WVU

I just saw it. Give me a couple of days to read it closely. It's 2 am and everything is blurry. After I look it over closely I'll DM you back. When I have a chance to really look it over and if I agree with you I will have no problem messaging Tim and sending him the info. They do reanalyze hurricanes occasionally later...I don't see why they wouldn't reanalyze surveys as well. If I send Tim the info there is no guarantee he will change his mind. A complicating factor is that John has retired so the evidence will have to be compelling for Dennis to change the rating if he wants too...or even can. I haven't heard of a tornado survey being reanalyzed but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened or can't happen. But I promise to look at your DM closely and to respect your time it took to send me the info. It's the least I can do since you put in the time to send it to me. No guarantees that it will change. Sound fair enough?

I did not know John personally. There is a John Robinson in NWSHQ in the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations but I guess he is not the same person. I bet if everyone emailed this John he would wonder what the hell is going on. I know Dennis Cavanaugh. He is a good guy. It might be better to email him directly than going through the "contact us" link. Even though he wasn't the WCM at the time he might answer your questions. Going thru the "contact us" link would be a "challenge" since you don't know who will be looking at that email. You can email Jim Reynolds the MIC there. However...I'll leave it at that. Seriously...even though we might have gotten off on the wrong foot I wish I could help. The previous MIC I knew well and was loved/liked by everyone...but Steve passed back in 2018. He would have answered your questions without hesitation. If you want stuff changed contact Tanya Fransen. She is the MIC in the Glasgow office but she is awesome. She has influence in the NWS and the AMS. She is great.

Then I assumed wrong. Commenting to the media is always tricky. That's why for the most part we leave it up to NOAA/NWS Public Affairs. I don't know John personally. If he is the person I am thinking of he works in NWSHQ in the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations.

If my attitude annoys people so be it. That's their problem not mine. Maybe I should have been clearer. I will not criticize anyone in the NWS. It's professional courtesy and that's how I do things with my peers. If I didn't agree with your Masters thesis I wouldn't put you on blast in public. I would try to find a way to email you in private. If I have a problem with other WCM's I'll call or email them. Which is why I keep on suggesting that folks who have a problem with the rating of a tornado (or anything else NWS related) contact the local WCM or MIC. In most offices the SOO doesn't get involved. I agree...it is important to get the rating correct. We sure spend a hell of alot of time training and trying to be correct so it is important to us (as in the NWS). It isn't trivial at all. By no means are we perfect. But we do our best.

I am very glad that your Dad and Aunt were safe. There is enough tragedy to go around.

That is where you are wrong. It is important to understand that I will not in any circumstance critique the people who have done the surveys. That would not be professional. Just like they won't critique me on my surveys. If they look at my surveys and have questions they would do it in private via a call or an email. Just like I would to them. It's professional courtesy. We're not out to "get each other". That absolutely serves no purpose. We have a common goal which is public service. Which is important in our field and in the NWS.

Okay...that's great. You can also email the WCM in Little Rock...Dennis Cavanaugh at [email protected]. I do not remember if he was the WCM there in 2014. People move often in the NWS. It's tough to keep track. In my 25 year career in the NWS I've been to six locations. With some folks it is easier to put their picture on the Post Office wall to find them! Can you send a private message on here? If so...please let me know what he says. I am very curious...your information has certainly peaked my curiosity. If he doesn't answer you or leaves you with a vague answer I'll ask him or the WCM Dennis Cavanaugh about it. If you really want change in how the NWS does surveys other than contacting Dennis, Rick Smith, or Mark Fox I would also contact Tanya Fransen (she is in the Glasgow MT office). If there is a person in the NWS that has influence and can get stuff done Tanya is the person. Tanya is awesome and is very active in the AMS.

Do you feel better now?

Asking someone to contact the folks that did the surveys is a "snarky reference"? How have I taken any shots at your career? I have said repeatedly that OU is a great university for meteorology...especially severe wx research. I have not said anything negative at all about OU. Suggesting that you apply for the NWS is not taking a shot at your career. It would give you survey experience is what I said. I never denigrated your career choice. I gave you an option. If you took that wrong it's on you not me. What makes you not get the impression that I haven't been on multiple surveys?

I can take a look at all the surveys. But it doesn't mean anything since I wasn't there. Show me where I have disregarded the information you provided. You can't because I haven't. You are saying this..."When asked about Vilonia, all Tim will say is that he didn’t survey those houses in question. No further elaboration. That is not good enough. You’re referring me to someone who’s answer is “idk”, just so you’re aware. You’re acting like he’s this all-knowing authority (which I once believed too, to be fair), and he’s just not when you apply objective scrutiny to some of his work, such as Vilonia and the recent Kentucky tornado." Be fair now. All I'm asking you to do is message him. How can that hurt? It will take you five minutes. If he blows you off then you have your answer. If he is evasive then you can question him further or just accept it. As much of an expert I know he is he isn't perfect. If you bring your points to him at least you will have an answer one way or another. I can't predict what he would say and I know him.

Not at all. I have said numerable times that I do not have the answers. How am I wrong by saying that? If I said I had the answers about those other surveys than I would be wrong. I don't have the answers which I said many times on here. I said contact those who did the surveys (and reviewed them). Am I wrong about that? The only survey I am confident about is the one that Tim reviewed and messaged me on. Message Tim if you do not agree with him. He will get back to you. You said this..."I guess that invalidates all the other verifiable information I provided regarding other questionable surveys." Where did I say that invalidates your other information? I didn't. And I won't. That is your opinion and I do not have the information to refute or agree with you. All I said is to contact the NWS people who have done those surveys. Call and talk with them. I gave the contact link earlier. You have a much better chance getting the answers from them than anyone here (including me).

Let me remind you that you said with a high degree of certainty that the NWS outsources their surveys which is false. If you disagree with Tim don't come to me about it. I can't help you one way or another there. I have no opinion one way or the other since I didn't do the survey. You have your points of disagreement with Tim. You believe you have valid points. Just message Tim about them. He is good about getting back to people. He won't be intimated by your points. He might agree with some or all of your points. He is not afraid to admit he is wrong when he has proof. I know Tim. Check this out...https://www.weather.gov/oun/efscale. If you want to go thru the 95 page PDF on how they developed the EF scale more power to you. Just have alot of coffee on hand.

Let's see...I came on here with zero quote tweets. I copied and pasted what Tim Marshall messaged me. That's it. But if you came on here saying I did five quote tweets show me. What points have I made are you are debunking. That the NWS doesn't outsource their surveys? That I can't talk for Rick, Mark or Tim? Or that Tim Marshall isn't an acknowledged expert so if he said that the KY survey is an EF4 then I believe him? That you do not have the expertise in doing storm surveys?

The only things I said and was certain about was that the NWS has not outsourced their surveys and that the KY survey was thorough because Tim Marshall reviewed it. If you don't know Tim Marshall just google him.

You got me. Satisfied? I know all you want to do is argue for the hell of it. I know the KY one was thorough since I contacted Tim about it. If I can contact Tim so can you. The others I haven't talked with Rick or Mark about. But they have a stellar reputation. Why haven't you applied for the NWS? There are about 30 openings the last time I checked. You would make a hell of alot more money than you do now. Plus you would get the operational experience that you do not have. FYI...You are supporting someone who has said that the NWS has outsourced their surveys. I really truly hope you don't believe that.

You showed me the pictures. Talk with them and send them the pictures. They have the damage indicators that they used. It would be easy to for them to pull those up. Everything you have posted here for the last hour and your tweets you can talk with them about. Why is that so difficult? It seems easy enough to do.

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.

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.

You got me. Do you feel better now?

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.

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.

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/

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 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.

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.