MNTornadoGuy
Member
Looks like the EF2 rating for Granger might be final.
https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=PNSEWX&e=202203242215
https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=PNSEWX&e=202203242215
"Significant EF2 damage occurred to a residential home near the intersection of CR347 and CR346."Looks like the EF2 rating for Granger might be final.
https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=PNSEWX&e=202203242215
Well NWS Austin/San Antonio was helped by NWS Fort Worth. I legitimately believed that was likely or possible EF4 tornado damage to that house so I am lost for words. At a minimum mid EF3 tornado damage."Significant EF2 damage occurred to a residential home near the intersection of CR347 and CR346."
Seriously? That is how they're going to address the house that was slabbed? That is one of the most understated, poorly-described excepts from a survey I have ever read. It's like they made it as vague as possible, and it almost seems like they are doing everything they can not to address or bring attention to that particular residence. Not explicitly stating that a house was slabbed isn't going to make people just overlook it. People will notice and want to hear the reasoning, which they have failed to provide. Stuff like this sets a terrible precedent.
It's the total of opposite of the New Orleans EF3 survey, which gave a good breakdown of the rationale behind the rating process. That should be the standard.
Also what do you expect from some of these NWS offices nowadays?"Significant EF2 damage occurred to a residential home near the intersection of CR347 and CR346."
Seriously? That is how they're going to address the house that was slabbed? That is one of the most understated, poorly-described excepts from a survey I have ever read. It's like they made it as vague as possible, and it almost seems like they are doing everything they can not to address or bring attention to that particular residence. Neglecting to acknowledge that a house was slabbed isn't going to make people just overlook it. People will notice and want to hear the reasoning, which they have failed to provide. Stuff like this sets a terrible precedent.
It's the total of opposite of the New Orleans EF3 survey, which gave a good breakdown of the rationale behind the rating process. That should be the standard.
Some are terrible, but I'm not going to paint with a broad brush and be cynical about every single office. Some WFOs do a really good job. Are you just going to ignore how well LIX did with their survey?Also what do you expect from some of these NWS offices nowadays?
If this is true, this could definitely be a factor, if not the main cause. Their survey team is one of the worst around.Well NWS Austin/San Antonio was helped by NWS Fort Worth. I legitimately believed that was likely or possible EF4 tornado damage to that house so I am lost for words. At a minimum mid EF3 tornado damage.
I said some of them. Yes NWS Jackson did a good job and even NWS New Orleans also did a good job.Did the Round Rock/Granger, TX tornado touch down before a tornado warning was issued? That could be a factor, as I've noticed that WFOs get especially sheepish about handing out higher ratings when they miss a warning, and sometimes acknowledging that a tornado occurred at all. A good example is the Moore, OK EF2 of March 2015. NWS Norman missed the warning and the official narritive went from "straight-line wind event with gustnadoes" to "straight-line wind event with an intermittent EF1" to "An EF2 tornado moved through Moore." A few of the homes had roof and exterior wall loss, but they wouldn't go higher than low-end EF2. Oh, and don't even get me started on the notorious NWS Dodge City "No" incident on Twitter. If anyone thinks ego and pride never get in the way in these situations, would be sorely mistaken.
Some are terrible, but I'm not going to paint with a broad brush and be cynical about every single office. Some WFOs do a really good job. Are you just going to ignore how well LIX did with their survey?
I'm pretty certain that the Round Rock Tornado did touchdown before there was a Tornado Warning issued. I was just up the road in Georgetown at my doctor's office and we did not get any warning.Did the Round Rock/Granger, TX tornado touch down before a tornado warning was issued? That could be a factor, as I've noticed that WFOs get especially sheepish about handing out higher ratings when they miss a warning, and sometimes acknowledging that a tornado occurred at all. A good example is the Moore, OK EF2 of March 2015. NWS Norman missed the warning and the official narritive went from "straight-line wind event with gustnadoes" to "straight-line wind event with an intermittent EF1" to "An EF2 tornado moved through Moore." A few of the homes had roof and exterior wall loss, but they wouldn't go higher than low-end EF2. Oh, and don't even get me started on the notorious NWS Dodge City "No" incident on Twitter. If anyone thinks ego and pride never get in the way in these situations, they would be sorely mistaken.
Some are terrible, but I'm not going to paint with a broad brush and be cynical about every single office. Some WFOs do a really good job. Are you just going to ignore how well LIX did with their survey?
That house is at least a DOD 9 with all walls collapsed which is an expected value of 170 mph which is a low-end EF4.I've said this so many times, but to rate a DOD 10 house EF2 breaks the guidelines set in place by the scale. The only thing I would consider is if there was some type of major debris impact like at the duplex in Bowling Green, but I don't see evidence of that currently, and if there was, it hasn't been mentioned at all. One could also consider explosive failure of the attached garage, but given that it appears to actually be the most intact part of the house, I wouldn't say that could be the cause either. Even then, the garage failure mode would only justify a drop down to EF3. I'm baffled as to what their logic was behind this.
Someone asked why they didn’t give it a higher rating and they gave this vague general answer:I've said this so many times, but to rate a DOD 10 house EF2 breaks the guidelines set in place by the scale. The only thing I would consider is if there was some type of major debris impact like at the duplex in Bowling Green, but I don't see evidence of that currently, and if there was, it hasn't been mentioned at all. One could also consider explosive failure of the attached garage, but given that it appears to actually be the most intact part of the house, I wouldn't say that could be the cause either. Even then, the garage failure mode would only justify a drop down to EF3. I'm baffled as to what their logic was behind this.
Someone asked why they didn’t give it a higher rating and they gave this vague general answer:
Someone asked why they didn’t give it a higher rating and they gave this vague general answer:
The houses that received an EF5 rating in Greensburg didn't have a lot of tree debarking near them either. The tree debarking happened mostly in town.I think this house was near swept clean actually but it's interesting to notice that tree damage nearby was ordinary at best. Shrubs were intact and leaves were left behind. This was a case that construction/surrounding damage really didn't match up and NWS used contextual as a potential deduction indicator not surprisingly. It's hard to say what happened there in reality. Maybe a strong subvortex hit this house and left all trees behind or maybe there was unknown construction flaws exist of this house and it's not just bolts and washers thing.
A lower EF rating is being given due to construction evidence and other evidence nearby of lesser wind speeds. |
Yeah that still leaves me scratching my head, because the main question is, why EF2? The usual practice is if a house is flattened or slabbed but it doesn’t seem violent, go with EF3. I don’t like the precedent that going with high-end EF2 sets at all. I mean, the construction couldn’t have been that bad given the anchor bolts. It clearly wasn’t an unanchored slider or anything.Looks like the reasoning for the lower rating was added to DAT:
A lower EF rating is being given due to construction evidence and other evidence nearby of lesser wind speeds.