June 21st 2023 Matador TX Tornado Discussion

[Western_KS_Wx]

I just think with this new revision for the EF Scale that’s being worked on, contextual damage should have just as much emphasis on a rating as a structure does.

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

The point more so being that the surveyors completely ignored the scene around that structure and area, as well as throughout the track, not just for this tornado either it’s happened several times before. I just don’t think it’s right to ignore the blatantly obvious evidence pointing towards extreme EF4+ intensity and base the rating of an entire area off a single structure, regardless of construction quality and ignoring the violent contextual damage. It’s kind of like if a small shed were to be obliterated but the highest DI for that structure is EF2, yet say the non-traditional DI’s in the surrounding area were high-end, like the ground being severely scoured, trees debarked, vehicles mangled beyond recognition etc. and they ignored all of those signs pointing to greater intensity and instead gave the tornado the EF2 rating due to the structural damage, in this hypothetical case being the shed.

Camp Crook, SD/Capitol, MT is a good example as well.

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

I just think with this new revision for the EF Scale that’s being worked on, contextual damage should have just as much emphasis on a rating as a structure does.

It seems like it has been happening as far back as the Bridge Creek-Moore-OKC 1999 tornado. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/scour.htm

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

It seems like it has been happening as far back as the Bridge Creek-Moore-OKC 1999 tornado. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/scour.htm

I would rate that type of scouring at least an F4/EF4 on either scale. There is no way that tornado was only F2/EF2 or F3/EF3 intensity with.that kind of scouring. It was rated F2/F3 because of lack of well-built structures. So this I need a well-built structure to give the tornado damage a higher rating has been going on for many years.

 

[Western_KS_Wx]

I would rate that type of scouring at least an F4/EF4 on either scale. There is no way that tornado was only F2/EF2 or F3/EF3 intensity with.that kind of scouring.

Perfect example of what I’m getting across at. It honestly doesn’t take much of an expert to recognize that’s clearly high-end damage and the tornado was still violent in that stage of its life.

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

Perfect example of what I’m getting across at. It honestly doesn’t take much of an expert to recognize that’s clearly high-end damage and the tornado was still violent in that stage of its life.

Like you said let's say something hypothetically had the Bridge Creek-Moore-OKC 1999 tornado had not done any type of building damage that wasn't good enough for an F4 or F5 rating. Does that mean this tornado deserved only a high-end F3 rating in this hypothetical situation?

 

[warneagle]

The point more so being that the surveyors completely ignored the scene around that structure and area, as well as throughout the track, not just for this tornado either it’s happened several times before. I just don’t think it’s right to ignore the blatantly obvious evidence pointing towards extreme EF4+ intensity and base the rating of an entire area off a single structure, regardless of construction quality and ignoring the violent contextual damage. It’s kind of like if a small shed were to be obliterated but the highest DI for that structure is EF2, yet say the non-traditional DI’s in the surrounding area were high-end, like the ground being severely scoured, trees debarked, vehicles mangled beyond recognition etc. and they ignored all of those signs pointing to greater intensity and instead gave the tornado the EF2 rating due to the structural damage, in this hypothetical case being the shed.

Yeah I get the emphasis on buildings etc. since it’s easier to rate those “objectively”, and I understand the desire to make the scale more empirical and less subjective, but rating a tornado EF3 solely based on EF3 structural damage when the EF3-damaged structures are surrounded by violent contextual damage seems like missing the forest for the trees. Obviously they’re the experts and not me, but I’m not sure what scientific purpose such a narrow application of the rating system serves.

 

[TH2002]

On the bright side, if you compare Matador's high end EF3 rating to the marginal EF3 ratings of the 2015 Cisco, TX and 2018 Camp Crook, SD tornadoes, it almost seems reasonable by comparison. Almost...

 

[Sawmaster]

Obviously they’re the experts and not me, but I’m not sure what scientific purpose such a narrow application of the rating system serves.

Exactly. All we're gettinbg here is engineers playing games with each other to the exclusion of all others.

If this defines what experts do then I pray that my next surgeon isn't one.

 

[Steel Central]

Are there any homes/structures not on the DAT yet?

 

[buckeye05]

Nothing really to add, but after reviewing everything, I can confidently say this is the most horribly botched survey/rating since Vilonia. What makes it worse, is that this is the most violent damage from a tornado in Texas I've seen photographed since the EF scale was implemented in 2007.

 

[tornado examiner]

Nothing really to add, but after reviewing everything, I can confidently say this is the most horribly botched survey/rating since Vilonia. What makes it worse, is that this is the most violent damage from a tornado in Texas I've seen photographed since the EF scale was implemented in 2007.

Yup…

 

[pohnpei]

So it appears that the "softwood" damage labeled by nws with EF2 rating was likely a mesquite tree...
So they choose to ignore numerous if not many fully fully debarked mesquite trees and labeled a softwood yet turned out could be another violent mesquite tree damage. I don't know what to say.

 

[buckeye05]

Discussing this event with a NWS forecaster friend of mine who has experience in damage surveying, and I put together a pretty solid case for why this tornado was severely underrated. I doubt he'll be able to change anything, but says he'll do some digging to see if he agrees with me after looking over the evidence. If he agrees, it's pretty much no longer debatable even on a professional level that this was a major screw-up.

 

[Tanner]

Discussing this event with a NWS forecaster friend of mine who has experience in damage surveying, and I put together a pretty solid case for why this tornado was severely underrated. I doubt he'll be able to change anything, but says he'll do some digging to see if he agrees with me after looking over the evidence. If he agrees, it's pretty much no longer debatable even on a professional level that this was a major screw-up.

That’s great news!! Thank you @buckeye05.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JPWX]

My thoughts regarding the Matador debate:

 

[jiharris0220]

So it was actually a mesquite tree in the end? So basically the surveyors straight up lied about it being soft wood?
Alrighty then…

 

[andyhb]

So it was actually a mesquite tree in the end? So basically the surveyors straight up lied about it being soft wood?
Alrighty then…

The logical question of course would be “why did that happen” if that’s indeed true.

 

[UK_EF4]

Concerned the survey might stay this way…

And to be honest, a survey which misses DIs and is incomplete is for me more frustrating than a survey where buildings are underrated - though this one might end up being both.

 

[tornado examiner]

I think it’s final…yeah sure they say preliminary but then they just don’t ever change it…