June 21st 2023 Matador TX Tornado Discussion

[jiharris0220]

Wow this thread has went down into the gutters. Nothing but name calling, conspiracy theories, slander on experienced engineers, and often going off topic too.
It’s a shame because visitors may look at this and think this is yet another mindless weather weenie tyraid about wanting everything to be ef5.
Looking back at the damage, I can agree with ef3, ef4 would’ve a more appropriate rating, and obviously if they took in contextuals it’ll be ef5.
But this is more of an EF scale debating discussion than an egregious botched survey discussion.

 

[TH2002]

Wow this thread has went down into the gutters. Nothing but name calling, conspiracy theories, slander on experienced engineers, and often going off topic too.
It’s a shame because visitors may look at this and think this is yet another mindless weather weenie tyraid about wanting everything to be ef5.
Looking back at the damage, I can agree with ef3, ef4 would’ve a more appropriate rating, and obviously if they took in contextuals it’ll be ef5.
But this is more of an EF scale debating discussion than an egregious botched survey discussion.

In a previous post I said this:

The worst part about bad tornado ratings isn't even the ratings themselves if you ask me, it's the fallout from them and the horrible precedent they set.

This thread is now a perfect example of the bolded text.

 

[KCweatherboy]

I like how you put this and it's pretty accurate too. Thing is that rating tornado9es has always had something of a subjective element to it which 'smoothed out the bumps' until somewhere in the mid 2000-oughts. At that point the engineerrs started griping when anyone didn't exactly follow their way of thinking and rating and it's continued to just get worse. The whole of engineering here has lost touch with the fact that this is not a test or game where you find specific things while ignoring everything else; what this is supposed to be doing is to rank tornadoes by their strength and not just whether they do specific damage or not.

The only way to fix this is to remove the engineers from the usual surveying and rating, saving them for research and testing where they can do well. They are not doing well the way things are now; in fact they're the ones causing problems by demanding that surveyors do not give a rating higher than they can prove using the engineer's scale even when the strength was very clearly higher. Matador was stronger than EF3whether there was structural; damage which could 'prove' that or not; we all know this to be true, so to restrict it's rating to something wrong and inaccurate proves cl;early that the engineer's way of doing this is wrong and needs to be changed. But as long as they're being given free reign to do whay they please this will continue, and the arguing which divides us will continue too.

Nothing good is happening- let's change that.

This is what is the most frustrating for me.

I've been interested in weather my whole life. I was too young to witness the inadequacies of the F-Scale, but right as I started getting interested the EF scale came out and was being used (mostly) correctly, so I didn't know any different.

Now that I've grown up and am an engineering student at a top college, we're being taught the exact opposite (and imo the more correct) way of thinking as these engineers. Essentially that we need to consider the whole picture, use our engineering knowledge where we can, and be creative enough to solve problems where we lack in engineering knowledge.

These engineers don't do that, don't want to admit that they don't know something (i.e. lack of DIs for non-structures), and act like their way is the only way of doing things. Now that I'm entering the same general field as them, this is quite frustrating behavior. It goes directly against any passion for meteorology in fact.

In fact, if the rating system truly showed a passion for meteorology, there would be collaboration across multiple different fields to create a rating system and accurately rate tornadoes, instead of it being mainly done by the ASCE.

Even if people my age fix this down the line, when we are in a position to do so, it doesn't correct the mistakes now and instead creates something we will hopefully go back and can fix.

Looking at the whole picture, Matador was an incredibly unique, destructive, and tragic tornado which deserves an EF5 rating.

edit: fixed a typo

 

[tornado examiner]

I won’t say matador deserves an ef5 rating…but it was clearly in that range of intensity looking at the overall scene of destruction. A muddy, shredded, ripped apart look with numerous whited out trees and brown fields…the most violent pieces of structure damage are easily the first swept home in the path, (which basically disappeared) and the dollar general, which has concrete bollards snapped off near ground level…

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

This is what is the most frustrating for me.

I've been interested in weather my whole life. I was too young to witness the inadequacies of the F-Scale, but right as I started getting interested the EF scale came out and was being used (mostly) correctly, so I didn't know any different.

Now that I've grown up and am an engineering student at a top college, we're being taught the exact opposite (and imo the more correct) way of thinking as these engineers. Essentially that we need to consider the whole picture, use our engineering knowledge where we can, and be creative enough to solve problems where we lack in engineering knowledge.

These engineers don't do that, don't want to admit that they don't know something (i.e. lack of DIs for non-structures), and act like their way is the only way of doing things. Now that I'm entering the same general field as them, this is quite frustrating behavior. It goes directly against any passion for meteorology in fact.

In fact, if the rating system truly showed a passion for meteorology, there would be collaboration across multiple different fields to create a rating system and accurately rate tornadoes, instead of it being mainly done by the ASCE.

Even if people my age fix this down the line, when we are in a position to do so, it doesn't correct the mistakes now and instead creates something we will hopefully go back and can fix.

Looking at the whole picture, Matador was an incredibly unique, destructive, and tragic tornado which deserves an EF5 rating.

edit: fixed a typo

Well I am glad to know that we have an engineering student among us. You must be good at math. I took a lot of math classes when I was in college. In your opinion do you think hardwood trees that are stripped of all their, extreme scouring of the ground and vehicles that are completely disassembled and left totally unrecognizable can be rated high-end EF4+ I have been studying tornado damage for 20+ years and would like to have someone's opinion who is becoming an engineer or is a brand new engineer.

 

[tornado examiner]

Ugh just looking at this tornado’s survey shows how lazy it was. No damage line to actually view its stats on the dat. And it’s only got an ef0 polygon.

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

Ugh just looking at this tornado’s survey shows how lazy it was. No damage line to actually view its stats on the dat. And it’s only got an ef0 polygon.

Pathetic!!

 

[pohnpei]

I won’t say matador deserves an ef5 rating…but it was clearly in that range of intensity looking at the overall scene of destruction. A muddy, shredded, ripped apart look with numerous whited out trees and brown fields…the most violent pieces of structure damage are easily the first swept home in the path, (which basically disappeared) and the dollar general, which has concrete bollards snapped off near ground level…

Yeah I think the tornado probably peaked near or a little before the first house where the ground scouring was the most prominent.
video when it was a little before the house

The house which in the left of the circulation didn't have any significant debris left in the field. According to Marshall, it at least had some connections with bolts and washers but not well built enough. (I remember Moore 2013 had one EF5 DI have one or two side lack of bolts) The house may had part of its concrete foundation wall broken.

A black vehicle was tossed 300 yards from this house and mangled with another vehicle with only engine left. The vehicle was probably completely dismantled so it's missing.

At least two vehicle was still missing when survey finished. Two vehicle not far from this house was tossed cross the road and completely mangled beyond recognition. Trees were mangled, stripped, debarked with some missing around the house.
Video when it cross the road



Other places on the path also saw incredible damage with completely mangled vehiclea and completely debarked hardy trees but the combination of contexual and structural damage was at its most extreme near the first house. and little doubt in my mind that it's the most complete damage since at least Chapman or even Vilonia.

 

[Western_KS_Wx]

I think the biggest problem I have with the EF scale and Matador being another prime example of this is it’s become purely an engineering tool and is completely disregarding the scientific aspect of it all. Take for example the house swept away outside of Matador that was poorly built, it was rated EF3 (165mph) however contextuals around the area were absolutely violent upper-end intensity, vehicles thrown 300+ yards and mangled with engine blocks ripped out, ground scouring, mesquite trees completely shredded and debarked, and debris granulation among other things. It doesn’t take more than a few glances to realize the tornado was clearly extremely violent and if you compare it with past high-end EF4/EF5 tornadoes it’s right there, there’s no way in hell the tornado was only at EF3 intensity there. However due to that one poorly built structure and completely disregarding all other clearly evident factors that point to extreme intensity, that entire scene gets rated EF3. I just don’t like the fact that all other factors get ignored and it’s based purely off a structure and nothing else, even when it’s obvious. Sure rate the structure EF3 due to flaws but then take into account the violent damage all around it and rate the contextuals as EF4+ when it’s as evident as that and the scale becomes much more accurate in my opinion. I hope with the new revision that contextual damage is taken into much more account and id also think doing almost a comparison system to past violent tornadoes is a great idea as well, for example tree debarking, granulation, or vehicle damage from EF4/EF5 tornadoes and going off of that would give much more validity and accuracy to the scale. Off the fact it’s turned into an engineering and construction scale alone just doesn’t sit well with me.

 

[tornado examiner]

They’ll jolly well use contextual to downgrade tornadoes but they’ll rarely ever use it to upgrade

 

[UncleJuJu98]

Is the Plainfield Illinois tornado the only f5/ef5 in metroligical summer? (If this one does not become one lol)

 

[tornado examiner]

Is the Plainfield Illinois tornado the only f5/ef5 in metroligical summer? (If this one does not become one lol)

Just wanna point out for those who may not know, the Plainfield Illinois tornado was rated f5 based off of ground scouring only…extreme crop damage. Yes…CROP DAMAGE

 

[JBishopwx]

Ugh just looking at this tornado’s survey shows how lazy it was. No damage line to actually view its stats on the dat. And it’s only got an ef0 polygon.

The fact that they haven't updated DAT doesn't"shows how lazy it was.

 

[tornado examiner]

The fact that they haven't updated DAT means how lazy it was done.

You’d think they’d at least include a line before the polygon right…? They did include tornado track lines for the Morton Texas event back in 2022….

 

[CheeselandSkies]

Is the Plainfield Illinois tornado the only f5/ef5 in metroligical summer? (If this one does not become one lol)

Barneveld, WI June 1984
Oakfield, WI July 1996

 

[eric11]

I think the biggest problem I have with the EF scale and Matador being another prime example of this is it’s become purely an engineering tool and is completely disregarding the scientific aspect of it all. Take for example the house swept away outside of Matador that was poorly built, it was rated EF3 (165mph) however contextuals around the area were absolutely violent upper-end intensity, vehicles thrown 300+ yards and mangled with engine blocks ripped out, ground scouring, mesquite trees completely shredded and debarked, and debris granulation among other things. It doesn’t take more than a few glances to realize the tornado was clearly extremely violent and if you compare it with past high-end EF4/EF5 tornadoes it’s right there, there’s no way in hell the tornado was only at EF3 intensity there. However due to that one poorly built structure and completely disregarding all other clearly evident factors that point to extreme intensity, that entire scene gets rated EF3. I just don’t like the fact that all other factors get ignored and it’s based purely off a structure and nothing else, even when it’s obvious. Sure rate the structure EF3 due to flaws but then take into account the violent damage all around it and rate the contextuals as EF4+ when it’s as evident as that and the scale becomes much more accurate in my opinion. I hope with the new revision that contextual damage is taken into much more account and id also think doing almost a comparison system to past violent tornadoes is a great idea as well, for example tree debarking, granulation, or vehicle damage from EF4/EF5 tornadoes and going off of that would give much more validity and accuracy to the scale. Off the fact it’s turned into an engineering and construction scale alone just doesn’t sit well with me.

I don't think that house was so poorly built that it could be only rated 165mph, as mentioned by T.M, it had sporadic bolting on a concrete foundation, some bolts had nuts and washers, one can solidly gave an EF4 rating based on the anchoring fashion, let alone the extreme contextual in and around the house: Debris completely gone, fully debarked hardwood tossed on to the basement, cars tossed 300 yards and mangled beyond recognition. This is way much stronger than some EF5 points of Moore, and it still got an 165mph rating.I'm more willing to believe Lubbock didn't want to give EF4 rating at all

 

[tornado examiner]

I don't think that house was so.poorly built that it could be only rated 165mph, as mentioned by T.M, it had sporadic bolting on a concrete foundation, some bolts had nuts and washers, one can solidly gave an EF4 rating based on the anchoring fashion, let alone the extreme contextual in and around the house: Debris completely gone, fully debarked hardwood tossed on to the basement, cars tossed 300 yards and mangled beyond recognition. This is way much stronger than some EF5 points of Moore, and it still got an 165mph rating.I'
m more willing to believe Lubbock didn't want to give EF4 rating at all

Agreed.

 

[andyhb]

I feel like I’ve seen construction like that house consistently rated EF4 for that DOD before, and that’s without the surrounding high end contextuals.

 

[tornado examiner]

I feel like I’ve seen construction like that house consistently rated EF4 for that DOD before, and that’s without the surrounding high end contextuals.

Clarksville texas, November 4 2022…

 

[Western_KS_Wx]

I don't think that house was so poorly built that it could be only rated 165mph, as mentioned by T.M, it had sporadic bolting on a concrete foundation, some bolts had nuts and washers, one can solidly gave an EF4 rating based on the anchoring fashion, let alone the extreme contextual in and around the house: Debris completely gone, fully debarked hardwood tossed on to the basement, cars tossed 300 yards and mangled beyond recognition. This is way much stronger than some EF5 points of Moore, and it still got an 165mph rating.I'm more willing to believe Lubbock didn't want to give EF4 rating at all

The point more so being that the surveyors completely ignored the scene around that structure and area, as well as throughout the track, not just for this tornado either it’s happened several times before. I just don’t think it’s right to ignore the blatantly obvious evidence pointing towards extreme EF4+ intensity and base the rating of an entire area off a single structure, regardless of construction quality and ignoring the violent contextual damage. It’s kind of like if a small shed were to be obliterated but the highest DI for that structure is EF2, yet say the non-traditional DI’s in the surrounding area were high-end, like the ground being severely scoured, trees debarked, vehicles mangled beyond recognition etc. and they ignored all of those signs pointing to greater intensity and instead gave the tornado the EF2 rating due to the structural damage, in this hypothetical case being the shed.