Goodbye F6 You Never Even Got The Chance

:shock:

It was impossible under f rating but would have been possible under F rating. So the enhanced Fujita scale takes effect in February 2006 and the inconcievable F6 is not on the list. On the other hand won't the enhanced scale bring about a dramatic increase in the number of F5 tornados 200mph that's it, :shock: Just think of the impact this will have on the general public who are unaware of how tornado ratings may change all they will know is "What is this world coming too have you guys heard the news [/b]look at all these F5 twister naders. Get the kids were moving"
My scenario is probibly just slightly over rated but what else am I going to do with all this time it's not like we have had any storms lately (rain what's rain???) I tried to post the new EF scale in this post but I don't know how you guys out thier ever get that too work. I think the revised scale is far more realistic and gives 8 damage categories instead of six.

Now in a phase of severe TSDS<Now I am truly insane :twisted: >

"Free Souveniers various sizes readily availiable, drive through the nearest supercell core and have them convieniantly delivered right through your windshield"
 
:shock:
So the enhanced Fujita scale takes effect in February 2006 and the inconcievable F6 is not on the list.

As a brief correct, Rick Smith (WCM at OUN) noted that the EF scale won't go into 'effect' until Feb 2007. You are correct in that there will be no EF6.

On the other hand won't the enhanced scale bring about a dramatic increase in the number of F5 tornados 200mph that's it, :shock: Just think of the impact this will have on the general public who are unaware of how tornado ratings may change all they will know is "What is this world coming too have you guys heard the news [/b]look at all these F5 twister naders. Get the kids were moving"


A tornado still needs to produce catastrophic damage to earn an eF5 rating!! A tornado that tears the roof off a house? NOT an eF5, just like we wouldn't call it an F5. The wind adjustment was made to make the scale much more reasonable... It was found that a tornado doesn't need >220mph winds to completely level a house (Tim Marshall has said that some houses in the 5-3-99 Moore tornado were probably completely leveled at winds of 160mph), so the eF scale adjusts for that. In the end, I really don't think we'll see a big rise in eF5 tornadoes (relative to F5s in the past 50 years). I know the eF document that was linked to in the other thread did mention that external wind speed data may be used to validate eF rankings, so we may see, in the future, something like Doppler radar data being used to justify a ranking, which may increase the number of high-end tornadoes since we may catch a few more that are that strong but big rural areas where there isn't much to damage in many cases.

[/quote]
 
It will be very difficult for me to get away from my mind set of the original Fujita scale, since it's the only reference I've known. But I believe that if the enchanced F-Scale does more accurately correlate, based on modern research, tornado damage to wind speed then that's the new 'language' I want to learn.
Also, I am curious as to whther or not there is a yet undiscovered 'formula' for relating surface tornado wind speed to that of doppler measurements of say 50-100m agl. I can only assumed that there must be one for a ballpark (+- ~25mph) value
but not neccessarily for Section C, Row 36 (+- ~5mph). It possible things like topography of the surface in the path (flat/level v.s hilly/sloped or dry field/large river or lake/city asphalt) or strength of and route of flow of RFD into the tornado near surface could cause uneven vortex stretching. But what I wonder is, given that is true, could those factors be relatively insignificant in the formula? I haven't read much on the eF scale or on recent eng. research, but am glad to know science is getting closer to narrowing down the accuracy of the wind speed-damage relationship.
 
It will be very difficult for me to get away from my mind set of the original Fujita scale, since it's the only reference I've known. But I believe that if the enchanced F-Scale does more accurately correlate, based on modern research, tornado damage to wind speed then that's the new 'language' I want to learn.
Also, I am curious as to whther or not there is a yet undiscovered 'formula' for relating surface tornado wind speed to that of doppler measurements of say 50-100m agl. I can only assumed that there must be one for a ballpark (+- ~25mph) value
but not neccessarily for Section C, Row 36 (+- ~5mph). It possible things like topography of the surface in the path (flat/level v.s hilly/sloped or dry field/large river or lake/city asphalt) or strength of and route of flow of RFD into the tornado near surface could cause uneven vortex stretching. But what I wonder is, given that is true, could those factors be relatively insignificant in the formula? I haven't read much on the eF scale or on recent eng. research, but am glad to know science is getting closer to narrowing down the accuracy of the wind speed-damage relationship.

In the Sean Casey thread it is mentioned that Dr. Josh Wurman is now trying to get a lower sample of the tornado and may be using a reduction formula. Once we can get some instruments to actually record a surface wind, while getting radar data at the same time we will start to actually be able to come up with a reduction formula. There are many issues with using a reduction formula at this point.
 
Even though we can't get F6 now, at least they are planning on including actual wind speed data such as from DOW vehicles when possible. So when we finally get that 400mph DOW wind speed a few times - maybe they will make and E-EF scale. :lol:
 
Can I sue NWS?

So much for my "F6 Photography".....

Thanks NWS... now I got a get a new fake business name...

crap...

Neal Rasmussen
:(
 
Back
Top