• 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 December 10 & 11, 2021 Severe Threat

Looks just as spectacular from the ground as I thought it would. That should be an automatic EF5 qualifier. Big thanks to Brian Emfinger for coming through with what NWS Paducah failed to deliver on. Does anyone think that NWS Paducah possibly could have decided not to survey the trenches in person in order to not stir up any more images or incidents of damage that would add more controversy to the final rating decision?
 
buckeye05 said:
Looks just as spectacular from the ground as I thought it would. That should be an automatic EF5 qualifier. Big thanks to Brian Emfinger for coming through with what NWS Paducah failed to deliver on. Does anyone think that NWS Paducah possibly could have decided not to survey the trenches in person in order to not stir up any more images or incidents of damage that would add more controversy to the final rating decision?
Click to expand...
I think it's more likely they just forgot about it and overlooked it. Either that or they don't consider extreme scouring to be valid for upgrading a rating.
 
buckeye05 said:
Looks just as spectacular from the ground as I thought it would. That should be an automatic EF5 qualifier. Big thanks to Brian Emfinger for coming through with what NWS Paducah failed to deliver on. Does anyone think that NWS Paducah possibly could have decided not to survey the trenches in person in order to not stir up any more images or incidents of damage that would add more controversy to the final rating decision?
Click to expand...
Don't want to get too "out there", but I wouldn't be surprised if they were told from the top down to not stir the hornets nest.
 
Shakespeare 2016 said:
It seems like someone is telling a person dont you dare rate that tornado an EF5. It certainly seemed that way with Vilonia as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's what is happening in the picture. Thinking I may have gone a little too far with this one but would I be surprised if a higher up of some sort is pretty much threatening Paducah with punishment if they rate the tornado EF5? Not really.
 
andyhb said:
Don't want to get too "out there", but I wouldn't be surprised if they were told from the top down to not stir the hornets nest.
Click to expand...
If that's truly the case, it would be pretty redundant, as it's been documented up close now regardless, and people will likely have questions.
 
MNTornadoGuy said:
Click to expand...

While I respect people like Simon Brewer, their tendency to hew closely to the “official” line and procedure in regard to DIs is troubling. For example, the tweets highlighted above are remarkably reluctant to explicitly state that the clearcut EF5 damage is, well, EF5 damage, but instead sides with “at least high-end EF4.” At this point, people need more courage to call a spade a spade and not waffle with qualifiers such as “borderline EF4/5” or “high-end EF4 or EF5 damage.” The contextual DIs clearly support EF5, not “high-end EF4.” This is not a “borderline” case, any more than Chickasha, Goldsby, Vilonia, Chapman, et al. were “borderline”: it is blatantly obvious. The UK research facility alone is well into the EF5 category, as is the trench-digging, the destruction of well-built brick buildings in downtown Mayfield, the ground scouring, the extreme granulation, the damage to vehicles, etc.
 
1673905
A bunch of DIs were added for the Bremen area including an EF4 190:

1673904


1673906
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top