Are you saying you haven't put him on ignore yet?At this point it's clear that tornado examiner just wants to argue and always be right as opposed to having constructive discussions.
Are you saying you haven't put him on ignore yet?At this point it's clear that tornado examiner just wants to argue and always be right as opposed to having constructive discussions.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that either- after all I think every one of us would like to be 100% right 100% of the time, but we're humans so that ain't gonna happen. And there's a flipside to this in some who so cling to their opposing views and try only to justify that instead of exploring other possibilities and other ways of thinking.You're wrong and need to admit it. This is not how you have constructive discussions.
At this point it's clear that tornado examiner just wants to argue and always be right as opposed to having constructive discussions.
Done and done.Are you saying you haven't put him on ignore yet?
I will say that tornado examiner has been posting a bit too much lately and I don't think anyone (this applies to everyone myself included BTW) should actually post something unless they have something interesting to say and/or share, but I also agree with what Sawmaster said, none of us are perfect.At this point it's clear that tornado examiner just wants to argue and always be right as opposed to having constructive discussions.
Moving this to the EF scale debate thread, but this pretty much sums it up. What's even sadder is that a single underlying reason could be used to nitpick ALL of those tornadoes down to EF4 - the construction quality of the structures they hit. The only outliers to this one rule are Parkersburg, Smithville and Moore since they encountered verifiably "well built" (per engineering standards, anyhow) homes, though of course nitpicky surveyors could use a plethora of other reasons to downgrade them.to make things worse , every EF5 of 2007-2013 would not be rated EF5 today.... just cause of Vilonia and Mayfield reasons used on them (blue is Vilonia and Mayfield reasons) magenta is a (bowling green EF3 reason) correct me if im wrong with some facts here (like if some did do severe granulation or not)
View attachment 15535
im sorry but what , if one single engineer considered this EF2 then its best to remove EF4 and EF5 , this is way too ridiculous , this has become the game of find 0.001% chance of it being this low and rate it that and not pick the most realistic result.Slightly unrelated...
Revisited the 'December 10th Outbreak Damage Surveys' video on YouTube. Had a section where audience of the talk (presumably NWS employees) could submit a vote on what they would rate the damage shown. First screenshot is damage shown (the infamous Bremen home). Look at the results of the poll - second screenshot. I genuinely cannot comprehend how some meteorologists in the audience of this presentation Could *possibly* conceive this as being EF2 damage... a higher percentage would have rated this EF2 than EF4. To me, there just seems there is some weird pressure nowadays among some meteorologists and surveyors, that finding small details and reasons, even invalid ones, in order to rate extremely conservatively is somehow more advanced... or makes you seem more professional and experienced? I genuinely have no clue.
But linking back to what was posted previously, If Tim Marshall and some Mets and Surveyors consider this kind of damage EF2 and EF3 (referring to Tim Marshalls recent publication yesterday), then what on earth do they consider EF4 and EF5? and what would they rate past EF5s today? I have no idea.
Anyways, sorry for that rant!
View attachment 15543
View attachment 15544
Bullseye! It's how "learned" folks impress each other with how thorough and intelligent they arethis has become the game of find 0.001% chance of it being this low and rate it that and not pick the most realistic result.