• 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

Equus said:
I guess it's probably a good thing the EF scale came when it did so at least the F ratings are consistently iffy and the EF ratings are subject to a little more realism... now if only we could get rid of WFO to WFO inconsistency and the notion that "as conservative as humanly possible = most accurate" then the F to EF inconsistency could be our only unsolvable problem lol
Click to expand...
Yeah, more consistency from office to office would definitely be appreciated. Easier said than done, of course.

As far as the conservative ratings go, I think that might just be a natural bias in scientific thinking. A more conservative conclusion is seen as easier to justify and therefore more rigorous, versus a more extreme conclusion which is more likely to be subjected to criticism by other experts, even if the data supports it.
 
warneagle said:
Yeah, more consistency from office to office would definitely be appreciated. Easier said than done, of course.

As far as the conservative ratings go, I think that might just be a natural bias in scientific thinking. A more conservative conclusion is seen as easier to justify and therefore more rigorous, versus a more extreme conclusion which is more likely to be subjected to criticism by other experts, even if the data supports it.
Click to expand...
That would be fine especially from an engineering standpoint if it had always been consistently applied from the start; if the standard had always been "slabbed and wiped=EF3 unless fortress" then we wouldn't have the weird differences and wild swings from year to year and WFO to WFO; too much subjectively introduced I think. The fact that we can sit here and go "uh oh it's in LZK/MEG" and everyone understands what that means is a sign that something somewhere is wrong with the consistent application process lol
 
There's definitely some type of insecurity/psychological phenomenon among NWS surveyors when faced with such a responsibility. It's like overrating a tornado is their greatest fear. I can recall a Tim Marshall presentation earlier this year where he took questions after his power point, and this first one he got was "What is your opinion on the notion that the NWS is always overrating tornadoes?". He looked a bit perplexed and his reply was basically "Uh.. they usually don't, and for the most part you guys do a pretty good job?" The fact that overrating is still viewed a bigger concern than underrating among surveyors was made very clear in that moment. Why do people still think that is a frequent problem (it was in Newnan but that is the only recent example I can think of)? The bigger concern is clearly on the opposite side of the issue.
 
Newnan is an excellent example if the other highest end tornadoes in KY/TN aren't eventually bumped to EF4; damage from Friday was objectively more violent than in Newnan so even this year we have a glaring inconsistency with the application of the scale from WFO to WFO
 
Looks more like a covered hopper car which is actually larger than a tank car, we haven't seen that kind of train tossing since Tuscaloosa iirc and that looks much further than we had then. The list of 'incredible phenomena' continues to grow
 
andyhb said:
Holy excrement (in the Earlington area).
Click to expand...
I think that stretch from Earlington to Bremen was where the tornado was at (or close to) maximum intensity. The photos from Bremen especially are incredible, with the rows of slabbed houses and ground scouring.
 
andyhb said:


Holy excrement (in the Earlington area).
Click to expand...

It's kind of hard to tell, but I wonder if that's actually the covered hopper in this photo, not a tank car like the first tweet says. I could be wrong, it's kind of hard to tell, they just look similar. Either way, it's very impressive.

 
The contextual damage along the Bremen/Earlington portion of the path is essentially screaming EF5 at this point. However, I have some real concerns about all the CMU foundations I'm seeing in that area. Not gonna set my expectations high for that very reason...
 
buckeye05 said:
The contextual damage along the Bremen/Earlington portion of the path is essentially screaming EF5 at this point. However, I have some real concerns about all the CMU foundations I'm seeing in that area. Not gonna set my expectations high for that very reason...
Click to expand...


CMU or not, this is extreme in Bremen.
 
It'll definitely come down to contextual evidence and non-residential structures, I'm convinced that single family homes being rated EF5 is something from the past regardless of anchoring
 
Also low-key can we keep the extraneous discussion about the EF-scale out of here while more information continues to come in?
 
If a mod could move those to the EF discussion thread that would be ideal, got carried away on a tangent lol sorry

The streaks of most intense damage definitely seem to line up rather well with where the highest velocities were found; definitely east of Mayfield is the place to look
 
A block foundation isn't always inherently the worst, have helped build houses where the blocks are filled with cement and the proper anchor bolt spacings of a slab house, but it certainly has the capacity to itself fail so a slightly lower rating would be justified if the contextual support weren't overly extreme (especially standard CMU)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top