• After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.

    I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.

    For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.

    From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.

    Sincerely, Jeff D.

A scientist and a supercomputer re-create a tornado

Jeff Duda said:
Just to make sure you understand, the tornado that occurred on 31 May 2013 was rated EF3 not because it was actually weaker than previously thought, but because the NWS decided to rate it exclusively based on damage (and thus ignoring all radar based observations of wind speeds in it). While it may have killed "only" four people, tornadoes are also not rated based on the number of injuries/deaths they cause.

The study may have used the environment in which the 24 May 2011 EF5 occurred, but based on the accounts I have seen between the two tornadoes, it seems quite possible, if even likely, that the 2013 tornado was a bigger BAMF than the 2011 tornado. Not that it really matters which environment you use - both easily supported top-end tornado production from supercells.
Click to expand...

The part I just learned was that it was an EF-3 instead of EF-5 because of the damage survey. I always thought it was an EF-5 this whole time because I knew the wind speed definitely qualified. Was trying to say that in order for it to be rated an EF-5 by the NWS, it would have had to destroy buildings and may have taken even more lives than it already did. So thank God that wasn't the case. I'm bad at relaying my thoughts sometimes lol.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top