Multi-day outbreak of May 25-31

[Kalrany]

From a lay person's point of view, this looks like a argument of accuracy vs. consistency in determination of the ratings.
What I understand to be fact:
1- EF designation is by definition a damage scale
2- it appears to be an indirect measure of wind speed
3- wind speed has NOT been used in the past to determine EF rating
What I see as confounding factors:
1- damage is a subjective measure that can be hard to determine in rural areas
2- changes in building codes, materials, etc. can mitigate damage
3- wind measures are dependent on location of the instrument
4- wind measure accuracy is variable by equipment
What I see as fundamental questions of the argument:
1- is an occasional indirect measure a better indicator than a controversial hard reading
2- is there a universal conversion to implement EF and wind into each other
3- is there any scale in existence that can be used in place of the universal EF that gives a better interpretation of both sets of data (wind when available, EF when not)
4- what would it take to get such a system implemented, all things being equal
I have to say that the concept of consistency over accuracy makes the scientist in me cringe in deep pain, but I have spent enough time trying to decipher epidemiological evidence to know that consistency can be critical for long term projection using data (such as is required for forecasting). Personally, I don’t think that throwing out the wind data is the answer (solid data is hard enough to come by as it is), but there are a number of other questions that have to be addressed if it is to be used in a manner that is meaningful for future analysis.
So is EF the way to go? What would be better?

Please correct me if I am wrong. I am very new to this area and am trying to understand. This is just my interpretation of what I have been reading on this argument.

[Ntxw]

You put it all together very well. In the end the wind data is mostly for record keeping and to see true nature of the weather phenomena. The damage scale is more important (as Dr Fujita intended) to show the scope of how lives and property are effected so that part won't go anywhere just adjusted. But it is time to start assessing wind readings because in the future it will be our best tool to determine how strong a tornado is coming to a certain area, which is vital. It's the next step imo in improving tornado forecasting.

[brunota2003]

I don't understand why there is even debate. (Okay, so I do, but the debate is "dumb" in my opinion).

In hurricanes (tornadoes), satellites (damage) are used to estimate/determine how strong a system is. However, in the event that recon (radar) is in the area, their readings are taken over what "estimates" say, because estimates are just that. Surface observations are also considered.

While the SS scale isn't a "damage" scale like the F/EF scale is, why wouldn't you still use hard data to supplement the estimates? Or in the event there is little to damage, to show the true strength of the system? You need a benchmark somewhere, how else do you fix the estimating when it is wrong? I fail to understand why this is such a "difficult" thing to figure out, and why we can't "adapt" to the ever changing science.

[Alyono]

Maybe Sandy needs to be classified as a cat 3 at landfall because that is what the damage is consistent with

[brunota2003]

Huh?

...And it's a high fly ball to left field, going, going...

[WeatherGuesser]

I really don't see any comparison between Hurricanes and Tornadoes other than they both spin.

[brunota2003]

I really don't see any comparison between Hurricanes and Tornadoes other than they both spin.

My comparison was strictly between the scales. Both scales utilize ways to estimate strength first and foremost (hurricanes use satellites, whereas tornadoes are estimated through damage). Both have ways to gather observations that show the true strength of the system, versus just a guess. Hurricanes have the hurricane hunters, radar data and surface observations. Tornadoes have probes put down by researchers and DOW data.

Only one scale actually uses real data either to supplement or in lieu of estimates, and that is hurricanes. If we can do it in hurricanes, why can't we do it with tornadoes?

[Alyono]

:uarrow: Huh?

...And it's a high fly ball to left field, going, going...

what I mean is it makes just as little sense to classify a hurricane based only upon damage as it does tornadoes

[CrazyC83]

My opinion on the rating is that they should use radar to help adjust ratings WITHIN the bounds of damage indicators. However, they should not be allowed to rate OUTSIDE the indicators.

For example, if the EF-3 rating was for most walls collapsed except interior rooms (152 mph expected), they could upgrade to EF-4 (max 178 mph) on radar data. However, they would not be allowed to go over 178.

As a result, I personally would drop the El Reno rating to EF-4 on that basis, with 175 mph estimated winds.

[Alyono]

My opinion on the rating is that they should use radar to help adjust ratings WITHIN the bounds of damage indicators. However, they should not be allowed to rate OUTSIDE the indicators.

For example, if the EF-3 rating was for most walls collapsed except interior rooms (152 mph expected), they could upgrade to EF-4 (max 178 mph) on radar data. However, they would not be allowed to go over 178.

As a result, I personally would drop the El Reno rating to EF-4 on that basis, with 175 mph estimated winds.

HUH? That makes even less scientific sense than Uccellini!

Accuracy is far more important in science than is consistency.

[brunota2003]

:uarrow: Huh?

...And it's a high fly ball to left field, going, going...

what I mean is it makes just as little sense to classify a hurricane based only upon damage as it does tornadoes

Gotcha! In other words, you're in agreement with me.

[EF-5bigj]

TWC is doing a special on the 2013 El Reno EF-5 tornado man some of the video is amazing.

[Cyclenall]

TWC is doing a special on the 2013 El Reno EF-5 tornado man some of the video is amazing.

Its good that you brought this up, I just happened upon it 2 days ago and it was indeed a great homage to the insane tornado and the storm chasers that died in it. I was impressed with it and the footage they put together, surprised TWC produced such a great special like that. Its called The Weather Channel Dangerous Days Ahead and if anyone really wants to see it and have it, PM me.

I was going to post something unrelated about that TIV2 intercept inside a violent tornado, I watched a video of an interview with Casey and he said someone told him that what hit the windscreen that produced such a impact and a lasting etch mark (the bright red sparks near the worst of it) might have been a saw blade slicing against the polymer and shatter-proof windshield. I decided to watch that part again and freeze the frame that shows that, and this is what it looks like:





What do you guys think?

[EF-5bigj]

2.6 miles wide is still amazing but after seeing more video it was a insanely scary tornado.