EF-x is a damage level rating. EF-5 means people are dead almost completely without exception. Give me violent tornadoes in a cornfield all day but wanting EF-5’s bc theres been a drought is… comically stupid.
@Healey_Photo
I agree with your point but what you said about EF-5s meaning people are dead without exception isn’t right, studies have shown that even in EF-4+ damage swaths, tornado survival rates are over 95%
@Healey_Photo
Interesting to think our own improved infrastructure, prediction, early warning communication, and greater safe space access could bump us out of meeting criteria for EF-5s almost entirely. How cool is that?!
@Healey_Photo
I’ve always thought there should be the EF scale, a damage scale; and a weak-strong-violent scale that takes into consideration radar, video, and damage. I know it would make records confusing but it would actually be more useful meteorologically imo.
@Healey_Photo
Need a tornado size rating and then a damage rating with it. Better understanding of the situation vs just saying this 2 mile tornado tore up a cornfield with 300mph winds but is a EF 1
@Healey_Photo
People only want EF-5 because of the rarity. It's just hype based because of how far and few between there are. It's like trying to get a pair of exclusive shoes that only drop once every 5 to 10 years. I don't think people factor in how truly life changing a EF-5 tornado is.
@Healey_Photo
I think this indicates a disconnect between the rating system (based on damage to human built structures) and the concept of a violent tornado simply existing. Is there another way to say “I want to see an EF-5” that doesn’t automatically include death and destruction?
@Healey_Photo
F5 / EF5 is something that will haunt you forever. Best case scenario would be one over open field that luckily gets rated as such due to ground scouring. Be careful what you wish for. 🌪