider at a possible 4.3 miles) but, also the strongest tornado ever.
We need a lot more nature related indicators.
I do not understand why the building code does not include storm shelters for all buildings in areas of high tornado activity
I don't like that damage plays such a huge role. It's like calling a Ferrari an economy coupe because the owner has never been above highway speeds. If you're rating the power of the tornado itself, actual damage dealt shouldn't be a factor. The focus should be on the strength and potential damage from it.
Bro tue intro when it said "service in Paducah" bro my weather radio is connected to paducah
I think a better option for a new scale would be based on wind speeds, size, time on the ground and distance travelled, and based on that data, give it a rating on how dangerous it would be if that tornado spawned in a major populated area. (That way even if a tornado only travels through rural area it could be properly classified)
THat isn't possible either because not every major populated area is built the same for reasons, that to me, should be obvious.
I agree, the scale is antiquated and should be replaced.
I agree that tornado rating need a change. Tornadoes that have confirmed and reliable wind speeds recorded should be given a 1-5 rating based off of them, as well as a rating of damage. For example the el Reno would’ve been given a 5 on the wind based rating but only an ef3 on the damage. This would be a much better system to distinguish powerful tornadoes even if they are not damage inducing.
Does a falling tree make a sound if no one is around to hear it? We need a better system.
Considering EF scale as damage intensity is still problematic. Ground speed, rotation, updraft, size, sub-vortices... all unique to a tornado, and change throughout one's lifespan.
I am going to become a chaser to further improve radar and warning effectiveness to keep people safe
If the goal of attaching ratings is to better determine parameters for predicting which storm setups will produce the most powerful tornadoes, then wind speed should almost exclusively be the criteria used. If it’s to determine what tornado-hit communities should get fema help, then it should be damaged based.
You wanna know what’s really funny?
r/Tornado has so many people get absolutely pissed if you mention that a tornado should have been properly rated as EF-5. Like, they just downvote you (even though that is an objectively incorrect use of the voting system).
There are some people who go to far when discussing it, but overall, most talk about it because there is an undeniably large fault in the current way tornadoes are rated.
And it doesn’t just end there either, obviously they used to better properly rate tornadoes given the EF-5’s they used to rate as such. I honestly can’t help but feel that they are simply too afraid to give that highest rating because it would scare people. That might seem silly, but that’s the best thing I can think of other than pride getting in the way.
Tornado: Mangles every large structure in the area, digs a 500 foot trench in the Earth, and topples a skyscraper
National Weather Service: Best I can do is EF-4. And I’m taking a *BIG* risk.
Treat every tornado like an f5 and you can’t lose.
So if we’re able to see now how fast winds are measured via radar, why don’t we just use this to determine its EF scale, instead of DIs?
I personally think that the NWS needs a new rating or adds rankings up to EF8 because if people reclass F5s as EF5s then there is going to be major confusion because the Moore F5 is much stronger, deadlier, and has more damage then the Moore EF5.
I wish the NWS made the "at least" part clear. Their wording often does not reflect that at all, and I think that is part of the problem.
I believe we have technology, especially with radar, that can measure the wind velocity in a tornado. Even in 1999, there were mobile doppler radar trucks that measured, according to one source, winds of 301 mph in the vortex of the 1999 Moore, Oklahoma tornado, which is an F-5. Another source claims it was 318 mph, which just one mph faster would have made it technically an F-6. In 2011, mobile doppler measured a wind of 278 mph inside the Tuscaloosa, Alabama tornado, which is an F-5/EF-5, and yet they rated it an EF-4. And I really don't get how a tornado that had it's winds measured by radar at 278 mph would get an EF-4 rating.
I think all EF5 tornadoes seem to be moving very slowly because of their large size, some ef five tornadoes can be up too a Mile in diameter, so I've heard.
The largest tornado was 2.6 miles wide
Super appropriate timing with a tornado last week showing velocity of 260+ and vortex signature a as high as 18000 feet in Oklahoma but not being rated highly. The EF scale is pretty poor at proving the strength if storms in rural locations.
Those wind speeds were several hundred feet above the ground. It's very possible that the velocities at ground level were much lower, as the observed damage suggests.
@@EmeraldBayMovies No just very possible, but almost certain the windspeeds measured by radar are higher than at the windspeed at the surface.