-
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 WX Severe Weather Threat June 6-14
- Thread starter Kds86z
- Start date
Also, giving tornadoes an EF3 rating when they aren't one isn't a sign of a liberal office, it's a sign of an office that has no clue what they're doing when it comes to surveying. A lot of offices just slap half of the tornadoes in their region with an EF3 rating whether it was likely stronger or weaker. It's the safest rating there is. When an office rates a tornado with a 120 mph+ damage presentation the same as a tornado with 180 mph+, it's a failure of categorization.
- Thread starter
- #763
Kds86z
Member
I located the tweet in question which was on page 36. The problem i noticed is that there was tons of twitter post's in where someone scrolling through the pages could maybe overlook a potential duplicate post. It's almost best to just fully eliminate twitter posts from the main thread and have a separate thread for the twitter posts. Per my recommendation earlier.
- Thread starter
- #765
Kds86z
Member
Big disagree. Both June 2023 outbreaks (14-19 and 20-26) were more significant both in terms of impact, fatalities, and meteorological significance (EF2s and EF3s in Dixie in June is crazy). I think there’s just some recency bias because we haven’t had a big June outbreak in a little while.
I’d say EF4 is possible for the one home that had its floor platform removed leaving the basement exposed. We have no way of knowing whether it was nailed or bolted down via aerial photography, but this type of foundation and construction usually involves bolts. The extreme damage to vehicles and transmission towers lends good contextual support too.
What on earth are you complaining about now? It’s a standard procedure, not a “failure of categorization”. Using an EF3 as a placeholder while a violent rating considered is standard procedure, and has been for a long time. Even Enid briefly had the EF3 placeholder at one point. The bottom line is you need a thorough survey before upgrading to a violent rating, and you can’t just jump the gun after looking at a few pictures.
Honestly, it seems like you just default to complaining about the rating process from the get go no matter the circumstances, and I’m getting pretty sick of it. Sometimes it also seems like you’ve altered your language and behavior JUST enough to not be frequently lambasted by TalkWeather members on a regular basis, but low-key have held on to ignorant viewpoints and haven’t actually learned as much. Like seriously, this much time has gone by and you’re still complaining about a preliminary placeholder rating? @slenker and I gave a pretty solid explanation of why people like you being constantly dismissive of standardized, science based surveying and wanting automatic violent ratings as soon as you see some empty foundations and contextual feats isn’t valid. But apparently you plugged your ears to that conversation and learned nothing. This has nothing to do with you knowing better, and has EVERYTHING to with thinking you do because you’re unable to grasp the importance of a cautious, standardized approach. Dunning Kruger 101.
I’m no NWS fanboy, and I’ll be critical of them as soon as they make a mistake, but this is not a mistake, it’s just procedure. The office isn’t clueless, you are.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #769
Kds86z
Member
- Thread starter
- #770
Kds86z
Member
I'm talking about how overrating doesn't automatically make an office liberal. A lot of offices just default to EF3 when in doubt. On both the high-end and low-end. I have absolutely no problem with any of the preliminary ratings from yesterday. Calm your tits.
What on earth does that have to do with the current situation at all? It seems like you just want to complain about ratings at any given opportunity. It’s not relevant here.
I've seen multiple people claim NWS Chicago is a liberal office. Mainly due to the fact they rated a tornado from the April outbreak EF3 when it looked more like an EF2. Looking back, I think I saw the majority of that commentary somewhere else. I can see why you are confused now, so that's my bad.
But also... I have done an exhaustive amount of research on tornadoes and tornado science, written dozens of summaries of scientific articles/research/reports and shared them here, and I've plotted data across multiple spreadsheets and charts. You've got a lot of nerve calling me ignorant when the extent of your sources are "I've done a TON of research, so you're just gonna have to trust me ok?"
Plus, we agree on almost everything, so the fact you can't handle the first potential disagreement we've had in a long while with good faith and respect instead of flying off the handle says more about you than it does me.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #774
Kds86z
Member
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
I'm seeing a lack of response to this but I personally think this would be a better idea.
Sometimes, there's more pages of the aftermath/arguing about the rating after some of these threads. Having a place to seperate and discuss that instead of clogging it in one thread would be far better. Thank you for this idea.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Another buckeye05 and Grand Poo Bah battle.
Buckle in for EF scale thread 2: electric booalslab anytime soon.
In all seriousness, it's just ratings guys. No need to be calling each other ignorant or getting remotely heated. Take it to DMs if you're gonna start at each other once more *Secretly gets popcorn out*
Buckle in for EF scale thread 2: electric booalslab anytime soon.
In all seriousness, it's just ratings guys. No need to be calling each other ignorant or getting remotely heated. Take it to DMs if you're gonna start at each other once more *Secretly gets popcorn out*
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
In terms of high octane significance, this one had it for me. But, that's differing opinions so agree to disagree..
CheeselandSkies
Member
I saw some context described in one of the earlier links to this footage. Sounds like the chaser handed his camera off to the trapped guy's wife while he went to help him. So if that's accurate and she was not only OK with the rescue being filmed, but did it herself, this seems like a bit of a rush to judgement here.
Agreed, immediately sticking a camera in the face of someone in distress before offering to help is not a good thing, but that's not necessarily what happened here.
Last edited:
Yeah I do like the idea of. I think it could kinda serve a purpose like the “enhanced Fujita Scale Debate” where we run there to usually talk about the ratings of tornadoes. Instead we run over to post for the aftermath of the events.
WeathermanLeprechaun
Member
Exactly. Keep the junk and bickering if it does happen out of this thread. My comment just 20 minutes ago may age well about more pages with arguing than genuine discussion. Some of yall get way too over the head on ratings and i mean that as respectful as possible. Just chill out.