• 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

Shakespeare 2016 said:
Sorry, these nws offices just anger me!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Evan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Upper management as usual.
 
Not that it matters too much but here is what Marc Weinberg has to say. Also follows up to say this did indeed come from the NWS Paducah. I will never get past those images from Bremen being HE EF-4
92e3c8c34577d7ca7d6ec03ba6c94553.jpg


Sent from my motorola edge plus using Tapatalk
 
Tanner M Levasseur said:
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
Click to expand...

Look, anything from probably 160mph+ could probably be "justified" in some way. That's because although this process is presented as objective there's still a significant amount of subjectivity involved.

My thought dating back to the launch of the EF scale was that to proclaim this to be an objective method would require re-rating a significant chunk of F-ratings while heavily standardizing the training, surveying, and analysis parts of the ratings process. That includes having overlapping personnel along with an element of peer review. A number of those factors are lacking or insufficient so we end up with a process that is presented as being objective yet doesn't quite meet that threshold from a definitional standpoint.

All of this is merely my opinion, but the evidence to support it has begun to become a bit overwhelming.
 
Just an FYI, I wouldn't really trust much that Marc Weinberg says, based on previous experience.
 
I think we were all "hoping" but not expecting for it to be rated EF5. And as Evan said, it's pretty much a waste of time bringing specific damage points to anyone's attention because they'll probably nitpick it anyway.
 
Tanner M Levasseur said:
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
Click to expand...

The question here is what is the definition of a "well-built" home? It seems like with each potential EF5 tornado that gets downgraded to EF4 (or potential EF4 downgraded to EF3) that "well-built" becomes harder and harder to qualify for. These offices keep changing the definition, it seems.
 
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.
 
buckeye05 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Shakespeare 2016 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Evan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
buckeye05 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The big question for me is why? What do they gain from underrating tornadoes, and especially not calling an EF5?

I must say that I found Marshall's tweet rather ridiculous. Jarrell and Bridge Creek are widely acknowledged as two of the most extreme events recorded. As I said earlier, if you're treating it like that, you're missing the entire point of the scale to start off with - and he of all people should be smart enough to realise this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top