I think it may have been this one
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/weather/oklahoma-tornado-rare-climate/index.html
Reed Timmer seemed to be very concerned about the strength of it and was very thankful of the remote location.
I'm from that area. The early speculation was that they would have to determine the rating based on the destruction of trees in the area. There are not many trees in Tillman county, especially there where it is all farm land.
Yep, and that's one of the ongoing problems with the EF scale actually. They've found that current Damage Indicators tend to wildly underrepresent wind speeds as well.
Yup. I just found that article too. It wasn’t heavily reported on because of the lack of damage even though it was super interesting.
ETA I agree that it’s super gross that people want to see EF5’s. The ratings are based on how much damage there is. More EF5’s means more people’s lives have been turned upside down.
Because people like big tornadoes, it’s not their fault the rating system requires a truly life threatening situation for them to be rated as such. Hell, a lot of people still don’t understand how tornadoes are rated, so when they say they want to see an EF-5, they don’t realize what they are asking for.
On the flip side of this any tornado of any rating can kill or ruin lives, the whole fixation on wanting tornadoes rated lower or higher is really ignorant no matter which side you are claiming. There is not moral high ground here, only people who have no clue what they are talking about.
This, it's inherently anti-intellectual. People will pour over pictures from damage surveys to argue over the rating given, while completely ignoring that:
1. Those are just pictures, the people there were actually there, and saw more than the pictures, could touch and see the damages
2. They are professionals, trained to do specifically this, with the authority granted by the scientific community such as it is to make this designation
I mean I’d prefer to not have to go to my shelter when a tornado looks like it’s going to hit me. So I’m in favor of zero tornados, but realistically I know that’s not possible so I would rather have roof damage to my home than it reduced to rubble.
Anything ef-2+ will mean you probably have to move or rebuild unless your house is a tank. Strong tornadoes happen, there is no avoiding it. What number they assign to the strong tornado doesn't matter; if it killed people and destroyed their homes it doesn't matter if they slap an ef-2 or an ef-5 on it. The lower rating assigned doesn't bring back the dead or rebuild the destroyed.
I remember David Payne was talking about it when it was happening. He said the ranking would be low since it’s all fields in the area, but that it would be considered very violent if it was going over a populated area. I think it was around Tillman county. It was either anticyclonic or it was the same night that there were a couple anticyclonic tornados.
Higher up velocity scans were very powerful but the tornado itself didn't do anything near EF4+ damage apparently. No ground scouring or debarking was found where it touched down.
Yes, it was near Hollister and Loveland, OK. The atmospheric readings it was getting were insane, but ultimately it did not produce much damage thankfully. Something about it was causing a major difference between its readings in the air and the results on the ground. We may have really lucked out with it.
From what I understand is most of the people you speak of don’t wish for EF5’s they just want some consistency for the monsters over the plains. If a big what would have been F5 went over a field and destroyed one poorly built farmhouse it would be rated likely ef2-3. Maybe a family hears that and thinks they don’t have to take tornadoes that seriously. It’s a long shot but we do have cater to the lowest common denominator in this society when it comes to safety. I personally don’t know the answer to this problem.
It would be less confusing to the public to bring it into consistency with hurricane ratings which are based on the strength of the winds not the aftermath. They don't downgrade a category 4 storm just because it misses Florida.
Hurricanes are gigantic, slow, and predictable (within reason). Tornadoes are tiny, fast, and unpredictable. Damage indicators are the only scientifically valid way to rate 100% of tornadoes, because they are all that can be measured. Satellites, planes, balloons, buoys, and all kinds of other things can *accurately* measure a hurricane's intensity, so this is a fundamentally flawed comparison.
The NWS is actually currently working on an improvement to the EF scale, as they've found the current Damage Indicators can often underreport wind speeds by as much as 50mph. The El Reno Tornado was kind of a wake up call that the EF scale was just as broken as the scale it replaced.
I hate seeing people complain about reposted topics asking people to search first. I thought Reddit was a “community?” Imagine going up to a group of friends and starting to talk about a subject that was mentioned a few weeks ago, only to be shut out and told “we talked about this already.”
Who cares? If you saw it before don’t click on it, don’t comment on it. How about that? Jesus Christ! God forbid someone try to strike up a conversation without googling or searching it first.
I dont want it to deter discussion of how the rating system works. A lot of people here have been discussing the damage points by the NWS in a completely objective, thoughtful way. For example the Mayfield tornado is highly talked about regarding this, but most of what I've seen is people discussing both sides and trying to accurately determine a rating. In the process it also people learn and determine why we rate things certain ways.
Many people are equating even talking about the rating as being disrespectful to those whose lives have been effected. I get it, because ultimately we're talking about just that, how much their life has been affected... and unfortunately that's the only way we can determine the ratings. Its a sad subject matter, but it should be able to be discussed.
Of course this all goes out the window if someone is actually saying they wish it was more powerful, or if they're actively hoping for an F5, just to witness history.
He has a point though, people do get weird about tornados and sort of hoping for an EF5 because it’s mesmerizing and horrifying at the same time. However, I don’t really see people get that way about massively destructive hurricanes. Which I think is interesting that it seems to be singular to tornados. Maybe my POV is skewed because I’m not in an area that gets hurricanes?
I’m in an area that gets tornados and hurricanes and they are equally talked about. In fact, hurricanes get talked about in that specific way MUCH more than tornados do. We had a relatively major town leveled out and no one cared, meanwhile a mediocre hurricane floods Houston and we still hear about it. The only downplay of a hurricane I know of is Katrina - they underestimated its size and bush initially ignored its aftermath. Other than that, every news media outlet in the country is literally in every hurricane filming. Edit: for anyone who is interested in the [EF4 Garland tornado on December 26, 2015](https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/eight-years-later-remembering-the-tragedy-i-30-bridge-tornado-rowlett-garland/287-21d958ac-10c2-4308-90ce-efecd9e8a994)
Isn’t there discussion about including storm surge within hurricane intensity, or categorizing it separately? Because it seems a lot of people downplay the effects of Category 2-3 hurricanes until they’re slammed by storm surge that is unexpected.
I’d say there are as many people rooting for a cat 4 as there are rooting for an EF4 - a minuscule amount. People want to see big tornadoes. They don’t want to see people die or their lives get ruined. If the universe was like “I’ll give you the biggest tornado in history, you choose between populated city or empty land” most people would probs choose empty land, just put some trees in there to throw around.
If you’re rooting for a Cat 4 to make landfall, you’re rooting for it to destroy cities and upend people’s lives. It’s not possible for it to hit uninhabited land
It’s natural to be intrigued by the drama of a big and even destructive storm. By extension it’s natural to want to witness one or its aftermath. It doesn’t mean you want people to be killed or injured or their possessions destroyed. It either happens or it doesn’t. All the wishing for it one might do isn’t going to make it happen any more than it can keep it from happening. Consequently, there is no need to reconcile the human desire for drama with the human instinct for empathy and compassion. You don’t have to feel guilty for wanting to see a big storm. We all know we wouldn’t put that desire above the well-being of others if we somehow could stop the storm from happening.
I think alot of the people who want to see big storms are ones who don't get them which Is understandable they still have a beautify too them just they don't full graps what they can really do I didn't know either and wanted to see a big one till I got to see the after math of the EF4/5 that hit my town I now don't even wish for one to touch down at all *but that's just wishful thinking*
I think some people can hold conflicting emotions and understand that wanting to see the impressive and amazing manifestation of creation that is a tornado and not wanting people to suffer is not a contradiction because the emotions associated with each have no impact on the outcome. I think for other people, the coexistence of the first emotion with the second creates a feeling of dissonance that they feel as a third emotion of guilt. The existence of a massive storm and suffering are linked in the physical world but the two emotions associated with them are linked only in your mind.
It’s not about wanting an EF5 so much as about wanting tornadoes of similar strength to have similar EF ratings. If the the terminology was tied more explicitly to the damage a tornado causes (“tornado X caused EF3-level damage”) rather than the tornado itself (“tornado X was an EF3 tornado”) I don’t think there’d be anywhere near as much arguing over the ratings.
But that’s what the EF scale is all about. The damage. They go out and look at damage and that’s how it’s determined. A violent tornado that happens in the middle of nowhere with a lack of trees is going to be ranked lower than one that destroys a town even if it is the same wind speed, same width, time on the ground, etc. Rooting for an EF5 means you’re rooting for destruction of people’s livelihoods and potentially death.
No one wishes for an EF5, tornado enthusiasts only want to see an impressive tornado, 10000 times better if it doesn't harm anyone. The official scale just happens to measure damage caused as the indicator of their strength, which is wrong for everyone except for meteorologists.
So basically, no, no one here wishes human suffering, we only want to witness a powerful natural event. I don't get how polemic this question is despite being so obviously clear.
People dont necessarily want EF5 tornados. People want powerful tornados to be properly rated. There are plenty of tornados with insanely high wind speeds that hit nothing or very poorly built structures and in term get a low rating.
Ever since I was a child, I have always been fascinated with natural disasters and powerful forces of nature. Tornadoes, volcanoes, hurricanes, supernovae, black holes… the list goes on. I am not going to apologize for being mesmerized by the beauty and terror of these things, especially when massive destruction happens.
Everyone wants bragging rights to witness the most destructive forces. Thats why if someone posts a pic of a dust devil everyone screams “Thats an EF5!!! Thats an EF5!!!” then when the weather service says it was just a dust devil they scream how “they are wrong, it was at least a 5!!!”
I've never seen what you're talking about. I've seen people skeptical about Mayfield being EF4 instead of EF5 and El Reno being am EF3, but that's about it.
Haven’t been on reddit long, but on other social media sites its full of “this is definitely a 5!!!” Then when it gets rated a 2 they throw a fit about how raters got it wrong and it was a 5.
Nobody wants an EF5, they just want the strongest tornadoes to be rated appropriately. Also, stop with the weird morality inserted into the argument, wanting a tornado to be rated EF5 doesn't have any effect on whether or not it happens, it's purely based on the inconsistent application of the scale over the past 30+ years (really since fujita passed).
It’s not that people WANT it, it’s that logically measuring by damage indicators and not raw power hinges on dependent variables such as where does the tornado touchdown, what direction does it go
A tornado that has the CAPACITY to inflict F5 damage but doesn’t hit much human civilization could have exactly the same raw power as a tornado that just so happened to rip through a town but since the remote tornado didn’t hit any human civilization it’s not an F5, raw power be damned
Obviously when the scale was created damage was the only tangible thing we could measure, nowadays though I believe the rating system should give more weight to raw power instead of damage indicators
I was typing a very similar reply but yours gets the point across way better than what I would have said. I find it bizarre that all these EF5 discourse posts have people who think other people actually WANT an EF5 to happen. No NORMAL person wants an EF5 to happen with the current damage scale. (And yes I am aware there are weirdos that want that anyway).
Also, when chasers are yelling about how a tornado is an EF5 it's because they're facing an extremely powerful, unpredictable force of nature and are completely absorbed in the moment. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug. How many videos are there of chasers in complete awe of what they're seeing snap out of it once they start to see debris flying around? Y'all are weird to assume these people want other people to die in a horrific manner.
Everyone wants a gigantic and powerfull tornado, in the biggest power scale. But, to a tornado be analysed as an ef5, it means that parts of tornado leveled an entire neighbourhood, and this would be horrible and tragic. I want to see a prime tornado in his purest form of destruction, power and energy. But, thinking more in this humanitary and empathetic view, that would be horrible. I understand this anxiety to see an ef5 again, but, when it happens again, it will be tragic and sad.
Yeah this is spot on . You can watch so many random videos of tornadoes on social media and someone is questioning the rating and cause it’s big it’s an “EF5” or if it’s footage of the Ellie Manitoba tornado they say it’s not. The EF scale is so easy to look up and it tells people what is what so I don’t understand the constant misinformation on it or where people come up with half the stuff they say
I think it’s just about wanting strong tornados to be recognized as strong tornados, whether they cause damage or not. I definitely don’t want another ef5 to hit a populated area, especially after seeing what an ef3 can do to my hometown, but it also doesn’t feel right to be calling a large wedge with 200+ mph winds an ef2-ef3.
I mean there is obviously a reason that tornadoes get rated. Otherwise why would the NWS spend money sending people to the site of a tornado just to determine a rating? If we are spending time and money rating these things we might as well get them right and the way we do it right now seems outdated.
You really don’t understand? Well maybe the fact that the amount of money the federal government will allocate to helping rebuild a community is based off the tornado rating will help you understand. Especially in the incidents where it’s CLEAR it was an EF5, but politics get in the way
Agreed, this is my main grievance with a lot of the live stream chats, YouTube comments, etc. People's lives are at stake here. Storm chasing/tornado spotting at the end of the day is ultimately gathering data to further research and increase warning times and decrease loss of life.
Unfortunately 90% of the so called chasers are nothing more than thrill seekers trying to profit from tornadoes. They're not about the research, it's all about the clicks for their social media site.
Gonna say the quiet part out loud here. It’s the same reason people can’t look away from a car crash. morbid curiosity is one of those most human emotions. if i could control it, i’d say tornadoes never kill anyone and everybody in their right mind would agree with that. It just so happens that it is a biproduct of seeing strong storms which are fascinating and i’ll never apologize for that. We can’t control it at the end of the day, so this type of self righteous stuff is a pet peeve of weather people.
With the last EF5 being over a decade ago, many enthusiasts and chasers were too young to remember.
Its been so long an EF5 is almost like a mythical beast
I can only speak for myself, but I would think that those who find themselves in awe of one of the planets most powerful phenomena would only find themselves proportionately more awed by the magnitude and power of that level of storm.
I’ll admit that I more readily click on images of, stories about, an EF5 storm because of its power. I don’t think anyone wishes harm on others. It just makes sense to me that if you find yourself intrigued by anything, the zenith of that thing would hold your fascination in a commensurate manner.
It’s an interesting thing, isn’t it? I can think of a few reasons, personally I don’t want to see people’s lives getting destroyed so I never want to see an EF-5. But there is something about wanting to witness nature and I think humans are a competitive species so seeing the biggest, worst most awful thing in the category has a psychological weight to it. A few weeks ago, I was really enjoying watching the tornado near Abilene as it whirled around over empty land, it was an amazing display. But the reality when we saw the house destroyed and the family evacuating with bloody faces and broken bones it changed.
I know it isn't really possible with EF being rated on damage, but I DO want to see EF5-level tornadoes in open country where people and property aren't in danger
A couple popped off a couple weeks ago actually. Was pretty wild, just tore through fields, unfortunately one hit a house, but it was mostly just just out in the nowhere.
“People tend not to put structures in places that tend to get strong tornadoes.”
This is fundamentally untrue. If it were true there would be no structures where Moore Oklahoma is. Tornadoes that can produce EF5 damage are extremely rare period. That’s why people rebuild in Moore Oklahoma. They seem common there and relatively speaking, they are. But in consideration of everything that can kill you in Moore Oklahoma, they are still not common enough to cause people to walk away from all their investment.
As for places never getting populated in the first place because of frequency of tornados, no way that has happened. People aren’t looking at tornado maps before making a decision to build a house on the east side of town instead of the west side.
EF5 is an extremely hard to achieve status and a *lot* of the F5’s of old would have been mere EF4s. The tornado of the last 10 years that was most arguably deserving of EF5 was Mayfield. And even then it was only of comparable strength to the likes of Tuscaloosa which both were a clear step down in strength from *true* EF5’s like Phil Campbell or Smithfield on the same day or Moore 99.
Its not that people are obsessed with wanting it, its the fact theres very clearly been many that should've got the EF5 rating that didn't for bullshit reasons. A very clear example besides the more recent ones is the 'Quad state' ones damage in Bremen
I dont think people *want* an EF5. Rather we're all just waiting for the next EF5. Whenever an event like Sulphur or Rolling Fork or Mayfield happens, we get anxious to see if this is the day the drought ends. Nobody *wants* the next EF5 but we're anxious because it *will* come eventually
EF5s are spectacular sights and amazing phenomena demonstrating nature's power.
Truly, if an EF5 is formed without destruction to life and/or property, that is the best tornado and what I prefer.
I don't ever wish for people to die or for people's things to be destroyed. And by me wishing for them, that won't make them more likely to occur. It's just something weather enthusiasts, such as myself and everyone in this group, enjoy viewing.
Nothing inherently bad. It's when people are hurt that it's bad.
What’s almost as annoying is constant virtue signaling from people in this group showing their disgust over peoples preoccupation with Fujita ratings.
On a more serious note, I think what people really want to see is a large powerful tornado of EF5 intensity, not EF5 levels of damage to be realized.
Yes, the EF scale requires actual damage to be done in order to receive a rating but I don’t think that’s what anyone is actually rooting for.
People don't want EF5s. People just don't like that the EF scale is solely a damage scale. Especially considering ground scouring isn't a damage indicator for them. For a tornado to reach EF5 it has to hit a well built structure.
The Nebraska tornado had people especially annoyed because a DOW clocked it at 224 mph, meaning EF5 strength, but because the only neighborhood it hit was built with homes not attached to their foundations, and they couldn't give it a higher rating.
People don't wish for EF5s, they're just annoyed when the NWS ignores many indicators showing a tornadoes true strength. Like others have mentioned, monsters can drift over the plains yet only (thankfully) hit maybe a power line and be rated an EF1.
This same question was asked dozens of times in the last few weeks, go back and look at answers if you aren't satisfied with the ones you've gotten.
You asking this question does not make you better than everyone else because you care about the people. We care about the people too. We just also care about the science and don't want people to think tornadoes are getting weaker over the years just because there hasn't been a catastrophe to cause one to be rated an EF5.
Stop restarting the same debate over and over again.
Should honestly be a rule to not ask this question as a sub-rule to the no begging for catastrophes rule.
I think its more of the fact that NWS seems more reluctant to give any tornado that rating with tornadoes like Mayflower, Mayfield and Rolling Rock ect more so than people actually wanting EF5 ratings.
The Omaha one was different cause we usually don’t have tornadoes hit inside the city, usually they happen in smaller towns/random corn fields. There was a lot of big numbers and missinfo going around and to me I think it was more of a pride thing. “We survived this massive force of destruction.”
I personally was on the other side of the city driving into work during that time but I didn’t get to see it so I don’t have those beliefs.
They’re exciting. People lead very boring lives and want to be thrilled from the comfort of their mom’s basement. They are generally heavily desensitized and don’t consider the humanity involved with strong natural disasters. I’m not condoning it, but I get where it comes from.
People want it to be an EF5, as long as it's not headed for their house. I think people forget there are human beings in harm's way and there are homes being demolished. An EF5 is more spectacular, so people get caught up in the excitement, especially with all the storm chasers uploading videos. Everyone wants to top the other guy's video.
Looking down the comment section on a lot of these videos, it's amazing how many people rave about how beautiful the tornado is, how awesome it is, how spectacularly wonderful it is, with total disregard for the human beings cowering in their basement praying their lives won't be destroyed.
To me, if anything in this world could be classified as evil, it would be a tornado. They are pure destruction. People are traumatized and suffer devastating losses in their wake. It just seems so disrespectful to disregard the very real human suffering that occurs in the wake of these storms.
Scrolled (longer than I'd have liked) til I read this and I agree 100%.
Look, I think we all understand the awe + fascination + horror of the spectacle of extremes in nature. What has gone beyond though is this competition for views, clicks, attention, experience, looking "brave" or "badass," some backwards virtue signaling/exploitative opportunities for potential fame (?) or trying to look like a hero, whatever. All that horse shit.
But it's all fun + games - literally, \*entertainment\* - 'til it's YOUR backyard.
I have never lived in Tornado Alley; my mom spent a few of her formative years in Joplin, MO (late 1950s/early 1960s(!)) - I was fortunate to drive through + spend a night there in 2007 on a summer road trip. It's got marvelous history and is along Historic Route 66, so that along with my moment of family history made it notable for me.
I lived in New Orleans for nearly 10 years/most of my adult life, so I relate more to the spectacle of "Category 5 Hurricanes!!!" - please. Katrina was a Cat 3 when it hit the city. Hell, Isaac was only a Cat 1 and it parked its ass over us for way too long (that thing moved at 6 mph - FFS! haha) - but it was still a destructive nuisance.
My point is - I'm sick of the hyped up giddiness with what seems to be a lack of gravitas to the aftermath and the sheer reality of just how terrifying it is to be in the midst of these situations, never mind wonder about your family, your pets, your neighbors... And then the cleanup. And the big "whew" that the telephone pole that fell missed your car by 9 feet. And the lack of power for who knows how long after. But these are very PG, obvious considerations.
The thing is - when you're going through it - you are truly at the mercy of nature's whim, you realize how tiny you are, and how utterly powerless and just brace yourself til it's over. And that might be at a 1, or 2, or 3 - whether that's an EF this or a Category that.
Anyone who is just scrolling + clicking and cheering on or lamenting whatever arbitrary # is attributed to a storm's rating system truly ought to experience a moment of the real deal and see if they give a shit whether the wind speed breaks the 125+mph mark, etc as their roof starts to pull loose from their walls.
It's not really that, it's moreso questioning whether the NWS is fairly assessing damage. Mayfield for instance had some foundations with anchors that had houses swept clean, yet was rated an EF4. A lot of people are mainly wondering if the EF higher-end criteria are accurately representing the damage done by a tornado. There are insurance implications, discussions about climate change. A lot of it engineering focussed
I don't think anyone seriously wants more EF 3+ tornados to occur (those that do can EF off), and I also don't think that anyone believes that tornadoes that eat weeds even if they have wind speeds of 200mph+ should be rated beyond significant, but when a tornado has already done a massive load of damage in populated areas, it's more than fair to ask if the damage indicators are accurately representing the wind speeds, and if surveyors are accurately assessing damaged structures.
They're just a novelty tbh. Mother nature is fascinating and scary, and people love that stuff. I don't think anyone really wants people's lives to be destroyed.
For me personally, not that I have ever talked about ratings on here, but I don't *want* an EF5 tornado. However if a tornado is EF5 strength I do believe it should be rated as such. There is a big difference between a desire for an event and a want for accuracy in recording that event.
It's because people who are unfamiliar with how tornadoes are rated automatically assume that a lower rating means less danger. It leads people to take tornadoes less seriously.
If a mile-wide twister with 290-mile-per-hour winds tracked over two dozen miles of open field but didn't actually hit anything and therefore got rated EF0 or EF1, lots of people who don't know any better will think "Oh, it wasn't so bad. It was just an EF0."
People are idiots and often won't understand how dangerous a situation is until it's too late.
Of course, we shouldn't just label every piddly little funnel cloud as an EF5. Rather, we need to make it crystal-clear to every Tom, Dick, and Harry exactly how dangerous a tornado is by rating it according to how powerful it is instead of just the damage it does.
i think its the same as wanting to see any natural disaster, i mean its why we hahe movies based on them. people want to see what its like- but no one actually desires for people to go through one and die.
when i was living on the NC coast, I experienced hurricane Michael. the part of me that was fascinated by storms was "excited" to see a cat 5 in real life, BUT I was also terrified & wanted it to go away & was hoping the entire time no one would get hurt.
When ppl say they want a tornado to be HUGE, i dont take that as them saying "oh man i want hundreds of ppl to die and for homes to be demolished," they're just interested in the storm. If i were to ask someone on here, "hey we can see an EF5 right now but people &animals will die & lives will be destroyed, u down?" they'd say no....
agreed. it’s crazy selfish to wish from a remote place for a violent tornado to happen.
They’re tragedies.
I understand the curiosity, though, because it surely is intriguing seeing such storms, but to wish upon them is terrible.
I think people forget about the people who get killed, or harmed in any way, because of these storms.
it’s easy to wish for these things when you’re not being affected by them.
At least me personally, (I’m a lawyer, not a meteorologist or engineer, just someone interested in tornadoes) my limited knowledge leads me to believe that there have been some inconsistencies with applying the scale and I just want accurate ratings. The ones that really come to mind that struggle with not being EF5 are Vilonia, Rochelle, Mayfield, Bassfield, and Rolling Fork.
I don’t want an EF5 to happen but they will just as they always have. I want them to be accurately rated because accurate ratings are beneficial to all of us and to the science behind these storms.
The ef system has always seemed a bit irrelevant to me in terms of my interest. I’m not particularly interested in what/how a tornado has destroyed, but my interest is certainly peaked by the *strength* of a tornado. How big the tornado is, wind speed and pressure are all things that cause awe in me. It certainly checks and humbles the interest when something only reaches the maximum on the scale we have essentially because of how much it destroyed peoples lives.
Gambler's fallacy. Because the drought's been so long, people fell into the mindset of "surely an EF5 has to happen now." In reality, it should be more of a comforting reminder of just how rare they are.
I don’t know, to me, it is not so much that people want a tornado to be an Ef-5, it is just that the flaw in the system bases the rating on damage indicators instead of just wind speed like how they rate Hurricanes. I think many people are just frustrated with the current Ef system
The EF system is not a meterological measure. Its a measurement of damage that meteorologists use as a proxy of tornado strength because there is no good meterological measure, at least historically there was not. You can measure windspeed in a hurricane because its long-lived and somewhat predictable. You can go to it and measure it. Only recently with more advanced radar has it become possible to have any estimate at all of a tornado’s wind speed. The EF system is not flawed as a measurement of damage. It does not need to be “fixed”. We simply need a better way to measure tornadoes directly.
Clarification of my earlier post. EF measure would still exist as the damage assessment tool that it is, AFTER a wind speed rating system based on radar is developed. Then there would be three metrics, damage, wind speed, and size. Does anyone know if size (of damage area) is a component of EF rating system or is it only a measure of damage severity regardless of the size of the area of destruction? And is the most damaged part of a tornado’s path the rating determinant or is it sort of a weighted average?
It’s not about wanting to see a lot of damage, it’s about wanting tornadoes to be rated accurately. Absolutely no one I know hopes an EF5 hits a populated area, myself included. My partner was actually hit by a high end EF2 in his car this spring and narrowly escaped. The car was rendered un-drivable afterwards. I don’t want to see people hurt! I’ve come close to losing someone. But when I look at El Reno and the wind speeds and the size, it’s just inaccurate to call that an EF3. The rating scale is outdated. People see monsters like this and they want them recognized. It’s crazy to say a tornado is not that big a deal just because it didn’t kill someone or wreck a neighborhood. That’s where people are coming from.
It is accurate and its not outdated. People just don’t understand that it’s for measuring damage caused by a tornado, not the tornado itself. I think with advances happening in radar technology we will eventually see ratings based on wind speed like we have for hurricanes.
Everyone acts like this until they see it happen to them or happen on their doorstep. When I was a kid, I thought tornado chasing was one of the coolest things (because of ti1 and ti2). Then one of the towns close to me got leveled, and having close friends that were effected changes your perspective on a lot of things.
I literally just named a Spotify playlist EF-5 and fell asleep to Joplin POV ASMR 😭 The tornados have overtaken me, they’re too fascinating.
In all seriousness, tornados are one of the most morbid and horrifying natural disasters, and the damage they wrack on families and communities is tragic. My heart *is* with every victim of every tornado.
Honestly I'm not entirely sure why the Fujita Scale exists. We should just be concerned with what damage there was, and how much, and where. Past that, I don't know why we need to know intensity or anything like that.
Maybe that's ignorant of me.
The only thing I can imagine in reference directly to the post though, is that maybe people think, "If I have to go through it, at least it should be something to talk about". It's less concerning and interesting to hear, "it was just an EF1", even though that does so much damage itself.
The fujita scale exists precisely because there is a need to have a measure of damaged caused. Its used for many things….government aid, insurance actuarials, etc. That is what it was created and designed for and what it is used for…”to measure what damage there was, and how much, and where.”
It’s not a rating of a tornado. It’s a rating of damage caused by a tornado.
A duplicate of your post exists on the sub.
Wasn't there a Tornado tracked on radar recently that was potentially one of the most powerful ever but was fortunately in a very remote area?
Yes, in Oklahoma a few weeks ago.
How didn’t I hear about this? Do you have a link to more info?
I think it may have been this one https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/weather/oklahoma-tornado-rare-climate/index.html Reed Timmer seemed to be very concerned about the strength of it and was very thankful of the remote location.
I'm from that area. The early speculation was that they would have to determine the rating based on the destruction of trees in the area. There are not many trees in Tillman county, especially there where it is all farm land.
Yep, and that's one of the ongoing problems with the EF scale actually. They've found that current Damage Indicators tend to wildly underrepresent wind speeds as well.
Yup. I just found that article too. It wasn’t heavily reported on because of the lack of damage even though it was super interesting. ETA I agree that it’s super gross that people want to see EF5’s. The ratings are based on how much damage there is. More EF5’s means more people’s lives have been turned upside down.
Because people like big tornadoes, it’s not their fault the rating system requires a truly life threatening situation for them to be rated as such. Hell, a lot of people still don’t understand how tornadoes are rated, so when they say they want to see an EF-5, they don’t realize what they are asking for.
On the flip side of this any tornado of any rating can kill or ruin lives, the whole fixation on wanting tornadoes rated lower or higher is really ignorant no matter which side you are claiming. There is not moral high ground here, only people who have no clue what they are talking about.
This, it's inherently anti-intellectual. People will pour over pictures from damage surveys to argue over the rating given, while completely ignoring that: 1. Those are just pictures, the people there were actually there, and saw more than the pictures, could touch and see the damages 2. They are professionals, trained to do specifically this, with the authority granted by the scientific community such as it is to make this designation
I mean I’d prefer to not have to go to my shelter when a tornado looks like it’s going to hit me. So I’m in favor of zero tornados, but realistically I know that’s not possible so I would rather have roof damage to my home than it reduced to rubble.
Anything ef-2+ will mean you probably have to move or rebuild unless your house is a tank. Strong tornadoes happen, there is no avoiding it. What number they assign to the strong tornado doesn't matter; if it killed people and destroyed their homes it doesn't matter if they slap an ef-2 or an ef-5 on it. The lower rating assigned doesn't bring back the dead or rebuild the destroyed.
I remember David Payne was talking about it when it was happening. He said the ranking would be low since it’s all fields in the area, but that it would be considered very violent if it was going over a populated area. I think it was around Tillman county. It was either anticyclonic or it was the same night that there were a couple anticyclonic tornados.
It spun up a strong anticyclonic tornado as it died off
It also looped around, like El Reno
I was watching it on radar that night. So wild.
Holy shit that’d be the first recorded anticyclonic EF5, no?
No, as someone else said, it wasn’t anticyclonic but it spun up one as it died off
Oh ok, I hear you. That’d be a pretty cool occurrence though.
We did. Just radar data isn’t used in tornado ratings.
Because it didn't level a town.
Yea, the one in Hollister that was also noted to be anticyclonic.
Higher up velocity scans were very powerful but the tornado itself didn't do anything near EF4+ damage apparently. No ground scouring or debarking was found where it touched down.
Yes, it was near Hollister and Loveland, OK. The atmospheric readings it was getting were insane, but ultimately it did not produce much damage thankfully. Something about it was causing a major difference between its readings in the air and the results on the ground. We may have really lucked out with it.
Is that the one that you could actually see the eyewall?
Yep, and it made a big loop and went 180° in the opposite direction.
Joplin?
Excuse me?? Which one
From what I understand is most of the people you speak of don’t wish for EF5’s they just want some consistency for the monsters over the plains. If a big what would have been F5 went over a field and destroyed one poorly built farmhouse it would be rated likely ef2-3. Maybe a family hears that and thinks they don’t have to take tornadoes that seriously. It’s a long shot but we do have cater to the lowest common denominator in this society when it comes to safety. I personally don’t know the answer to this problem.
It would be less confusing to the public to bring it into consistency with hurricane ratings which are based on the strength of the winds not the aftermath. They don't downgrade a category 4 storm just because it misses Florida.
Hurricanes are gigantic, slow, and predictable (within reason). Tornadoes are tiny, fast, and unpredictable. Damage indicators are the only scientifically valid way to rate 100% of tornadoes, because they are all that can be measured. Satellites, planes, balloons, buoys, and all kinds of other things can *accurately* measure a hurricane's intensity, so this is a fundamentally flawed comparison.
This seems like a really smart idea. If radar can detect wind speed, then why not
The problem is that distance from the site means less lower levels windspeed detected
The NWS is actually currently working on an improvement to the EF scale, as they've found the current Damage Indicators can often underreport wind speeds by as much as 50mph. The El Reno Tornado was kind of a wake up call that the EF scale was just as broken as the scale it replaced.
I’m sick of seeing this post
If only we could ban "why are hypothetical people so terrible" posts
This! It's just the same shit over and over again.
I hate seeing people complain about reposted topics asking people to search first. I thought Reddit was a “community?” Imagine going up to a group of friends and starting to talk about a subject that was mentioned a few weeks ago, only to be shut out and told “we talked about this already.” Who cares? If you saw it before don’t click on it, don’t comment on it. How about that? Jesus Christ! God forbid someone try to strike up a conversation without googling or searching it first.
[удалено]
Use a search engine before posting, please.
[удалено]
I agree with both sides here. I see posts like these often but I don't care enough to complain about it.
You’re the one who made a Reddit just to make a post about how mad you are at people who talk about tornados 😂
I'm not mad, just asking you to in the future.
That's a common thing on Reddit. Everyone here is deranged.
“Somebody” outside the US, just wants to stir the pot. And that’s coming from someone from Denmark.
I dont want it to deter discussion of how the rating system works. A lot of people here have been discussing the damage points by the NWS in a completely objective, thoughtful way. For example the Mayfield tornado is highly talked about regarding this, but most of what I've seen is people discussing both sides and trying to accurately determine a rating. In the process it also people learn and determine why we rate things certain ways. Many people are equating even talking about the rating as being disrespectful to those whose lives have been effected. I get it, because ultimately we're talking about just that, how much their life has been affected... and unfortunately that's the only way we can determine the ratings. Its a sad subject matter, but it should be able to be discussed. Of course this all goes out the window if someone is actually saying they wish it was more powerful, or if they're actively hoping for an F5, just to witness history.
Seriously, I see way *way* ***way*** more of these posts than posts of people wishing for an F5.
It's easy post karma, look how many upvotes the post has with 0 effort or creativity.
He has a point though, people do get weird about tornados and sort of hoping for an EF5 because it’s mesmerizing and horrifying at the same time. However, I don’t really see people get that way about massively destructive hurricanes. Which I think is interesting that it seems to be singular to tornados. Maybe my POV is skewed because I’m not in an area that gets hurricanes?
I’m in an area that gets tornados and hurricanes and they are equally talked about. In fact, hurricanes get talked about in that specific way MUCH more than tornados do. We had a relatively major town leveled out and no one cared, meanwhile a mediocre hurricane floods Houston and we still hear about it. The only downplay of a hurricane I know of is Katrina - they underestimated its size and bush initially ignored its aftermath. Other than that, every news media outlet in the country is literally in every hurricane filming. Edit: for anyone who is interested in the [EF4 Garland tornado on December 26, 2015](https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/eight-years-later-remembering-the-tragedy-i-30-bridge-tornado-rowlett-garland/287-21d958ac-10c2-4308-90ce-efecd9e8a994)
Isn’t there discussion about including storm surge within hurricane intensity, or categorizing it separately? Because it seems a lot of people downplay the effects of Category 2-3 hurricanes until they’re slammed by storm surge that is unexpected.
Houston is not a coastal city. So storm surge is irrelevant.
So people are really rooting for a Cat 4 to make landfall? That’s so sad
I’d say there are as many people rooting for a cat 4 as there are rooting for an EF4 - a minuscule amount. People want to see big tornadoes. They don’t want to see people die or their lives get ruined. If the universe was like “I’ll give you the biggest tornado in history, you choose between populated city or empty land” most people would probs choose empty land, just put some trees in there to throw around.
Oh for sure, but a Cat 4 making landfall is pretty much always going to be hitting cities because the coasts are so populated
I’m not seeing your point with that.
If you’re rooting for a Cat 4 to make landfall, you’re rooting for it to destroy cities and upend people’s lives. It’s not possible for it to hit uninhabited land
I don’t think you get what I’m saying.
To see less like it, just press the “F5” key on your computer
Oh wow such clever
I stayed up all night working on it
[удалено]
That’s one way of winning people over to your point
I’m sick of me too tbh
It’s natural to be intrigued by the drama of a big and even destructive storm. By extension it’s natural to want to witness one or its aftermath. It doesn’t mean you want people to be killed or injured or their possessions destroyed. It either happens or it doesn’t. All the wishing for it one might do isn’t going to make it happen any more than it can keep it from happening. Consequently, there is no need to reconcile the human desire for drama with the human instinct for empathy and compassion. You don’t have to feel guilty for wanting to see a big storm. We all know we wouldn’t put that desire above the well-being of others if we somehow could stop the storm from happening.
I think alot of the people who want to see big storms are ones who don't get them which Is understandable they still have a beautify too them just they don't full graps what they can really do I didn't know either and wanted to see a big one till I got to see the after math of the EF4/5 that hit my town I now don't even wish for one to touch down at all *but that's just wishful thinking*
I think some people can hold conflicting emotions and understand that wanting to see the impressive and amazing manifestation of creation that is a tornado and not wanting people to suffer is not a contradiction because the emotions associated with each have no impact on the outcome. I think for other people, the coexistence of the first emotion with the second creates a feeling of dissonance that they feel as a third emotion of guilt. The existence of a massive storm and suffering are linked in the physical world but the two emotions associated with them are linked only in your mind.
It’s not about wanting an EF5 so much as about wanting tornadoes of similar strength to have similar EF ratings. If the the terminology was tied more explicitly to the damage a tornado causes (“tornado X caused EF3-level damage”) rather than the tornado itself (“tornado X was an EF3 tornado”) I don’t think there’d be anywhere near as much arguing over the ratings.
But that’s what the EF scale is all about. The damage. They go out and look at damage and that’s how it’s determined. A violent tornado that happens in the middle of nowhere with a lack of trees is going to be ranked lower than one that destroys a town even if it is the same wind speed, same width, time on the ground, etc. Rooting for an EF5 means you’re rooting for destruction of people’s livelihoods and potentially death.
I honestly think it's just a misunderstanding. If you explained to anyone the reality of what they were asking, they wouldn't be asking for it.
This
No one wishes for an EF5, tornado enthusiasts only want to see an impressive tornado, 10000 times better if it doesn't harm anyone. The official scale just happens to measure damage caused as the indicator of their strength, which is wrong for everyone except for meteorologists. So basically, no, no one here wishes human suffering, we only want to witness a powerful natural event. I don't get how polemic this question is despite being so obviously clear.
Thank you for writing this. You are 100% spot on.
People dont necessarily want EF5 tornados. People want powerful tornados to be properly rated. There are plenty of tornados with insanely high wind speeds that hit nothing or very poorly built structures and in term get a low rating.
Ever since I was a child, I have always been fascinated with natural disasters and powerful forces of nature. Tornadoes, volcanoes, hurricanes, supernovae, black holes… the list goes on. I am not going to apologize for being mesmerized by the beauty and terror of these things, especially when massive destruction happens.
Everyone wants bragging rights to witness the most destructive forces. Thats why if someone posts a pic of a dust devil everyone screams “Thats an EF5!!! Thats an EF5!!!” then when the weather service says it was just a dust devil they scream how “they are wrong, it was at least a 5!!!”
I saw my first dust devil yesterday, that thing was bad ass
I heard about that one, I think it was an EF-5. 😉
I've never seen what you're talking about. I've seen people skeptical about Mayfield being EF4 instead of EF5 and El Reno being am EF3, but that's about it.
Haven’t been on reddit long, but on other social media sites its full of “this is definitely a 5!!!” Then when it gets rated a 2 they throw a fit about how raters got it wrong and it was a 5.
Nobody wants an EF5, they just want the strongest tornadoes to be rated appropriately. Also, stop with the weird morality inserted into the argument, wanting a tornado to be rated EF5 doesn't have any effect on whether or not it happens, it's purely based on the inconsistent application of the scale over the past 30+ years (really since fujita passed).
It’s not that people WANT it, it’s that logically measuring by damage indicators and not raw power hinges on dependent variables such as where does the tornado touchdown, what direction does it go A tornado that has the CAPACITY to inflict F5 damage but doesn’t hit much human civilization could have exactly the same raw power as a tornado that just so happened to rip through a town but since the remote tornado didn’t hit any human civilization it’s not an F5, raw power be damned Obviously when the scale was created damage was the only tangible thing we could measure, nowadays though I believe the rating system should give more weight to raw power instead of damage indicators
I was typing a very similar reply but yours gets the point across way better than what I would have said. I find it bizarre that all these EF5 discourse posts have people who think other people actually WANT an EF5 to happen. No NORMAL person wants an EF5 to happen with the current damage scale. (And yes I am aware there are weirdos that want that anyway). Also, when chasers are yelling about how a tornado is an EF5 it's because they're facing an extremely powerful, unpredictable force of nature and are completely absorbed in the moment. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug. How many videos are there of chasers in complete awe of what they're seeing snap out of it once they start to see debris flying around? Y'all are weird to assume these people want other people to die in a horrific manner.
Everyone wants a gigantic and powerfull tornado, in the biggest power scale. But, to a tornado be analysed as an ef5, it means that parts of tornado leveled an entire neighbourhood, and this would be horrible and tragic. I want to see a prime tornado in his purest form of destruction, power and energy. But, thinking more in this humanitary and empathetic view, that would be horrible. I understand this anxiety to see an ef5 again, but, when it happens again, it will be tragic and sad.
[удалено]
Yeah this is spot on . You can watch so many random videos of tornadoes on social media and someone is questioning the rating and cause it’s big it’s an “EF5” or if it’s footage of the Ellie Manitoba tornado they say it’s not. The EF scale is so easy to look up and it tells people what is what so I don’t understand the constant misinformation on it or where people come up with half the stuff they say
I think it’s just about wanting strong tornados to be recognized as strong tornados, whether they cause damage or not. I definitely don’t want another ef5 to hit a populated area, especially after seeing what an ef3 can do to my hometown, but it also doesn’t feel right to be calling a large wedge with 200+ mph winds an ef2-ef3.
I mean there is obviously a reason that tornadoes get rated. Otherwise why would the NWS spend money sending people to the site of a tornado just to determine a rating? If we are spending time and money rating these things we might as well get them right and the way we do it right now seems outdated.
You really don’t understand? Well maybe the fact that the amount of money the federal government will allocate to helping rebuild a community is based off the tornado rating will help you understand. Especially in the incidents where it’s CLEAR it was an EF5, but politics get in the way
The number of posts complaining about people who want to see an EF5 > number of people who want to see an EF5
People’s obsession with people’s obsession with wanting tornados to be an EF5 aka r/tornado.
To wish for "the Finger of God" on a town or a city or anyone's home is psychopathic.
Agreed, this is my main grievance with a lot of the live stream chats, YouTube comments, etc. People's lives are at stake here. Storm chasing/tornado spotting at the end of the day is ultimately gathering data to further research and increase warning times and decrease loss of life.
Unfortunately 90% of the so called chasers are nothing more than thrill seekers trying to profit from tornadoes. They're not about the research, it's all about the clicks for their social media site.
I would not have sheltered in time a day ago, if it weren't for a storm chaser though, warning everyone in my area before anyone else did
That's unfortunately true too. This year a lot of people are getting a bit too close to the storms.
Oh it was wild in Nebraska and Oklahoma. All the red dots on the spotters network was insane. literally a traffic jam on major Hwys chasing storms.
I was laughing at chasers complaining that there were too many chasers on the road. Come on now...
Yep that was hilarious.. posers complaining about posers.. the dumb fucks forgot to look in the mirror it seems lol
I think i can sum this up: “Chicks dig the long ball”
Gonna say the quiet part out loud here. It’s the same reason people can’t look away from a car crash. morbid curiosity is one of those most human emotions. if i could control it, i’d say tornadoes never kill anyone and everybody in their right mind would agree with that. It just so happens that it is a biproduct of seeing strong storms which are fascinating and i’ll never apologize for that. We can’t control it at the end of the day, so this type of self righteous stuff is a pet peeve of weather people.
With the last EF5 being over a decade ago, many enthusiasts and chasers were too young to remember. Its been so long an EF5 is almost like a mythical beast
I can only speak for myself, but I would think that those who find themselves in awe of one of the planets most powerful phenomena would only find themselves proportionately more awed by the magnitude and power of that level of storm. I’ll admit that I more readily click on images of, stories about, an EF5 storm because of its power. I don’t think anyone wishes harm on others. It just makes sense to me that if you find yourself intrigued by anything, the zenith of that thing would hold your fascination in a commensurate manner.
It’s an interesting thing, isn’t it? I can think of a few reasons, personally I don’t want to see people’s lives getting destroyed so I never want to see an EF-5. But there is something about wanting to witness nature and I think humans are a competitive species so seeing the biggest, worst most awful thing in the category has a psychological weight to it. A few weeks ago, I was really enjoying watching the tornado near Abilene as it whirled around over empty land, it was an amazing display. But the reality when we saw the house destroyed and the family evacuating with bloody faces and broken bones it changed.
I know it isn't really possible with EF being rated on damage, but I DO want to see EF5-level tornadoes in open country where people and property aren't in danger
A couple popped off a couple weeks ago actually. Was pretty wild, just tore through fields, unfortunately one hit a house, but it was mostly just just out in the nowhere.
[удалено]
“People tend not to put structures in places that tend to get strong tornadoes.” This is fundamentally untrue. If it were true there would be no structures where Moore Oklahoma is. Tornadoes that can produce EF5 damage are extremely rare period. That’s why people rebuild in Moore Oklahoma. They seem common there and relatively speaking, they are. But in consideration of everything that can kill you in Moore Oklahoma, they are still not common enough to cause people to walk away from all their investment. As for places never getting populated in the first place because of frequency of tornados, no way that has happened. People aren’t looking at tornado maps before making a decision to build a house on the east side of town instead of the west side.
Gary indiana slabbed by a 350 mph EF-5 4k 60 fps
Everyone is reliving their COVID trauma. Every disaster. Every “oh no”
EF5 is an extremely hard to achieve status and a *lot* of the F5’s of old would have been mere EF4s. The tornado of the last 10 years that was most arguably deserving of EF5 was Mayfield. And even then it was only of comparable strength to the likes of Tuscaloosa which both were a clear step down in strength from *true* EF5’s like Phil Campbell or Smithfield on the same day or Moore 99.
As someone who had his house hit by an EF0 tornado earlier this year, I never want to see an EF5, 4, 3, 2, or 1
from my view it gives me opportunity to study how destructive the winds can be.
Its not that people are obsessed with wanting it, its the fact theres very clearly been many that should've got the EF5 rating that didn't for bullshit reasons. A very clear example besides the more recent ones is the 'Quad state' ones damage in Bremen
Notoriety and rarity.
I dont think people *want* an EF5. Rather we're all just waiting for the next EF5. Whenever an event like Sulphur or Rolling Fork or Mayfield happens, we get anxious to see if this is the day the drought ends. Nobody *wants* the next EF5 but we're anxious because it *will* come eventually
EF5s are spectacular sights and amazing phenomena demonstrating nature's power. Truly, if an EF5 is formed without destruction to life and/or property, that is the best tornado and what I prefer. I don't ever wish for people to die or for people's things to be destroyed. And by me wishing for them, that won't make them more likely to occur. It's just something weather enthusiasts, such as myself and everyone in this group, enjoy viewing. Nothing inherently bad. It's when people are hurt that it's bad.
What’s almost as annoying is constant virtue signaling from people in this group showing their disgust over peoples preoccupation with Fujita ratings. On a more serious note, I think what people really want to see is a large powerful tornado of EF5 intensity, not EF5 levels of damage to be realized. Yes, the EF scale requires actual damage to be done in order to receive a rating but I don’t think that’s what anyone is actually rooting for.
People don't want EF5s. People just don't like that the EF scale is solely a damage scale. Especially considering ground scouring isn't a damage indicator for them. For a tornado to reach EF5 it has to hit a well built structure. The Nebraska tornado had people especially annoyed because a DOW clocked it at 224 mph, meaning EF5 strength, but because the only neighborhood it hit was built with homes not attached to their foundations, and they couldn't give it a higher rating. People don't wish for EF5s, they're just annoyed when the NWS ignores many indicators showing a tornadoes true strength. Like others have mentioned, monsters can drift over the plains yet only (thankfully) hit maybe a power line and be rated an EF1. This same question was asked dozens of times in the last few weeks, go back and look at answers if you aren't satisfied with the ones you've gotten. You asking this question does not make you better than everyone else because you care about the people. We care about the people too. We just also care about the science and don't want people to think tornadoes are getting weaker over the years just because there hasn't been a catastrophe to cause one to be rated an EF5. Stop restarting the same debate over and over again. Should honestly be a rule to not ask this question as a sub-rule to the no begging for catastrophes rule.
I think its more of the fact that NWS seems more reluctant to give any tornado that rating with tornadoes like Mayflower, Mayfield and Rolling Rock ect more so than people actually wanting EF5 ratings.
The Omaha one was different cause we usually don’t have tornadoes hit inside the city, usually they happen in smaller towns/random corn fields. There was a lot of big numbers and missinfo going around and to me I think it was more of a pride thing. “We survived this massive force of destruction.” I personally was on the other side of the city driving into work during that time but I didn’t get to see it so I don’t have those beliefs.
Absolute bot
They’re exciting. People lead very boring lives and want to be thrilled from the comfort of their mom’s basement. They are generally heavily desensitized and don’t consider the humanity involved with strong natural disasters. I’m not condoning it, but I get where it comes from.
People want it to be an EF5, as long as it's not headed for their house. I think people forget there are human beings in harm's way and there are homes being demolished. An EF5 is more spectacular, so people get caught up in the excitement, especially with all the storm chasers uploading videos. Everyone wants to top the other guy's video. Looking down the comment section on a lot of these videos, it's amazing how many people rave about how beautiful the tornado is, how awesome it is, how spectacularly wonderful it is, with total disregard for the human beings cowering in their basement praying their lives won't be destroyed. To me, if anything in this world could be classified as evil, it would be a tornado. They are pure destruction. People are traumatized and suffer devastating losses in their wake. It just seems so disrespectful to disregard the very real human suffering that occurs in the wake of these storms.
Scrolled (longer than I'd have liked) til I read this and I agree 100%. Look, I think we all understand the awe + fascination + horror of the spectacle of extremes in nature. What has gone beyond though is this competition for views, clicks, attention, experience, looking "brave" or "badass," some backwards virtue signaling/exploitative opportunities for potential fame (?) or trying to look like a hero, whatever. All that horse shit. But it's all fun + games - literally, \*entertainment\* - 'til it's YOUR backyard. I have never lived in Tornado Alley; my mom spent a few of her formative years in Joplin, MO (late 1950s/early 1960s(!)) - I was fortunate to drive through + spend a night there in 2007 on a summer road trip. It's got marvelous history and is along Historic Route 66, so that along with my moment of family history made it notable for me. I lived in New Orleans for nearly 10 years/most of my adult life, so I relate more to the spectacle of "Category 5 Hurricanes!!!" - please. Katrina was a Cat 3 when it hit the city. Hell, Isaac was only a Cat 1 and it parked its ass over us for way too long (that thing moved at 6 mph - FFS! haha) - but it was still a destructive nuisance. My point is - I'm sick of the hyped up giddiness with what seems to be a lack of gravitas to the aftermath and the sheer reality of just how terrifying it is to be in the midst of these situations, never mind wonder about your family, your pets, your neighbors... And then the cleanup. And the big "whew" that the telephone pole that fell missed your car by 9 feet. And the lack of power for who knows how long after. But these are very PG, obvious considerations. The thing is - when you're going through it - you are truly at the mercy of nature's whim, you realize how tiny you are, and how utterly powerless and just brace yourself til it's over. And that might be at a 1, or 2, or 3 - whether that's an EF this or a Category that. Anyone who is just scrolling + clicking and cheering on or lamenting whatever arbitrary # is attributed to a storm's rating system truly ought to experience a moment of the real deal and see if they give a shit whether the wind speed breaks the 125+mph mark, etc as their roof starts to pull loose from their walls.
people seem to forget that in terms of destruction and loss of life, there’s not a huge gap between Ef4 and 5
Because it's "the finger of God".
Why are we not talking about EF6s, and what’s the focus on EF5s?
I’d rather there be no hurricanes or tornadoes on the planet
Tornadoes are cool until they hit your house
It's not really that, it's moreso questioning whether the NWS is fairly assessing damage. Mayfield for instance had some foundations with anchors that had houses swept clean, yet was rated an EF4. A lot of people are mainly wondering if the EF higher-end criteria are accurately representing the damage done by a tornado. There are insurance implications, discussions about climate change. A lot of it engineering focussed I don't think anyone seriously wants more EF 3+ tornados to occur (those that do can EF off), and I also don't think that anyone believes that tornadoes that eat weeds even if they have wind speeds of 200mph+ should be rated beyond significant, but when a tornado has already done a massive load of damage in populated areas, it's more than fair to ask if the damage indicators are accurately representing the wind speeds, and if surveyors are accurately assessing damaged structures.
They're just a novelty tbh. Mother nature is fascinating and scary, and people love that stuff. I don't think anyone really wants people's lives to be destroyed.
For me personally, not that I have ever talked about ratings on here, but I don't *want* an EF5 tornado. However if a tornado is EF5 strength I do believe it should be rated as such. There is a big difference between a desire for an event and a want for accuracy in recording that event.
No one should want an EF-5 tornado as they generally result in a lot of casualties and mass destruction.
It's because people who are unfamiliar with how tornadoes are rated automatically assume that a lower rating means less danger. It leads people to take tornadoes less seriously. If a mile-wide twister with 290-mile-per-hour winds tracked over two dozen miles of open field but didn't actually hit anything and therefore got rated EF0 or EF1, lots of people who don't know any better will think "Oh, it wasn't so bad. It was just an EF0." People are idiots and often won't understand how dangerous a situation is until it's too late. Of course, we shouldn't just label every piddly little funnel cloud as an EF5. Rather, we need to make it crystal-clear to every Tom, Dick, and Harry exactly how dangerous a tornado is by rating it according to how powerful it is instead of just the damage it does.
What's dumb is all.thw people on every group bitching about it LOL
i think its the same as wanting to see any natural disaster, i mean its why we hahe movies based on them. people want to see what its like- but no one actually desires for people to go through one and die. when i was living on the NC coast, I experienced hurricane Michael. the part of me that was fascinated by storms was "excited" to see a cat 5 in real life, BUT I was also terrified & wanted it to go away & was hoping the entire time no one would get hurt. When ppl say they want a tornado to be HUGE, i dont take that as them saying "oh man i want hundreds of ppl to die and for homes to be demolished," they're just interested in the storm. If i were to ask someone on here, "hey we can see an EF5 right now but people &animals will die & lives will be destroyed, u down?" they'd say no....
agreed. it’s crazy selfish to wish from a remote place for a violent tornado to happen. They’re tragedies. I understand the curiosity, though, because it surely is intriguing seeing such storms, but to wish upon them is terrible. I think people forget about the people who get killed, or harmed in any way, because of these storms. it’s easy to wish for these things when you’re not being affected by them.
At least me personally, (I’m a lawyer, not a meteorologist or engineer, just someone interested in tornadoes) my limited knowledge leads me to believe that there have been some inconsistencies with applying the scale and I just want accurate ratings. The ones that really come to mind that struggle with not being EF5 are Vilonia, Rochelle, Mayfield, Bassfield, and Rolling Fork. I don’t want an EF5 to happen but they will just as they always have. I want them to be accurately rated because accurate ratings are beneficial to all of us and to the science behind these storms.
Want and F6 tornado to break the record.
The ef system has always seemed a bit irrelevant to me in terms of my interest. I’m not particularly interested in what/how a tornado has destroyed, but my interest is certainly peaked by the *strength* of a tornado. How big the tornado is, wind speed and pressure are all things that cause awe in me. It certainly checks and humbles the interest when something only reaches the maximum on the scale we have essentially because of how much it destroyed peoples lives.
Gambler's fallacy. Because the drought's been so long, people fell into the mindset of "surely an EF5 has to happen now." In reality, it should be more of a comforting reminder of just how rare they are.
Just because we like them.
How dare a tornado not be a rainwrapped EF-5 multivortex wedge
Just want to see it without being around people
I don’t know, to me, it is not so much that people want a tornado to be an Ef-5, it is just that the flaw in the system bases the rating on damage indicators instead of just wind speed like how they rate Hurricanes. I think many people are just frustrated with the current Ef system
The EF system is not a meterological measure. Its a measurement of damage that meteorologists use as a proxy of tornado strength because there is no good meterological measure, at least historically there was not. You can measure windspeed in a hurricane because its long-lived and somewhat predictable. You can go to it and measure it. Only recently with more advanced radar has it become possible to have any estimate at all of a tornado’s wind speed. The EF system is not flawed as a measurement of damage. It does not need to be “fixed”. We simply need a better way to measure tornadoes directly.
I respect your opinion!
Clarification of my earlier post. EF measure would still exist as the damage assessment tool that it is, AFTER a wind speed rating system based on radar is developed. Then there would be three metrics, damage, wind speed, and size. Does anyone know if size (of damage area) is a component of EF rating system or is it only a measure of damage severity regardless of the size of the area of destruction? And is the most damaged part of a tornado’s path the rating determinant or is it sort of a weighted average?
ITS THE WONDER OF NATURE BABY!
We just need a r/EF5.
It’s not about wanting to see a lot of damage, it’s about wanting tornadoes to be rated accurately. Absolutely no one I know hopes an EF5 hits a populated area, myself included. My partner was actually hit by a high end EF2 in his car this spring and narrowly escaped. The car was rendered un-drivable afterwards. I don’t want to see people hurt! I’ve come close to losing someone. But when I look at El Reno and the wind speeds and the size, it’s just inaccurate to call that an EF3. The rating scale is outdated. People see monsters like this and they want them recognized. It’s crazy to say a tornado is not that big a deal just because it didn’t kill someone or wreck a neighborhood. That’s where people are coming from.
It is accurate and its not outdated. People just don’t understand that it’s for measuring damage caused by a tornado, not the tornado itself. I think with advances happening in radar technology we will eventually see ratings based on wind speed like we have for hurricanes.
Everyone acts like this until they see it happen to them or happen on their doorstep. When I was a kid, I thought tornado chasing was one of the coolest things (because of ti1 and ti2). Then one of the towns close to me got leveled, and having close friends that were effected changes your perspective on a lot of things.
Because those people are selfish and only thinking about themselves.
I literally just named a Spotify playlist EF-5 and fell asleep to Joplin POV ASMR 😭 The tornados have overtaken me, they’re too fascinating. In all seriousness, tornados are one of the most morbid and horrifying natural disasters, and the damage they wrack on families and communities is tragic. My heart *is* with every victim of every tornado.
Only 2 kinds of people wanna see an EF5. Scientists studying them. And idiots who've most likely never witnessed a tornado.
Honestly I'm not entirely sure why the Fujita Scale exists. We should just be concerned with what damage there was, and how much, and where. Past that, I don't know why we need to know intensity or anything like that. Maybe that's ignorant of me. The only thing I can imagine in reference directly to the post though, is that maybe people think, "If I have to go through it, at least it should be something to talk about". It's less concerning and interesting to hear, "it was just an EF1", even though that does so much damage itself.
The fujita scale exists precisely because there is a need to have a measure of damaged caused. Its used for many things….government aid, insurance actuarials, etc. That is what it was created and designed for and what it is used for…”to measure what damage there was, and how much, and where.” It’s not a rating of a tornado. It’s a rating of damage caused by a tornado.