Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread (2 Viewers)

Sawmaster

Member
Messages
193
Reaction score
274
Location
Easley SC
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
Tim Marshall has been highly respected in the weather community for decades and it's well deserved and I think he has the right to be considered a professional. I don't believe that exempts him from any criticism and scorn, but I also don't think this embittered attitude that has been directed towards him since the December 10-11, 2021 damage surveys is warranted. There's plenty of valid criticism towards that specific quote and I agree with what you had to say about it, but simply cursing his name is so spineless and undeserving.
I personally feel the same way, and in my eyes he has earned and deserves the respect due to other icons of this field like Fujita and Grazulis, for all have devoted so much of themselves to it and made such an effort to be correct that I know I could never achieve anyrthing similar myself. But I also equally respect an illiterate dirt farmer who thoroughly understands the intricacies of nature and his crops, for he too has accomplished something amazing to me which is equally beyond my capabilities. Titles and college degrees mean nothing to me; accomlishments mean everything to me, and Tim Marshall has unquestionably accomplished much.

Another aspect here is that we should consider is the public nature of these forums and how the public will judge us all based on the way we treat other and behave in general. In making the subject distasteful to the general public we all lose some of their respect and any chance we might have had to fire up any intertest they had into joining our pursuits. We're all individuals but we will also be judged as a whole, and personally I want both of those to be positive in their nature.

Phil
 

TH2002

Member
Messages
1,762
Reaction score
2,135
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
All you really need to convey how you truly feel about people like John Robinson are some good ol' memes:
johnrobinsonmeme.JPG
(I made this one a while back, not sure why I think it's so funny, maybe you guys can answer that question?)
 

Sawmaster

Member
Messages
193
Reaction score
274
Location
Easley SC
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
I love the last few sentences of the Abstract. Much gets lost when you lose the focus of your intentions and get swallowed up by details having far less importance. Also where it says: "Despite its far-greater precision, subjectivity issues affect the EF scale also, given uncertain engineering of many specific local DIs, and the rating process’s inherent dependence on judgment calls".

In any true Science there is a quest and requirement for exactness in proof, and the only place for judgement-making is in determining which way you're going to try going next from where you are now. There are many "gray areas" in life but in the end everything either is or isn't, and you can't have it both ways at the same time.

This document clearly shows where many aspects about how things are done now need to change and I hope that those empowered with making those decisions will come to understand that, and make the needed changes to bring things more into alignment with provable reality.

Thank You CheeselandSkies!
Phil
 

A Guy

Member
Messages
112
Reaction score
204
Location
Australia
A shame it's not really a discussion of the weaknesses in the damage ratings themselves.

Good to have some qualification of the path widths - apparently I'm not the only person who's noticed that modern path widths are way more generous than they used to be.
 
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
1,675
Location
Madison, WI
A shame it's not really a discussion of the weaknesses in the damage ratings themselves.

Good to have some qualification of the path widths - apparently I'm not the only person who's noticed that modern path widths are way more generous than they used to be.

Yeah, they spent more time on path with and less on actual damage than I would have liked, but this is still generally true:

Although it ideally was not supposed to occur (Edwards
et al. 2013), tornado data clearly have undergone pronounced
changes associated with EF damage-survey practices. For
most purposes, bulk discontinuities associated with the
EF scale should be acknowledged and statistically nor-
malized in pertinent climatological analyses of tornado
data. Furthermore, the relatively abrupt, essentially step-
wise changes in tornadic path characteristics across the
F–EF divide, and the apparent influence of updated tornado-
survey practices thereon, either mask or complicate the identifi-
cation of more-subtle climatic signals
 
Messages
484
Reaction score
148
Location
texas
kay...doubt they are the latter though. you rarely see random deep large and obvious holes in the ground in aerial imagery and it would be a big coincidence to find these inside the path of a recent violent tornado known for digging trenches and throwing large heavy objects if they are natural. most like brief violent suction vortices or gouges from a large heavy object
 

CalebRoutt

Member
Messages
57
Reaction score
71
Location
Kentucky
I’ve got many of the photos NWS Paducah took of that area. They are not trenches caused by tornado winds because:

1.) They are on the weak side of the tornado where rotation/translation speeds are opposing vectors. This will reduce the winds on that side of the tornado.

2.) A poorly built block home is still standing a few feet away and some roofing debris from it or the destroyed outbuilding was likely ejected from it and struck the ground. Seeing that the poorly built home is still standing it’s highly unlikely that winds caused that. Please do not make assumptions.
 
Messages
484
Reaction score
148
Location
texas
first...M U L T I V O R T E X...second...i used an or there. "or gouges from a large heavy object"....i wasn't making assumptions...just labeling possibilities. alright?
 

CalebRoutt

Member
Messages
57
Reaction score
71
Location
Kentucky
first...M U L T I V O R T E X...second...i used an or there. "or gouges from a large heavy object"....i wasn't making assumptions...just labeling possibilities. alright?
A sub-vortex that intense on that side of the tornado is also unlikely because it would be on the tornado’s weaker side. Given that damage on the tornado’s strong side isn’t too impressive here, it makes it even more unlikely wind caused this.
 

Sawmaster

Member
Messages
193
Reaction score
274
Location
Easley SC
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
Being that tornadoes don't follow rules, I tend to avoid claiming something didn't happen based on the subjective viewpoint that it normally doesn't happen or that it hasn't been seen before. It may be very very unlikely that a subvortex or satellite happened here, but a wise person would carry that premise no further.

Looking at the direction of the noted marks which start out roughly parallel then slightly diverge, and noticing that the far end of many of those marks shows an object or where an object apparently once was, it would be the most likely that these came from wind-driven debris being pushed along the ground. This seems especially evident in the mark which ends up in the 'bulge' of the red line where something almost square in shape can be seen. You can also see similar marks in other places with an object of some sort clearly visible at their far end on a few of them.

Best to enter all things with an open mind, neither discounting anything as impossible nor going in looking to justify any pre-concieved notions. If you want to see something bad enough, you'll probably see it. Conversely, if you don't think something possible you won't see it no matter how evident it is to others. Never form any opinion until all data from every angle is in hand and has been assessed for accuracy. Only then do you have a good chance of getting the correct answers.

Phil
 
Messages
1,769
Reaction score
2,139
Location
Missouri
uhhh huh.......
You're wrong and need to admit it. This is not how you have constructive discussions.
Being that tornadoes don't follow rules, I tend to avoid claiming something didn't happen based on the subjective viewpoint that it normally doesn't happen or that it hasn't been seen before. It may be very very unlikely that a subvortex or satellite happened here, but a wise person would carry that premise no further.

Looking at the direction of the noted marks which start out roughly parallel then slightly diverge, and noticing that the far end of many of those marks shows an object or where an object apparently once was, it would be the most likely that these came from wind-driven debris being pushed along the ground. This seems especially evident in the mark which ends up in the 'bulge' of the red line where something almost square in shape can be seen. You can also see similar marks in other places with an object of some sort clearly visible at their far end on a few of them.

Best to enter all things with an open mind, neither discounting anything as impossible nor going in looking to justify any pre-concieved notions. If you want to see something bad enough, you'll probably see it. Conversely, if you don't think something possible you won't see it no matter how evident it is to others. Never form any opinion until all data from every angle is in hand and has been assessed for accuracy. Only then do you have a good chance of getting the correct answers.

Phil
At this point it's clear that tornado examiner just wants to argue and always be right as opposed to having constructive discussions.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top