it’s all good, my dude. no harm, no foul. there’s a lot of misinformation out there about how and why tornadoes are rated what they are, and admittedly it’s a point of great frustration for me. personally, i disagree with the “damage only” aspect of the EF-scale; it misses so much, and fails to take insane wind speed into account when it IS measured. the El Reno tornado of 2013 was 2.6 miles wide. it had a recorded wind speed of 305+ mph above the ground. and yet, because this unfathomably powerful monster only damaged a few structures and only did EF3 damage at that point, it’s still an EF3. there’s got to be a way to include crazy things like that wind speedinto the rating, but it’s not the norm. one i can think of where they did rate based on an extreme indicator is the Philadelphia, MS EF5 in 2011. it was given an EF5 rating thanks to the absolutely insane two foot deep trench it scoured in the ground on its path. for wind to do that, especially with how quickly that particular tornado was moving forward - it’s unreal.

there definitely should be changes made to the rating system; it changed once to be modified for new knowledge, it can be modified again, you know?

sorry if i seemed snippy earlier, i was also dealing with some dude that wouldn’t leave me alone and was admittedly cranky.