Talk:Enhanced Fujita scale

Image for EF5 damage

131.81.200.158 18:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)I suggest that the picture at this link: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/19990503/damage/mikeb.html may be useful to indicate damage at the EF5 level. It is from the Moore, OK tornado of 3 May 1999. The foundation of a frame house has been stripped *clean* and clearly shows the marks left by the adhesive used to fix the carpet battens. Even the carpet battens themselves were blown away. It is available on a US government site, and as such is uncopyrightable.

It does indicate F5 damage, but I am unsure that it would qualify as an EF5, as the new scale predicts complete destruction of frame houses at EF4 intensity. I do agree that that would probably be rated EF5, but until an outside source confirms it. -RunningOnBrains 17:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, none of the other pictures are of "real" EF-based damage, either. They're historical pictures that were used as samples. I agree that recent pictures would be better, but I think the NWS's images should be considered standard until such images are available - especially in the obvious case of the Moore, OK tornadoes. 5minutes 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they're historical examples, but historical examples that do meet the EF criteria (associated wind speed for DOD for the respective DI); so in that sense it's irrelevant when the rating occurred, just as tornadoes back to 1950 were assessed well after the fact during the 1970s (and further back for the Tornado Project/Grazulis database). New events are preferable, I agree, but any event that meets the criteria is better than not having any example. The problem is that there are no examples provided in the EF-Scale document meeting the new EF5 criteria. If an official source (TTU or other qualified engineers like Tim Marshall, the NWS, maybe SPC, etc.) is found then provide it, but it must be authoritatively rated and sourced. For what it's worth, the current F5 example is a photograph by Chuck Doswell and appears to be EF5 if construction quality and other mediating factors aren't negative --which one would guess are not if Doswell rated the structure. In WISE's October 2006 revision, the maximum DOD for FR12 has an associated wind speed of 200 mph, which is EF5. Evolauxia 16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel ya. The whole migration from the old scale to the new scale seems to be a bit haphazard, and I think this article is merely a victim of the whole process. Frankly, I'm not a fan of it. I'm not even a fan of measuring based on damage. I say we need to measure the blasted things based on estimated wind speeds. If Saffir-Simpson can do it, so can the descendants of Fujita. 5minutes 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Except in a practical sense that is impossible. The task of measuring the windspeed for the entire lifetime of every tornado is rediculous. Many times, tornadoes are not recognized until hours or even days after they have already dissipated.

The reason a windspeed scale works for tropical cyclones is that not only are the maximum winds in a TC spread out over several, sometimes dozens of miles, but they do not change intensity over the scale of seconds, as tornadoes do. TCs rarely change more than a few mph over an hour, except when weakening over land. Also, TCs with the same intensity tend to have the same characteristics when viewed by a satellite, thus the Dvorak scale can be used.

The appearance of a tornado only loosely correlates to its intensity. Tornadoes with different wind speeds can cause different damage. Also, when a tornado passes only over open fields, there is no way to even approach a good estimate on the wind speeds. Therefore a damage scale is the only reasonable thing to use, with wind estimates used loosely. -RunningOnBrains 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, is the picture related to EF5 damage going to be changed to something that actually explicitly shows EF5 damage? Its very inconsistent to show explicitly the damage to a home in all other pictures, then show a helicopter shot containing mostly EF2-4 damage with EF5 damage hard to spot. It has nothing to do with the spatial distribution of damage. --Slincoln (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, that was a very stupid idea to cancel out the maximum speed limit for F5s. Commander Lightning —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

The File:NWS_2013_Moore_EF5_damage.jpg is a non-aerial close-up of confirmed EF5 damage, explicitly documented in the NOAA NWS WFO Norman OK's KML file http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/oun/wxevents/20130520/20130520-storm_survey_path_points.kmz as linked on http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=events-20130520 It isn't a FR12 home like the rest of the photos, but per the rest of the article, the difference between EF4 and EF5 in "Degree Of Damage" on that sort of structure is indistinguishable. --Drf5n (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

EF-scale elsewhere

Is the scale being used in other countries, or are they staying with the old Fujita scale (at least for now)? CrazyC83 22:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea - but the new scale doesn't make any sense at all. It is next to impossible to measure the windspeed of a tornado and that's the only thing that changes in the new scale. The tornado's strength will still be measured by the damage it caused. The new scale is no enhancement but sheer nonsense. --Maxl 13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Except it is an improvement. The wind speeds are based on estimates by experts in meteorology and engineering. And while they are still just estimates, they are much better than the previous scale. Also, on the old scale there were few or no provisions for estimating the damage on structures other than ordinary frame houses. The new scale has damage levels for 26 different types of structure, and for hardwood and softwood trees. It is very much an improvement over the old system. -RunningOnBrains 17:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is so the article still lacks a lot of info on all those 26 different types of structure. It should make sense to explain them all in at least some depth. --Maxl 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Most other countries will continue to use the Fujita scale (or TORRO scale), for the foreseeable future. There has been some discussion of similar projects for Europe and other areas, as the new scale is biased towards US construction practices, but the resources aren't there yet. The EF scale is an improvement, the wind speeds *were* overrated and it is less ambiguous and much more detailed degrees of damage with many more damage indicators, but it is not without its new problems. I've added the DIs, and will add the DODs eventually (that will be a chore). Evolauxia 08:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible First EF-5

First EF-5? One of the local news stations is reporting that the tornado that hit Greensburg, KS on May 4th has been rated an EF-5 (http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/7359591.html). However, I can't find any other news sources to corroborate this, nor can I yet find a public domain image of the damage. Just giving a heads-up. 68.102.231.121 18:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The NWS, which is the only organization that can issue official ratings, issues "Public Information Statements" and other communiqués that should be taken as the only official source. I've yet to see anything from the Dodge City NWSFO (PNSs) or any other statements. Evolauxia 18:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

EF5 example

Although I have confirmed that the Dodge City NWSFO and NWS Quick Response Team have determined EF5 damage and announced this to the media, there is as yet no official documentation of this. Furthermore, there is nothing stating what was the EF5 damage, or specifically where it was. Evolauxia 19:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many examples of EF5 damage. Look for pictures from any of the big recent tornadoes - Moore, Greensburg, Parkersburg, to name some recent ones. Here is a good example that could be used for the EF5 image: [http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/cases/080525/iowa_helicopter_survey/IMG_6391.jpg Iowa Helicopter Aerial Survey of Parkersburg, IA Slincoln (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confused by the timing of the above comment; it was made more than a year ago. Regardless, what's needed is a close-up picture of confirmed EF5 damage, which would probably be from an NWS source. Supposedly pictures and more information will be posted tomorrow about the most recent EF5, I'll keep an eye out.-RunningOnBrains 05:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The File:NWS_2013_Moore_EF5_damage.jpg is a close-up of confirmed EF5 damage, documented in the NOAA NWS WFO Norman OK's KML file http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/oun/wxevents/20130520/20130520-storm_survey_path_points.kmz as linked on http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=events-20130520--Drf5n (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

EF0 limit

I know all the sites for the EF scale have shown the lower limit of EF0 at 65 mph. However, several storm surveys have used lower numbers (such as 60 mph) as wind estimates for EF0 tornadoes. Is it really an open-ended lower limit as well? CrazyC83 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Well-constructed"

What makes a well-constructed building? --Abdull (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

EF5 possible addition

I am curious, and learning a bit about the editing policies on Wikipedia. When I read over the EF5 description, I recalled a particular movie, "Twister", I believe, in which a character makes an odd interjection, calling the EF5 tornado the "Finger of God". While I am no religious nut in affiliation of this, I wonder, would it be applicable to include a notation to this, if only to reaffirm the recognition of the amazing damages the EF5 can produce? It seems a harmless statement, and it can be rearranged in a number of ways. As said, I am simply curious, and wonder if anyone else can confirm me on this? Jwguy (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

EF5 example photo

An editor recently changed the EF5 damage example back to the Greensburg flyover from the Parkersburg/New Hartford foundation. The reasoning given was that the Greensburg aerial shows much of a town destroyed whereas the Parkersburg example only shows a foundation. Ratings are ascertained from analysis of damage to individual structures, however. Examples should accordingly be of such structures to illustrate the degree of the damage; since that it what determines the rating, not the areal scope. It's ambiguous specifically where the actual EF5 damage occurred in such aerial shots, even though it illustrates the immense scale of damage that such tornadoes can produce.

Given that the source of the Parkersburg photos, the NWS website, didn't specifically list the examples as EF5 and there are some doubts about those being examples thereof, I'll leave the Greensburg aerial until an appropriate public domain photograph is made available. Evolauxia (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the Parkersburg photo, both because it illustrates high EF4 or EF5 damage more accurately than the Greensburg photo, and because I would trust the NWS to show us EF5 damage more readily than I'd trust the White House to select a photo that has EF5 damage embedded anywhere in it. Besides, "destroyed city" isn't an EF5 criterion, so the scope of the damage path isn't really relevant--and since the other photos show individual structures, for consistency, I'd think we'd want to stay with a single-structure photo.

If there's concerns about whether the Parkersburg photo shows actual EF5 damage, doesn't the SPC's tornado FAQ page have photos illustrating the EF scale? Even if the damage shown is from an older F5, it would still be valid, given the 1:1 correlation of EF and F-scale damage. Rdfox 76 (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Parkerburg page doesn't specify the photos are examples of EF5 damage. I agree with the comments on aerial vs ground shots and consistency. As far as I know and with a quick check the SPC page, it doesn't list rating examples directly. This could be gleaned from the TTU document for DoD that would meet the requirement for EF5. This is very difficult to attain for frame houses. The DIs and DoDs augment and refine but complicate the process of assessment, and it's not necessarily 1:1. I'm fine with grandfathering an F5 example, such as [1], until a suitable EF5 example is found. I'm not going to revert Parkersburg in the mean time. Evolauxia (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

By "1:1 correlation," I meant how NSSL stated that any tornado rated EFx would have been rated Fx on the old scale, and vice-versa, if they had struck a structure that the original F-scale had been designed for (i.e., "well-built house"), not that it's the same in all cases--just that F5 damage to a home and EF5 damage to a home should be indistinguishable. Anyhow, it may be a moot point, as I just realized something, and have just emailed both the Dodge City and Des Moines NWS offices to ask if either one would be willing to provide us with a damage survey photo from Greensburg or Parkersburg that shows confirmed EF5 damage. Hopefully, I'll get a prompt answer, and an exemplar photo that's as focused as the current Parkersburg image, but confirmed by the NWS to be EF5 damage--and allowing us to avoid having to grandfather in the SPC FAQ's F5 image again. (I forgot that the FAQ showed photos only on the F-scale side, not the EF-scale side...) Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Added note: I'm not entirely certain, but based on the car visible in it, I believe the EF4 image is actually a grandfathered F4 example instead; if it turns out the current Parkersburg image is actually EF4 damage, perhaps we should use it as an example of "high-end" EF4 damage until a better example there can be found? Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I like to get the support to learn more about the EF scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.135.33 (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I added some alt text to the example photos, and, upon reading the "One- or Two-Family Residences (FR12)" damage indicators, it appears that EF5 >200mph is off the scale for frame buildings. Maybe an institutional building would be better, so I changed the picture to Drf5n (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it's the best example since for most other damage indicators, simply leveling the structure is at most EF4 damage. I think the image of a bare foundation of a house is a better representation. I was thinking maybe something from one of the EF5 tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

True, but this isn't a typical structure. It was concrete and steel reinforced. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I realize that, but I think it is still a bit misleading as the sturdiness is not readily apparent in the photograph. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The bare foundation is a much better depiction of possible EF-5 damage than this example which has construction quality problems (that's not steel reinforced concrete) and *copious* debris remains on site. It should be reverted immediately. All photographs should be from reliable sources that explicitly state the rating. It is not for us to decide --that would be original research. Evolauxia (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

With that criteria, some the other photos should likely be removed as well, since the sources identify the maximum ratings of the storms and not the damage to individual structures. Slide 15, etc., of http://www.norman.noaa.gov/nsww/talks/010_sat_jungbluth.pdf shows *copious* debris on site, while additionally showing structures not off-the-scale of EF4. Still, I liked more descriptive alt-text for the images. In trying to expand the alt text for all the pics, it is not at all clear that the EF5 example picture is significantly different than the EF4 picture. For instance, in the EF4 pic, the above-surface debris around the (my own OR: likely steel reinforced poured) concrete basement is cleared away, while in the EF5, the debris is present around the destroyed cinderblock crawlspace. These pics are illustrations of DOD 1-10 on the FR12 DI scale, rather than good EF0-5 examples. --Drf5n (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This File:NWS_2013_Moore_EF5_damage.jpg photo is explicitly identified as an example of EF5 damage in the NWS's kml file http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/oun/wxevents/20130520/20130520-storm_survey_path_points.kmz linked from http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=events-20130520 I made a revert (sorry), and added a cite, but it was re-reverted due to non-concensus here. Drf5n (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

A lot of rather subtle vandalism did happen on this page. There seems to be a pattern: small (sometimes even seemingly appropriate) edits, two small consecutive edits in a short time, a larger time span in between, an unregistered editor (ip-address), ... , and it is going on for a long time (at least 2 years or so).
I undid some of the damage.

This is a highly important article and this kind of vandalism undermines the very reason of existence of Wikipedia: providing dependable encyclopedic knowledge.
A thorough approach is needed. What about a review by an expert and some kind of protection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.224.176 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Normally, I'd be glad to ask (and probably get) some sort of protection, but guess who gets kicked off first? Answer: You! Maybe not a good idea in this case.  :) You could always register.

I agree on subtlety. I noticed it and saw the edits that came after, oblivious to the problem and figured I did't want to correct it. Lazy. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look, there have been occurrences in the past few years of vandals doing things like removing the EFU listing and trying to add an EF6 listing. If that kind of stuff starts back up, we may need to at least consider pending changes protection. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Damage Descriptions Removed due to Original Research

I had to remove the damage descriptions from the table because the sections were challenged by a tornado expert. I am sure that person would have had a source on this therefore I concluded it was Original Research and the sections were removed per the WP:OR policy. 166.137.143.100 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Disconnect between the Parameters Graphic and the text...

The Parameters graphic shows EF4 as 166-200MPH, and EF5 as >200. The text says "the new scale lists an EF5 as a tornado with winds at or above 200 mph." If the text is correct, then "at" means "equals" and the graphic should be EF4: 166 to <200MPH, and EF5: >=200. JMOprof (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. EF5 should be >200mph, per Storm Prediction Center.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

I think any searches for the levels on the Enhanced Fujita scale should redirect here or to a disambiguation pages that includes this article, as was done for the original Fujita scale. Doing some quick searches I found these results:

EF0, EF1, and EF3 do not lead to any pages and so should redirect to this article. EF2 redirects to Eukaryotic elongation factors, but probably should at least lead to disambiguation page. IMHO the layperson searching "EF2" is more likely trying to find out about tornadoes than microbiology anyway. EF5 leads to an article about a molecule the tag

For other uses, see EF-5.

at the top, which includes this article in the disambiguation. EF4 is the only one that redirects here.

Searches for "EF[number] tornado" should also redirect here. Currently only "EF5 tornado" has that redirect. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Canada using the EF scale in 2013?

Have heard that Canada will be starting to use the EF scale as early as next year? Any confirmations about that? 173.179.155.183 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It is now being used and it is already the 10th anniversary Catusfatusoldus (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Be aware, that user @Catusfatusoldus is a confirmed sock puppet of the somewhat infamous @Lokicat3345, which has been banned sitewide for vandalizing weather related articles; and apparently he’s been banned for quite awhile. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Apparently @Catusfatusoldus is one of many sock puppets of @Lokicat3345. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Article name change to uncapitalized version

I changed this article's name from "Enhanced Fujita Scale" to "Enhanced Fujita scale". The two main reasons for this are that the article Fujita scale is uncapitalized, and the second is that similar articles, such as the Beaufort scale, TORRO scale and Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale are all uncapitalized. A less important reason for the move is that the Wikipedia Manual of Style prefers to have uncapitalized names unless there is a reason for capitalization. If you think that I have made a mistake, please leave a message on my talk page, and I will change it back. -- Kjkolb (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Meaningless "Rating classifications" section

The chart or table shown in the Rating classifications section is missing critical row labels, and has never had labels since User:Evolauxia added the section 11 May 2011. The two references don't provide any elucidation on how this chart was developed and appear to be be completely irrelevant to the subject matter. Unless someone can come up with an explanation of what the chart means, the entire section should be deleted, as it is confusing and unhelpful. I've studied a number of sites and papers dealing with the Fujita scale and Enhanced Fujita scale, and nowhere can I find a treatment of the subject that refers to "rating classifications" as shown in this Wikipedia article. — Quicksilver^{T @} 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference 1 elucidates some on how the different classes of ratings came to be, reference 2 is web available confirmation that the classes exist and are used in classification studies, and reference 3 is an example their usage in climatological studies of tornado patterns of time, place, demography, etc. The chart shows what is meant when such terms as used, the terms relate to specific combinations of F/EF scale ratings (and the independent TORRO scale is similarly subdivided). These terms are frequently used in the scientific tornado literature so their inclusion is meant to explain their meaning in a concise and graphical manner. The chart was placed with the intent of subsequently adding article text explaining the classifications and discussing their significance. Evolauxia (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction Needed for DOD Chart

http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/1/17/EF_DI12_%28LIRB%29.jpg "EXP" numbers appear to be incorrect.

Yeah, they were totally off. Fixed by uploading the newest version available at the SPC website. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Better set of EF0-5 example photos?

While looking for the source of the File:NWS_2013_Moore_EF5_damage.jpg photo I discovered the KML file http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/oun/wxevents/20130520/20130520-storm_survey_path_points.kmz on http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=events-20130520 which contains a number of pictures from EF1-EF5 assessed contemporaneously and annotated by a team of NWS survey teams. It might be a good resource for well-documented damage examples.--Drf5n (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Attached KML/2013 Moore tornado

KML is not from Wikidata

Here is the kml file which also works with Google and Bing Maps. Google Maps is better at representing the kml file, but Bing Maps shows thumbnails of the images and damage rating on the right side if someone wants to go through it. --Sitic (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The Bing map representation is really cool. You can see EF0 pics of a blown down mailboxes and stop signs, on up through EF5.--Drf5n (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not so cool. I don't see any markers at all near SW 149th and Hudson in my Bing view, but I do in Google Maps. --Drf5n (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

El Reno storm not largest

The statement in re the width of the El Reno tornado of 31 MAY 2013 is incorrect and is not supported by footnote #3. The text of the Wiki entry states that the tornado "broke the record for widest tornado ever recorded," but the footnote itself ssays "THE 2.6 MILE TORNADO PATH WIDTH IS BELIEVED TO BE THE WIDEST TORNADO ON RECORD." "Believed to be" is clearly a qualifier and not an indicator of fact. In addition, further research has found at least one other tornado quantitatively measured to be considerably larger than the El Reno storm; the Mulhall, OK storm of 3 MAY 1999 has been extensively studied and had an observed damage swath as much as 4 miles wide. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_records#Widest_damage_width for citations. 72.0.15.8 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically, though, the record for the El Reno tornado is officially recognized while that of the Mulhall tornado is not. The path width for the Mulhall tornado is officially listed at one mile, though the accuracy of that may be questionable. Either way, the note about the El Reno tornado will be removed because its rating has been downgraded, so this would best be discussed at the talk page of the El Reno tornado or at Talk: Tornado records. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

EF4 damage picture.

I've noted for some time that both the EF4 and EF5 damage pictures show relatively empty foundations. I think this photo might be a good substitute as a more "classic" example of EF4 damage. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Grammar with the Abbreviations

I have seen people writing in the articles: a EFX tornado (with X being the number, 0-5). You don't actually pronounce it like the letter F, but should pronounce it, letter E, letter F. In this situation, due to the presence of a long E sound, it should be an shouldn't it? Dustin talk 16:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enhanced Fujita scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111230005516/http://www.tornadoproject.com/fscale/fscale.htm to http://www.tornadoproject.com/fscale/fscale.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Requesting a big change for the EF scale and alot of tornado pages.

ok so... me and a few other people have a hard time seeing the difference of each EF scale colors , not only that but a lot of NWS EF scale color is different.

looks like this right now.

OLD Enhanced Fujita Scale color

EF0	65–85 mph	Light damage
EF1	86–110 mph	Moderate damage
EF2	111–135 mph	Considerable damage
EF3	136–165 mph	Severe damage
EF4	166–200 mph	Devastating damage
EF5	>200 mph	Incredible damage

but it should be like this

NEW Enhanced Fujita Scale color

EF0	65–85 mph	Light damage
EF1	86–110 mph	Moderate damage
EF2	111–135 mph	Considerable damage
EF3	136–165 mph	Severe damage
EF4	166–200 mph	Devastating damage
EF5	>200 mph	Incredible damage

the old color blends into each other and even with the white page , the newer color is used in NWS servey , also its using color codes for HURRICANES not its own tornado code , i recommend we make a new storm color that is shown on the right.

Personally, I don't have any problem with using the same color scheme for both tornadoes and hurricanes, and I've sometimes had trouble distinguishing the colors on both tornado and hurricane articles. One thing I did find, though, is that by putting the colors through a colorblind filter, the current color scheme maintains a clearer order of colors. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

colorblind filter? were do i test this out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshoctober16 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Found one and when i put both colors in i do notice it messes both the color formats, the only thing to note is

normal color:the old color you cant see the ef1 and ef2 they blend in , the new color you cans see good.

Protanopla:for the old color ef0 ef1 and ef2 all blend in each other, for the new the the color patern is a bit mess up just by the ef1 and ef2 , if they were only switch.

Deutanopla:Both color's have the same issue as above.

tritanopla:the old one has ef1 and ef2 colors blend into one, and the new one's ef5 color goes backwards. Grayscale: both are very broken , but the new color blends more.

so ya it seems there are issues with both... , if we can make a color scale that WONT blend at all , we should use that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshoctober16 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

ok testing other colors to get a non blend type

NEW Enhanced Fujita Scale color

EF0	65–85 mph	Light damage
EF1	86–110 mph	Moderate damage
EF2	111–135 mph	Considerable damage
EF3	136–165 mph	Severe damage
EF4	166–200 mph	Devastating damage
EF5	>200 mph	Incredible damage

Joshoctober16 (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

NEW Enhanced Fujita Scale color

EF0	65–85 mph	Light damage
EF1	86–110 mph	Moderate damage
EF2	111–135 mph	Considerable damage
EF3	136–165 mph	Severe damage
EF4	166–200 mph	Devastating damage
EF5	>200 mph	Incredible damage

A little change so we have a bigger difference between EF0 and EF1. I would like to get more commentary on this discussion since it's just been us two so far. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

here are some more im unsure what one you find best , that wont blend in and you can tell the difference with color blind. https://pasteboard.co/HUcPAVo.png https://pasteboard.co/HUd3xuT.png

Joshoctober16 (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I kinda liked number 12 from the second set the most. If we create a color scheme for tornadoes independent of what we have for hurricanes, one notion I had was to sort of block it out into pairs for weak, strong, and violent tornadoes. I was hoping we'd have more people discussing this by now, so I guess I'll see if any of the other people in severe weather are interested. @United States Man: @Sharkguy05: @TropicalAnalystwx13: @Master of Time: @Cyclonebiskit: Thoughts? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

oh shot the 3 link didnt got posted , here it is https://pasteboard.co/HUnb7hA.png , also ya second photo number 12 is more base on the offical tornado EF scale color as seen here https://apps.dat.noaa.gov/stormdamage/damageviewer/ hurricanes have there own color code for wiki , i think we need some for tornadoes , F , EF , TORRO scale and future scales , yes theres gona be a JEF scale for japan somtimes in 2019 - 2025 , and to make it easy'er to see if we do make a color code for tornadoes would it work for the Letters? , example weak has a smaller EF , Strong mid , and violent has the LARGER fat text? Joshoctober16 (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I still thing #12 from the 2nd batch is the best color scheme from those sets. I would not support varying fonts based on ratings since I think that would look a bit messy on tables. Are you suggesting different color schemes for each scale? I don't think we use anything other than F and EF ratings very often, especially now that. Though, I am curious about the Japanese scale; this is the first I've heard of it. A quick glance suggests we could probably use the same color scheme for F, EF, and JEF ratings. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

yes i do like that option and as for the color for other scales , it can share if it wants to its just... torro scale is not a 0 to 5 its a 0 to 11 , and as for JEF here is a link about it https://www.data.jma.go.jp/obd/stats/data/bosai/tornado/kaisetsu/jefscale_en.html and the wind speed measurement are a bit different as well, this would require its own page. Joshoctober16 (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

If we do change the colors for tornadoes, I'd still favor using the same color scheme for all tornado scales. Most sources I've seen treat F and EF ratings as being roughly equivalent. Even on the the TORRO scale, every two ratings basically correspond to one Fujita rating. Having different color schemes for each of them would get out of hand. I doubt we even have enough TORRO-scale-rated tornadoes documented on Wikipedia to warrant creating a new color scheme. TornadoLGS (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

im replying for this because the colors got changed for no reason, the scale color should be the NWS color scale and not the old one that has ef5 at red Lolkikmoddi (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

References

So about Japan and canada and the tornado scale

ok we all know about the F scale TORRO scale

but as for the EF scale there is a issue. US and Canada EF scale while both name the same are different in therms of wind speed and DI Link and then there is the soon to be japan scale called JEF scale with again different wind speed and DI Link https://ams.confex.com/ams/28SLS/webprogram/Paper300684.html https://ams.confex.com/ams/28SLS/webprogram/Paper300864.html

so do we make separate pages for them or expand the page for this? or do we only make a new page for JEF scale for japan and add the Canadian stuff on this page??? Joshoctober16 (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

forgot to mention , China is also developing there own EF scale , and the US EF scale is about to be upgraded but will keep the same name , this is something to note. Joshoctober16 (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I doubt the Canadian version of the scale is different enough to warrant its own page. A section on differences in the Canadian version of the scale is the most that we would need. I'm on the fence about the Japanese version. I don't know enough about this Chinese version or the planned changes in the U.S. to comment either. I also understand that some other countries have started using the Enhanced Fujita scale, or at least France has, but I don't know what differences it might have there. I hope we get commentary from more users on this soon. TornadoLGS (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Better pictures for EF4 damage.

I was thinking it would be good to have a picture of EF4 damage where the destroyed structure is not obstructed. Here are a couple examples I found from the 2011 Tuscaloosa-Birmingham tornado: https://services.dat.noaa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/DamageAssessmentToolkit/DamageFlexViewer/MapServer/0/30006/attachments/17260

https://services.dat.noaa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/DamageAssessmentToolkit/DamageFlexViewer/MapServer/0/38190/attachments/20380

Main page is here: https://www.weather.gov/bmx/event_04272011tuscbirm

I'll see if I can find other good examples elsewhere.

i think its time to get the new color started.

getting ready however uh how do we make a new color scale , i tried but... its like it only puts gray and nothing else. Template:Storm colour/doc seems like this is just too show and not the real page to make the code , so where is this page?Joshoctober16 (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

NEW Enhanced Fujita Scale color

EF0	65–85 mph	Light damage
EF1	86–110 mph	Moderate damage
EF2	111–135 mph	Considerable damage
EF3	136–165 mph	Severe damage
EF4	166–200 mph	Devastating damage
EF5	>200 mph	Incredible damage

Likely color to use , since its close to the official color noaa uses for there EF scale.Joshoctober16 (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia colors are color blind compliant. My assumption at a glance is that the NWS color scheme is not. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 05:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well if that is a problem there is a bunch if different colors ive made , what one out of them seems best? https://pasteboard.co/HUcPAVo.png https://pasteboard.co/HUd3xuT.png https://pasteboard.co/HUnb7hA.png , note alot are made for color blind, not all but most.Joshoctober16 (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

and talking about color blind i did notice that the current color isnt good for the EF4-EF5 Color , people with blue color blind wouldn't see a difference , and isnt good for people who are completely color blind.Joshoctober16 (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

There is hardly any contrast between the colors of EF4 and EF5. Hard oppose for me. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@WestVirginiaWX: These are pretty old discussions you're replying to here. This one was from before the current color scheme was implemented. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"Tornadoes that do no damage are rated EF0" -- still accurate?

I'm wondering if we shouldn't examine changing that specific bit of the page; while tornadoes that do no damage to DIs are supposed to be rated EF0 by default, it seems that, in recent years, the NWS has switched to a practice of rating tornadoes that do not actually hit any DIs (and thus can't damage them) as "EFU," with the U seemingly standing for "Unknown." Indeed, several of our tornado outbreak articles have tornadoes in their list that are recorded as "EFU," complete with NWS sources given for the rating; this seems like something that could cause severe confusion for the reader if they check this page to find out what an "EFU" is and don't see any explanation at all. I know we're supposed to follow the sources, but if it appears that NWS has changed its standard procedures without officially changing their public reference document, would WP:IAR apply towards making a change to represent actual practice? rdfox 76 (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the usage of EFU vs. EF0 still varies by NWS office. I'd say less than half of offices (those focused in the Central/South Plains) actually use EFU, with the majority still rating tornadoes that are spotter confirmed or open fields as EF0. If they were rated EF0 because they didn't hit anything, they'll have to stay that way. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, clarification on my point--I wasn't suggesting changing EF0 ratings to EFU, I meant that perhaps we should include some information about the use of the EFU rating in the article, to explain why readers might see EFU ratings used despite the official definition. Agreed that we shouldn't change the actual ratings listed. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'm an anecdotal example of a reader who was confused by the use of EFU in the tornado data tables. I'm glad I checked the talk page for this info. --2601:CD:C101:7F46:6851:D906:E64A:191B (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Another factor is that in places like the Southeast, it is much harder to get a "no reported damage" situation due to the more developed and forested nature. If it even takes down a single tree, fence or power pole, it is considered damage. It's also why there are fewer EF0's in outbreaks focused in Dixie Alley, since uprooting trees (even in otherwise wilderness lands with no human development) would probably get an EF1 or EF2 rating. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

EFU tornadoes

It appears that assigning an EFU rating is now part of official NOAA policy: https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01016005curr.pdf. See pages A-74 and A-75 for details. Should this be added to the table? TornadoLGS (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the basic structure we currently have is good enough, but I won't object if others decide we should have an EFU tab in the table. I do note that it'll be fundamentally impossible to include an exemplar image of EFU damage, though. rdfox 76 (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm on the fence myself. If we go add a new tab, I suppose it would be possible to include a photograph that shows a non-damaging tornado in an open field. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Support EFU tornadoes are allowed to be classified as tornadoes. So shouldn't we include a part about that? {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 14:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Tree Damage

To me the referenced [2] [3] damage expectations are somewhat vague. I refer here to the "Degree of Damage" on the chart. Does (for example) "5" (on the chart) mean the forest is/will be leveled? "3" 50% leveled? Is there any resource out there that could clarify this for the reader? I know it's not a exact science.....and I have looked myself and found nothing.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

EFU in parameters table

@HenryPlayz84: I see that you have continued to remove the EFU rating from the parameters table without explanation. This information is supported by official National Weather Service policy, which can be found on pages A-74 and A-75 of this document. The NWS does actually assign EFU ratings (see these examples [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). The discussions above also show there is some consensus to include this material as well. Could you explain why you are removing content that is backed by reliable sources? I have brought the discussion here so that we can avoid any further edit warring. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this aught to explain things, HenryPlayz84 is currently blocked indefinitely for vandalism. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

2021 paper

Supercell tornadoes are much stronger and wider than damage-based ratings indicate Mapsax (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

color

why did the colors get changed? i like the old one Lolkikmoddi (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lolkikmoddi:The colors were not changed for no reason. All storm colors were reverted to what they were before 2022. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Colour_Discussions for details. In short, talks reached and impasse and we couldn't move forward with other changes. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

the hurricane scale and the ef scale and fujita scale is not the same so it should not be the same colors. Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lolkikmoddi: That's nothing new actually. The F/EF scale has used the same colors as the Saffir-Simpson scale on Wikipedia since 2006. Both the hurricane and tornado colors were changed early this year and changed back more recently. You can bring it up at the discussion I link to above, but I don't expect it will be well-received. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

oh Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Why are EF5s (200 mph - .05%) more rare than F5s (280 mph - .10%) in frequency section?

Why are EF5s of the Enhanced Fujita scale more rare than much stronger F5s of the old scale, where they are cited as twice as frequent. One in a thousand F5s vs one in two thousand EF5s.. Is it because of the statistical datum period, where strong great plains tornadoes have become more rare while weaker midwest and southeast tornadoes have increased? B137 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The Fujita scale did not rely heavily on construction standards like the EF scale does. Many F5 tornadoes would likely be considered EF4 instead of EF5 if they occurred today due to poor construction quality. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 01:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

"Ef6 tornado" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ef6 tornado has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 5 § Ef6 tornado until a consensus is reached. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Contradicts TORRO scale article

This article contradicts a claim on the TORRO scale article that says only the U.S. and Canada use the EF scale. I have been able to confirm and cite that France does use the EF scale and has used it since 2008; but I have added a “citation needed” tag to the claim that China and Mongolia use it. Please find a reliable source for that or delete that. 108.147.10.49 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I found a paper from 2017 that says that Although the enhanced Fujita (EF) scale has been introduced in the United States (Doswell et al., 2009; Groenemeijer and Kühne, 2014), the Chinese Nuclear Safety Bureau has not yet adopted it. and There is no single organization responsible for tornado rating in China.. This source from European Severe Storms Laboratory, also from 2017, says while China tracks and records the numbers of tornadoes, they currently have an informal rating process using either the Fujita or Enhanced Fujita Scale.

News articles from this year about tornadoes in China, saying According to the local authorities, the tornado in Suqian was rated at EF-2 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale, but that doesn't say the country uses the EF scale, just what local authorities used.

Overall, I'm content with the citation needed tag for now. I'll keep looking for sources. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 16:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I've been looking into this. If "there is no single organization responsible for tornado rating in China", then I think it's pretty clear that there's no clear standard. This paper, from Nanjing University, uses the EF scale but also acknowledges the other. I think it makes the most sense to remove the claim (and thus, the contradiction) on both articles, so I've done that and replaced it with cited information (as well as uncovering that Japan uses the EF-scale, too). DeemDeem52 (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Canada does NOT call its scale the “CEF” scale. Please see Environment Canada

@WeatherWriter, Canada and France both refer to the EF-scale by its American name. Canada does NOT add a “C” prefix to it. You can see that on Environment Canada’s website. Sometimes places like the Washington Post use a C prefix to disambiguate between who surveyed it because of the minor variations that may exist between American and Canadian terminology and units and whatnot. Please DO NOT re add the C prefix unless there is credible, official evidence (preferably from a Canadian source; and preferably from Environment Canada) that supports the idea of a prefix. Thank you. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see this (Page 6 and 39), this (page 31). The "EF-scale" used in Canada is not the EF-scale used in the USA. They are actually different. Page 6 of the International Fujita scale document clearly shows the differences. Canada (per their own website on the "EF-scale"), "The EF-scale was adopted by the United States in 2007. EC had been evaluating the scale and its use in the US since that time. Based on that evaluation, a number of minor revisions were made so that the EF-Scale is better suited to the Canadian context." Academics destiquish the "EF-scale" from the Canadian EF-scale (called "CEF-scale"). Something has to be listed to note the "EF-scale" on this article isn't the one used by Canada. Not even close. Heck, EF5 starts at 195 mph on the CEF-scale, not 201. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

But Canada itself still refers to it as the EF scale. The C prefix merely seems to be used by folks outside Canada to distinguish it from its American counterpart. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m all good though about listing the differences between the scale. Even the French scale has minor variations from the American scale. I’m just saying that most people in Canada don’t add the C prefix. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Why not put something like; “the scale is known internationally as the CEF-scale”?, with a reference explaining that the C prefix is typically not used by Canadians. Since most, if not all sources saying that it’s known as the CEF scale, are from sources outside of Canada. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning the addition of the EFU category.

So we have EFU mentioned in this article but I thought it would be good to actually mention that change in practice of rating non-damaging tornadoes EFU instead of EF0. I know from looking at SPC data that EFU ratings started in 2016, but It seems that there should be a NOAA publication out there actually discussing the change. If there is, I think it's something that should be cited here. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know but there have certainly been a number of tornadoes rated EFU (EF-unknown) Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)