• 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 Weather Threat 3/13-3/15/2024

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
4,808
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
To be completely honest, I think that Nick Kras guy is full of himself like most of the "experts" on wxtwitter. He lost all credibility for me when he labeled the Norman EF2 last year a "mid range EF4" based solely on a scary looking CC drop and ZERO ground observations.
 
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
776
Location
texas
To be completely honest, I think that Nick Kras guy is full of himself like most of the "experts" on wxtwitter. He lost all credibility for me when he labeled the Norman EF2 last year a "mid range EF4" based solely on a scary looking CC drop and ZERO ground observations.
Oof
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
4,712
Location
Colorado
To be completely honest, I think that Nick Kras guy is full of himself like most of the "experts" on wxtwitter. He lost all credibility for me when he labeled the Norman EF2 last year a "mid range EF4" based solely on a scary looking CC drop and ZERO ground observations.
I’ve had to make so many corrections to his wiki edits. All I’ll say on that.
 
Messages
678
Reaction score
542
Location
Augusta, Kansas
There’s a full write-up on the NWS page and they went from a range (155 to 165) to a single wind speed (165). Based on past experience, once those two things are done, it usually means they’re about to finalize the rating,
The last tornado to be rated EF4 in the US was March 31st of last year and the last tornado to be rated EF5 was on May 20, 2013. I am really getting sick and tired of these NWS offices refusing to rate a tornado as violent is ridiculous. I don't care about interior walls as it is a poor excuse to underrate an expensively bolted Taco Bell to the foundation and mostly swept away is only high-end EF3 damage. The complete destruction of a restaurants expected value is 167 mph which is low-end EF4. For the past 20 or so years I have been studying tornado damage, these so called professionals have nit picked the F-SCALE and EF-SCALE.
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
4,712
Location
Colorado
The last tornado to be rated EF4 in the US was March 31st of last year and the last tornado to be rated EF5 was on May 20, 2013. I am really getting sick and tired of these NWS offices refusing to rate a tornado as violent is ridiculous. I don't care about interior walls as it is a poor excuse to underrate an expensively bolted Taco Bell to the foundation and mostly swept away is only high-end EF3 damage. The complete destruction of a restaurants expected value is 167 mph which is low-end EF4. For the past 20 or so years I have been studying tornado damage, these so called professionals have nit picked the F-SCALE and EF-SCALE.
K
 
Messages
22
Reaction score
49
Location
Hume, Virginia
The last tornado to be rated EF4 in the US was March 31st of last year and the last tornado to be rated EF5 was on May 20, 2013. I am really getting sick and tired of these NWS offices refusing to rate a tornado as violent is ridiculous. I don't care about interior walls as it is a poor excuse to underrate an expensively bolted Taco Bell to the foundation and mostly swept away is only high-end EF3 damage. The complete destruction of a restaurants expected value is 167 mph which is low-end EF4. For the past 20 or so years I have been studying tornado damage, these so called professionals have nit picked the F-SCALE and EF-SCALE.
NWS of Indianapolis has made it extremely clear that this rating is being extensively looked at in review. There is a rating problem but it's much deeper than just "Oh These NWS refuse to rate anything this!!!" All in All don't be surprised if this tornado doesn't get the EF4 rating because at the location the contextual damage doesn't match up well. There's no reason to be this mad on social media on something that's completely out of your control, step back, and take a chill pill. I heavily suggest if you want to make a difference, is to understand why you believe what you believe and how you can support your argument. Talk to actual engineers and mellow out.
 

jiharris0220

Member
Messages
205
Reaction score
559
Location
Wichita Falls
What an intellectual convo I’m reading.
Back on topic, I’m actually stumped on why the NWS risk area in Ohio failed so miserably on the favorability of the environment.
Because looking back at the mesos, there was more than enough effective helicity and the low level lapse rates were well over 6c per km. CAPE was in the 2000s and that’s literally where the greatest bulk shear was located.
1710648989016.png
The 200mb jet streak was creating the strongest divergence/lift in Indiana and Ohio, so I can’t for the life of me guess why the highest risk wasn’t designated here.
 

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
4,808
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
This thread
frustration.png
 
Messages
678
Reaction score
542
Location
Augusta, Kansas
NWS of Indianapolis has made it extremely clear that this rating is being extensively looked at in review. There is a rating problem but it's much deeper than just "Oh These NWS refuse to rate anything this!!!" All in All don't be surprised if this tornado doesn't get the EF4 rating because at the location the contextual damage doesn't match up well. There's no reason to be this mad on social media on something that's completely out of your control, step back, and take a chill pill. I heavily suggest if you want to make a difference, is to understand why you believe what you believe and how you can support your argument. Talk to actual engineers and mellow out.
Contextual damage may not always happen because of multiple vortices. I don't necessarily think that lack of context doesn't always mean it was poorly built or poorly anchored. It is weird how the Taco Bell ordering board stayed there but most of the building was slabbed. I feel like these engineers would rate a well-built hous completely swept away at very high-emd EF4 intensity because of lack of context. It brings into question then do these engineers really know what they are doing because it sounds like they must have the context as well as the well-built home being swept away to be rated EF5?
 
Messages
22
Reaction score
49
Location
Hume, Virginia
What an intellectual convo I’m reading.
Back on topic, I’m actually stumped on why the NWS risk area in Ohio failed so miserably on the favorability of the environment.
Because looking back at the mesos, there was more than enough effective helicity and the low level lapse rates were well over 6c per km. CAPE was in the 2000s and that’s literally where the greatest bulk shear was located.
View attachment 24394
The 200mb jet streak was creating the strongest divergence/lift in Indiana and Ohio, so I can’t for the life of me guess why the highest risk wasn’t designated here.
The biggest main issue was an issue I touched upon in a twitter thread. I really don't think SPC forecasters were really paying attention to the surface observations. The rapid destabilization of the environment after the MCS came through was loosely recognized in an MCD, but it's extent wasn't realized. Significant tornadoes were practically ignored in MCDs until a storm that produced a tornado in Arkansas became elevated (thus got a significant tornado MCD). On top of the last MCD that got issued (claimed that the environment was becoming increasingly stable) however, the 00Z observed Wilmington sounding and a few more tornadoes from ongoing supercells begged to differ.

The failure of the SPC is an interesting one, because usually they amend their forecasts over the day given observations, we didn't see that on the 14th despite 3 hours of intense-violent killer tornadoes which was the most confusing thing of all.
 
Messages
22
Reaction score
49
Location
Hume, Virginia
Contextual damage may not always happen because of multiple vortices. I don't necessarily think that lack of context doesn't always mean it was poorly built or poorly anchored. It is weird how the Taco Bell ordering board stayed there but most of the building was slabbed. I feel like these engineers would rate a well-built hous completely swept away at very high-emd EF4 intensity because of lack of context. It brings into question then do these engineers really know what they are doing because it sounds like they must have the context as well as the well-built home being swept away to be rated EF5?
It's right it's not fair that smaller and tighter vortexes get discriminated against compared to broader vortexes, you are right, however, it's just how things are. Structures aren't perfect and in most tornadoes, surrounding damage not remotely matching the particular damage point is a sign that maybe it failed at a far lowered windspeed than what would be expected. It's not perfect and does have its flaws in cases like these if the surveyors don't have a background with tighter damage gradients, however, it's better than going off a static scale in a country where construction varies pretty considerably.

These engineers know what they're doing, and even vary in opinions based on their own background and research (yes it's crazy they're human). They have more research in the field and more background on the math than most of us, including me, do. A little bit of respect here goes a long way.
 
Messages
678
Reaction score
542
Location
Augusta, Kansas
It's right it's not fair that smaller and tighter vortexes get discriminated against compared to broader vortexes, you are right, however, it's just how things are. Structures aren't perfect and in most tornadoes, surrounding damage not remotely matching the particular damage point is a sign that maybe it failed at a far lowered windspeed than what would be expected. It's not perfect and does have its flaws in cases like these if the surveyors don't have a background with tighter damage gradients, however, it's better than going off a static scale in a country where construction varies pretty considerably.

These engineers know what they're doing, and even vary in opinions based on their own background and research (yes it's crazy they're human). They have more research in the field and more background on the math than most of us, including me, do. A little bit of respect here goes a long way.
I think it may vary but I think it is possible or even likely that small tighter multiple vortices are more powerful than broader multiple vortices.
 

buckeye05

Member
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
4,712
Location
Colorado
Contextual damage may not always happen because of multiple vortices. I don't necessarily think that lack of context doesn't always mean it was poorly built or poorly anchored. It is weird how the Taco Bell ordering board stayed there but most of the building was slabbed. I feel like these engineers would rate a well-built hous completely swept away at very high-emd EF4 intensity because of lack of context. It brings into question then do these engineers really know what they are doing because it sounds like they must have the context as well as the well-built home being swept away to be rated EF5?
There are times where they do screw it up big time, and this doesn’t look to be one of those times. Contextual evidence is needed for an upgrade, and just because you can’t understand that doesn’t make you correct. It makes you ignorant. Nobody is calling this one into question besides you, and that’s not because everyone is wrong, but because you don’t know what you’re talking about and have a weird emotional investment in seeing higher-end ratings. That’s all there is to it.

if you knew the basics you’d see that the Taco Bell lacks interior walls, which is a huge factor here and also contributes to a lower rating.

Bottom line: You lack the objectivity and understanding to discuss this subject in a meaningful way, so please just be quiet.
 
Messages
678
Reaction score
542
Location
Augusta, Kansas
There are times where they do screw it up big time, and this doesn’t look to be one of those times. Contextual evidence is needed for an upgrade, and just because you can’t understand that doesn’t make you correct. It makes you ignorant. Nobody is calling this one into question besides you, and that’s not because everyone is wrong, but because you don’t know what you’re talking about and have a weird emotional investment in seeing higher-end ratings. That’s all there is to it.

if you knew the basics you’d see that the Taco Bell lacks interior walls, which is a huge factor here and also contributes to a lower rating.

Bottom line: You lack the objectivity and understanding to discuss this subject in a meaningful way, so please just be quiet.
Well that doesn't necessarily mean I am completely clueless either. I just can't understand these more strict policies on rating tornadoes. For instance there was a house in the Moore 2013 tornado that was rated EF5 that I could easily could pick down to a high-end EF4 because there was still a fair amount of debris concentrated near the slab.
 
Messages
678
Reaction score
542
Location
Augusta, Kansas
It's right it's not fair that smaller and tighter vortexes get discriminated against compared to broader vortexes, you are right, however, it's just how things are. Structures aren't perfect and in most tornadoes, surrounding damage not remotely matching the particular damage point is a sign that maybe it failed at a far lowered windspeed than what would be expected. It's not perfect and does have its flaws in cases like these if the surveyors don't have a background with tighter damage gradients, however, it's better than going off a static scale in a country where construction varies pretty considerably.

These engineers know what they're doing, and even vary in opinions based on their own background and research (yes it's crazy they're human). They have more research in the field and more background on the math than most of us, including me, do. A little bit of respect here goes a long way.
Another thing why do these NWS do not stay consistent with the actual value of a DOD. In this case a small retail building. LB is 143 mph, EXP. Is 167 mph, and UB is 193 mph. If there is a lack of interior walls or the context is lacking shouldn't they stick closer to the lower bound? Maybe this isn't the case but it seems like a number of NWS offices have abused the 165 mph EF3.
 

Evan

Member
Messages
2,265
Reaction score
1,396
Location
McCalla, AL
I do not think that the Taco Bell is indicative of EF-4 damage. You have what looks to be a half-height interior wall that survived as well as some other interior items. I think there's a construction quality issue here somewhere, and those anchor bolts might be playing a very deceiving role. I'd argue the contextual damage bolsters the idea that there was a construction quality issue or design flaw.

I haven't looked at a lot of other damage for this tornado, however, the Taco Bell damage seems deceptive to me for a variety of reasons.

I completely understand the angst caused by modern applications of the EF scale but this doesn't appear to be one of those head-scratching types of cases at all.
 
Logo 468x120
Back
Top