WaryWarren
Member
Stormnet is a gamechanger.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Wow lol
It's just like…really? So many tornadoes should be downgraded if that logic applies…dozens of significant tornadoesHere we go again...
This is almost laughably predictable at this point.
I just looked at the Damage Assessment Toolkit, and I don't see any F3 datapoints. Considering they were just doing the survey today, my guess is there was a typo or something that folks discussed once they were together and changed their mind on. This tornado is historic as it is, and I trust the Sullivan folks to do thorough surveys as they have in the past.
I get that we're all into data, and having these tools at our fingertips is amazing, but it also means we have to make allowances for small discrepancies and the like to happen the day of a survey.
Edit: Also, taking a look at the farmstead in question (Google maps went by in August of last year!), where the supposed F3 data was from, it is an older farm and most of the buildings there are aged. A lot of buildings like that are actually quite old and have been unused for a long time--I know from family experience. I'm not super familiar with the data points and what qualifies as what, but if the barn being damaged the way it is is considered an F2 damage point, the metal/metal sided buildings that are nearby could be of questionable build quality, depending on which building, but I could easily see there being debate about what to rate that damage.
There was an ef3 Di on the dat for a while
View attachment 23803
A lot of WXtwitter seems to be misinterpreting the surveying directive as explicitly needing more than one damage point of that intensity, as it absolutely does not state that verbatim, and there have been multiple intense tornadoes even in recent years rated on a single damage point of that rating. The directive simply states that one needs enough contextual evidence surrounding that damage point (i.e. a leveled house but trees and sheds around the house not being very damaged = very questionable) to let it stand, which in theory is fair. The issue lies perhaps in the application as it seems like some WFOs don't interpret it the way it's intended to be, and we do occasionally see cases of single points not being recognized.
In this case, going from a low end 3 on a marginal point to a high 2 isn't nearly as egregious as many have been, especially since the structure in question is definitely of a type that could have many legitimate lessening factors, but it drives home the need for some national standardization in the process and application from WFO to WFO and the need to keep preliminary points off the public side of the DAT until the survey is finished lol
Besides, having an explicit policy of needing multiple points to rate a tornado would mean a plains tornado that levels a farm house and nothing else whatsoever would have to be rated EF-U, which would be really really stupid
Vilonia definitely remains the best known case of a surveyor either ignorant of or misunderstanding the application of the scale especially when it comes to single structures and contextuals; the lack of standardization from office to office in application is extremely irritating. Not to start another three dozen page Vilonia debate of course.