• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER

Severe Weather Threat June 15-23

OH-IOan said:
For me and others, though, the rating is part of what makes tornadoes interesting. What goes into a rating? Who are the experts? Why do F/EF5 tornadoes not happen past Pennsylvania? Stuff like that. It's annoying when people say things like "the rating doesn't matter, be glad nobody died" and "we should be glad it didn't get a higher rating, because that means loss of life" when the rating itself is what interests people like me.

Tornadoes are more than just a violently-rotating column of air, y'know. Someone, can't remember who, said that tornadoes are an entire science, and I really agree.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that ratings don't matter and people shouldn't discuss them. If anything, I encourage such discussion.

I am saying that it's unnecessary to engage in rage-filled s**tposting whenever a tornado doesn't get rated what we think it should have. Nobody wins when that happens.

My point being that with the current state of tornado damage surveying, it shouldn't really surprise anyone when a tornado's rating inevitably gets lowballed. I can see it coming from a mile away.

edit: Toned it down
 
Last edited:
TH2002 said:
I didn't say that ratings don't matter and people shouldn't discuss them.

I am saying that there are a number of folks out there, both on this forum and elsewhere, that would benefit everyone by not having hissy fits whenever a tornado doesn't get rated what we think it should have.

Seriously, with the current state of tornado damage surveying, why does it really surprise anyone when a tornado's rating inevitably gets lowballed? I can see it coming from a mile away.

And when people lose their s**t over tornado ratings, nobody wins. It doesn't get the NWS to change the rating, the weenies only entrench their own misery, and they also hurt the credibility of us hobbyists when they do it.

buckeye05 said it best here:
buckeye05

Severe WX Post in thread 'April 1-2 (overnight) Severe Weather Event'

You know what I’m going to go ahead and say what I’ve been wanting to say for a while. There is a cluster of users who are obviously transplants from tornado Twitter/Reddit, and both of those websites are better suited to them than this forum. I’m tired of every EF thread being punctuated by garbage, misinformed takes from people who refuse to learn more and post less, and cling to this forum despite not being well-received, ignoring input from more knowledgeable users, and being the common denominator between every discussion that goes off the rails. It’s diluted the quality of the...
  • Like
  • Love
Click to expand...
Just because it's hot as balls outside doesn't mean we gotta raise the temperature in here. Maybe chill a lil? Some of us are just obsessed with all facets of tornado science, rather than exclusively the forecasting side of it. Ratings and wind estimates are a major part of that science. The important part is keeping it objective and respectful.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
Just because it's hot as balls outside doesn't mean we gotta raise the temperature in here. Maybe chill a lil? Some of us are just obsessed with all facets of tornado science, rather than exclusively the forecasting side of it. Ratings and wind estimates are a major part of that science. The important part is keeping it objective and respectful.
Click to expand...
100%, I don't see why this escalated as fast as it did. We'll just have to agree-to-disagree, I guess.
 
I do actually agree the EF ratings debate has lost its purpose a bit now that it's abundantly clear absolutely no amount of data or research is going to change anything for a long time. There's no real point in caring. That doesn't mean I'm gonna stop though. It's too interesting and all my other social media sites are full of actual politics and rage inducing news.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
Just because it's hot as balls outside doesn't mean we gotta raise the temperature in here. Maybe chill a lil? Some of us are just obsessed with all facets of tornado science, rather than exclusively the forecasting side of it. Ratings and wind estimates are a major part of that science. The important part is keeping it objective and respectful.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I toned it down. The summer heat changes me lol

On a different note, I think you have fully assimilated into the Talkweather cult group of like-minded tornado nerds. Congratulations!
 
TH2002 said:
Sorry, I toned it down. The summer heat changes me lol

On a different note, I think you have fully assimilated into the Talkweather cult group of like-minded tornado nerds. Congratulations!
Click to expand...

Appreciate it dude! This place rules.

Hopefully we can find a way to channel this passion and weenie rage into something more productive in the off-season.
 
Does anyone know if the Enderlin tornado swept away any homes that were properly anchor bolted? I haven’t taken a very close look at the foundations. The farmsteads swept almost totally clean of debris, tossed tanker cars, and severely debarked/stubbed hardwoods make it clear that it was a violent tornado regardless of anchoring. However, the presence of anchor bolts at any of those farm houses would mean the difference between “Clearly underrated, but technically not completely egregiously ridiculous to go with high-end EF3 given the construction issues” and “There were anchor bolts and therefore literally zero valid reason to rate it below EF4, what the **** were they even thinking???”

I just want to know which of the two categories Enderlin falls into. For the record, I personally don’t believe that anchor bolts should be an absolute necessity for an EF4 rating as long as violent contextual indicators are present, but hey I don’t get to make those calls.
 
Last edited:
buckeye05 said:
Does anyone know if the Enderlin tornado swept away any homes that were properly anchor bolted? I haven’t taken a very close look at the foundations. The farmsteads swept almost totally clean of debris, tossed tanker cars, and severely debarked/stubbed hardwoods make it clear that it was a violent tornado regardless of anchoring. However, the presence of anchor bolts at any of those farm houses would mean the difference between “Clearly underrated, but technically not completely egregiously ridiculous to go with high-end EF3 given the construction issues” and “There were anchor bolts and therefore literally zero valid reason to rate it below EF4, what the **** were they even thinking???”

I just want to know which of the two categories Enderlin falls into. For the record, I personally don’t believe that anchor bolts should be an absolute necessity for an EF4 rating as long as violent contextual indicators are present, but hey I don’t get to make those calls.
Click to expand...
Of the two homes I have seen views of, one was a slider and the other was unanchored (It was also at least partially on a block foundation)

Honestly though, the main thing that convinces me of violent intensity was the train car being thrown and a truck being mangled beyond recognition.
 
TH2002 said:
Of the two homes I have seen views of, one was a slider and the other was unanchored (It was also at least partially on a block foundation)

Honestly though, the main thing that convinces me of violent intensity was the train car being thrown and a truck being mangled beyond recognition.
Click to expand...
Based on the extreme context this tornado should be rated at least mid to high-end EF4. I am also getting to the point where I almost don't care about the rating because NWS offices are going to do what they want.
 
TH2002 said:
Of the two homes I have seen views of, one was a slider and the other was unanchored (It was also at least partially on a block foundation)

Honestly though, the main thing that convinces me of violent intensity was the train car being thrown and a truck being mangled beyond recognition.
Click to expand...
Ah ok thanks this clears it up a bit. In my book I’d consider this not great, but not quite Bakersfield or Lake City bad.

This tornado is a perfect example of why I think it would be a good idea for there to be an auxiliary list of designated, official “non-structural violent tornado indicators” included within the EF scale that can be used by NWS surveyors in conjunction with the established DIs, with a specific range of allowed MPH increases depending on the contextual indicator and the degree of severity (scouring severity, debris pattern/size, different heavy objects and how far they are thrown, etc). Ideally, there would also be a similar auxiliary list of contextual discrepancies and a pre-determined wind speed decrease associated with each one of those too. Yeah it would make things more complicated, but it would also make it so contextual damage can be officially factored in, and factored in with established standards and guidelines to reduce subjectivity, guesswork, and inconsistency between offices. Most importantly, it would allow clearly violent tornadoes to be rated appropriately even if they don’t hit well-built structures.

Anyway I’m just spitballing and probably hoping for something that won’t happen, but I feel like it would solve so much, and I don’t think it’s a totally far-fetched idea.
 
TH2002 said:
Of the two homes I have seen views of, one was a slider and the other was unanchored (It was also at least partially on a block foundation)

Honestly though, the main thing that convinces me of violent intensity was the train car being thrown and a truck being mangled beyond recognition.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the truck was misinfo on my part. That was actually from the Jamestown tornado.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top