- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This is why the tornado grading scale needs to be changed…
Posted on 5/2/24 at 6:04 am to SmelvinRat
Posted on 5/2/24 at 6:04 am to SmelvinRat
I couldn't live in Oklahoma. I'd be a nervous wreck every time Spring rolled around. My new boss was in the Joplin tornado. If that ever happens to my hometown I'm packing up and moving to Vermont (or wherever Google suggests) the next day.
This post was edited on 5/2/24 at 6:15 am
0
Posted on 5/2/24 at 7:33 am to RummelTiger
quote:
I get why he's saying it.
Playing devil's advocate, if the science community is in agreement with the ranking based on strength and destruction, then why change it just because there was a massive tornado that didn't damage anything?
It would seem to reason that giving the higher ranking due to devastation makes sense.
Why should a strong hurricane that stayed out in open water get the same ranking as a Labor Day, Camille, etc., that actually wrecked shite?
Tornados can't be predicted, only conditions that are conducive for their creation can.
We know about Hurricanes well before they make landfall. The strength matters more there because it impacts planning and reactions to the storm.
Tornado ratings are kind of just a post-mortem.
But I do get what he is saying. There should be a dual scale just so people can understand the actual strength of the storm in a historic sense.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 7:37 am to RollTide1987
quote:
The tornado had a gate-to-gate velocity reading of 260 MPH. Strong circulation could be detected up to 18,000 feet above ground level. Had this thing hit civilization it would have destroyed everything in its path. Thankfully it only damaged farmland. However, due to the way tornadoes are rated, this will only be an EF0/EF1.
It’s a problem of the era the scale was created in.
Back when the Fujita scale was made, radar technology had not advanced enough to be able to tell strength and vertical reference of tornadic producing storms.
So, the only way to classify them was by how much damage they inflicted as they passed by.
Nowadays we have better technology, so another classification system, or a rework is necessary.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 7:44 am to RollTide1987
I thought the "enhanced" part of the enhanced Fujita scale measured by wind speed.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 7:51 am to tilco
quote:
They have gone too far with the “radar indicated” and “debris fields”. I watched the news one night tell me a “radar confirmed” tornado was passing right over my buddies shop. Didn’t even blow the lid off the trash can.
They are crying wolf too much.
Ignorance is bliss
Posted on 5/2/24 at 11:26 am to tilco
quote:
They have gone too far with the “radar indicated” and “debris fields”. I watched the news one night tell me a “radar confirmed” tornado was passing right over my buddies shop. Didn’t even blow the lid off the trash can.
They are crying wolf too much.
The issue here has nothing to do with whether or not this was a tornado. It was 100% a tornado that was verified and tracked via radar. Damage was found right where then radar showed the tornado. I think the only improvement we have to make in regards to debris on radar is continuing to develop an understanding of how the tornado debris signature on radar correlates to the actual tornado. But I don't think that necessarily matters as far as public messaging goes. A tornado is a tornado is tornado when warning the public.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 11:38 am to RollTide1987
Not sure what the complaint is. It's consistent with the academic underpinnings and scholarship for the Fujita scale.
Works cited:
Works cited:
quote:
Bill : Solid F2.
Melissa : See, now you have lost me again.
Bill : It's the Fujita scale. It measures a tornado's intensity by how much it eats.
Melissa : Eats?
Bill : Destroys.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 11:52 am to Pettifogger
I will never not upvote a Twister quote, gif, or meme.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 11:57 am to Pedro
quote:
But what does it matter if a tornado that hits nothing is rated Ef-1 instead of ef-0 or ef-5?
If you are moving and deciding where to build a house, would you be more or less likely to build where there have been numerous F4/F5 tornadoes? If you'd be less likely to build there, then it would be nice to know they happened, even if they only did minimal damage.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 1:20 pm to RollTide1987
Anyone want to play along with this thought experiment?
He added....
>Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. He added....
quote:
I'll even give you some hints. 1. We issued a considerable tag tornado warning for this. 2. It is a supercell getting overtaken by a QLCS/embedded within it. 3. Probabilities based off SPC's tornado intensity probability are 96% EF-1+, 77% EF-2+, 38% EF-3+ and 14% EF-4 +. Enjoy!
quote:
Forgot one last thing....This VROT persisted for multiple scans at greater than 50 knots.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 2:01 pm to OU Guy
I took that as to mean why does the grading scale even matter? Does something happen for a F4 tornado that doesn't happen for a F3?
Posted on 5/2/24 at 2:26 pm to SEC. 593
quote:
Does something happen for a F4 tornado that doesn't happen for a F3?
Well, yeah.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 2:39 pm to SEC. 593
quote:
I took that as to mean why does the grading scale even matter? Does something happen for a F4 tornado that doesn't happen for a F3?
Yeah you don't have to pay your insurance deductible
At least that's what a lot of folks think about hurricanes
This post was edited on 5/2/24 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 5/2/24 at 5:20 pm to LegendInMyMind
And the answer, which is kind of what I figured.
That's the problem with taking radar at face value.
>Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. That's the problem with taking radar at face value.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 5:52 pm to RollTide1987
Mercy. That doesn’t even look like a normal tornado on radar.
Posted on 5/3/24 at 5:35 pm to RollTide1987
There was just a similar looking tornadic storm in Texas.
It was spotter confirmed, but had no significant CC drop.
Hopefully, it did minimal damage to property. It will be interesting to see what it is rated as.
It was spotter confirmed, but had no significant CC drop.
Hopefully, it did minimal damage to property. It will be interesting to see what it is rated as.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News