Thanks for the explanation.
So what about this tornado is being reviewed still?
So what about this tornado is being reviewed still?
Well, the biggest problems are that we don't really know how accurate speeds measured at 150m are compared to the surface, and we have no rules for applying them. What if they were measured at 250m? 500m?
The consensus document that guided creation of the enhanced Fujita scale (see PDF) gives the green light to use radar data in this way. It states: “The technology of portable Doppler radar should also be a part of the EF Scale process, either as a direct measurement, when available, or as a means of validating the wind speeds estimated by the experts.”
Is that claim based on research? I'm under the understanding that winds were coordinated with TIV measurements a few years ago and deemed fairly accurate. Are you saying that's not true?
The NWS Director sent out a memo stating that mobile Doppler data CANNOT be used in changing EF-scale ratings...
http://cadiiitalk.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-ef-scale-ratings-brouhaha.html
I keep hearing "Mobile DOW" and how great that it is where it's implemented. But if we are going to rate tornado damage on radar wind speeds, and we are only going to place real emphasis in mobile dows, then I don't see this is going to work out in terms of providing meaningful data for the future. The numbers will be skewed. If we can't use data from NWS stationary radar at least out to 75% of it's effective range, I don't see future data as being reliable because there will never be mobile dow on all the larger tornadoes across the US. The recorded data will be reliable, but the UNrecorded data that was "ignored" because a mobile unit was not on the storm will only serve to skew the existing newer data. (Oddly, some select twisters in OK and KS [where the mobile dows reside] will no doubt become "more severe" beginning with season x).
Speaking of changing, or calling into question, tornado ratings based primarily on damage indicators....
http://www.joplinglobe.com/topstori...ineers-release-study-of-Joplin-tornado-damage
The ASCE report says that, due to lesser quality building construction that made structures vulnerable at lower wind speeds, NO damage truly indicative of EF-5 level winds could be found; that only 4 percent of the damage reached EF-4 proportions; and that 83 percent of damage was caused by winds of EF-2 or less.
Does this mean Joplin was not "really" an EF-5 after all? I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. The NWS does not intend to change its rating, and there were (from what I understand) other DIs besides structural damage (e.g., concrete parking blocks moved/tossed).
But this report does open up a whole new can of worms. If a tornado initially rated EF-3 can be upgraded based on data uncovered later, then I'd think it would also be possible to downgrade an EF-5 or EF-4 based on later data. Whether anyone would actually do this is another story.
The technology of portable Doppler radar should also be a part of the EF Scale process, either as a direct measurement, when available, or as a means of validating the wind speeds estimated by the experts.
You could also make a convincing analogy to hurricanes, which are sampled and rated based on data from dropsondes and satellites. Even if a Category 5 in the middle of the Gulf weakens to a depression before landfall (doing no damage), it still goes on the books as a 5, simply because it truly was that intensity at some point in its life.