• 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

buckeye05 said:
Well if Bridge Creek and Jarrell are the standard for EF5 now, then no wonder...
Click to expand...
Especially odd to choose those as examples considering Tim has named one or the other multiple times as his pick for the most violent damage he's ever surveyed. I get the sentiment I suppose, but it's not a very compelling argument.
 
locomusic01 said:
Especially odd to choose those as examples considering Tim has named one or the other multiple times as his pick for the most violent damage he's ever surveyed. I get the sentiment I suppose, but it's not a very compelling argument.
Click to expand...
I noticed that too - why pick those from 20-25 years ago? Why not reference Joplin or 4/27 tornadoes which actually used EF scale? Strange...
 
buckeye05 said:
I really, really hope he didn't just check out two of the towns and call it done. I mean there's no way right? My trust is pretty eroded at this point though.
Click to expand...
I emailed Tim and he told me he was part of the team that surveyed Mayfield and Dawson Springs. No indication he was going to perform further surveys but I asked him to clarify to be sure, still awaiting his response.
 
andyhb said:
View attachment 11082

I think this confirms it...
Click to expand...

It's been abundantly clear for some time now that certain people believe EF5 damage can only occur in Oklahoma (and maybe Texas) because apparently no one else knows how to properly design and construct structures capable of being "well-built."

There's a bias that has imbued the rating process of violent tornadoes since Moore 2013. I fully believe that if the 4/27 tornadoes had been rated post-Moore that not a single one would've been deemed EF5 worthy.

Downtown Birmingham could be scoured down to bedrock come April and it would be "Sorry, folks, they just don't build things like they do on the Plains."

It's almost as if there's an expectation that all structures should have been constructed as if they're in an area that has been repeatedly hit by violent tornadoes otherwise the belief is the construction quality just isn't quite good enough.

I was in a large institutional building today in Huntsville (including on the roof for a good period of time). I'm intimately familiar with the building, its design, and its quality of construction. It could be leveled tomorrow and I guarantee it wouldn't meet EF5 standards. "Sorry, folks, we can't rule out that maybe an earthquake occurred simultaneously so this is lower bound." Plus, the architect and engineers weren't from the Plains, so seems pretty obvious to me they wouldn't know how to design and construct a "well-built" building.

Do we really know that the anchor bolting was torqued to the design specifications? Maybe it was over-tightened and damaged the foundation. Maybe it wasn't torqued down enough. If there's any potential *chance* it wasn't done EXACTLY as we would like to see then LOWER BOUND.

Hyperbole, sure. But, it's all that seems to be left. There's definitely no confidence in the ratings process.
 
TH2002 said:
I emailed Tim and he told me he was part of the team that surveyed Mayfield and Dawson Springs. No indication he was going to perform further surveys but I asked him to clarify to be sure, still awaiting his response.
Click to expand...

I mean no offense but you're wasting your time. It's not that the right structure/building was accidentally missed or wasn't identified. It's the belief that it doesn't exist. Work backwards from there and you'll understand why I believe identifying or mentioning other potential DIs is ultimately a waste of time.
 
Evan said:
I mean no offense but you're wasting your time. It's not that the right structure/building was accidentally missed or wasn't identified. It's the belief that it doesn't exist. Work backwards from there and you'll understand why I believe identifying or mentioning other potential DIs is ultimately a waste of time.
Click to expand...
Another thing that doesn't exist anymore is EF5 tornadoes themselves. It is not that there are no longer any storms that reach that intensity, but no longer any storms that are rated as such.
 
Shakespeare 2016 said:
How many more times are we going to have to hear, "NO EF5 THIS TIME!!!"
Click to expand...

Until it's accepted that EF5s can only occur in certain places. A bone will eventually be thrown to the masses to quiet the growing concensus that EF5s no longer exist. But it will be simply that -- a token gesture to be relied upon when saying yet again "not EF5 worthy" for future tornadoes.

It is what it is. Only certain people have the "credentials" to classify a tornado as EF5. Unless they sign off on it then it doesn't exist.
 
Evan said:
Until it's accepted that EF5s can only occur in certain places. A bone will eventually be thrown to the masses to quiet the growing concensus that EF5s no longer exist. But it will be simply that -- a token gesture to be relied upon when saying yet again "not EF5 worthy" for future tornadoes.

It is what it is. Only certain people have the "credentials" to classify a tornado as EF5. Unless they sign off on it then it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
This tornado was probably more intense than the Joplin and Moore 2013 tornadoes.
 
Evan said:
Until it's accepted that EF5s can only occur in certain places. A bone will eventually be thrown to the masses to quiet the growing concensus that EF5s no longer exist. But it will be simply that -- a token gesture to be relied upon when saying yet again "not EF5 worthy" for future tornadoes.

It is what it is. Only certain people have the "credentials" to classify a tornado as EF5. Unless they sign off on it then it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
Why does it have to be a specific month and place for a tornado to be rated EF5?
 
TH2002 said:
Another thing that doesn't exist anymore is EF5 tornadoes themselves. It is not that there are no longer any storms that reach that intensity, but no longer any storms that are rated as such.
Click to expand...

Right. Unless said storm occurs in the correct location and is signed off on by someone with the proper "credentials." When that comes to pass, it will be allowed to exist.
 
Evan said:
Right. Unless said storm occurs in the correct location and is signed off on by someone with the proper "credentials." When that comes to pass, it will be allowed to exist.
Click to expand...
Not sure even then. Chickasha and Goldsby both swept away well constructed homes, extensively scoured the ground, threw vehicles for long distances and obliterated them and totally debarked trees. Both got the dreaded "high end" EF4 rating.
 
wasatch said:
I noticed that too - why pick those from 20-25 years ago? Why not reference Joplin or 4/27 tornadoes which actually used EF scale? Strange...
Click to expand...
I don't get it. Jarrell stayed F5 moving extremely slow over double creek dr for minutes, if that is the barometer no tornado with a forward speed over 25MPH will achieve EF5. It doesn't matter I suppose, just makes me not just what NWS states. Why NWS offices got into politics is maddening.
 
TH2002 said:
Not sure even then. Chickasha and Goldsby both swept away well constructed homes, extensively scoured the ground, threw vehicles for long distances and obliterated them and totally debarked trees. Both got the dreaded "high end" EF4 rating.
Click to expand...
Chickasha was an EF5 claimed by Tim Marshall but NWS Norman had their own thoughts
 
TH2002 said:
Not sure even then. Chickasha and Goldsby both swept away well constructed homes, extensively scoured the ground, threw vehicles for long distances and obliterated them and totally debarked trees. Both got the dreaded "high end" EF4 rating.
Click to expand...

See my earlier point about construction quality needing to be equivalent to that of an area that has been repeatedly hit by violent tornadoes. That's the standard for construction quality today -- it's just it was never officially announced. I'm not disagreeing with you, trust me.

The quote about Moore and Jarrell was extremely revealing in my view. Equivalent damage to structures of a similar quality is now required. It's never been officially announced and never will be, but that quote is as official of a policy statement as we'll ever see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top