WVU

31 minutes ago, Buckeye05 said:

Please check your DMs. I sent you some important stuff.

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?

6 minutes ago, Buckeye05 said:

The lead surveyor for LZK Vilonia survey was a guy named John Robinson, and he has since retired, so I don't think Cavanaugh would have much to say about it. Plus, LZK has caught a ridiculous amount of flak over the years from angry weather geeks bashing and criticizing them over that rating. I'm sure that any email containing the words "Vilonia" that shows up in an inbox at that particular WFO, is gonna go right into the deleted folder.

But anyway, it would be more productive talking to a brick wall than it would be talking to Robinson about this, as he has strongly insinuated in interviews that he does not believe in applying EF5 ratings to houses. It's suspected by some that the botched results of the Vilonia survey occurred as a result of Robinson perpetuating his highly skewed interpretation of the EF scale into actual practice. I will DM and give you a run-down of that whole debacle, as it seems you are just now learning about the infamous Vilonia survey. It's truly astonishing how bad they failed at documenting the first true instance of EF5 damage within the state of Arkansas.

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.

4 minutes ago, andyhb said:

You don't need to lecture me about professional courtesy, either. That's why I made that Twitter thread in the first place.

The problem is that despite people doing their best to contact others both privately and publicly in the know, very little has actually changed since the Vilonia tornado. Your assumption that other people haven't tried to actually raise these issues to those who know more is off base. Furthermore, with something like the Vilonia tornado, John Robinson, who was the WCM at the time, has clearly made his position on the matter clear via the media.

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. 

10 minutes ago, andyhb said:

Who says anyone is out to get each other? It's this attitude and pushback that "such things should not be criticized" that gets a lot of people annoyed.

I also see the "who cares what the rating is" thrown around a lot. Well, it turns out, that isn't as trivial as it may seem!

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.

59 minutes ago, brianc33710 said:

This was a bit further back in the thread, but I had used the 2011 Tuscaloosa-Birmingham Tornado as an example of a tornado thought to be on the ground 100s of miles only to find it very briefly cycled over NE Bham. Had it not cycled my Dad's & Aunts house would've been badly damaged if not completely destroyed. The twister lifted near Tarrant & dropped a new EF4 once the supercell reached Center Point. 

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

1 hour ago, andyhb said:

Are you acting like I am somehow unaware of this information? Plus lol @ the money thing.

I get the impression that you haven't been on surveys since you seem to be unable to actually respond to my points or questions and instead keep referring me or anyone else to Tim Marshall, Mark Fox, or Rick Smith. If you knew these things, you'd be able to answer at least some of them, even if this was not a tornado that you surveyed.

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.

2 hours ago, Buckeye05 said:

Sure, I'll do it. But what I am saying is that other people who have tried to contact him about that particular event either get stonewalled, or dismissed with a brief reply saying that he is not privy to information regarding the areas of potential EF5 house damage in Vilonia. I don't see why me contacting him would yield a different result. 

But, yeah for the sake of thoroughness I will send him an email. 

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.

3 minutes ago, MidwestChaser said:

This guy's a troll.

Do you feel better now?

47 minutes ago, andyhb said:

You came in with 4-5 consecutive quotes of previous posters saying they were wrong or some snarky reference to NWS, excuse the use of "quote tweet" as an eponym.

I'm debunking your insistence that the Mayfield survey was thorough and you referring me to various people, who I would indeed have more questions for. You keep saying you've been on multiple surveys and yet I don't really get that impression.

Not only that, but you taking shots at my career is a pretty pathetic attempt at ad hominem, which last I checked, I have not used against you.

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? 

1 minute ago, Buckeye05 said:

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.
 

Outsourcing? Nah. Over-utilization of a strictly engineering approach? Absolutely. Not going down the way I initially said, but essentially the same end result. But yeah keep clinging to that one thing I got wrong, while disregarding all the highly troubling, verifiable information that I provided. How can you justify the strength of your belief in WFO survey teams and people like Marshall, when things like Vilonia happen? I think it’s because you’re not aware. 
 

I encourage you to actually take a look at cases like Vilonia yourself, instead of immediately defaulting to the word of people who claim to have dismissed the concerns. 

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.

6 minutes ago, Buckeye05 said:

Also yeah, I wasn’t right about the extent of influence that engineering firms have on surveys, but I guess that invalidates all the other verifiable information I provided regarding other questionable surveys. 

I do know that according to NWS Louisville, that engineers assisted with the recent Bowling Green survey, and when that WFO was asked a valid question about why an anchored DOD 10 residence was given an EF2 rating (which is below the lower-bound for that DI, and is technically breaking the guidelines set in place by the scale), they just said that this is likely the conclusion engineers that were consulted to assist with the survey came to, with no further explanation, as if it was out of their hands. That isn’t going to sit well with some people. But yeah, I’ll admit when I’m wrong. I can see you being able to do the same is struggle though. 

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). 

6 minutes ago, Buckeye05 said:

Tim Marshall failed to survey or address multiple areas of potential EF5 damage in Vilonia, AR, and instead tried to put the issue to rest by only addressing all the slabbed, cut-nailed cookie cutter homes in the Sherwood Meadows subdivision as if that was the main area in question, when it wasn’t, and as if the general public didn’t understand the concept of poor construction. In fact, only one of the areas in question (E Wicker St) was addressed by the LZK survey, and the reasons given to keep it below the EF5 threshold were not valid (purported debris loading but with no traceable object in question striking the house, “inconsistent” tree damage that was a full 100 yards away from the house in question, and straight-nailing, even though several of the EF5 rated homes after Moore 2013 were straight nailed, and even though we’ll-respected damage surveyor Kiel Ortega established that single family homes with straight-nailed wall studs are still eligible for an EF5 rating given enough contextual support, within his survey of Moore 2013.) That E Wicker house had extensive, above and beyond anchoring of its exterior and interior walls too. The contextual damage was remarkable too. The reasons given, were more like excuses when you compare them to precedents set by previous EF5 events, and when compared to published guidelines given by Marshall himself on the subject of distinguishing EF4 from EF5 damage.

The rest of the areas in question (S Coker Rd, Cemetery St, and Fish Hooks Restaurant) were completely omitted from not only Tim Marshall’s survey, but the LZK survey team. Don’t believe me? Look yourself. At least one resident who’s extensively anchored, modern home was completely slabbed, did confirm that neither the NWS survey team or any other survey team stopped by his property. They got skipped, along with other areas of the path. Those areas contained likely EF5 damage. These are facts, whether you want to believe them or not, and there are reasons why having unwavering faith in these people is a misinformed point of view. 
 

Bottom line, questionable practices are rampant when it comes surveys and ratings, and if you don’t see that, it’s because you aren’t taking a hard, objective look at the more controversial cases, and you aren’t aware of a lot of troubling information, and I can say that with a high degree of certainty.

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.

Just now, andyhb said:

What?  You're the one who came in here with like 5 straight quote tweets trying to start a ruckus, give me a break.

I'm not even supporting his points, I'm debunking yours. Also, my career is my business, thank you very much. It'd be a little difficult for me to get a government job being a Canadian citizen and given the current status of applying for citizenship.

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? 

3 minutes ago, andyhb said:

Because you're the one that came in here guns ablazing saying everyone else was wrong.

In fact, I do mean to talk with some of these people about this, not to mention I'd like to take part in surveys in the future.

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.

3 minutes ago, andyhb said:

You just said the survey was thorough.

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.

8 minutes ago, andyhb said:

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.

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.

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.

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. 

4 minutes ago, MidwestChaser said:

You got me. Do you feel better now?

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.

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. 

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/

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.

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.

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.