Severe WX April 1-2 (overnight) Severe Weather Event

[jiharris0220]

View attachment 39653

Kinda feel sorry for that Nick fellow, he came on here expecting a civilized logical discussion about tornado ratings and instead found mindless bashing of NWS offices. Regardless if they’re right or wrong.

I looked at his twitter and let’s just say he doesn’t exactly have a positive opinion about this site anymore.

Honestly don’t blame him, if I got belittled just for being young and have my points misrepresented I’d have the same mindset.

Not really the best example this site has set, not gonna lie.

 

[tornado examiner]

I mean…fair. We do get a little emotional here when things seem faulty.

 

[slenker]

Kinda feel sorry for that Nick fellow, he came on here expecting a civilized logical discussion about tornado ratings and instead found mindless bashing of NWS offices. Regardless if they’re right or wrong.

I looked at his twitter and let’s just say he doesn’t exactly have a positive opinion about this site anymore.

Honestly don’t blame him, if I got belittled just for being young and have my points misrepresented I’d have the same mindset.

Not really the best example this site has set, not gonna lie.

Yeah, I agree. He was clearly stating his opinion and how he interprets the EF scale. Based on replies, I can tell that there's a lot of disagreements with his takes, but he didn't come after anyone and was entirely respectful with stating his opinion. He was also nice enough to explain to me what certain terminology means in the context of damage surveying. He didn't come here for that and I am assuming he wanted to see the other side of the argument knowing there would be people here that disagreed with him.

 

[tornado examiner]

Memphis is likely uploading the full survey for selmer today as the track disappeared.

 

[Clancy]

Kinda feel sorry for that Nick fellow, he came on here expecting a civilized logical discussion about tornado ratings and instead found mindless bashing of NWS offices. Regardless if they’re right or wrong.

I looked at his twitter and let’s just say he doesn’t exactly have a positive opinion about this site anymore.

Honestly don’t blame him, if I got belittled just for being young and have my points misrepresented I’d have the same mindset.

Not really the best example this site has set, not gonna lie.

Honestly I never really keep up with or pay much attention to any of the EF-rating stuff after an event is over - it can be interesting but when discussing recent events, often times it becomes way too much. One could also say something about posting to Twitter about running afoul of the entire website based off engaging only with the EF debate portion of the forum. I have a pretty good time here, personally, and am delighted to have interacted with some wonderful folks from around the country and the world, especially in the middle of active weather events. Regardless, there's really zero reason for hostility or getting one's undies in a twist over any of this; bashing of offices doesn't accomplish jack-diddly-squat, even though I agree there's a lot of issues to be had with how the EF-scale is implemented (and that has been discussed within professional meteorological circles for many years).

 

[andyhb]

And before you even THINK about saying "the right structures just haven't been hit", I'll remind you that every single EF5 rating ever given within the scale has been from houses and houses alone. No other official DI has ever been given an EF5 rating. Which is actually pretty hilarious considering how often the "right structure" argument has been used by authorities on surveying.

View attachment 39640

You need to stop with this confrontational attitude.

 

[tornado examiner]

And before you even THINK about saying "the right structures just haven't been hit", I'll remind you that every single EF5 rating ever given within the scale has been from houses and houses alone. No other official DI has ever been given an EF5 rating. Which is actually pretty hilarious considering how often the "right structure" argument has been used by authorities on surveying.

View attachment 39640

So the Joplin hospital wasn’t assigned an EF5 rating?
Also the briarwood elementary school from Moore was briefly assigned an EF5 rating but later downgraded.

I also seem to recall a metal building system of some kind from Parkersburg being rated EF5.

 

[Western_KS_Wx]

Kinda feel sorry for that Nick fellow, he came on here expecting a civilized logical discussion about tornado ratings and instead found mindless bashing of NWS offices. Regardless if they’re right or wrong.

I looked at his twitter and let’s just say he doesn’t exactly have a positive opinion about this site anymore.

Honestly don’t blame him, if I got belittled just for being young and have my points misrepresented I’d have the same mindset.

Not really the best example this site has set, not gonna lie.

Yeah, I wouldn’t exactly blame him if he didn’t want to come back to this site anymore after that. He’s very smart and informed on the forensics side of tornadoes and the EF scale, I’ve messaged him a few times to get insight on some things while I was making my Greensburg map, and I always got a straight-forward and detailed response. He came here and was immediately met with hostility pretty much, should probably be a bit of a wake up call on how some of us on this site have been acting.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Honestly don’t blame him, if I got belittled just for being young and have my points misrepresented I’d have the same mindset.

Isn't he an actual surveyor and not just some kid? He really made it sound like he's an authority on the topic. The bashing is anything but mindless. This has been going on 12 years now. Are we just supposed to accept tornadoes are the weakest they've ever been?

His argument was that uncentered anchor bolts justified a 140-150 mph rating. There is nothing in the EF scale that justifies that interpretation, and it defies logic. Most people here have been feeling angry about egregiously low ratings for a long time and it's entirely justified. Underestimating tornado strength is a public safety issue.

 

[andyhb]

Isn't he an actual surveyor and not just some kid? He really made it sound like he's an authority on the topic. The bashing is anything but mindless. This has been going on 12 years now. Are we just supposed to accept tornadoes are the weakest they've ever been?

His argument was that uncentered anchor bolts justified a 140-150 mph rating. There is nothing in the EF scale that justifies that interpretation, and it defies logic. Most people here have been feeling angry about egregiously low ratings for a long time and it's entirely justified. Underestimating tornado strength is a public safety issue.

No, he didn't. He was just offering more information.

 

[tornado examiner]

Yeah, I wouldn’t exactly blame him if he didn’t want to come back to this site anymore after that. He’s very smart and informed on the forensics side of tornadoes and the EF scale, I’ve messaged him a few times to get insight on some things while I was making my Greensburg map, and I always got a straight-forward and detailed response. He came here and was immediately met with hostility pretty much, should probably be a bit of a wake up call on how some of us on this site have been acting.

My bad but like. His interpretation of the damage from Rochelle is…not great, to say the least.

 

[slenker]

Isn't he an actual surveyor and not just some kid? He really made it sound like he's an authority on the topic. The bashing is anything but mindless. This has been going on 12 years now. Are we just supposed to accept tornadoes are the weakest they've ever been?

His argument was that uncentered anchor bolts justified a 140-150 mph rating. There is nothing in the EF scale that justifies that interpretation, and it defies logic. Most people here have been feeling angry about egregiously low ratings for a long time and it's entirely justified. Underestimating tornado strength is a public safety issue.

The guy is not ultimately responsible for a finalized rating if he is one of the surveyors, only that he may have played a role in what it received. But regardless, if he is a surveyor, then he's infinitely more qualified than you or me to discuss the meanings of damage indicators in the context of tornadoes, and his opinion holds a lot of value. Immediately lashing out at him is not the correct decision when it comes to this topic because it's inherently subjective in loads of different ways. This is a place for a civil discussion. I can totally understand why he stopped replying based on the reactions I saw just a page ago in this thread.

Even if he isn't a surveyor, I can tell that he understands the significance of smaller details in the context of homes being damaged as well. Engineering on even very small scales makes a big difference when it comes to how a home reacts to tornadoes. I still do disagree with the take that the home in Lake City was adequately rated even with taking his viewpoint into account, but my opinion is able to be changed if given adequate evidence. That's certainly not impossible to achieve here and I want to hear what he has to say - I hope he ends up responding again.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

No, he didn't. He was just offering more information.

He uses words like "we" in regards to surveys and ratings, and talked about working with surveyors from other offices. I think it's fair to say he was playing up his creds a little bit. I definitely regret my hostility if he's not one of the people actually making these decisions though.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

I do think it's time to start putting surveyors feet to the fire a bit. A lot of these offices really don't deserve the benifit of the doubt they're getting anymore, and nothing will change if they aren't explicitly called out. They're completely entrenched in bad practices and the data that shows that is abundant and readily available. The NOAA study should've been a huge wake up call, but in reality, it didn't change anything.

 

[ColdFront]

Kinda feel sorry for that Nick fellow, he came on here expecting a civilized logical discussion about tornado ratings and instead found mindless bashing of NWS offices. Regardless if they’re right or wrong.

I looked at his twitter and let’s just say he doesn’t exactly have a positive opinion about this site anymore.

Honestly don’t blame him, if I got belittled just for being young and have my points misrepresented I’d have the same mindset.

Not really the best example this site has set, not gonna lie.

There’s constructive criticism of EF scale applications and certain offices, which 99.9% of the time is what occurs here. Then there is the badgering and public shaming attempts of NWS offices over surveys that one user on here does on twitter. It’s the same person that originally called out Nick K. That user has been called out about this before in the past.

Do I agree with a lot of Nick K.’s opinions? No. But my initial statement on his age was merely telling Tornado Examiner not to get his hackles up because the kid is just in high school and not an authority on surveys, even though when you’re strong in your opinions you can come off attempting to act as an authority.

However, I do thinks it’s lame for Nick K to get on his Twitter and blast the site by painting with a broad brush if that’s what he did, when the vast majority of users on here are pro NWS and only give constructive criticism.




By the way @NickKrasz_Wx , what was the attempt in slamming Slenker for asking a question on load path? Very crappy attitude to have over a question. This is a pretty lame public shaming attempt on your part, especially when you only noted one or two users bashing NWS offices, and acted like it was the entire site.

 

[slenker]

For the sake of my sanity, I'm going to omit myself from further discussion here. This thread is going down a strange path and I no longer really wish to discuss any of this.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Here's the tweet @jiharris0220 is referring to



considering he decided to include @slenker 's genuine question about continuous load paths in the tweet I say good riddance. Making fun of someone (on twitter no less) acting in good faith trying to learn more about weather is really crappy behavior. My only regret is not commenting sooner, so I could be included in his pity party.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Here's more information on continuous load paths for anyone curious. This is from Tim Marshall himself. The presentation is from 2011 and called "Discriminating EF4 from EF5". If it was made today I'm sure it'd be retitled "Discriminating EF3 from EF4" since that's clearly where we're trending.

 

[tornado examiner]

So basically what we’d want to see is a house that survived mostly until the center vortex of the tornado tear’s it off the foundation mostly whole for a guaranteed EF5 rating bending bolts in the process? Like the elie tornado did?

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

So basically what we’d want to see is a house that survived mostly until the center vortex of the tornado tear’s it off the foundation mostly whole for a guaranteed EF5 rating bending bolts in the process? Like the elie tornado did?

Yes. except it's more of a guaranteed EF4 rating these days considering what we saw in Goldsby, Vilonia, Rochelle-Fairdale, Mayfield, Chapman, Greenfield, Bassfield-Soso, and Chickasha. Tornadoes will tear up homes from their anchor bolts in one piece, throw them long distances, and still not get an EF5 rating.