re: More Central U.S. Severe Weather: 4/30/24 - 5/3/24

This right here, and there is plenty of it, is wishcasting at its best.

Xwitter comment:

quote:

---

Meteorologically speaking, the EF scale alone is very limited. I’m surprised there isn’t a sister scale that rates strictly by the storm intensity. Something like an evolved version of the original F scale.

---

Even attempting to do what this person suggests would be terribly flawed. How do I know? Because I've watched storms on radar that I was convinced put down violent tornadoes only to see the resultant damage and be emphatically proven wrong. Radar can and will trick you. The reality is we aren't great with wind, and we aren't great with wind on radar and how it relates to what is actually going on on the ground. That's where we have a whole lot to learn. To rely on radar presentation alone (especially with questionable data or poor storm placement in relation to said radar) would be essentially useless and would create even more "drama".

Yep, totally agree. Radar is amazing, but it doesn’t always tell the full story. By rating based on damage, the tornado is being rated by what actually occurred on the ground.

Last night was a 'treat'. Was able to view the befuddlement firsthand and may never see this again

Appreciate, was wondering about the damage

Quite a blessing it spun in a relative 'no man's land'

Our most local, experienced meteorologist - over 20 in Wichita Falls - was literally at a loss trying to sort it out

Here's the thing, even though no town was hit (thank goodness) there were plenty of damage indicators to be had for this tornado or tornadoes. Tree damage is a pretty well established damage indicator. Silos, I think are on the list. There were at least a couple of homes with discernable damage, houses are a DI. Ground scouring, if not on the DI list, is at least comparable across all sigtors or violent tornadoes.

Nothing was found on the ground to support anything close to a violent tornado. Yet, we have this nonsense in the replies to NWS Norman's Xweet about it:

quote:

---

The EF scale is based on damage, in this case the damage indicated EF1, even though the winds may have been much stronger, or because it didn’t get hit directly. Other than that this tornado tracked over mostly open field giving it a Lower rating.

---

quote:

---

Which is a completely asinine way of tracking and book keep tornados… especially when you have fully capable radars that can accurately tell you wind speed data

---

Okay, the EF scale is, for a fact, a damage scale. Damage on the ground is surveyed and compared to the DI list and other violent tornadoes. People want to include radar data in the final rating of a tornado. Fine, but what happens when what you "see" on radar has no ground truth whatsoever?

They want to be able to rate a tornado by what they think they see on radar. Radar is complicated and imperfect. This isn't even a good case for what they want because everything on the ground contradicts what they think they saw on radar, and it isn't because "nothing was hit".

They simply want every tornado to be a "monster" F4+ bc people are stupid and want to be a part of something "extreme" or "cool". Society is always wanting things to either be the "worst thing ever" or "best thing ever"

This is a strange comparison but it's the same reason every couple of years we get the future "best ever" in the NFL&NBA drafts. Hell we have even had it in the MLB draft (remember Stephen Strasburg?). People and the media (who do it bc people love it) love hyperbole and extremes therefore they are trying to will it into existence

It happens with every damn tornado of much significance these days and as I've made clear before it really pisses me off. These people are ignorant and act like total jackasses

Yea I actually just saw it

As you addressed in the thread and this one, the entire premise relies on radar data regarding wind being reliable.......and it's not reliable at least not completely

They grade all tornadoes based on actual damage done on the ground. They may (and basically always do) use radar data to help them know where to look, etc. but the grading is done strictly based on actual damage

It's a system that's imperfect but I havent seen anything better proposed

quote:

---

It did the thing again.

---

Yep

Nick