Significant Tornado Events

[tornado examiner]

You should read the scale and the interpretation. Wind speed ratings are solely what engineers can prove happened with 100% certainty. No more. If 190 mph winds CAN explain the damage observed, it cannot be rated higher.

You sitting here saying "no i don't believe you" is basically a shitpost.

oh i forgot there was a reason i ignored you. thanks for reminding me!

 

[CalebRoutt]

oh i forgot there was a reason i ignored you. thanks for reminding me!

He has a point. That’s literally what the EF-Scale is. The minimum required windspeed to destroy a structure.

 

[tornado examiner]

but no. when the scale was originally made there was absolutely nothing that said there needs to be more than one spot of the max indicated damage too be able to rate the tornado accordingly. absolutely no where. never existed. think of all the tornadoes now that are rated the way they are based off of one singular max DI. theres lots of them. this was even a spot of controversy for the vilonia tornado.

 

[CalebRoutt]

but no. when the scale was originally made there was absolutely nothing that said there needs to be more than one spot of the max indicated damage too be able to rate the tornado accordingly. absolutely no where. never existed. think of all the tornadoes now that are rated the way they are based off of one singular max DI. theres lots of them. this was even a spot of controversy for the vilonia tornado

The NWS can rate a tornado with whatever EF-Scale DI they want. If they find EF4 damage for instance but most of the damage was EF2, then they have the option to rate it as EF2.

 

[tornado examiner]

The NWS can rate a tornado with whatever EF-Scale DI they want. If they find EF4 damage for instance but most of the damage was EF2, then they have the option to rate it as EF2.

i hope your not supportive of that. if we start seeing flattened cities being rated as EF2 or less we're never gonna believe anything the nws says.

 

[tornado examiner]

The NWS can rate a tornado with whatever EF-Scale DI they want. If they find EF4 damage for instance but most of the damage was EF2, then they have the option to rate it as EF2.

they can....but they most definitely should not. because if they do...they're basically saying f**k the science in favor of their busted EGO and should be put out of commission.

 

[CalebRoutt]

they can....but they most definitely should not. because if they do...they're basically saying f**k the science in favor of their busted EGO and should be put out of commission.

It’s honestly not that big of a deal. I highly suggest you go on damage surveys or see tornado damage yourself before making some of these claims.

 

[tornado examiner]

It’s honestly not that big of a deal. I highly suggest you go on damage surveys or see tornado damage yourself before making some of these claims.

what are you implying? you're the one saying inaccurate tornado ratings aren't a big deal. quite frankly i think you're the one who needs to stop making these claims.

 

[CalebRoutt]

what are you implying? you're the one saying inaccurate tornado ratings aren't a big deal. quite frankly i think you're the one who needs to stop making these claims.

No, saying they should be put out of commission for a rating is bold. They are experts for a reason, you are not.

 

[tornado examiner]

No, saying they should be put out of commission for a rating is bold. They are experts for a reason, you are not.

ah, yes. "experts" sure buddy. after what they did on december 10-11 thats a real bold statement in and of itself. "experts" is a strong word for some of them. i'm sure a large duplex, that had anchor bolts and was generally well constructed, swept away and surrounded by debarked trees. should be rated mid range EF2 off the vague and likely very inaccurate assumption that it may have been hit by debris. and that they should BREAK the rules of the scale too do so. no buddy.

do not come around here saying the nws is justified to rate a tornado as an EF2 despite finding very obvious EF4 damage. that will not fly my guy. and if they do that. they will come under extremely heavy flak.

 

[CalebRoutt]

ah, yes. "experts" sure buddy. after what they did on december 10-11 thats a real bold statement in and of itself. "experts" is a strong word for some of them. i'm sure a large duplex, that had anchor bolts and was generally well constructed, swept away and surrounded by debarked trees. should be rated mid range EF2 off the vague and likely very inaccurate assumption that it may have been hit by debris. and that they should BREAK the rules of the scale too do so. no buddy.

do not come around here saying the nws is justified to rate a tornado as an EF2 despite finding very obvious EF4 damage. that will not fly my guy. and if they do that. they will come under extremely heavy flak.

I said they have the option to. Not that they were. Clearly you’re not reading nor have an engineering degree, so I’ll end the convo here.

 

[AngelAndHisWx]

what are you implying? you're the one saying inaccurate tornado ratings aren't a big deal. quite frankly i think you're the one who needs to stop making these claims.

I see you’re just as galaxy brain here as you are on Twitter, Clutch.

 

[tornado examiner]

anyways. i kinda want a list of all the potential EF5 structures from the mayfield tornado. i know there's like 5 or 6. one structure sw mayfield. a few buildings in downtown mayfield. 1 or 2 homes in Cambridge shores. the uk research facility. and then that one newly constructed structure in bremen.

 

[tornado examiner]

I see you’re just as galaxy brain here as you are on Twitter, Clutch.

don't need to point out my problems with aggression and being a smart mouth. im aware...and i'm trying too work on them dude...

 

[TH2002]

I hate to play "TalkWeather Police" because moderating this site isn't my job, and I know it's easy to blame one person and all but not gonna lie, this thread is going downhill fast...

 

[tornado examiner]

one person says something, another person replies in a weird way, then that first guy replies back aggressively blah blah blah blah blah its how all drama starts...

 

[tornado examiner]

i personally, am sorry for being an aggressor...i just don't like to let b.s fly unanswered

 

[tornado examiner]

am i not professional enough for a place like this?

 

[xJownage]

I hate to play "TalkWeather Police" because moderating this site isn't my job, and I know it's easy to blame one person and all but not gonna lie, this thread is going downhill fast...

I deleted one of my postings. I made the mistake of forgetting to use the ignore function. I apologize for contributing to this, and completely agree with what you're saying.

Let's get back on track.

 

[TH2002]

i personally, am sorry for being an aggressor...i just don't like to let b.s fly unanswered

I've had my days too, we all have. But none of us want to see this site turn into a carbon copy of Twitter or God forbid the YouTube comments section.

am i not professional enough for a place like this?

With only a few exceptions most of us are just weather nerds like you, not professional meteorologists. Just take a step back and relax, but my best bit of advice is to not actually make a post unless you have something interesting to say and/or share.