It's obvious that we are trying to move to the idea of classifying tornado based on wind speed. Well, perhaps I should say that using more damage indicators and more degrees of damage helps to provide many more categories of damage to which wind speeds are assigned. Fujita's original scale made no mention of gas station canopies, or the majority of other structures, natural or artificial, that are much more widespread than 'well-built homes'. It would seem that, for objectivity, to more damage indicators and degrees of damage, the better. Of course, there's a point at which we can't confidently say that this-or-that damage was from 5mph higher wind speeds than that-or-this damage. In regards to more detailed damage indicators, and, thus, a refinement of wind speeds available for assigning to tornado segments -- The new EF scale tries to do this (i.e. radar data may be used to support a given EF rating), and F-scale ratings the past few years seem to have done this as well. Should we keep our blinders on and continue to shunt recent engineering work by rating tornadoes based on the brief description given by Fujita (part of which Alex quoted above)? Isn't science about advancement? Isn't it about using new research in the search for truth (in this case, the actual intensity of the tornado)? Are you personally offended when EXPERTS, people like Woodall and Marshall, don't agree with your personal observation? Sure, they can actually look at how the house was built, how the walls were attached to the foundation, but surely we, from our computer hundreds of miles away, can do just as well by looking at a few relatively low-resolution pictures taken by media and other folks. Heck, what's the point of damage assessment if we can just survey everything by online pictures?
As Gabe noted, 15 years ago that tornado probably would have been given F4 (or even F5 with a cursory look at the pics). Perhaps it makes people feel good to know that there was an F4 or F5... I know people tend to want to think they lived through something as bad as it can be (there has been phsychological research into this in regards to hurricanes -- people tend to want to think they lived through something that's as bad as mother nature can dish out... I mean, how many people really experience Cat 5 winds in Andrew?) But, we're moving on, trying to use some engineering realities to remove one more complication from damage rating assessments. We have enough problems with the fact that we can only really judge tornado intensity when structures get hit (even this is being diminished in the EF-scale, with the use of different damage indicators like hardwood and softwood trees). In the past, we've also had a problem with the fact that the EXACT same tornado could be rated entirely different depending upon what type of structure was hit (and, more importantly, how well the hit structure was built). I'm not talking about if the tornado hits an outhouse or a big house, I'm talking about if it hits a house in one development versus another development. Of course most houses today are going to look "well-built", but that's obviously note the case. If we are seeking to rate a tornado as objectively as possible, trying to assess a rating based on the tornado REAL strength, isn't it in the best interest to remove as many complications as possible?
EDIT: Re-reading this, it comes across a bit harsh in areas. No offense intended, obviously!
![Big Grin :D :D]()