joshoctober16
Member
- Messages
- 547
- Location
- Canada New brunswick
i think base on stuff ive seen... that the "people lost their lives, its just a rating" could by by accident be bullying others to stop talking about the rating , thus making the ratings more inaccurate however.... ive seen studies now that... because the EF scale is so broken and they under rate stuff so much that they started to use EF1 tornadoes as EF2 for areas that are more open field (classic tornado alley) they state there doing this because tornadoes could likely be stronger as they didn't hit anything... yes ... i agree for most... but some of them are likely still just EF1 and this small data set could mess up the data some more thus making models more inaccurate and or making futures studies as more junk for the future.... causing warning lead time and false alarm to go up... thus killing more people.....The bottom line feels like this: There needs to be a point where they can very obviously say that contextuals need to be taken into account. It’s simply not accurate to call Matador an EF3, not even close. The argument that people say where “people lost their lives, it’s just a rating” is understandable but inherently flawed because scientific accuracy still matters too, for the sake of the future.
so in a nutshell the "its just a rating" might be true for the tornado that happen at that moment but might cause more death for future because we are not rating them correctly.
if some one can find that study or paper that are starting to make the classic tornado alley tornadoes that are rated only EF1 as EF2 just post a link for what i mean.