Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
What? Calm down...THESE NWS OFFICES DO NOT VALUE PEOPLE'S LIVES OR PROPERTY!!
Sorry, these nws offices just anger me!What? Calm down...
Sorry, these nws offices just anger me!
Upper management as usual.I don't have any special insight but I am pretty sure the issue is NOT with random WFO Forecasters and employees. The flaw is what the process has evolved into and what it relies upon. And that's going to be driven by leadership likely from the top down from NOAA to regional and to the leadership at individual WFOs.
The NWS staff and Forecasters have my utmost respect.
Probably politics as well.Upper management as usual.
After letting it sit for a bit. I've come to the determination that the 190 mph rating can be justified in some regards.
The thing that really has me over I think is the inconsistency in the rating system. Every event like this we've learned more and more about construction flaws and what that means to determine damage surveys. But what I've also personally learned is how many homes are truly not well-built.
That's why contextual factors need to be accounted for more, as well as non-traditional indicators. We're past the days of bare-minimum in technology, thus we should find ways to be more open to other indicators that wouldn't be factored in the past. Again, while I think ignorance is a factor in these recent surveys, I truly think they are just becoming more strict on what they see to be more precise. The contrary to this is that the other indications become that much more meaningful than before, but as we know, these haven't been taken seriously, which is where the ignorance leads in quote honestly. In short, you become more strict and precise, in return it makes those "obvious" non-traditional indicators that much more valuable because that's where your higher rating probably lies.
Hope that makes sense
Sent from my motorola edge plus using Tapatalk
After letting it sit for a bit. I've come to the determination that the 190 mph rating can be justified in some regards.
The thing that really has me over I think is the inconsistency in the rating system. Every event like this we've learned more and more about construction flaws and what that means to determine damage surveys. But what I've also personally learned is how many homes are truly not well-built.
That's why contextual factors need to be accounted for more, as well as non-traditional indicators. We're past the days of bare-minimum in technology, thus we should find ways to be more open to other indicators that wouldn't be factored in the past. Again, while I think ignorance is a factor in these recent surveys, I truly think they are just becoming more strict on what they see to be more precise. The contrary to this is that the other indications become that much more meaningful than before, but as we know, these haven't been taken seriously, which is where the ignorance leads in quote honestly. In short, you become more strict and precise, in return it makes those "obvious" non-traditional indicators that much more valuable because that's where your higher rating probably lies.
Hope that makes sense
Sent from my motorola edge plus using Tapatalk
A historic tornado outbreak in December is being treated as if it were some weak wind storm. I don’t think they care about rating tornadoes properly.I know the Mayfield/Bremen rating is bad, but it's compounded by the fact that Bowling Green, Dresden, Saloma, and the Tri-State long tracker are still at EF3. Just so completely ridiculous all around. They've pretty much screwed up the ratings of all the most significant tornadoes that occurred during this outbreak. Each and every single one. This all has turned out like a survey from a 2006 event. I'm so disillusioned with all of this right now because It's like we are literally back to the point where we were prior to 2007.
No it isn't, there's no need for this.A historic tornado outbreak in December is being treated as if it were some weak wind storm. I don’t think they care about rating tornadoes properly.
Not trying to be Mr. Contrary, but I don't think that's it. It's that a process that is still somewhat subjective is being treated as almost completely objective. I believe that's largely due to the ratings process crossing specialities and, thus, much reliance is being placed on a very small number of structural engineers and others with the education, expertise, and credentials to assess damage and its corresponding wind speed.A historic tornado outbreak in December is being treated as if it were some weak wind storm. I don’t think they care about rating tornadoes properly.
Why make it so hard to rate a tornado? Like Moore 2013 when NWS in Norman rated it as at least an EF4 like 30 minutes later. It was only obvious. Then the next day they did a damage survey and it was upgraded to EF5.Not trying to be Mr. Contrary, but I don't think that's it. It's that a process that is still somewhat subjective is being treated as almost completely objective. I believe that's largely due to the ratings process crossing specialities and, thus, much reliance is being placed on a very small number of structural engineers and others with the education, expertise, and credentials to assess damage and its corresponding wind speed.
There's a lack of transparency and formalization in that process and it is irking people quite a bit -- myself included.
The big question for me is why? What do they gain from underrating tornadoes, and especially not calling an EF5?A combination of factors I'd say. I think a big part of it was that Vilonia set a bad precedent and things spiraled from there. Also, I think nobody wants to be the WFO who's call ends the EF5 drought. That's on top of all the scrutiny they would receive for going with EF5 to begin with.