June 21st 2023 Matador TX Tornado Discussion

[ColdFront]

if there’s one thing we should be blaming it’s the construction codes in most of the country…

To me that’s only 25% of the problem personally. It goes back to the whole “if a tornado is out in a field and does no damage” does it really make a sound lol.

Our entire fabric has become “do everything efficiently at the lowest cost”, even if building codes were upgraded, you would still have situations like Joplin where the NWS and Marshall found a few homes with EF5 damage. The ACSE puts out a study saying it’s essentially impossible to find any type of 200 MPH wind damage at ground level.

I’m just honestly shocked we’ve sat with this very imperfect system since the 60s-70s now, instead of a concerted effort to find new technologies, methods, or a new way to rate tornados properly. I believe it was Doswell who wrote about how the scale before the Richter scale was similar to the EF scale, The earthquake was rated based on the damage/shaking it caused. But everyone knew that was imperfect so there was a concerted effort to come up with something more accurate/better instead of upgrading the same imperfect system over and over. And also leaving it up to personal evaluation and assumption which varies across WFOs and people.

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

Looks like this *could* have been their way of avoiding giving the tree damage EF4… not great. Remind me of the dreaded bending of the rules of the scale to fit what the surveyors want it to be, rather than survey it how it is… but otherwise I don’t think this survey is that bad so far in the grand scheme of things. I would argue many on 3/31 this year were significantly worse though that’s more excusable given how there were so many tornadoes to survey.

Tweet deleted....What was it?

 

[Equus]

The problem is more with the EF scale requiring a tornado to hit a fortified nuclear bunker before they will move from the LB, and it only gets infinitely worse when engineers get involved to nitpick and complain about any minor shortcoming. Sure it's good that damage is investigated with that level of thoroughness but the scale should be based on average construction across the US, not the tiny percentage of people rich enough to live in overly reinforced bunkers

 

[tornado examiner]

Tweet deleted....What was it?

A completely debarked and snapped mesquite tree rated as ef2…

 

[Equus]

Mesquites are incredibly tough; no doubt that won't be taken into consideration because it doesn't fit the narrative

 

[ColdFront]

The problem is more with the EF scale requiring a tornado to hit a fortified nuclear bunker before they will move from the LB, and it only gets infinitely worse when engineers get involved to nitpick and complain about any minor shortcoming. Sure it's good that damage is investigated with that level of thoroughness but the scale should be based on average construction across the US, not the tiny percentage of people rich enough to live in overly reinforced bunkers

As the government is want to do, they contracted and outsourced out the development of and upgrade of the scale to the ASCE who they’ve been in bed with since they came to the army corps of engineers defense for the levee that broke during Katrina.

 

[tornado examiner]

Mesquites are incredibly tough; no doubt that won't be taken into consideration because it doesn't fit the narrative

They mislabeled several things which is why I said major problems with the survey. The rated slabbed homes as (all walls collapsed) and there they called a mesquite tree a ‘soft wood’…which is false

I do think there was botching involved here and I doubt there will be a rating upgrade

 

[WhirlingWx]

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

A completely debarked and snapped mesquite tree rated as ef2…

I am not saying making nasty comments toward NWS offices is the way to go but why wont they use their damn common sense? Look at other past other tornadoes rated 4 or 5 on either scale and look at the contextual damage they caused instead of the well-built homes they swept away.

 

[Equus]

Understandable if that's a pinyon (which is a softwood) but given the rest of the survey I'm not confident enough in their tree ID skills to let them off the hook for it

Well the before picture settles that one, definitely pine, fair enough lol

 

[ColdFront]

I’d preface with this, it is still preliminary. And I was honestly expecting a HE EF3 prelim rating. Conservative approach? There’s substance. But I can almost sense an upgrade is coming at some point. It’s all about protocol. The NWS is a GOVERNMENT agency. Realist ideology doesn’t matter; it’s a system, it’s corporate, and it takes time. I almost guarantee you every player in this survey thinks the same thing as us, but their social status and jobs limit them from speaking their mind, let’s be patient.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My beef is definitely not with the rank and file NWS folks. Unless they go rogue like Robinson lol.

Mine is with this disjointed process to turn everything into an engineering standard by the upper levels of the NWS, the ASCE, and Texas Tech.

 

[andyhb]

lol..,

 

[Equus]

I should certainly hope EF scale updates put a heavier focus on contextuals instead of relying just on the constantly lowballed lower bound structural DIs; the general overall scene makes it pretty clear which tornadoes are objectively violent and most WFOs don't seem to take them into account

 

[andyhb]

 

[tornado examiner]

I will call the matador tornado a violent tornado with winds between 190 and 205 mph. Specially in areas with the extreme debarking and scouring.

 

[Equus]

I have heard completely unironic dialogue about Jarrell only deserving an EF3 rating because (insert extensively nitpicked diatribe) - when the point of the scale is to rate based explicitly only on observed damage it feels inappropriate to add in other parameters just to be able to lower the rating

Slow moving tornado = longer over structure, lower the rating
Fast moving tornado = sledgehammer effect on right side, lower the rating
Built just below code = lower rating to minimum LB
Built to code = probably hit by car or trailer frame, lower to LB
Built above code = lol that does not exist, engineer complained about a rusty washer on a bolt, lower the rating

 

[UK_EF4]

Tweet deleted....What was it?

Tweet deleted and my post deleted since apparently that tree was in fact a softwood pine. I admittedly got sucked in to that, so deleted my comment and the og tweeter probably did the same once they realised there was a mistake.

 

[Equus]

I am usually great with tree ID but admittedly I can't really settle on a solid ID just looking at shredded heartwood and sapwood of trees especially outside of the southeast haha, the before picture definitely fixed that

 

[andyhb]

So TTU put out a document in 2004 that is pretty damning regarding their “opinions” on house damage.

https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ef-ttu.pdf

 

[UK_EF4]

Have all these homes been added to the DAT? I recognise a couple, and I haven't seen any connections yet but I think Tim Marshall mentioned some if I'm not mistaken?