Dec. 10-11 Severe Weather

[andyhb]

6 minutes ago, WVU said:

Most of the subjectivity is taken out of surveys using the DAT. I can't say all the subjectivity but as much as possible. Every office has to use the DAT (okay...maybe not Monterey, CA where they gat one tornado every five years. But even they are required). All offices and WCM's have been trained the same. If there is a question an expert is asked to review the survey. I really have not seen any inconsistencies.

Then you really haven't been paying much attention.

[WVU]

Would the scale be better if radar estimated 275 mph winds yet the tornado only went thru the forest and was rated an EF0. Sure...that would be great. But the inconsistencies would be enormous...how many tornado wind speeds have been caught in the lowest slice near an 88D? Very few. 

There isn't a real good answer at this time. Whether anyone likes the EF scale (which was jointly developed by meteorologists and wind engineers) or not this is what we have to work with at this time...as frustrating as that is. I understand the frustration. I get it. I wish there was something better. 

[andyhb]

1 minute ago, WVU said:

Would the scale be better if radar estimated 275 mph winds yet the tornado only went thru the forest and was rated an EF0. Sure...that would be great. But the inconsistencies would be enormous...how many tornado wind speeds have been caught in the lowest slice near an 88D? Very few. 

There isn't a real good answer at this time. Whether anyone likes the EF scale (which was jointly developed by meteorologists and wind engineers) or not this is what we have to work with at this time...as frustrating as that is. I understand the frustration. I get it. I wish there was something better. 

That wouldn't be rated EF0 because the tree damage would probably warrant EF3 at minimum.

[WVU]

1 minute ago, andyhb said:

Then you really haven't been paying much attention.

I have been paying attention. Very closely. And I know most of the WCM's and the expert (with 39 years of experience and a graduate of OU)  that I quoted who is asked often to review surveys. They have been quite consistent.

You are a grad research student at OU. An excellent university for meteorology...especially in the field of severe weather. Probably one of the top research universities for severe weather research.  I'm guessing you haven't been out on many if any surveys. Talk with Rick Smith and ask him his opinion. He has probably done the most surveys inside the NWS. Or talk with Mark Fox the former WCM at the Fort Worth office (he is the MIC at Amarillo now I believe). 

[WVU]

8 minutes ago, andyhb said:

That wouldn't be rated EF0 because the tree damage would probably warrant EF3 at minimum.

Yeah...but you know exactly what I meant. It's not like I have the list of 28 DI's in front of me to reference. Hopefully you got my point.

[MidwestChaser]

17 minutes ago, WVU said:

Have any extra popcorn? You might need it!

You seem pretty mad tonight.

[Hoosier]

We need to add more damage indicators to the EF scale, imo.  I mean things like vehicles, crops, etc.  I realize that may be easier said than done, but since we are dealing with a damage based scale, the way to make it better (not perfect, but better) is to have more things to evaluate.

[andyhb]

4 minutes ago, WVU said:

I have been paying attention. Very closely. And I know most of the WCM's and the expert (with 39 years of experience and a graduate of OU)  that I quoted who is asked often to review surveys. They have been quite consistent.

You are a grad research student at OU. An excellent university for meteorology...especially in the field of severe weather. Probably one of the top research universities for severe weather research.  I'm guessing you haven't been out on many if any surveys. Talk with Rick Smith and ask him his opinion. He has probably done the most surveys inside the NWS. Or talk with Mark Fox the former WCM at the Fort Worth office (he is the MIC at Amarillo now I believe). 

Yes I would ask him about why their Moore survey was so thorough and why the Vilonia and Mayfield ones weren't.

You name dropping people isn't really supporting your arguments.

[andyhb]

11 minutes ago, WVU said:

I have been paying attention. Very closely. And I know most of the WCM's and the expert (with 39 years of experience and a graduate of OU)  that I quoted who is asked often to review surveys. They have been quite consistent.

You are a grad research student at OU. An excellent university for meteorology...especially in the field of severe weather. Probably one of the top research universities for severe weather research.  I'm guessing you haven't been out on many if any surveys. Talk with Rick Smith and ask him his opinion. He has probably done the most surveys inside the NWS. Or talk with Mark Fox the former WCM at the Fort Worth office (he is the MIC at Amarillo now I believe). 

Sure, I'd ask him why this entire group of structures from the EF3 Canton TX tornado in 2017 was missed in the survey.

[WVU]

Just now, andyhb said:

Yes I would ask him about why their Moore survey was so thorough and why the Vilonia and Mayfield ones weren't.

You name dropping people isn't really supporting your arguments.

The only way to support my arguments is for you to call Rick Smith or Mark Fox. Or contact Tim Marshall. They will tell you what I'm saying is right. Or ask to go on some surveys (during this time of Covid that probably won't happen right now). Looking at it from the outside as a research meteorologist is alot different than actually doing surveys.

There is really no other way for me to support what I am saying. How else do you want me to support my argument? Just call and ask them. Or call Roger Edwards...he is right there. He does a boatload of chasing and is definitely an expert.

For the tornado in KY it was an EF4 based on the survey and the review. Sure...you can disagree with it but until you have the experience it's tough for you to say otherwise. Unless they review it again it will remain an EF4. 

[andyhb]

1 minute ago, WVU said:

The only way to support my arguments is for you to call Rick Smith or Mark Fox. Or contact Tim Marshall. They will tell you what I'm saying is right. Or ask to go on some surveys (during this time of Covid that probably won't happen right now). Looking at it from the outside as a research meteorologist is alot different than actually doing surveys.

There is really no other way for me to support what I am saying. How else do you want me to support my argument? Just call and ask them. Or call Roger Edwards...he is right there. He does a boatload of chasing and is definitely an expert.

For the tornado in KY it was an EF4 based on the survey and the review. Sure...you can disagree with it but until you have the experience it's tough for you to say otherwise. Unless they review it again it will remain an EF4. 

I'm allowed to point out inconsistencies based on previous cases amongst many other things.

For example, Rick Smith tweeted at one point that one structure could be the basis for the rating of a tornado, but in the Vilonia survey, it was specifically argued as a reason to not upgrade it to EF5 despite a house that clearly was built to code and even had anchor bolts to its interior walls.

[WVU]

6 minutes ago, andyhb said:

Sure, I'd ask him why this entire group of structures from the EF3 Canton TX tornado in 2017 was missed in the survey.

Then call and ask him. He is easy to talk with. You can find his phone number right here...https://www.weather.gov/contact. He would be happy to explain why it was rated that way to you. I wasn't there so I can't nor can you.

[WVU]

5 minutes ago, andyhb said:

I'm allowed to point out inconsistencies based on previous cases amongst many other things.

For example, Rick Smith tweeted at one point that one structure could be the basis for the rating of a tornado, but in the Vilonia survey, it was specifically argued as a reason to not upgrade it to EF5 despite a house that clearly was built to code and even had anchor bolts to its interior walls.

Then call him. He is a nice person and easy to talk with. He would explain why. You can't tell why and neither can I (and I have done alot of surveys). Here is the contact info...https://www.weather.gov/contact. That's the easiest way to get the answer you are looking for.  You weren't on the survey and neither was I.

Listen...it is easy to critique from a distance when you are not part of the survey or were even there. I have alot of experience and I will not critique them since I wasn't there nor part of the survey team. The best thing you can do is contact them (you have the link) or contact Tim Marshall.

[andyhb]

You're saying the same thing over and over again. How about I post this thread where I specifically ask questions of those with greater knowledge than myself of the process?

 

[WVU]

22 minutes ago, andyhb said:

Yes I would ask him about why their Moore survey was so thorough and why the Vilonia and Mayfield ones weren't.

 

I do know for a fact that the Mayfield survey was very thorough. They even had their survey reviewed by an acknowledged expert who I messaged. The person with 39 years of experience.

[andyhb]

Just now, WVU said:

I do know for a fact that the Mayfield survey was very thorough. They even had their survey reviewed by an acknowledged expert who I messaged. The person with 39 years of experience.

Then why are there so many holes in the DAT from it?

[MidwestChaser]

1 minute ago, WVU said:

I do know for a fact that the Mayfield survey was very thorough. They even had their survey reviewed by an acknowledged expert who I messaged. The person with 39 years of experience.

Did you create an account here just to argue?

[WVU]

5 minutes ago, andyhb said:

You're saying the same thing over and over again. How about I post this thread where I specifically ask questions of those with greater knowledge than myself of the process?

 

Let me guess...you are Andrew right? You make valid points. And you did a hell of alot of writing to make 20 tweets!

And yes...I am saying the same things over and over. Your questions might be answered (or not) to your satisfaction by calling those two for your specific questions about those surveys. It's as simple as that. I can't answer what went into those surveys. Neither can you. You can message Tim Marshall about the Mayfield tornado. He is the one that reviewed the findings. The only surveys that I can answer to are the ones I have done when I was a WCM. I was a WCM in what people call tornado alley. I also have a BS and MS degrees in meteorology.

I'm not arguing with you about the validity of the EF scale. It was developed by meteorologists and wind engineers. I don't know what went into those conversations or what they intended when they developed the EF scale. 

Read this good article by Bob Henson...https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/05/its-been-a-record-long-time-since-the-last-ef5-tornado-what-does-that-mean/

[andyhb]

You want to argue that Mayfield was a thorough survey? Well explain these to me then.

This group of houses SW of Mayfield on Pritchett Road was completely destroyed, and yet we have only a single EF2 rating (the house to the north of the road on the left) that wasn't even in the core of the damage path.

Entire blocks of structures, including the First Presbyterian Church that was leveled to the ground in downtown Mayfield are missing DIs.

This entire subdivision of homes that was destroyed SW of the lake in Cambridge Springs only have 3 DIs to represent them.

Furthermore, these houses that were destroyed in Cambridge Springs have no DIs.

The damage assessment mentions that some of these homes were wiped clean to their foundations east of the Lakes near the interstate, but we get a blanket rating of 150 mph for them.

The entire area near the Princeton Golf Club has no DIs, including many houses that were leveled per both satellite and drone shots.

There are very few DIs in Dawson Springs, given the number of structures that were impacted there.

This entire group of houses northeast of Earlington has no DIs.

I'm sorry, but that is just not thorough surveying if this is indeed the final product, and I'm not even necessarily saying that NWS Paducah is at fault here. It seems to me they should've had more help, perhaps from NWS SRH that has recently had many intense tornadoes.

[WVU]

14 minutes ago, MidwestChaser said:

Did you create an account here just to argue?

Not at all. I deal with facts is all. If I do not know something I will say so. The Mayfield survey was very thorough and was reviewed by an outside meteorologist/engineer with 39 years of experience. That is a fact. 

You can disagree all you want about the EF rating of that tornado or the EF ratings period. Unless you have experience surveying tornadoes or personally know the folks doing the surveys you are not being fair to them. 

[andyhb]

To that article, which I have read, I would be more than happy to participate in some sort of reanalysis project like Jim LaDue is suggesting there, as with HURDAT.

[MidwestChaser]

1 minute ago, WVU said:

Not at all. I deal with facts is all. If I do not know something I will say so. The Mayfield survey was very thorough and was reviewed by an outside meteorologist/engineer with 39 years of experience. That is a fact. 

You can disagree all you want about the EF rating of that tornado or the EF ratings period. Unless you have experience surveying tornadoes or personally know the folks doing the surveys you are not being fair to them. 

[WVU]

1 minute ago, andyhb said:

You want to argue that Mayfield was a thorough survey? Well explain these to me then.

This group of houses SW of Mayfield on Pritchett Road was completely destroyed, and yet we have only a single EF2 rating (the house to the north of the road on the left) that wasn't even in the core of the damage path.

Entire blocks of structures, including the First Presbyterian Church that was leveled to the ground in downtown Mayfield are missing DIs.

This entire subdivision of homes that was destroyed SW of the lake in Cambridge Springs only have 3 DIs to represent them.

Furthermore, these houses that were destroyed in Cambridge Springs have no DIs.

The damage assessment mentions that some of these homes were wiped clean to their foundations east of the Lakes near the interstate, but we get a blanket rating of 150 mph for them.

The entire area near the Princeton Golf Club has no DIs, including many houses that were leveled per both satellite and drone shots.

There are very few DIs in Dawson Springs, given the number of structures that were impacted there.

This entire group of houses northeast of Earlington has no DIs.

I'm sorry, but that is just not thorough surveying if this is indeed the final product, and I'm not even necessarily saying that NWS Paducah is at fault here. It seems to me they should've had more help, perhaps from NWS SRH that has recently had many intense tornadoes.

You remember that quote that I posted about the survey? The review. The review of the survey was done by Tim Marshall who has more experience in engineering and meteorology than anyone here. That was (and is) his life's work. If his review said it was an EF4 that's good enough for me. For someone not involved with the survey nor having any surveying experience that is not being fair. 

If you want to argue just for the hell of it I'm not going to give you any answers that satisfy you. The real people you should contact are the WCM's and Tim Marshall. They will explain their reasoning to you. I can't not being involved in the survey. That wouldn't be fair nor right.  Like I said...just call them.

[WVU]

4 minutes ago, MidwestChaser said:

You got me. Do you feel better now?

[andyhb]

1 minute ago, WVU said:

You remember that quote that I posted about the survey? The review. The review of the survey was done by Tim Marshall who has more experience in engineering and meteorology than anyone here. That was (and is) his life's work. If his review said it was an EF4 that's good enough for me. For someone not involved with the survey nor having any surveying experience that is not being fair. 

If you want to argue just for the hell of it I'm not going to give you any answers that satisfy you. The real people you should contact are the WCM's and Tim Marshall. They will explain their reasoning to you. I can't not being involved in the survey. That wouldn't be fair nor right.  Like I said...just call them.

Well then why do you keep speaking for them then? Saying "talk to Tim Marshall" isn't a valid response considering he only visited Mayfield and Dawson Springs along the path.

Furthermore, his report on the Vilonia tornado did not mention any of the structures that were missed along the path, nor the house that was the strongest candidate for EF5. I read it myself multiple times.

[WVU]

9 minutes ago, andyhb said:

Well then why do you keep speaking for them then?

Read again what I wrote. Come on...you are smarter than that.

I'm not speaking for them. Your trying to prove your points to me...someone who was not involved in any of those surveys that you mentioned. I have repeatedly said I can't give you an answer since I was not there nor did I review the surveys. You disagree with the surveys. Fine.

I have repeatedly said for you to call them and talk about those surveys. That is not speaking for them. Not once have I said I agree or disagree with the surveys in OK or TX. Just the one in KY since I know Tim was involved and I know Tim and his background.  Rick, Mark and Tim can do just fine speaking for themselves. Just call them. Easy as that. 

[Buckeye05]

2 minutes ago, WVU said:

You remember that quote that I posted about the survey? The review. The review of the survey was done by Tim Marshall who has more experience in engineering and meteorology than anyone here. That was (and is) his life's work. If his review said it was an EF4 that's good enough for me. For someone not involved with the survey nor having any surveying experience that is not being fair. 

If you want to argue just for the hell of it I'm not going to give you any answers that satisfy you. The real people you should contact are the WCM's and Tim Marshall. They will explain their reasoning to you. I can't not being involved in the survey. That wouldn't be fair nor right.  Like I said...just call them.

You are dodging his questions and it’s painfully obvious whether you realize it or not. Bottom line, why are there massive gaps in the DAT survey, and why is it clear that in some areas (Lake Barkley) that the survey by driving through, snapping photos out of the window of their car windows, by all appearances not leaving their vehicle to inspect the construction of homes in that area? You have continued to regurgitate the same statements without addressing any of the very-much valid questions. Your blind faith in various people with big names in the damage surveying area of the field, along with ignorance to how misused the EF scale has become (I’m not going to spoon-feed you the endless examples of inconsistency and contradictions if you’re going to just arrogantly disregard anything that doesn’t line up with your viewpoint), is symptomatic of a larger issue. 

[andyhb]

2 minutes ago, WVU said:

Read again what I wrote.

I'm not speaking for them. Your trying to prove your points to me...someone who was not involved in any of those surveys that you mentioned. I have repeatedly said I can't give you an answer since I was there or reviewed the surveys. You disagree with the surveys. Fine.

I have repeatedly said for you to call them and talk about those surveys. That is not speaking for them. Not once have I said I agree or disagree with the surveys in OK or TX. Just the one in KY since I know Tim was involved and I know Tim and his background.  Rick, Mark and Tim can do just fine speaking for themselves. Just call them. Easy as that. 

My point is how am I supposed to formulate a questioning with one of these folks over one rating or another when there are no damage indicators given in the first place? Like, that's a dead end.

[andyhb]

47 minutes ago, WVU said:

I do know for a fact that the Mayfield survey was very thorough. They even had their survey reviewed by an acknowledged expert who I messaged. The person with 39 years of experience.

You saying this and then telling me to talk to somebody else when I punch a hole in it doesn't really work.

[WVU]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye05 said:

You are dodging his questions and it’s painfully obvious whether you realize it or not. Bottom line, why are there massive gaps in the DAT survey, and why is it clear that in some areas (Lake Barkley) that the survey by driving through, snapping photos out of the window of their car windows, by all appearances not leaving their vehicle to inspect the construction of homes in that area? You have continued to regurgitate the same statements without addressing any of the very-much valid questions. Your blind faith in various people with big names in the damage surveying area of the field, along with ignorance to how misused the EF scale has become (I’m not going to spoon-feed you the endless examples of inconsistency and contradictions if you’re going to just arrogantly disregard anything that doesn’t line up with your viewpoint), is symptomatic of a larger issue. 

This is from someone who has claimed that the NWS has outsourced their surveys. That is patently false. 

Now that we have got that out of the way...I can't answer those questions. I wasn't at those surveys. So yes...I am dodging his questions. How can I know the answers not being there. You haven't done a survey (obviously since you didn't even know that the NWS is the only entity that does surveys). Just call the WCM's from the contact link I posted. Contact Tim Marshall. That's the best I can do.