Well, what i meant is i agreed with people's points about him maybe being a bit too much trusted. I have no problem hearing his analysis and respect he took the time to do it, but it seems he's a growing figure when it comes to proving about tornado intensity. I'm glad to see he's willing to join the forum, and have a discussion with us if this altercation didn't sour it....
Nick, or Saltical? Automatically assuming someone is completely incorrect based on doing minimal research (they have posted their general calculations before, it was just assumed that they didn’t) is counterproductive. People should do more research before assuming something here is inaccurate, and maybe be open to other ideas instead of looking at images and saying “yup, that’s EF5 damage”. That’s why my activity here has declined, because I realize that outside of damage photos and other images of past events this forum isn’t too useful for things regarding damage analysis; I’d rather hear from someone who has laid out their reasonings and have actual discussion/debate than just back-and-forth bickering and insulting people who are clearly experts in the field of damage assessment (people who work at NOAA/NWS, to be clear).
While I can’t vouch for every single opinion, person, or TornadoTalk for that matter, I can guarantee you that there’s a little more that goes into it than that, and can guarantee you that some very reasonable points have been made here, even if that’s not all the time. In addition, and I’ve said this before, but the EF scale is not some ultra convoluted myriad of incomprehensible analysis that can understood by a select few or NWS employees only. People are capable of researching it and grasping it, and accurately applying it to available information on the internet. While it’s never going to be quite the same as being there, we live in a day and age where you can gather remarkably detailed information about a specific tornado, and have detailed images and information regarding the type of structures it impacted, have specific details of their construction, along with the context and rationale used by the NWS in the rating process. If a person really takes a careful look at everything, ranging from NWS info to raw imagery and everything in between, they can put together a surprisingly detailed picture, and have enough info to factor in critical details like construction and context, which is a majority of what goes into a rating. There are a ton of resources out there that can allow you to have a fine-tuned understanding of house construction and just how it relates to the EF scale. There’s also just the mental database you develop after poring over countless tornado events, and within it there are certain patterns, signatures, and contextual hallmarks that become undeniably linked to varying levels of intensity. Also there are sometimes certain inconsistencies, double standards, and gaps in rationale that stick out like a sore thumb in certain surveys (Vilonia being a big one). Sometimes the rationalization provided by the NWS seems valid and consistent, other times it doesn’t, and when it doesn’t it gets discussed, sometimes with genuinely compelling evidence to support a dissenting opinion. My point being, while I don’t agree with every take I see on here, it’s not all just a bunch of people jumping to conclusions and calling for EF5 any time they see a foundation or some debarked trees.
I'm not one to bicker or fight over damage analysis if that's what you're intending to say.
Absolutely. Homes with straight nailed studs can still get EXP. And that's why the Vilonia home should have gotten an EF5 rating.
Saltical does similar, and here he's being treated like crap for no discernable reason besides the fact that his stuff isn't peer-reviewed and he doesn't post his calculations (which he has done). My point is that TornadoTalk does the exact same thing (even they don't post their reasoning for several things) but on this forum a lot of the stuff they say is treated as fact. What's the difference? Narramore is the only person there who could remotely be called a subject expert and even she only has a B.S. (Bachelors) in a field I forgot.
Nelson Tucker is actually involved in the OTUS Project and pursues meteorology, and Jen's field is meteorology.
Quick tip: use the underlying sources that we use instead of Wikipedia itself. I totally get not using Wikipedia as a source, but at the bottom of every article there's a list of references from (usually, still make sure they're reliable) news channels, experts and the NWS on the topic. For example, on the Greensburg article, there's about ~170 references and a list of research papers at the bottom.
Agree that Wikipedia is pretty point on and these days and I rarely find a fault.
As a fellow tornado fanatic and researcher like yourself, i like to find my own sources haha but i will make sure to do that in case i lurk around the site!
Also watch for the articles with the green "+" and gold star, specifically the latter. The green plus-sign means it's been reviewed by another editor, and the gold star means it has been deemed a "quality article" by 5 or more experienced people. Greensburg is a good example.
Unless I’m missing something, the messages from this morning don’t seem particularly bad? Just a disagreement. Agree with your other points.
To be completely candid, the discussion here was relatively tame compared to some of the more classic dust ups that have occurred on here.
