Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Untitled

The following objection, made by User:66.108.211.106 used to be in the section "No F5 in the 21st Century" on the article page:

Engineering analysis does not make tornadoes less violent, or cause less F5 tornadoes, that is impossible.

Since I don't know enough about the Fujita scale to decide whether the section needs clarification or removal I've just moved the comment here.

— FJG 13:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I simply removed the sections, I don't think they're warranted in an ecyclopedia anyway. I'm the one that originally added the reasoning of more stringent damage survey analysis as likely partly responsible for the lack of F5s recently. My work is in this field, I can attest this is making a difference. Engineering analysis doesn't make the actual tornadoes less violent, but the tornadoes don't rate themselves, they are rated by humans, thus change in how that is done affects ratings. It seemed self-evident what was meant. Evolauxia 03:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, it very well could be a "natural" lull in events. I'm not saying that any particular events have been rated differently than they might have been before, just that analysis is now more stringent.

Official List

Please do not add a tornado to the first list unless you have a credible source stating that this tornado was Officially rated F5. Storms with disputed ratings belong in the second list (one should have a reasonabole explanation for adding a tornado to this list as well).

The "Marmaduke" Tornado

Someone added this tornado to the disputed ratings list and I removed it. There was never any real indication that this tornado produced F5 damage, or even that an F5 rating was considered for it. I contacted someone from the NWS Memphis via e-mail and he informed me that the office had considered at highest an F4 rating.

The La Plata Maryland Tornado

Structural analysis of many of the homes affected by this tornado determined that windspeeds within the tornado were significantly weaker than what was initially thought. Several homes had been completely swept from their foundations; however, it was later determined that these homes were poorly anchored (thus the rating was downgraded to F4). The final damage assesment found only one instance of F4 damage along the 70 mile track (downtown La Plata). The rating of this tornado is no longer disputed and I am removing it from the list.

Incorrect Image Captions

The second image on the page has an incorrect caption attached. This is actually F4 damage outside of Tinker AFB in Midwest City, OK after the May 3, 1999 tornado outbreak. I've removed the image. Menos (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Information about a tornado with no article yet

I found some detailed information on the March 3, 1966 MS tornado, which has been dubbed the "Candlestick Park Tornado": [1] and [2]. No pictures except for a track, but they could probably be found with enough searching. I don't know if this is enough to justify a new article for it, but I wanted to bring it to attention. It probably should have an article, since it looks like the deadliest single U.S. tornado since 1955 (according to this list, definitely the deadliest single F5 tornado since then). 216.78.31.225 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it warrants an article and there is enough there for at least a good 'stub' article. Evolauxia 04:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created a small stub. There's little info out there on this; I did find an article from the Greenville MS newspaper published the next morning, but little scientific info in the article beyond the obvious. I've run across a few photos - mainly of the Candlestick Pk Shopping Center which was completely flattened, but they are both copyrighted and are of very poor quality.Davidals 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Allendale, Illinois

The 1989 Allendale, Illinois tornado was never considered to be possibly an F5. It was, at best, a low-end F4. I led the ground survey team and the University of Chicago group did an overflight. Both of us came up with F4, but in different places. I rated one structure near the school at the east end of town as possibly F4. The Chicago group rated that part of the path F3. Their F4 rating was based on what they described as F3 damage to a series of houses on the southwest side of town. That damage was on the left side of the path and they assumed that the forward motion of the tornado would lead to F4 winds of the right side of the path. I only rated the damage to those houses as F2, given that the walls weren't attached to the foundation very well.

The point of debate at the time was whether the final rating should be F3 or F4.Hebrooks87 14:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Hebrooks87

That tornado has been removed. It was the most questionable event on there and one I was considering removing (I've cleaned up the list, though it is in the referenced Grazulis work but the way it was used raised significant doubts).

Given that username and the relative limited number of people doing surveys, I think I know who you are, and your input is more than enough to remove the already shaky event. Evolauxia 11:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

F5s in Canada

I have not heard of an F5 striking canada before. Can you show me any sources? The Edmonton Tornado of 1987 *may* have been an F5, and Environment Canada is rethinking its F4 rating based on new data from the CBC. On top of this, is it possible that the Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak of 1999 could have been an F6, becuase its winds were at the limit of an F5's? User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 03:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

-There is an official F5 in Saskatchewan according to the list on this page and another probable one also in Saskatchewan. --JForget 01:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone put the Regina tornado of 1912 - can you give us a link for that research on that one - I haven't thought they put it close to an F5.--JForget 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

F5/F6 Tornadoes by Grazulis is the source of the Saskatchewan tornadoes. No authoritative source has rated Regina as F5. Evolauxia 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For the Edmonton tornado, the link suggesting it may have briefly hit F5 strength is not very convincing. Can someone find a better source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.27.204 (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Red Rock - 1991

It was surprised that nobody put the Red Rock Tornado into the disputed ratings since the doppler radar indicated F5, signifing it was probably an F-5. Also this site said that this tornado was probably more violent then the Andover one. So i've put the Red Rock tornado in the second list with the proof of the doppler measurement --JForget 01:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This tornado apparently had mobile Doppler radar measurements that were around the F4/F5 threshold back then, and I don't know that those radars back then were accurate enough to really distinguish between wind speeds of +/- 5-10 mph when the wind was blowing at somewhere around 260mph (see below). It'd also be nice to see citation that shows that those measurements were actually made. Guy1890 (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

May 1999 F5 Oaklahoma City Tornado not mentioned

That tornado should have made this list. Not only did it cause a serious amount of damage, injuries, and fatalities, Dopplar Radar on Wheels (DOW) recorded 318 mph winds. That's definitely F5! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.100.251 (talk • contribs)

24.220.100.251, they put it during the creation of the article. They've just changed the name of the towns to its suburbs Moore and Bridge Creek which there was F5 damage. Oklahoma City proper had at most F4 damage so it was logic to only put Moore and Bridge Creek as the municipalities hit by F5 instead OKC proper. --JForget 17:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A possible second F5 for May 3?

I found this site [3] and the stormchaser mentionned that the tornado was so huge (1.5 miles wide) and may have been as violent as the Bridge Creek wedge tornado, but like Red Rock, we may never know due to lack of structures south of Mulhall, but I have put the Mulhall tornado in the disputed list as "probably F5" for now--JForget 02:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken this one off the list. The NWS rated it F4, and there was no idication of F5 damage anywhere along the damage path. The Oklahoma city tornado produced some very incredible damage; the likes of which is rarely seen, and it was erroneous for the chaser to attempt to ascertain the violence of the Mulhall tornado based on path width alone.

Mulhall was a remarkable tornado in so many ways and probably was F5, however, there is no direct evidence and the F4 rating is appropriate. Mobile radar suggests it was quite possibly F5; and also observed the most extreme acceleration and jerk in wind speeds ever observed. Evolauxia 09:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fargo in 1957

Just caught a page of the NOAA regarding the Fargo tornado of 1957, so I've created a new page on that particular storm since it didn't belong to an outbreak listed on the list of tornado outbreaks page. One link in the text shows the devastation caused by the F5 and we can clearly see that in the southwest corner of the image, there are homes that were destroyed and some were completely swept away.--JForget 18:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Omaha 1913 tornado

Some IP added Omaha's Easter tornado in the list but a reference that I've left in the List of tornadoes striking downtown areas article shows that it was an F4 and there was no mention (prior to my edit) in the Omaha Easter Sunday Tornado (1913) article saying it was an F5, so I've tagged it in consequence.JForget 23:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This reference [4] also shows Omaha's event as an F4JForget 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing prior to 1950

Everyone here can agree that the "offical" rankings are those recognized by the SPC. While Grazulis is a highly respected authority on tornadoes, he himself admits that no tornadoes were officially recognized as F5 prior to 1950. Therefore I will be moving all those tornadoes to the "probably F5" list. I will also be restructuring and fact-checking this article in the next few days. Anyone who wants to help is welcome to (providing they use reputable sources). -RunningOnBrains 00:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that line of thinking, but it's going to be tough to enforce. Any good willing person who wants to make a contribution to an article like this could see the following link and would never have a reason to assume otherwise. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/arx/tornado/olmsted.php Gopher backer 00:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortuantely, that does appear on an NWS website, but it is reproduced from Grazulis, which is not an official source. I did add a note at the top of the section saying that no tornadoes have been officially rated before 1950, so hopefully that explanation will suffice. -RunningOnBrains 05:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks yet again for your efforts. When I first came across this article it was a mess, I cleaned it up using the Grazulis database because he is extremely experienced and competent, in some way it's a superior database and the research community accepts and heavily uses it in addition to the NOAA National Tornado Database and Fujita's database which ended in 1992. The Tornado Project database more readily changes as new information becomes available and goes back farther (for significant tornadoes), using the same retroactive methods as for the official tornadoes which went back to 1950 because that's when the era of tornado prediction and warning began and there were limited resources to go back farther as well as data problems. Those retroactive ratings were done by graduate students pouring over newspaper and other information whereas Grazulis made a lifetime of collection and analysis.

So there were no official and unofficial or possible tornadoes listed after that revision, I merely noted the official rating and a citation to a NOAA source when there was a difference. That worked well, but it's a constant effort to maintain the article with the more readily available NOAA F5 data much less the more difficult to obtain Tornado Project data. I support using the official listings, with a note for obvious problems, such as Worcester 1953 which is admitted by NWS to be F5 as new data became available but I don't think has been updated in the database. For unofficial tornadoes, there must be authoritative sourcing for every event, citing the same source when applicable. Moreover, editors' own reasoning is not enough (that's also original research), there must be a good source for each event suggesting why the F5 rating may be appropriate. Evolauxia 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger with list of EF5 tornadoes

The following is transcluded from Talk:List of EF5 tornadoes

I think at least until we get a decent number of EF5 tornadoes (hopefully not for a while) we ought to put this as a subsection of the list of F5 tornadoes. It seems kind of lame to have a list containing one entry. Incubusman27 19:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Support The List of F5 tornadoes should also be renamed List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. If we get a few more EF5s, then we'll talk. -RunningOnBrains 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I also support the merger and name change. Evolauxia 00:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pages merged and name changed to List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes as a result of unanimous support Peter symonds 16:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research

The ever growing list of "possible" F5/EF5 tornadoes has become an original research concern. The official listing is for those where some entity (e.g. NWS, MSC) charged with the official record files an F5/EF5 rating. Originally, there was a single listing and when appropriate a notation if another clearly authoritative source such as Fujita/University of Chicago or Grazulis/Tornado Project databases differs in its rating. Since then the listing continues to grow, and although events are mostly sourced, the sources generally do not state the tornado was F5 or possibly F5; that is, rather, analysis of the evidence by editors here are making the claims. I move that sources must be explicit in regards to the possibility of a respective event being F5 and that said source should be 'reasonably' credentialed to make such conjecture. It's just misleading to have so many events as possible F5, there's a reason official records don't go before 1950 in the US, and nowhere else has much experience rating violent (F4/F5) tornadoes. As experts will tell attest and as reflected in the literature, the distinction between F4 and F5 is also the most difficult one to make. Evolauxia (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheyenne, Wyoming

I've checked the Storm Data and no 1979 tornadoes don't even come close to an F5, only an F3. In fact there no official violent tornadoes ever in Wyoming. In a few days, there is no reply I am removing it from the list especially since that it is unsourced.--JForget 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks to the IP for removing it, as it is clearly not sourced and proving by NOAA and THP records.--JForget 17:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

a new strong Ef4 or EF5 tornado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_25%E2%80%9328,_2011_tornado_outbreak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.39.109 (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We know about it. I removed a speculative entry of it earlier today, partly because it was attributed to a source that cuts off twenty years earlier (a book that covered up to 1991), and partly because no official rating has yet been issued. We can wait the three days or so for the NWS to do the survey and see what the rating should be. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

one or 2 new tornadoes that shod be in the Possible F5 or EF5 tornadoes

the Tanner area tornado and the Tuscaloosa tornado both at the April 27 event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_25%E2%80%9328,_2011_tornado_outbreak#Tuscaloosa.2FBirmingham_tornado —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freiza667 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

See above. We know about them, we're watching for the official NWS ratings, though there's a good chance it'll end up being as much as a week before they come out, due to the sheer extent of damage with this outbreak. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If the Tuscaloosa/Birmingham twister is rated EF4, I will add it to the Disputed section myself, as I believe that it's definitely an EF5... and maybe an EF6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.39.92 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And it'll be reverted as WP:OR if you do, as Wikipedia policy says that what you believe doesn't matter; only what reliable sources report that the experts say it is. WFO Birmingham has issued a preliminary rating of "at least EF4," probably the most weasel-wordy rating I've ever seen, and will have an official final rating sometime next week. Once they've done that, we can have the severe weather research meteorology types argue about it for a year or two, then, if someone like Chuck Doswell, Howie Bluestein, or Josh Wuhrman is convinced that the rating is wrong, they'll publish something in a peer-reviewed journal disputing it, and *then* we'd be able to add it to the "disputed" list. Until then, it'll be either an official EF5, or it won't. And so far, it's not. rdfox 76 (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore there is no rating of EF-6 in the Enhanced Fujita Scale. EF-5 is the highest possible rating and it is open ended in its wind speed estimation. The reason is EF-5 damage is already complete. It destroys well constructed structures and sweeps the debris away from its foundation.Mongoose470 (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible Miscount.

The article states that there are a total of 52 official F5 tornadoes, but after 3 counts I count only 50 in the chart. It seems either the number is incorrect or two tornadoes are mistakenly omitted from the chart. It may be possible that someone forgot to change it when the EF5 tornadoes were moved to a separate list. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem was no one updated the count when the newest was added. I have made the wording less ambiguous as well. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 08:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

third EF5 april 27 outbreak

in the article of the list of tornadoes in 2011 and 27 april outbreak article it lists three EF5 tornadoes but this one only has 2 of them. --109.76.99.32 (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Please stop the edit war. If there are any concerns about the article's content, please discuss first. If there are any further reverts, I will protect the page. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Keraunos??

Who exactly are these people? And not to delve into WP:OR, but why are they making such laughable re-assessments of such old tornadoes on a scale that was designed for modern construction? Is this an official organization? From what little French I know, it seems it's a private organization started by a couple guys a few years ago...should we really trust their word on this matter?-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 03:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with RunningOnBrains. The Enhanced Fujita Scale was specifically designed to take into account the construction quality of the structures damaged in a tornado. It was never intended to be a method of rating the intensity of past tornadoes for precisely that reason. Furthermore such is the basis for the NWS' refusal to adapt past tornadoes to the current EF scale. Information on the contruction quality of structures in the 1800s is hard if not impossible to come by much less coming across documentation that is detailed enough to adequately help them assess the damage itself. Even if the French government arbitrarily decided to re-categorize all tornadoes prior to 2007 according to the EF scale, without accompanying scientific evidence it is merely appealing to authority logical fallacy to use that as a basis of re-assigning tornadoes. It is clear a misuse of the Enhanced Fuijta Scale. Damage surveys adhering to the Fujita Scale are not compatible with, and do not translate directly to, the Enhanced Fujita Scale. So without accompanying evidence of the quality of structures damaged and some sort of detailed evidence of the damage itself through an offical reputable scientific study, there is no basis to assign those tornadoes in France, or any pre EF scale tornado, an EF rating. Therefore I submit we remove the Monville and Palluel tornadoes from the official EF5 list. Heck the Monville tornado came well before Ted Fujita was even born.Mongoose470 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Mt. Hope Tornado

Although this tornado was officially an F4, I'd like to suggest that the Mt. Hope, Alabama tornado of April 3, 1974 be added to the list of possible F5 tornadoes. The SPC's List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes lists it as an F5 and even the List of Super Outbreak tornadoes mentions that some sources list it as an F5. Is there any reason why it isn't in the list of possible F5 tornadoes now? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is officially rated as F5 as the recently published maps for the 1950-2010 tornado seasons has this tornado as an F5. 1974 map. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Then is there any reason it doesn't appear on the list? TornadoLGS (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, feel free to add it under the possible list though Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The second of the Tanner AL area tornadoes has always been disputed. The F5 rating came from one of the AL NWS offices; a team of mets from Nashville did some sort of reanalysis involving interviews with engineers, survivors, and put together a study that was published (the intent was to definitely identify F5s that has taken place in, or crossed into TN), and their study claimed that the 2nd storm did no F5 damage, and not much F4, but the overlap in the paths made it effectively impossible to determine the accurate F-rating for that storm. The disco page for the Super Outbreak has a sourced and more detailed breakdown of the dispute; at this point listings of the storm as F4 or F5 in published literature are arbitrary and not especially scientific.Davidals (talk)

"Possible" F5s

I've been thinking this over for a while now and I believe that tornadoes rated F5 by NOAA/NWS are official F5s, regardless of the time period they took place. The current reasoning stated within the article is that "No tornadoes before 1950 were officially ranked F5, due to inadequate engineering data and other information on the historical tornadoes. From 1950 - 1970 tornadoes were assessed retrospectively, primarily using information recorded in government databases, and newspaper photographs and descriptions." This reasoning is rather unsound as many tornadoes prior to 1950 have been ranked as F5 by NOAA. Thoughts on this? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd largely agree with this, but with a caveat that the NWS does not consider pre-1950 rankings to be official due to the lack of systematic surveying and recordkeeping combined with the more variable building standards of the era. I would, however, agree that pre-1950 F5s rated by NWS shouldn't be in the listing with "suspected" F5s where a rating is impossible (there's no way you could tell F3 damage from F5 damage relying on reports from 1700, for example) or where it's just disputing the official rating. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To expand on that, I'd be willing to accept Grazulis's ratings as "canonical" unofficial F5s, but the others would require a lot of examination of the reliability of the sources before I'd support taking them out of the "possible" list. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

NOAA did not rate any tornadoes prior to 1950. Their database begins that year and the 1950-1972 tornadoes were indeed retrospectively rated. In fact, the precise year that tornadoes were rated soon after occurrence varied state-to-state in the 1970s.12 1973 is when the scale was officially adopted with the backing of Allen Pearson. Any ratings prior to that period are from Fujita (going back to 1916) or Grazulis (going back to 1880, with some events back to 1680). Those ratings aren't in the official record, that is, either the National Tornado Database or Storm Data. Both the Fujita and Grazulis ratings are reliable, but are not "official". Evolauxia (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, we should consider separating the Fujita and Grazulis ratings from the rest of the "possible" list, to indicate that they're generally accepted, if not official ratings? rdfox 76 (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rainsville

NWS HUN has yet to update their website with the Rainsville storm survery information, but they have confirmed there was an EF5 in Rainsville on April 27 through their Facebook page. You can find that information here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/us-national-weather-service-huntsville-alabama/additional-information-leads-to-an-upgrade-of-dekalb-county/195412503843013

Also, I fail at posting links. -DTK (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Now updated: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/hun/?n=4272011_dekalb_county -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 19:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Map

I think it's about time the SPC map was updated. The main map from the SPC has been updated to include the EF5 tornadoes from this year, while the one here hasn't been updated since 2008. I'd do it myself, but I don't know how to. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sunfield/Murphysboro tornado controversy

I would like to ask reversions of the change to "Sunfield, Illinois" to stop. A bit of research shows that while Murphysboro was hit that day, it was from a low-end F4. Grazulis study of this event reveals 15 tornadoes. The F5 that day wiped out a small community called Sunfield, near Murphysboro. This was a separate tornado however. Do your research before blindy reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.26.140 (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked into it and the records I found support you claim, but you should have mentioned Grazulis when you first made the edit. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted for now, as the general rule is that NOAA/SPC/NCEP are considered the definitive source when there's disagreement with Grazulis; perhaps the best solution (which, if I had the source information available, I'd immediately insert) would be to put a note in the "Disputed?" column that says that Grazulis has the Sunfield F5 being a separate tornado instead? rdfox 76 (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked into the Tornado History Project, which uses SPC records, for the date in question. I found one F5 tornado in Perry County, Illinois, which is where Sunfield is. Murphysboro is in Jackson County, which had three tornadoes on that date, including an F4 that the map shows as going right through Murphysboro. Here are the links for F5 and Jackson County on that date. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This should resolve everything. I found this and if you check the bottom list it will explain everything. United States Man (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So change it and cite that then? TornadoLGS (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah change it to Sunfield, the NOAA listing is clearly erroneous. Sharkguy05 (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Sharkguy05

Tuscaloosa-Birmingham Tornado

I have included the April 27, 2011 Tuscaloosa-Birmingham in the Possible F5/EF5 tornado list based on the following:

EF5 rating awarded by 3 members of NSF team. http://www.norman.noaa.gov/nsww/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/LaDue_NSWW2012.pdf

University of Alabama Engineering Team finds some homes sustain EF5 damage. http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20110620/NEWS/110619665?p=2&tc=pg

Mrwasatch (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Mrwasatch

Personally I'm on the fence. This link and the PDF seem to side with the EF4 rating. The link to the news article sounds a bit more certain, but is a bit lacking in detail. Though I will note that you probably should have posted in the discussion page after the first time you got reverted. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Addition of Goldsby tornado for possible EF5

Just wanted to know if anyone would support the idea of adding the May 24, 2011 Goldsby tornado to the possible EF5s list. For the past few years, I have done quite a bit of research concerning the EF scale, and even downloaded the NWS EFkits. I must say that the Goldsby tornado produced some of the most textbook EF5 damage I have ever seen. Large and well built homes (with anchor bolting) were completely swept clean. Debris from the homes was shredded into small pieces. Grass and vegetation was scoured out to the point where nothing but mud was left. These traits are exclusive to EF5 tornadoes. Before you decide, check these damage pics.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=events-20110524-tornado-d1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkguy05 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm Not sure what to say on the damage pics since I know that ratings depend on quality of construction of the structures destroyed. The problem is without a ref from a reputable source specifically mentioning a consideration for an EF5 rating I'm pretty sure adding that tornado would be WP:OR. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I do know that anchor bolts are visible in the pics, which suggests quality construction. The selling point for me is the ground scouring. The likes of which has only been seen in Jarell, Bridge Creek, Philidelphia, Smithville, and El Reno(Same day). I really think that the Goldsby damage needs to be looked at more closely, but nothing I can really do.

Sharkguy05 (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Sharkguy05

For the record, here was a comment from Patrick Marsh (NOAA) to myself in an email November 2011 regarding some possible EF5 tornadoes in 2011. I do not know that this constitutes anything official enough to justify adding to the list, but it is interesting... he states "I know for first hand accounts that we are under-rating damage based on what has been done historically. Based on people who are experts in the EF-scale and were in Alabama, there are a couple of tornadoes that could easily be upgraded to EF5. Furthermore, on 24 May 2011, the 2 EF4 tornadoes southwest of Oklahoma City *should* be EF5s. Just about everyone I've talked to who are experts in EF-scale (myself included) all conclude those two tornadoes were fundamentally no different than the Calumet/El Reno tornado that same day that was rated an EF5!"

Mrwasatch (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)mrwasatch

That is interesting, though the El Reno tornado was rated EF5 based on radar data; the actual damage from that tornado, based on what I could find, was rated high-end EF4. I have heard a couple comments on some of 2011's EF4s being underrated as well, though not from anyone I could identify as an expert. On related note, at a presentation I attended this spring, Tim Samaras commented that the Bowdle tornado of 2010 likely desrved an EF5 rating. I'd say we'd need something more official than a personal comments and emails, though, before including these in the article. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Bowdle was impressive, I believe it was voted "strongest tornado of 2010" on Stormtrack. Tough to rate tornadoes that hit so little. From the videos available, I thought the 2003 Manchester, SD tornado was a candidate for F5 rating, but I've never really found anything indicating consideration for that. Mrwasatch (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)mrwasatch

Addition of of boxes explaining reasoning for rating?

I think that it would be a good idea to make an additional box for the F5/EF5 list that describes the reasoning for the rating. A lot of that information cannot be found anywhere else on the web (I have collected info from Grazulis), and it is fairly important historical information that I don't want to fade into obscurity. Just wanted run this idea by before I actually start editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkguy05 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would be necessary unless there is disagreement about the rating, considering that that in most cases it would come down to "well constructed houses were swept away." Though I think a general description of F5/EF5 damage could be worth considering. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the time, but some cases like Philidelphia, Plainfield, El Reno, and Valley Mills, the surveyers came to that conclusion because of some pretty unique damage indicators. It would mostly be for clarification reasons, because where on the web can you find actual damage descriptions of obscure F5s like Bradshaw, Fort Rice, Howard, Adair, Broken Bow, and Brownwood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkguy05 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In that case perhaps an "additional notes" column could be added. For the F5 list that could be made the same as the "disputed?" column. I would like to hear other opinions on this matter, though. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Mt. Hope tornado officially an F5?

According to the Super Outbreak article, the NWS database lists the Mount Hope/second Tanner tornado as an F5, which apparently makes it an official F5. Should we remove it from the "possible" list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkguy05 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done United States Man (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally would like to see the reasoning behind this, though, as it seems odd to change a rating at this point. I know it has been listed as an F5 in SPC records for at least a few years. I believe I once read it was originally rated F5, then downgraded to F4, but I do not recall where, so I might try to track that down. Also, Should it be noted that Grazulis lists it as an F4? TornadoLGS (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried to explain this to User:CapeVerdeWave (to no avail). But he showed many sources so there wasn't much of a choice. United States Man (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that I emailed a person at NWS Huntsville and he said that the 2nd tornado was F4, but this states that it was F5 (I probably got someone that didn't know what they were talking about). But notice that the wind speed range for the second tornado is 207-260, which is F4 intensity. It may have been recently upgraded and the wind speed was forgotten. Based on this I don't believe we have a choice. United States Man (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Moore, OK Tornado, May 20, 2013

I have a feeling that this tornado will end up being categorized as an EF5 as the damage seems to be worse than the Joplin, MO tornado from 2 years ago. people we are gonna have to monitor this page closely when the official final survey is done by the National Weather Service.--Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Gallipolis/Wheelersburg?

The official F5/EF5 list has the May 1968 Ohio F5 listed as "Gallipolis, OH", even though it was weakening by the time it reached Gallipolis. The purported F5 damage occurred in the Wheelersburg area. Should we change the listing to Wheelersburg here? Sharkguy05 (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05

Once an F5 always an F5. It affected the town, but it didn't have to do it at peak strength. I see no problem here. United States Man (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Is the Possible F5 section really that relevant?

In searching over the section, I realized that if a tornado is rated F4/EF4, then how could it possibly be an F5/EF5? That led me to think that the whole table is irrelevant and that only a paragraph or two of the real "possible F5s" should be retained. I really don't see how a survey team that spends days going over this stuff could get the rating wrong. The only reason we have this section is because people that probably haven't even been to the damage site are trying to give the storm these "off the wall" F5 ratings. Thoughts? United States Man (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll state my possible biases up front. I've been a meteorologist in the USA for over 20 years, with most of that time spent working for the NWS. My expertise while working for the NWS was not in doing storm surveys though. I don't currently work for the NWS anymore (I work in the private sector), and I don't claim to speak for the NWS here.
• The official NCDC Storm Data record is just that...the official record of what happened when it comes to various kinds of weather records in the USA. Is it a perfect record of what took place in the past? No, and that's because it was gathered by humans, who frequently make mistakes. There occasionally are updates that occur to official U.S. Storm Data records (the Hurricane Andrew re-classification comes to mind) well after the fact of an event, but these are usually very rare.
• What's categorized as EF5 damage now (since early 2007 in the USA and just recently in Canada) could technically be categorized as F4 or F5 (or maybe even F3) damage under the old Fujita Scale. I've never heard of any plans to re-categorize any types of historical storm damage reports from the old rating system to the new system though.
• The supposed "controversy" over the 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado rating appears to be just idle talk to me. The talk about the May 4, 2003 Franklin, Kansas tornado appears to be the same thing as well. That the 2003 tornado in question there was "considered to be an F5 by meteorologists Gino Izzi and Simon Brewer" might be a true statement, but it's really meaningless in terms of the official Storm Data record. Izzi does appear to be a Lead Forecaster for the NWS in IL and Brewer appears to just be a young TV storm chaser. As far as the June 8, 1995 Kellerville, Texas tornado goes, I don't remember VORTEX teams doing official storm surveys, but I might be wrong.
• The April 26, 1991 Red Rock & Oologah, Oklahoma tornadoes had some apparent windspeeds "of 257-268 mph in the funnel" (F4 to F5 range winds) using "a portable doppler weather radar", but I'm not sure how accurate those portable Doppler radars were back then. Would the Red Rock tornado be classified as an EF5 nowadays? Almost certainly, but it occurred in 1991, so they rated it as a high-end F4 then. The issue with the Oologah damage in 1991 was apparently that "on top of the destruction this tornado caused, a downburst that followed the storm caused further damage." I'd imagine that whatever wasn't knocked down by the initial tornado there was knocked down by the following straight-line winds, which would make classification of the tornado damage alone difficult to nail down accurately.
• Pre-1970 in the USA, I'm not sure what kind of storm surveys were being done at all per se, and definitely pre-1900, I doubt that there was any organized storm survey program in the USA at all. Trying to determine ratings for storm damage (from photos, etc.) that occurred deacdes & decades ago without ever actually being at the site of the damage in real-time is difficult at best. I also personally have no idea what other countries outside the USA (like Canada, Russia, Australia, Poland, Italy and Germany) have ever done when it comes to storm surveys at all. Maybe they have (or have had) great programs, maybe not. I'd be interested to hear more from anyone that knows more about that kind of stuff. Guy1890 (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is worth having as ratings are subjective, and the official word of the NWS is not the only analysis worth noting. However, the list should be trimmed significantly. I'd say that a tornado should only be on the list if a reputable expert (e.g. Grazulis, Samaras, Bluestein) has considered it to be an F5/EF5. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Since Cyclonebiskit took the time to redo it, I think this discussion is irrelevant. United States Man (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Bulahdelah Tornado

I wanted to hear some opinions on this, but I think the Bulahdelah tornado should be removed from this list. The part of the source that discusses the tornadoes states: "I have been told of a tornado with a possible F5 intensity smashed through Bulahdelah in northern NSW on the first of January 1970." To me, this statement sounds like it is based on hearsay, which is not sufficient for it to be listed here. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. This source from the Bulahdelah tornado article says "Australia's strongest documented tornado raced by the town of Bulahdelah, 70 kilometres (43 miles) north-northeast of Newcastle, New South Wales on January 1, 1970. This powerful twister cut a path 21 kilometres (13 miles) long and 1-1.6 kilometres (0.6-1 miles) wide through the Bulahdelah State Forest. Official estimates suggest that over a million trees were destroyed. Eyewitness reports say the winds lifted a two-ton tractor and threw it 100 metres (328 ft). From damage analysis, the storm was believed to be an F4 and possibly an F5 in strength." It appears to be another one of those tornadoes of undetermined strength. Given where & when it occurred, I doubt that there are sources out there that will confirm whether it was, in fact, an F4 or F5...who knows... Guy1890 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd toss in that as a ref then. My main point was that the source on the list did not seem reliable in terms of establishing this tornado as a possible F5. The link you give seems better, though I will take a closer look at it later. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Redesign

I just want to go on record as someone who does a lot of historical tornado research and say I very much like the recent redesign of this page. Clear, comprehensive and well sourced. Keep up the good work. -- E. Brown, retired editor

Glad you like it! :) I guess it was worth the couple of hours it took to rework it, makes me feel a lot better. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Redesign Clarifications/Suggestions

First off, I would like to say that the new layout is pretty damn awesome. Props to cyclonebiskit for putting in all that hard work.

However there are couple of things that seem a bit unclear. Officially, there have been only 60 tornadoes that have been officially ranked as F5/EF5 by the NWS. The undisputed ones on this page are white, and the disputed ones are Sandy Brown. Thing is, tornadoes in the US have only been officially rated since 1950, and there are many tornadoes on this page that occurred before then that are listed white. Even though many of these are widely considered F5s, none of them are actually official. So technically, none of these pre-1950 tornadoes should be listed white (with the European ones being an exception). For example, tornadoes such as the Pomeroy, IA tornado should be Bisque colored, since they were unofficially ranked by Grazulis, and the rating became widely accepted by the public and NWS officials.

Another issue is that some of these tornadoes are only ranked F5 by the 2000 NCDC memo, and have no mention from Grazulis. While tornadoes such as Salix, IA are ranked by a governing body, they still aren't official due to the pre-1950 rule, and don't appear on the official list of 60. I think that there should be a new color (yellow) for these tornadoes rated F5 solely by the NCDC memo.

I'm gonna go ahead and make these changes. If you don't agree, then feel free to send me a message on my talk page so we can figure something out. Sharkguy05 (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05

Note, though that Fujita also rated tornadoes back to 1916, though I imagine in most cases that the ratings would be the same as those from Grazulis. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Since 1880??

Classifying tornadoes that occured a hundred years ago is guesswork at best. The more reputable lists such as the SPC database don't go back further than 1950: "Because the only way we can compare all tornadoes is by whatever damage they caused, and F5 damage is only possible when tornadoes hit well-built structures, the true "violence" of most historical tornadoes is unknown -- especially before the middle to late 20th century."

Also, the primary source for this article, the book F5/F6 Tornadoes doesn't seem to exist. Amazon.com says it was published by the Tornado Project in 2001, but doesn't have any other information about it and the Tornado Project's website mentions nothing about such a book. They did however apparently publish a book Significant Tornadoes: 1680-1991 which is now out of print. Anyone know anything about this mystery book F5/F6 Tornadoes?

What would people think about shortening this list so that it begins in 1900 or 1950? We don't have any Wikipedia articles for tornadoes prior to 1900 anyway (and only 3 articles for tornadoes prior to 1950). Kaldari 18:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I largely share you're sentiment. Grazulis, however, uses 1880 as a general cutoff for much of his data, and he is the most experienced and knowledegable person on the historic record. In general, and especially for older stuff, his data is actually superior to the official database. There are three primary databases, the NCDC/NSSFC-SPC database, the University of Chicago database (no longer updated), and the Grazulis/Tornado Project database. Grazulis essentially used the StormData/National Tornado Database data, and improved on it with further information that he uncovered, as well going back before that database starts in 1950 (that's why you see so much data starting at 1950). Also, once an event is entered in the official database, it is very unlikely to be changed, whereas Grazulis can and does update as new information becomes available. Additionally, the official database events for 1950 to ~1972 were rated by grad students hired to pour over newspaper and similar information, some of the same that Grazulis uses, though he uses more, spent much more time, and is much more experienced.

F5/F6 Tornadoes (or The F5 Report) is an addendum booklet to The Tornado. There is mention of it on the Tornado Project page, see [5] [6]. That said, it is not formally registered as far as I know, but it is very reputable. Evolauxia 03:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

We should keep everything to what is documented. If a rating is questionable, it should specifically state such. CrazyC83 01:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Significant Tornadoes 1680-1991/a Chronology and Analysis of Events (Hardcover)

by Thomas P. Grazulis

1. Hardcover: 1340 pages
2. Publisher: Environmental Films (September 1993)
3. Language: English
4. ISBN 1879362031

4 used & new available from $595.00 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1879362031/102-1957361-2178521?v=glance&n=283155

P.S. I would be interested in the June 12, 1881, Nodaway County, Missouri tornado criteria.

Americasroof 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd say that I am currently holding "F5/F6 Tornadoes" in my hand - it was a 40 page stapled addendum that apparently only a few thousand people received upon ordering "Natures Ultimate Windstorm" when it first came out. It simply is a 10 page Q&A (including Grazulis mentioning his own personal photogrammetry indicated motion in the '95 Pampa tornado was near 300mph just above the surface) and then a list of all F5 and probable-F5 tornadoes - the descriptions from "Significant Tornadoes" are repeated and new descriptions were made for the F5's in the 90's. ExtremePlanet (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Concern over a source

I have a bit of concern over one of the sources used for multiple events. extremeplanet.me seems somewhat iffy as a reliable source as the author provides no source of credentials for his assessments. From that, it merely becomes an amateur blog which does not constitute as a reliable source. I'd rather discuss this first before doing anything, but I'm leaning very heavily toward removing all information stemming from this site from the page. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. While I personally follow the blog, I don't think we should be citing anyone here who is not a verified expert (e.g. Grazulis, Samaras, Wurman) or official for the NWS or an equivalent agency. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well. I have always been skeptical of that site. United States Man (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this blog, but, if the following is actually true: "All of the material in my blog has been taken from scientific reports, first-hand media and logical deductions from that information", then, if the author of this blog is citing his sources in his posts, then I would use those primary sources and not rely on what is (at best) second-hand info from this blog "source". Guy1890 (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why someone would say they "have always been skeptical" of my blog since I source or directly link practically every piece of evidence I use. But I would agree that my site would not fit the criteria for an "official" source - and many of the pieces of information cited to my blog are second-hand (meaning I put an official source that could be cited instead). At the same time, it's unfortunate that the various resident interviews, surveys and photographs/facts I dig up cannot be used as official sources provide next to no info on some important events. I noticed that some of the info I spent hundreds of hours ascertaining that is not available anywhere else (deep ground scouring west of Smithville, for eg.) is kept in the wiki article yet I am removed as the source. It's customary to cite an individual when information from their research is used. I have a degree and have provided photographs/info for NWS surveys, but I am not directly affiliated with any organization. ExtremePlanet (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally greatly appreciate the work that you've done and your posts are always enjoyable to read, but from a Wikipedia standpoint it's not the most reliable of sources for us to use. Blogs are generally looked down upon on the site as a place for obtaining info unless the author is a known professor, journalist, etc., or their works are widely accepted in the respective community of their entries. If sources for information are cited within the blog, we're encouraged to use those over the blog itself. In regards to having a degree, a masters/PhD with proof on your site is really all that we need to be able to use your blogs since it will prove you're a well educated individual rather than a random couch-chaser (which I'm not accusing you of, don't get me wrong). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I kept that a bit vague, I minored in atmospheric sciences and am now getting my masters in research psy, so I do not have full academic credentials. And I agree, a blog is not an official source. It's only unfortunate as official sites cover very little detail on some events, such as Smithville. The current "list of ef5 tornadoes" article has some errors, one being the inclusion of European events from the 18th and 19th century as "official/undisputed" F5's. At least that's my take on it. And just to clarify, I personally have never added my site as a citation on wikipedia or any website as I don't believe in self-promotion. ExtremePlanet (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

While we might not be able to use your blog directly, you do seem to be good at tracking down articles. Finding writings from experts such as Samaras, Bluestein, or Wurman and more obscure publications from NWS offices such as this one could definitely fill in where information from currently cited sources is lacking. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"it's unfortunate that the various resident interviews, surveys and photographs/facts I dig up cannot be used as official sources provide next to no info on some important events. I noticed that some of the info I spent hundreds of hours ascertaining that is not available anywhere else (deep ground scouring west of Smithville, for eg.) is kept in the wiki article yet I am removed as the source. It's customary to cite an individual when information from their research is used. I have a degree and have provided photographs/info for NWS surveys, but I am not directly affiliated with any organization."

Science is a collective endeavour. I'm sure that there's hundreds of pieces of info in NWS Storm Data that I personally accrued (when I used to work for the NWS as a meteorologist) that doesn't have my name (or sometimes even the offices that I used to work at) attached to it. If you are actually submitting scientifically valid storm survey info that's making it into the official record and/or accredited scientific research, then that's really what's important IMHO. Thanx for helping out in any way that you can, regardless of your academic background. I use blogs all the time when doing research on citations that can be used here on Wikipedia. Whether we can use them as official "sources" here or not, blogs are not always full of falsehoods or rumor. Guy1890 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So, I take it that the extremeplanet citations will be removed? TornadoLGS (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to take a good hard look at this first before we have consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources

While it seems that blogs are somewhat discouraged here, we need to consider that there can be exceptions, especially when info on the website is verifiable, and the author has a significant degree of expertise on the subject(which Max most definitely does). He isn't just another armchair expert, he knows his stuff, and has done many hours of research for that site. Lets keep in mind that just because the source happens to be in blog format, doesn't make it automatically unreliable. If his site was in a different format, would we even be having this debate? Sharkguy05 (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05

That is very true. Although at times I have been skeptical, I would support keeping the citations. United States Man (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Max has demonstrated expertise. I personally follow the blog with great interest. If we are to cite any blog, I would go with that one. However, especially after one of the edit summaries from earlier today, I am apprehensive about using a blog as a source, as at least one editor used it as justification for keeping another blog as a source. It opens up the article to less reliable blogs. As has been mentioned before we should use the source Max cites, where possible, rather than the blog itself. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Come on, people...let's discuss on the talk page, not via back and forth edit summaries. Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion of this subject just kind of died out without consensus, and we most definitely need consensus. We also need everybody who edits here "cast a vote" to see who is, and who isn't in favor of using the blog as a source. I personally think it is ok to use, since the sources are cited, the author is reliable/knowledgeable, and it seems to meet the criteria for an acceptable blog source. Plus, it would be a shame to throw all that valuable info down the toilet just because because of formatting. We need some final opinions. Yea or nay? Sharkguy05 (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05

Well personally I'm of the opinion that blogs should be a last resort for things like this, especially when we have books like Thomas P. Grazulis' Significant Tornadoes 1680-1991 and Significant Tornadoes Update 1992-1995 and the NCDC database. I wouldn't mind a blog being used to help establish controversy over a rating, so long as more reliable sources (news articles, etc) are used as well. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we could make an exception for this blog, especially in regard to details of damage where the rating itself is not disputed. Though I would still say that notes on disputed ratings should lean entirely or almost entirely on prominent experts. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I would support asking Max and the author of Stormgasm (the other blog by an informed person, Locomusic01) whether they have sources to back up their claims. Just ask them specific questions about specific claims on each individual tornado. Then we could cite those original sources which they used in their blogs (e.g. the book on the Pomeroy tornado damage in 1893). CapeVerdeWave (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, though, I'd use caution. The last few times I tried to get on the stormgasm blog it was blocked due to apparent malware. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's important to note that [7] isn't Wikipedia policy at all.

"and the author has a significant degree of expertise on the subject(which Max most definitely does)."

With all due respect, I don't think that a "minor in atmospheric sciences" and a potential "masters in research psy" marks a "significant degree of expertise on the subject" at hand here.

"As has been mentioned before we should use the source Max cites, where possible, rather than the blog itself."

Exactly. If a query back & forth with the author in question here is needed to get more primary sources, then so be it, but citations to this particular blog should be removed IMHO.

"We also need everybody who edits here 'cast a vote' to see who is, and who isn't in favor of using the blog as a source."

Actually, that's not how consensus works on Wikipedia. No one is required to vote on anything. Guy1890 (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't take that literally, I didn't actually want anyone to vote (poor choice of words). So if I am understanding this, it seems that the majority opinion is that we should use the primary citations, and only use the blog as a last resort in combination with other sources? That sounds like a good idea, as the blog itself may be needed in a few rare cases such as Topeka, as the Gales 1967 article is no longer available online. Or in Smithville, as the deep ground scouring west of town was missed by the official survey. Max himself discovered it using aerial photography, and via the interview of a local resident who measured a foot of soil removed in that area. The aerial pictures on his page show this very clearly. Sharkguy05 (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05

If you are referring to Topeka, Kansas in 1966 there is no reason whatsoever that the blog should be necessary. You've got Thomas P. Grazulis, an NWS source, an article in Weatherwise from August 1966 (though I can't find the full text online), and various other sources. EBSCOhost ([8], since the wikilink is a redirect) provides several hits for potential sources. EBSCOhost also provides several potential sources for the Smithville tornado, and it too also has a NWS webpage and an NCDC database entry. To put it another way, we should only very rarely ever need to use a blog as a source, because if the information cannot be found elsewhere we really shouldn't be including the information at all, since a blog alone is (to me, at least) not a reliable source on tornado ratings. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I am talking about individual instances of damage that need sourced. The Topeka tornado threw a 300-pound section of stone wall two miles, which is interesting and notable. While this was confirmed, the study that mentioned this is no longer available online, and the only online source mentioning this is Max's site. With Smithville, the tornado scoured the ground deeply west of town, but the official survey fails to mention this, and is strangely vague. Max's site does mention the deep scouring, and provides photo evidence of this. How do you suggest we source that information ?

Sharkguy05 (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05

Not all citations need to be in the form of urls that are available online. There are any number of Wikipedia citation tools that are available to format references that aren't available online. I'm sorry, but we really do need to avoid citations from blog sites on here, including the one that keeps getting mentioned above. Guy1890 (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo

This may be a minor issue, but I noticed that the photo we have is of the 2013 El Reno tornado, which is listed as having its EF5 rating disputed. Would it be better to have a tornado which does not have its rating in dispute? Perhaps this one of the Chandler tornado:

Or of the Topeka tornado:

TornadoLGS (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The Chandler image works. United States Man (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

May I also propose:

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Moore tornado is way more widely known. That would be better. United States Man (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If we could find a photo that we could confirm is of an F5/EF5 while it is doing F5/EF5 damage, that would be ideal. Of course, I understand that this would be difficult to do, but it's something to consider--notoriety should be less important than illustrating such a storm at the peak of its strength, since the vast majority of F5/EF5s only generate a small corridor of F5/EF5 damage compared to the entire length of their tracks. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Rdfox 76: Next time I photograph an EF5 I'll be sure to consider that =P . This particular tornado became rain-wrapped before crossing into Moore, so I didn't really have a chance to get a picture when it was doing its worst damage. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: Heh, no offense intended, I know how rare it is to have a chance to photograph an EF5; I just was trying to suggest that this would be the option that has the most encyclopedic value. Aren't some of the photos of the Xenia tornado from the Super Outbreak ones that were taken while it was in the F5 damage area? The 1997 Jarrell, TX, tornado and the 1991 Andover tornado might also be candidates to check and see if we can find a shot of them taken at their peak, given how well-documented they were. rdfox 76 (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Rdfox 76: None taken. =) The only free photos I know of of the Andover tornado are photos kindly uploaded to government servers ({{PD-NWS}}) here. There are also these from the Hesston, KS F5 in 1990, which also includes a rather significant amount of videos. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

See if you can get a video still of the Elie tornado, as it was captured on video as it ripped a well-built home from its foundation, threw it into the air and obliterated it. This was the basis of the F5 rating, along with the van that was tossed 200 yards through the air. House at 0:03, van at 0:14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rl-IlMpfUo Sharkguy05 (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05

I could get a still if I wanted to, but the image quality would not be very good and I don't think we would have the rights to use the image anyway. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point, didn't think about that.

Sharkguy05 (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05

I think we could make a fairly convincing case for using it under Fair Use with an FUR if we can't find a better/free alternative, on the grounds that F5/EF5 tornadoes are such rare (and dangerous) events that it's entirely possible that there simply aren't any free pictures of them at their peak intensity, and unlike most other non-free content, it's not a situation where one could just go out and take a photo of one on a whim. Just my $0.02, though... rdfox 76 (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

El Reno (2013) Rating

Seems that the word "preliminary" has been dropped from the El Reno 2013 rating. See link: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=events-20130531 If this is now officially an EF-5 then the coloring should be changed to white (not orange) to reflect this status. If you are keeping it as disputed because the El Reno (2013) rating is based off of radar, then the El Reno (2011) tornado color should be changed to orange for consistency because it too was rated EF-5 based of doppler radar measurements, from my understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.25.12 (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not the basis for the orange coloration. White means that the F5/EF5 rating is official and undisputed. The orange coloration for this tornado means that the tornado has been officially rated EF5, but at least one expert or group is disputing that rating. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Disputing expert I believe you are refering to comes comes from article:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/El_Reno_tornados_EF5_rating_needs_closer_look_NWS_official/20130606_777_0_ANatio823340?subj=777

Official Greg Carbin is a NWS coordinator or employee; the NWS appears to no longer consider the rating preliminary. He appears to say the rating should be reviewed, not specifically mentions whether it should be changed or is disputed. Article cites a 60 day limit for rating to be reviewed. Time limit has since passed. Carbin's possible dispute from the article seems to be based on whether the rating is based on radar or damage. Again, the El Reno (2011) rating is also based off radar, so Carbin would have the same possible dispute with that rating.

From: https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/opinion/9696/terrible-tornado

"Mobile Doppler data has played a key role in raising the EF estimates of other recent tornadoes, including another EF5 twister that struck near El Reno on May 24, 2011. The consensus document that guided creation of the enhanced Fujita scale (see PDF) gives the green light to use radar data in this way. It states: “The technology of portable Doppler radar should also be a part of the EF Scale process, either as a direct measurement, when available, or as a means of validating the wind speeds estimated by the experts.”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.199.100 (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Again, the El Reno (2011) rating is also based off radar, so Carbin would have the same possible dispute with that rating." I wouldn't go putting words in the mouth of the Warning Coordination Meteorologist (WCM) from SPC that quickly. He can certainly speak for himself, and I'm sure that shooting him an e-mail would confirm or not that he personally had a problem with the 2011 El Reno tornado rating. As an aside, in terms of tornado damage estimates, I'd stack up Greg's opinion with just about anyone. Guy1890 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Note also that the 2013 El Reno tornado caused no more than EF3 damage while damage from the 2011 tornado was rated high-end EF4, and some damage was noted to be consistent with an EF5, so Carbin might not have the same complaint. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Very true. In the 2011 event, Ortega rated the damage to the Cactus oil rig EF5 (1.9 million pounds of steel rolled four times!!). That is coming from the guy that rated Chickasha and Goldsby EF4. Sharkguy05 (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05

Seems you guys are right, the dispute continues. Apparently downgraded to EF-3??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.161.202 (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The downgrade does not appear to be official. The outbreak page from NWS Norman still lists it as an EF5. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

On second glance, it looks like it might end up being official when the long-term record goes down, which which case we will probably change it to a possible EF5. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep it as EF5 until the NCDC storm data file is up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have heard (word of mouth on the OU Research Campus) that the change to EF3 rating was an order from above the NWS Norman. If this is the case then documenting the controversy with reliable sources is paramount to this situation. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on keeping it. I was just explaining to the IP user. If it does turn out as an EF3 in the NCDC data, it should be kept as possible. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I think another IP user just recently deleted this tornado from the list. Guy1890 (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the rest of you guys. The listing should remain and just marked as disputed and then documented. Just erasing it completely doesn't seem appropriate to providing an accurate background of events. Plus, there is an "in dispute" category for a reason. Dfw79 (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It would stay as disputed regardless because of the internal disagreement over whether or not to use supplemental data from radar to assess tornado intensity. It's finally hit the media so there's now sources available to make the changes; however, reading posts from some of the meteorologists, there is definitely a bitter taste left behind from this. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

So should we change the listing now or wait for the NCDC report? TornadoLGS (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

←I still say wait until the official report since it's second-hand information. But expect continued changes of EF3 to the article since it's in the media now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If the IP changes do continue, should the page be semi-protected so we can keep things under control until the NCDC report? I expect it will come out fairly soon. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Another IP users appears to have deleted this section again. As for semi-protection, the admins usually like to hear that IP users aren't contributing much in the way of useful content (which I'm not sure applies here or not) to an article before applying "protection". Guy1890 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems the same IP user has done this for a second time. I left a message on his talk page regarding this. TornadoLGS (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The EF3 rating for El Reno is official. I understand that you want to wait for the NCDC report, but the WCM at SPC would not make the change if it was not going to be reflected in the public version of Storm Data. See NOAA's Storm Prediction Center fatality map at http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/torn/fatalmap.php Please stop reverting this well-intended and accurate change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.127.127 (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm holding off on using that because the intensity for the El Reno tornado was never changed from the preliminary EF3 on the fatal tornado page to begin with. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

←Note that the SPC has removed it from their F5 and EF5 tornado page [9]. United States Man (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)