F6 Tornadoes-What's the Closest We've Come?

[rdale]

"Then if it measures winds over 318mph maybe the tornado would be classified as an F6."

As posted elsewhere - the Fscale is _not_ determined from the wind speed, but from damage.

- Rob

 

[Shane Adams]

On a separate note, I don't see why people are always in a fuss to get a rating on the tornado (and try to get the highest rating possbile at that). Wake up, the thing destroyed property and possibly injured or killed people...who cares what the rating is then?

Because an official F5 tornado is a rare event. It's like a hole-in-one in golf or an unassisted triple play in baseball.

I've never understood why peope ask the question you did above. Who WOULDN'T want to witness the rarest tornado of all? Who cares what the wind speeds are, a tornado that does damage to that degree to earn that ranking is a rare event, and I know I wanna be there when it happens. People are way too sensitive about the "it destroyed homes" issue. I think it's getting a little tired, trying to make people look like they enjoy that aspect of it.

It's marveling an extremely rare, natural event folks. Nothing more.

 

[Kiel Ortega]

On a separate note, I don't see why people are always in a fuss to get a rating on the tornado (and try to get the highest rating possbile at that). Wake up, the thing destroyed property and possibly injured or killed people...who cares what the rating is then?

Because an official F5 tornado is a rare event. It's like a hole-in-one in golf or an unassisted triple play in baseball.

I've never understood why peope ask the question you did above. Who WOULDN'T want to witness the rarest tornado of all? Who cares what the wind speeds are, a tornado that does damage to that degree to earn that ranking is a rare event, and I know I wanna be there when it happens. People are way too sensitive about the "it destroyed homes" issue. I think it's getting a little tired, trying to make people look like they enjoy that aspect of it.

It's marveling an extremely rare, natural event folks. Nothing more.

Well, I agree that it is just marveling at a rare and beautiful event. However, I don't think I would compare it to sports plays.

Considering what you said, then the rarest tornado of all is that which causes so much destruction that people cannot really comprehend it. As you said who cares about wind speed, so I would have to assume you would much rather see a tornado hit something so you can get your rating (I am not using "you" specifically, but "you" in a general society sense) then a really strong F5 (by wind) in the middle of field.

I think my point was misunderstood to a certain extent also. I am not oversensitive about it destroying houses. That's a part of living on Earth However, I do understand that people's whose homes are destroyed don't see the beauty or fun in watching a tornado. However, I think that rating is meaningless once damage is done to property or harm comes to people becasue you can just look at that and say "Wow, AIR did that!"

On a separate note, I remember that Fujita did say an F6 wasn't possible, so I don't know why people even worry about the F6 rating.

 

[rdale]

Because some "weather for dummies" sites list the entire 12 point spread, even though the quote above makes it clear Dr Fujita did not use a 12-point F-Scale.

- Rob

 

[nickgrillo]

Because some "weather for dummies" sites list the entire 12 point spread, even though the quote above makes it clear Dr Fujita did not use a 12-point F-Scale.

- Rob

LOL. Weather For Dummies! :lol:

They really should make a site called that. Then the Jackson Co. Fire Dept and Michigan spotters could quite being foolish. :lol:

 

[Glen Romine]

I have to side with Kiel on this issue - I'm not overly concerned with what F-scale a tornado is - reminds me of the stupid Twister scene that depicts the shock and awe at just saying 'F-5' - yippy skippy - to me the classification takes a distant second or third to visual appearance of the tornado. A violent tornado is an amazing site even if it doesn't include a massive man-made debris field. Sure, I'll usually check the damage surveys of tornadoes - it's not that I'm not curious - but I don't feel bolstered to know that 'my' tornado caused xxx damage. Not to pick on Shane or any other specific person, but I get the feeling from more than a few chasers that there is significant pride in seeing tornadoes with high F-scale ratings, wearing it like an honor badge. Anyhow, maybe it is the connection that people feel with a tornado that destroys man-made objects - gotta admit the Pampa video is amazing - but when people complain that a tornado should have been rated higher, it just really annoys me. If the survey is inaccurate, ok then impress us with your engineering know-how, but don't fuss because a man-made structure didn't happen to be in the right place to get the tornado its deserved F-scale rating.

Glen

 

[Bryan Burkholder]

Kiel and Shane both have very good points, and there is a fine line of what people want to see and don't want to see. Obviously, seeing an F5 just go ballistic is rare, and would be great, however, noone wants to see damage done to people's property and livelihood, and least of all, take their lives. But you cannot have one or the other. They go hand in hand. due to the fact that the F-scale is based on damage...

What is neat though, is watching a huge wedge rip up some trees in the middle of nowhere (it could be F5 in intensity, but never hits anything substantial, which is good). Nature tearing up nature. F5's are rare, but one has to wonder how rare they actually are if the tornadoes always were able to hit a substantial building from which to base the intesity of them.

As for F6's. I agree with Kiel and whoever else said that there is no way to tell if the tornado was above an F5. It's kind of a time now where we have better technology so that these questions of the F-scale start to come into question. Another setting of traditional ways versus new age techniques. Since there's no set standard of wind speed vs. damage assessments yet, we have to stick with the old assessments (which will be around for quite some time, I believe). And using damage surveys, there will be no F6 ratings, because it is indiscernable from F5 ratings.

 

[Melissa Moon]

Because an official F5 tornado is a rare event. It's like a hole-in-one in golf or an unassisted triple play in baseball.

I've never understood why peope ask the question you did above. Who WOULDN'T want to witness the rarest tornado of all? Who cares what the wind speeds are, a tornado that does damage to that degree to earn that ranking is a rare event, and I know I wanna be there when it happens. People are way too sensitive about the "it destroyed homes" issue. I think it's getting a little tired, trying to make people look like they enjoy that aspect of it.

It's marveling an extremely rare, natural event folks. Nothing more.

I don't think there is anything great about seeing an F5 tornado. In fact, I hope I never see one! When I saw the Argonia wedge on May 29th, I was anxious to find out what the damage rating of it was; however, my anxiety was out of fear that what I saw hit something (and my hopes were that it didn't and got a low F-scale rating). It was not driven out of any desire to "bag the big one" so that I could proudly tell other chasers "yeah I saw this F5" 30 years from now.

 

[Charles Kuster]

F6

"Then if it measures winds over 318mph maybe the tornado would be classified as an F6."

As posted elsewhere - the Fscale is _not_ determined from the wind speed, but from damage.



Yea that is true, so by a damage scale there can't be a F6. If we use the wind estimates as a seperate scale and winds were found over 318 mph would that be considered an F6?? :?:

 

[Scott Freeman]

To make sure I am understanding what is going on here.....

Theoretically you can have a tornado out across the fields of Oklahoma, that has winds measured of 318 or even higher, and it could possibly have the highest winds we have measured. But because it lifted before damage could occur it doesnt get a F rating....
If that is the case why dont they rate Tornadoes based off wind speed rather than damage?
I would think that you have a tornado, and it has winds 200 or so, and you go ahead and give it a rating. Because it is easy enough to say that what is in the path of that tornado, will get the damage...
Even though this may sound goofy. but do fire departments say that was a 4 alam fire after it has destroryed the facility, no they call it a 4 alarm fire based off the size and the amount of manpower that will be needed to fite it.
Why cant the do the same with tornadoes? call it as they see it ...and rank it appropiatly.. ???
.

 

[Robert Dewey]

Theoretically you can have a tornado out across the fields of Oklahoma, that has winds measured of 318 or even higher, and it could possibly have the highest winds we have measured. But because it lifted before damage could occur it doesnt get a F rating....
If that is the case why dont they rate Tornadoes based off wind speed rather than damage?

Your theory is correct. F scale is damage only, so if a tornado were to have winds of 325MPH, but never touched a structure/object, it would be rated F0 or F1.

The reason we cannot base tornadoes off wind speed alone, is because you need the damage to determine the speed. It would be nearly impossible to have a person witness every tornado and try and *guess* the wind speed, so the only other option is damage surveys. Also, one cannot determine the wind speed by appearance either, as some large tornadoes can have low wind speeds and vice versa.

 

[rdale]

"If we use the wind estimates as a seperate scale and winds were found over 318 mph would that be considered an F6??"

No, because the F-scale only goes up to F5. If you want to make up your own -- go ahead...

- Rob

 

[Scott Currens]

This is sort of the bible for F-Scale damage assessment.

http://meted.ucar.edu/resource/wcm/ftp/Fin...ssmentGuide.pdf

It is long but well worth reading if you are interested in conducting damage surveys on your oun. If you do conduct a survey most NWS offices welcome any information you can provide them. Sam Barricklow has a good site about this topic:
http://www.k5kj.net/surveys.htm

The NWS only surveys damage from about 10-20% of the tornadoes recorded in storm data so most are given default ratings of F0 or F1. Its anyones guess how many of those are strong to violent in reality.

Scott Currens

 

[Shane Adams]

Well, I agree that it is just marveling at a rare and beautiful event. However, I don't think I would compare it to sports plays.

It's an analogy....work with me here dude.

Considering what you said, then the rarest tornado of all is that which causes so much destruction that people cannot really comprehend it.

That would be correct.

As you said who cares about wind speed, so I would have to assume you would much rather see a tornado hit something so you can get your rating (I am not using "you" specifically, but "you" in a general society sense) then a really strong F5 (by wind) in the middle of field.

You couldn't be more clueless as to what 'm saying. "Who cares about windspeeds" says exactly the opposite of what you just said above; ratings mean zlich, it's the knowledge that we're seeing the most powerful variety of tornado in known existence that's the draw, not the devastation. Who the fuck wants to see destroyed homes, lives?

Oh yeah - the media. But that's another topic :wink:

I do understand that people's whose homes are destroyed don't see the beauty or fun in watching a tornado. However, I think that rating is meaningless once damage is done to property or harm comes to people becasue you can just look at that and say "Wow, AIR did that!"

Now there's a vote for SCIENCE! if I've ever seen one.

On a separate note, I remember that Fujita did say an F6 wasn't possible, so I don't know why people even worry about the F6 rating.

Yeah, funny how the F6 is a complete contradiction of itself, per the F-scale: "Inconceivable"

Well, it's on the list so........

 

[mikegeukes]

Source: A Guide to F-Scale Damage Assessment

I. The Fujita scale of tornado intensity (condensed)
A. A short history
Prior to the adoption of T. Theodore Fujita’s (1971) tornado intensity rating scale by the National Weather Service (NWS), there was no formal way to attempt to differentiate one tornado from another. With the interest and support of Allen Pearson, then Director of the National Severe Storms Forecast Center, the Fujita scale became the standard for estimating the intensity of tornadoes in the mid-1970s.

In addition, Fujita used a set of damage photographs to illustrate the intensity categories. With the introduction of these materials, it became possible for someone surveying the damage from a tornado to estimate the F-scale (implying an estimate of the range of windspeeds).

Further, using newspaper accounts and photographs, it became possible to assign an F-scale to historical events, a project which was undertaken by the National Severe Storms Forecast Center (NSSFC), with the support of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency in 1976.

Students were hired to do the necessary research into old newspapers and other accounts of storms. They assigned an F-scale rating to as many historical events as possible based mostly on newspaper accounts and photographs.

In 1973, the official authority for doing Storm Data passed from the state climatologists to the NWS offices. From the late 1970s to the present, it has been expected that all tornadoes that become part of the Storm Data record will have an Fscale number assigned to them, as well as estimates of the path length and width. In actual practice, the rating of tornado intensity is necessarily done by assessing the damage, rather than by windspeed estimates

Summary:
1971 Fujita came up witth the Fujita Scale, mid 70's NWS got interested in the F-Scale, late 70's the Fscale number would be part of Storm Data.

I would have to look it up, it was in the early 80's, when I started to notice the F-Scale rating showing up in Storm Data. In fact, April 1974 Storm Data (super Outbreak) is only 16 pages with no F-Scale ratings assing to the tornadoes. The NWS started to keep track of tornadoes back in the year 1950, starting to verify warnings around 1980. So a lot of years in the tornado database, were assigned an a F-Scale rating based mainly on newspaper accounts and photographs. Just shows you how flawed the severe weather climatology is when it comes to tornadoes.

Numerous Links about the F-Scale:
http://stormtrack.org/forum/viewtopic.php?...p?p=23027#23027

Mike