andyhb

What even is this thread title?

Also you don't just see 4-5"/hr rates in a city of that size very often (not counting LES).

33 minutes ago, cyclone77 said:

Very nice.  Were you guys expecting that much there, or did it sort of ramp up at the last minute?  

From what I saw, they were expecting 8-12" but instead it was more like 14-20" over most of the metro (top 5 on record), plus the crazy snowfall rates in that main band and strong winds. NW trend giveth and taketh. Plus this was the rare case that the track didn't favor the coastal low taking over and becoming a true Nor'easter.

It probably was close to being their GHD, and certainly the most significant storm for them since January 1999.

YYZ is as bad as DCA with their bullsh*t.

6 hours ago, Snowstorms said:

Puking snow right now in Toronto. Rates of 3-4"/hr. YYZ has reported visibility near zero for the past 3 hours. 

I measured 11" about 15 minutes ago. Many areas will end up close to 16-20" once all is said and done. 

Curious to see if it challenges the record from December 1944 (19") although YYZ observations are lol. It most certainly is the largest storm for them since the Blizzard of 1999.

Toronto's record is 19" (48 cm) from December 1944. This may challenge that, although observations at YYZ are often low and not representative of the city.

31 minutes ago, BuffaloWeather said:

Toronto still getting hit pretty good with that band, they're saying its the worst storm in history up there. That can't be true?

Knowing some of YYZ climo, large snowstorms like this one (and particularly blizzards) are quite rare for them. There have only been a select few storms in history that have dropped over 15" there, and this looks to join the club.

Can we not...

Re: one structure being the basis of the rating, well here you go.

3 minutes ago, WVU said:

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.

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.

18 minutes ago, WVU said:

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.

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!

1 hour ago, WVU said:

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.

1 minute ago, WVU said:

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? 

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.

Just now, WVU said:

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? 

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.

Just now, WVU said:

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.

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.

Just now, WVU said:

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.

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.

Just now, WVU said:

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.

You just said the survey was thorough.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.