• 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 March 23-25th, 2023

buckeye05 said:
People take note, THIS is what true debris granulation looks like. Absolutely textbook. A while back, someone was trying to call the typical debris scatter at Cambridge Shores, KY debris granulation. No comparison.

If you can literally fill a jar with granulated house, it's legit debris granulation.
Click to expand...
Once again there’s no required size for debris granulation.
 
tornado examiner said:
imagine Tim Marshall comes in and picks apart every single ef4 di in rolling fork downgrading them all to an ef3…just imagine the insane backlash…everyone would be unhappy and everybody would be voicing their disapproval.

Incredibly unlikely and night impossible tho…so we don’t have to worry. Lol…just a thought I had
Click to expand...
I love this heel turn that Tim Marshall has inexplicably taken amongst a lot of the wx community where is he some kind of ratings mafioso.
 
CalebRoutt said:
Afiak there’s no plans to upgrade Rolling Fork above EF4. Structures didn’t have really all that good of anchoring and weren’t swept away.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think a couple of DIs are being considered for 190mph but I doubt they will go any higher than that. Very violent tornado though.
 
CalebRoutt said:
Once again there’s no required size for debris granulation.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to get into a back and forth with you, but that just isn’t true, and you’re not gonna find anyone to back you up on your opinion. Debris size is literally the one thing that separates granulation from typical debris scatter. You have a major misconception as to what that term really means, whether you want to accept that or not. Regardless, the granulation here is much worse than anything photographed along the Mayfield damage path anyway.
 
Last edited:
buckeye05 said:
Did someone actually say that 190+ is being considered? I’m a little bit surprised, but definitely ok with that.
Click to expand...
*Apparently* this person on twitter has connections with the survey team on the ground in Rolling Forks. The story is the NWS survey team is bringing in multiple teams to resurvey a couple of damage points which they believe to be *potentially* 190+mph. This kind of process has apparently happened in other high end tornadoes (Mayfield & Bassfield) but were kept at 190mph or lower. Just scroll through the 'replies' section of that account and you can see all what they are saying.

I would be a bit doubtful but the fact they have managed to provide otherwise unreleased photos and precise info makes me a bit less suspicious - yet it was only last year we had someone impersonate an NWS surveyor!
 
I wonder if the fatality count for the rolling fork tornado could go up again as people die from critical injuries over the coming weeks…hopefully not. But it’s a possibility.
 
buckeye05 said:
I’m not going to get into a back and forth with you, but that just isn’t true, and you’re not gonna find anyone to back you up on your opinion. Debris size is literally the one thing that separates granulation from typical debris scatter. You have a major misconception as to what that term really means, whether you want to accept that or not. Regardless, the granulation here is much worse than anything photographed along the Mayfield damage path anyway.
Click to expand...
I think I can say there was debris granulation because I was literally in Dawson and saw severe granulation. Thus I don’t think you can say it didn’t produce debris granulation. Also, there’s no standard size for granulation.
 
CalebRoutt said:
I think I can say there was debris granulation because I was literally in Dawson and saw severe granulation. Thus I don’t think you can say it didn’t produce debris granulation. Also, there’s no standard size for granulation.
Click to expand...
In Dawson Springs there was indeed, and in Bremen too, but not Cambridge Shores as you’ve tried to claim in the past. There’s also no “standard” for what defines significant ground scouring either, but I can tell the difference between negligible scouring, and the kind that indicates extreme violence. Like granulation, there’s varying degrees of scouring severity that correlate with varying degrees of significance for the final rating, so arguing that there’s “no standard” changes absolutely nothing. The debris patterns in Cambridge Shores were not EF5-consistent, nor the other contextual damage there. Done with this topic now.
 
buckeye05 said:
In Dawson Springs there was indeed, and in Bremen too, but not Cambridge Shores as you’ve tried to claim in the past. There’s also no “standard” for what defines significant ground scouring either, but I can tell the difference between negligible scouring, and the kind that indicates extreme violence. Like granulation, there’s varying degrees of scouring severity that correlate with varying degrees of significance for the final rating, so arguing that there’s “no standard” changes absolutely nothing. The debris patterns in Cambridge Shores were not EF5-consistent, nor the other contextual damage there. Done with this topic now.
Click to expand...
Again, no standard thank you for proving my point. You’ve said you were “done” several times now. Please move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top