> > >From the weather geek in me: the Fujita-Pearson Scale is based on damage > > done to man-made structures. A super strong tornado in the Mississippi > delta > > that destroys nothing valuable could be a F0, while a moderate tornado > that > > by chance, as in it never moves more than a few feet for some minutes but > > completely destroys two houses, could be a F5. > > How sure are you of this. Everything I've read, including the web site you > furnished, gives the F number in terms of the maxium wind speed. I've been > following meterology ever since I took near daily breaks from my disseration > and walked over to the UW meterology building to look at the weather maps > back in the late '70s and early '80s. > > > > > This we site compares death rates vs. scale and all tornaodes from 1950 - > > 1994. > > > > http://www.tornadoproject.com/fscale/fscale.htm > > > > Kevin T.
>From the web page: The Fujita Scale is based on damage, not the appearance of the funnel. The Seymour, Texas, tornado of April 10, 1979 is a prime example of a tornado that is destined to be misjudged on the Fujita Scale. This spectacular funnel was probably capable of F4 damage, had it passed through a town. It produced only telephone pole and tree damage, and thus could be rated no higher than F2 damage. Me: It's giving the wind speed as an indication of what damage could happen. I am just pointing out that a 315 MPH tornado that damages nothing will be classified as a F0. I know of tornadoes that ripped up cornfields, causing a lot of crop damage, but were F0 because they didn't damage anything man-made. Just like the wind chill factor, journalists will seize upon the number to sensationalize the story. Kevin T. Weather World WPSX
