June 21st 2023 Matador TX Tornado Discussion

[Equus]

So TTU put out a document in 2004 that is pretty damning regarding their “opinions” on house damage.

I have always been really baffled as to why engineers have such an aversion to using the sixth point on a simple six point scale for the most common structure type impacted by the things the scale is intended to rate. It really should not be unattainable and unless there's some sort of agenda to try to convince homeowners to invest in million dollar steel reinforced concrete fortresses to live in, I'd have to think it really misses the point of the entire ratings scale to begin with.

 

[ColdFront]

I have always been really baffled as to why engineers have such an aversion to using the sixth point on a simple six point scale for the most common structure type impacted by the things the scale is intended to rate. It really should not be unattainable and unless there's some sort of agenda to try to convince homeowners to invest in million dollar steel reinforced concrete fortresses to live in, I'd have to think it really misses the point of the entire ratings scale to begin with.

From Doswell’s blog, probably not still applicable, but food for thought none the less:

I've also been disturbed for many years that the very same Texas Tech. engineers pushing a revision to the windspeeds of tornadoes at the upper end of the F-scale have consistently denied that automobiles and other motor vehicles become airborne in some tornadoes. This denial flies in the face of indisputable video evidence and so is completely unjustified, in my opinion. I've wondered why they're so adamant in disputing the clear fact that motor vehicles can become airborne in F3+ tornadoes. The only plausible explanation I can dream up for such steadfast denial of the facts is that they've been promoting a "saferoom" that would evidently not be able to withstand the impact of an airborne motor vehicle. Such a "projectile" would render useless their standard saferoom.

Source:
Here

 

[buckeye05]

Lol why do I even allow myself to become optimistic about accurate ratings. This is just stupid.

 

[Sawmaster]

if there’s one thing we should be blaming it’s the construction codes in most of the country…

That could help. A few years back I counted 7 different building codes I had to follow in the 5 counties I worked in with another in a town I refused to work in. As far as framing against tornadoes there's still places here which accept plate strapping instead of bolting. Nobody here toe-nails studs, never have and never will because it takes too long and inspectors won't fail you for not doing it. CMU foundations have the anchors in the top block with nothing tying that to the foundation, so a slab house is actually stronger in that regard. Even with the cells filled and rebar used coming up from the foundation and latrerally, that connection will be weaker than the same anchor bolt going directly into the foundation (ie slab). And inspectors are scarcely better in most places, letting you get by with tons of stuff they think doesn't matter whether it's called for or not.

The downside is that if we implement a national code with upgrades only where needed for hurricanes and quakes etc, you're still looking at about a 10%- 15% increase in building costs and the implemantation and staffing of yet another US alphabet-agency to enforce it. It's already reached the point whe3re the average American can barely buy a family-sized home now, and poor people will never be able to whereas some once could. So nobody will accept the cost increase.

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

Lol why do I even allow myself to become optimistic about ratings. This is just stupid.

I am dumbfounded myself.

 

[jiharris0220]

Honestly, I’m kinda at the point where I don’t take the ef scale seriously anymore. Had this mind set for a while, but with this whole fiasco, I’m pretty much treating as a secondary measurement of tornado intensity.
This scale has always been an arbitrary subjective way of rating wind speeds, it’s literally been labeled as “not real science”. Which makes since obviously since it isn’t objective in anyway and is at the complete mercy of the opinion of what NWS office is doing the survey.
But It’s gotten so incompetent that there’s almost always massive controversy with every single designation that comes out. Meteorologists talking down to enthusiasts and enthusiasts ignorantly berating the meteorologist siding with the engineers.
The SSHW basically never has these issues, why? Because it takes on direct physical measurement from literally inside the storm to determine intensity. No matter what kind of damage takes place, the estimate of the cyclone won’t change because the scale only takes in objective information.
The EF scale has simply lost its meaning, and for now, I will determine tornado severity by “how strong was this tornado,” not by, “how strong was this structure”?

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

Lol why do I even allow myself to become optimistic about accurate ratings. This is just stupid.

It is kind of like back when I was 25 years old and the Westminster 2006 tornado was given a blasphemous high-end F3 rating.

 

[Sawmaster]

Did NWS Lubbock do a poor job with the survey if HE EF3 is the final rating? Absolutely. But I do agree that the twitter weenies hounding them with "BEEP U NWS LUBOCK U DONT NOW HOW 2 RAYTE TORNADOUGHS" isn't going to change their minds and make them say "Welp, we got these weather weenies insulting us constantly, better upgrade it to EF5."

True, but it does keep the issue out in the open where it's gaining support

 

[Equus]

From Doswell’s blog, probably not still applicable, but food for thought none the less:

I've also been disturbed for many years that the very same Texas Tech. engineers pushing a revision to the windspeeds of tornadoes at the upper end of the F-scale have consistently denied that automobiles and other motor vehicles become airborne in some tornadoes. This denial flies in the face of indisputable video evidence and so is completely unjustified, in my opinion. I've wondered why they're so adamant in disputing the clear fact that motor vehicles can become airborne in F3+ tornadoes. The only plausible explanation I can dream up for such steadfast denial of the facts is that they've been promoting a "saferoom" that would evidently not be able to withstand the impact of an airborne motor vehicle. Such a "projectile" would render useless their standard saferoom.

Source:
Here

Doswell has been pretty vocal about his annoyances with the application of the EF scale recently and I've seen rumblings from a bunch of other long timers indicating their annoyance to the degree that they're publicly allowed to; it's a significant problem and makes a joke out of what should have been a fairly easy to use and reasonably objective rating system. Engineers do seem to have a serious agenda when it comes to the process and at this point I'm inclined to wish they could be cut out entirely to ensure an agenda-free and relatively objective analysis; going back to the original roots of the scale, using contextual clues, and most importantly not abusing the lower bound numbers is the only way to even salvage any hopes of consistency with ratings

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

To me it is like saying the Bridge Creek-Moore-OKC 1999 tornado only deserved an F5 rating because of the 17 well-built homes it swept away but every other violent indicator deserved only a high-end F3 rating.

 

[tornado examiner]

Honestly, I’m kinda at the point where I don’t take the ef scale seriously anymore. Had this mind set for a while, but with this whole fiasco, I’m pretty much treating as a secondary measurement of tornado intensity.
This scale has always been an arbitrary subjective way of rating wind speeds, it’s literally been labeled as “not real science”. Which makes since obviously since it isn’t objective in anyway and is at the complete mercy of the opinion of what NWS office is doing the survey.
But It’s gotten so incompetent that there’s almost always massive controversy with every single designation that comes out. Meteorologists talking down to enthusiasts and enthusiasts ignorantly berating the meteorologist siding with the engineers.
The SSHW basically never has these issues, why? Because it takes on direct physical measurement from literally inside the storm to determine intensity. No matter what kind of damage takes place, the estimate of the cyclone won’t change because the scale only takes in objective information.
The EF scale has simply lost its meaning, and for now, I will determine tornado severity by “how strong was this tornado,” not by, “how strong was this structure”?

And the best way to determine how strong this tornado was…is to compare it to tornadoes with a similar damage intensity. Which is what should be done

 

[Sawmaster]

Yeah, seriously? If anything the consistent finger-pointing might eventually push away the NWS from being more transparent with the public. They heavily rely on social media to better educate and inform the public. Bad habits from these fools on the social media could ruin the reputation the NWS has on everybody and could cause them to move away from informing as much. It's a real topic that no one seems to want to discuss, but it's becoming more and more important as each month passes.

If you're consistently accurate complaints and problems will be minimal; hard to argue provable truth. If OTOH your predictions/ warnings are wrong more often than right, and you can't or won't see obvious damage an untrained public can see, then the problem is you and only you can fix it. The NWS is willingly marching an improper path.

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

And the best way to determine how strong this tornado was…is to compare it to tornadoes with a similar damage intensity. Which is what should be done

That is exactly what I said too.

 

[ColdFront]

Doswell has been pretty vocal about his annoyances with the application of the EF scale recently and I've seen rumblings from a bunch of other long timers indicating their annoyance to the degree that they're publicly allowed to; it's a significant problem and makes a joke out of what should have been a fairly easy to use and reasonably objective rating system. Engineers do seem to have a serious agenda when it comes to the process and at this point I'm inclined to wish they could be cut out entirely to ensure an agenda-free and relatively objective analysis; going back to the original roots of the scale, using contextual clues, and most importantly not abusing the lower bound numbers is the only way to even salvage any hopes of consistency with ratings

I agree. This has been my general issue with Marshall. Not that he low balls tornados, or is super conservative, a lot of times it was because of him a tornado got an EF5.

It’s that he’s been one of the main drivers that has helped spearhead the EF scale towards a more engineering standard with engineering applications.

 

[Equus]

Yeah it's made the scale about how the construction codes in a general area are instead of how strong the tornado is; we've definitely lost track of the whole point of rating tornadoes to begin with

 

[Sawmaster]

The ACSE puts out a study saying it’s essentially impossible to find any type of 200 MPH wind damage at ground level.

if the ASCE would stop tightly focusing on structures to rate, they might find useful criteria above 200mph.

 

[tornado examiner]

Comparing the scenes of destruction in the aftermath of a tornado may lead to much more consistent judgement of probable intensity relative to a tornadoes base stats (movement speed, structure, size etc…) based on reliable video.

 

[ColdFront]

if the ASCE would stop tightly focusing on structures to rate, they might find useful criteria above 200mph.

100%.

From their Joplin study:

The team found no evidence of building damage from winds at 200 mph or greater, the minimum threshold for an EF-5. The study concluded that EF-5 ratings were nearly impossible to observe given the high construction quality threshold that must be met for determining that level of wind speed.

 

[Sawmaster]

I agree. This has been my general issue with Marshall. Not that he low balls tornados, or is super conservative, a lot of times it was because of him a tornado got an EF5.

It’s that he’s been one of the main drivers that has helped spearhead the EF scale towards a more engineering standard with engineering applications.

Then perhaps he's wrong, but I've never heard an engineer utter the word about themselves, and almost never about their colleagues.

We can use engineers in the process, but we should not let them assign ratings. It's simply beyond their mental capabilities to deal with anything which cannot be concisely defined and/or measured. That's most of Nature.

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

I tend to hear a lot of people say who cares about the ef-rating. Yes people sadly lost their lives and others lost their property but what about science?