• 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 June 15-23

jiharris0220 said:
Im beating a dead horse but it’s such a shame this dude was driven out of here due to some members acting like rapid dogs because someone dared to have a conservative take on tornado ratings.

Based on what I’ve seen, the guy just genuinely tries to be as objective as possible and actually points out mistakes regarding DAT. Just like what @buckeye05 said, such a potential valuable asset to this forum lost.
Click to expand...

He’s actually quite reasonable most of the time, and him seemingly jumping to the defense of MEG was uncharacteristic and odd. I kinda got the vibe that he recently learned what “continuous load” means and decided he wanted to use that house as a platform to throw around flashy engineering terminology (albeit in a circumstance where it didn’t really apply), rather than take an objective look at the damage. If it was a CMU foundation that failed below the bolts, or an institutional building with incomplete rebar reinforcement, then we can talk about continuous load issues. But bolt placement barely applies to that topic, if at all. It took a “second pass” for him to look at Lake City objectively and reasonably.

We gotta keep in mind he’s still a young dude who’s still learning, and is probably overcorrecting and over-trusting NWS surveys after coming out of the “everything’s an EF5 candidate!!” phase everyone goes through prior to being more knowledgeable. For perspective, few years ago he was misidentifying bulldozer tread marks as ground scouring and using them as a basis for why Cookeville should have been rated EF5. He’s actually come a long way, and just needs to learn that it’s also not good to play it too conservative.

Anyway back on topic, I do not want to fully derail this thread.
 
Last edited:
jiharris0220 said:
I think people, at least until the new rating system is implemented, need to give up on the prospect that non conventional DIs just aren’t a thing anymore.

The days of tornadoes like Plainfield/Philadelphia, or Calumet being rated ef5 based on scouring or hitting non DI structures are gone.
Click to expand...


Exactly, had this tornado hit a town directly I think we would be looking at a much higher rating.
 
buckeye05 said:
He’s actually quite reasonable most of the time, and him seemingly jumping to the defense of MEG was uncharacteristic and odd. I kinda got the vibe that he recently learned what “continuous load” means and decided he wanted to use that house as a platform to throw around flashy engineering terminology (albeit in a circumstance where it didn’t really apply), rather than take an objective look at the damage. If it was a CMU foundation that failed below the bolts, or an institutional building with incomplete rebar reinforcement, then we can talk about continuous load issues. But bolt placement barely applies to that topic, if at all. It took a “second pass” for him to look at Lake City objectively and reasonably.

We gotta keep in mind he’s still a young dude who’s still learning, and is probably overcorrecting and over-trusting NWS surveys after coming out of the “everything’s an EF5 candidate!!” phase everyone goes through prior to being more knowledgeable. For perspective, few years ago he was misidentifying bulldozer tread marks as ground scouring and using them as a basis for why Cookeville should have been rated EF5. He’s actually come a long way, and just needs to learn that it’s also not good to play it too conservative.

Anyway back on topic, I do not want to fully derail this thread.
Click to expand...

I feel way worse for contributing to him being chased off knowing he's just a highschool kid. I've DM'd him on Twitter apologizing for my behavior and tried making a case for him giving the site another chance. A big benefit of having him here is he actually takes the time to email the NWS to get answers. I think that's really valuable. If nothing else, the clash seems to have humbled him a bit, which isn't to say I don't still massively regret the way things played out. important lessons learned for sure.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
I feel way worse for contributing to him being chased off knowing he's just a highschool kid. I've DM'd him on Twitter apologizing for my behavior and tried making a case for him giving the site another chance. A big benefit of having him here is he actually takes the time to email the NWS to get answers. I think that's really valuable. If nothing else, the clash seems to have humbled him a bit, which isn't to say I don't still massively regret the way things played out. important lessons learned for sure.
Click to expand...
He’s still on Wikipedia, would you like me to reach out?
 
DOD 10 160 mph isn't the most egregious thing in the world. The lower bound for that DI is 165 mph and those houses were very poorly constructed. Still don't love them going outside the bounds of the scale, but it's barely outside. If this tornado is going to be upgraded it would have to be with a contextual indicator. Why tf wouldn't they use contextual indicators though? It'd be so goofy to act like the tossed train car or torn apart truck aren't relevant.
 
In hindsight, I’ll concede that I was too harsh on @NickKrasz_Wx and I apologize.

Still, my points stand that the single poster he used to publicly shame the forum literally does the exact same thing on twitter, and that posts containing inaccurate information should be called out regardless of the poster’s age.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
DOD 10 160 mph isn't the most egregious thing in the world. The lower bound for that DI is 165 mph and those houses were very poorly constructed. Still don't love them going outside the bounds of the scale, but it's barely outside. If this tornado is going to be upgraded it would have to be with a contextual indicator. Why tf wouldn't they use contextual indicators though? It'd be so goofy to act like the tossed train car or torn apart truck aren't relevant.
Click to expand...
I'm kind of inclined to agree. We don't have close up photos, but from the few drone shots, the house looked incredibly shoddy. Also wasn't the truck from the spiritwood tornado?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top