Talk:Tornadoes of 2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February - and the EF transition[edit]

After an extremely quiet second half of January (almost every day had the words no tstm areas fcst), the EF scale is now operational. That will be more prominent in the articles, but anything that says F should change to EF, and a new infobox will need to be created. CrazyC83 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 23-27[edit]

This could be the BIG ONE. Models suggest a monster outbreak is very possible, perhaps a legendary one. Some boards have even suggested a border-to-border Super Outbreak II. While I certainly wouldn't go that far yet, this could very well be a very bad outbreak, likely article-worthy. Saturday would likely be the really bad day if it happens. If there is no popular name in the media, it should be Late-February 2007 Tornado Outbreak (dab from earlier outbreaks). CrazyC83 14:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not nearly as strong as expected, but...what lies ahead is even more scarier... CrazyC83 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 28-March 2[edit]

The SPC has already gone overboard with a massive MDT and likely to become HIGH. This should begin this evening and could be REALLY bad... CrazyC83 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a 2-day outlook, the one they have out for tomorrow is the worst I've ever seen... Better get an article ready.... -RunningOnBrains 22:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already have a long-track supercell producing a huge tornado... gotta be at least an EF3. Have a house destroyed. Baseball-sized hail reported a while ago (we maxed out with 75 dbz due to hail contamination). As I type it is moving near or over Adrian, MO. —BazookaJoe 02:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since an article may very well become necessary by morning, I set up an initial list at User:CrazyC83/Outbreak0301. Looks like 4 actual tornadoes so far (since some are likely duplicate reports). It should get an article once it appears we are headed for 40-50 tornado reports, or severe damage to a fair-sized community, or 10 deaths. What to call it? That is difficult as it straddles month's end... CrazyC83 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion for the article name: February-March 2007 Tornado Outbreak, for lack of a better name as it bridges month's end. CrazyC83 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing, the Fort Lauderdale tornado yesterday (a very weak one) is NOT part of the outbreak (different system). It should be in a separate section if a write-up is made on it. CrazyC83 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, a supercell with a likely tornado just passed directly over the Fort Rucker, AL NEXRAD site. I got a few great screen captures-RunningOnBrains 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about to start up; just catching up on everything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CrazyC83 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

March[edit]

March 28-31[edit]

It's really starting to take off on the dry line. Already unconfirmed reports of fatalities. While not at article levels yet, it is quickly getting there. Possibly by morning... CrazyC83 01:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now up to 32 tornadoes. I am going to put an article on standby at User:CrazyC83/Outbreak0328 which may be moved to Late-March 2007 Tornado Outbreak (dab from the March 1 outbreak). CrazyC83 01:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April[edit]

April 3-4[edit]

For the second week in a row, a major outbreak appears quite possible. This time farther east, from the Great Lakes to the Southeastern US. Notice the dates, the same as something really bad!!! CrazyC83 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A major outbreak seems rather unlikely actually. While there will surely be some tornadoes, the SPC maintains only a slight risk! Where are you getting this "major outbreak" stuff from? -RunningOnBrains 08:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually a near-derecho right now that is occuring - lots of lightning and warnings virtually all along the line and bow echos embedded--JForget 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 13-14[edit]

Friday the 13th. SPC has a moderate risk out for tomorrow over Northeast Texas and Northwest Louisiana.[1] Incubusman27 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is gonna go for all weekend long as a nor easter is forecast to develop--JForget 16:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HIGH RISK now centered around Dallas-Fort Worth. Scary to say the least...this could create an article mess...since for the first time this year, both the tornado outbreak and the winter storm could warrant articles on their own (not piggyback one another, as there have been such of both ways)... CrazyC83 20:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be a bad year... —BazookaJoe 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this high risk busts (there hasn't been a real "bust" since April 11, 2005), it seems to be setting up for a May-June peak... CrazyC83 22:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per weather radio, spotters tracking a developing tornado north of downtown Ft Worth. —BazookaJoe 23:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a significant tornado (F2+) touches down in downtown Fort Worth or Dallas, an article is instantly warranted under the name (city) Tornado of 2007 if there is no other outbreak... CrazyC83 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely an EF2, if not a low-end EF3. [2] —BazookaJoe 01:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, hit a small semi-rural area. That was sure a dodged bullet in downtown Dallas, it had strong rotation and a great signature, felt like that It Could Happen Tomorrow episode for a while. Still the HIGH has not verified; it takes a significant outbreak to do such and that has not happened yet. One fatality was reported but it may not have been tornado-related. But what is still to come? CrazyC83 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the system continuing strong eastward with a moderate risk of activity, we might see some more action in the southeastern states tomorrow. - Enzo Aquarius 01:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the Storm Prediction Center is right, we may have some tornadic activity in the next few hours. [3] - Enzo Aquarius 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's shift focus to San Antonio. They have a supercell bearing down on them that is rotating and currently developing a hook. Chasers on various forums are expecting this to become tornadic very quickly. Maybe we'll have to conglomerate the Dallas tornado into a larger outbreak article. —BazookaJoe 01:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we get some major tornadoes or a number over the next while, I concur with an outbreak article as well. - Enzo Aquarius 01:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the way I see this storm system going, this could warrant an article probably called North American Storm Complex of April 2007, as this storm will have everything with all the severe stuff down south, the winter storm in the eastern Rockies and Kansas, and potentially one of the biggest snow storms ever in April as there is speculation of a major nor'easter for the Northeastern US and eastern Canada as well as damaging wind, storm surges and flooding rains possibly across the I-95 corridor. That's an early suggestion that I'm proposing - I will wait before any article will be created especially if the nor'easter materialize or if there will be numerous other tornadoes for the South. Already with the meteorological synopsis (sub-freezing in the Oklahoma Panhandle to 80's in Abielene) and the several events (especially hail and damaging wind and possible bow echo and tornadoes, this could be quite an article if it needs one.--JForget 02:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very interesting situation indeed. Right now though I am lost on the tornado count as the SPC has not picked up the tornadoes in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. That means any article may have to start without a list of reported tornadoes and makes it difficult to make. All the information has to come from local media. CrazyC83 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That'll make it difficult, indeed, to keep track, especially to avoid repetition and missed tornadoes. Hopefully SPC catches up. - Enzo Aquarius 02:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, which is why unless a single tornado turns out so bad it creates an automatic article (i.e. a repeat of Evansville or Lady Lake), we should wait for the numbers to appear. CrazyC83 02:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a large hook, we may have a tornado soon (reflectivity scan may be showing debris, possible tornado or wind damage). - Enzo Aquarius 02:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The SPC is quite behind in terms of tornado reports. A tracker at StormTrack has reported of a tornado that had occurred in Seymour, Texas. - Enzo Aquarius 02:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still way behind, maybe NWS Fort Worth was down (lost power?) or something? With the current numbers, the high risk was a definite bust...today is a new day though although it appears the SPC is being a bit more cautious (I don't blame them). Unfortunately, it is the same area that was devastated on March 1... CrazyC83 13:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if an article on all the mess this storm created (flooding, tornadoes, damaging wind, storm surge, snow storm and various effects) would be justified. This storm looks as bad as the December 1 storm minus the ice. But I won't have time to start it this week - being busy on other stuff, but if anyone is willing to start an article about the monster nor'easter, can do so.--JForget 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I don't think so, although it all depends on the outcome of the flooding (inland and coastal), which seems to be the most severe element. The tornadoes and severe weather do not warrant an article on their own (that was not an outbreak - just a bunch of scattered tornadoes), and neither does the snow element. CrazyC83 22:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 20-22[edit]

Looking like a near repeat of March 28. PDS watch in the exact same spot, and most of the other watches are lined up exactly the same way. If it looks like 25-50 tornadoes will happen (25 w/fatality, 50 w/none) or a large city (only a small handful in the watch area) gets hit, an article may be needed. CrazyC83 23:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite as bad as March 28, but April 24 looks like it's going to be kind of nasty. SPC's already got a moderate risk out. Incubusman27 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It squalled too fast last night. CrazyC83 14:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 23-26[edit]

I can't recall them ever going MDT on Day 3 before. It may start tomorrow, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a HIGH issued for Tuesday by the time it comes along. (A HIGH on Day 3 is impossible - they will never put a 60% on the map.) Could be a major outbreak in store if the trends continue, although going so far so soon may have been overkill - it takes a TON of confidence to issue such high probabilities so soon. CrazyC83 14:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - they had done it twice before, yet neither time did it result in a major outbreak (June 10, 2005 busted and January 2, 2006 was moderate overall) CrazyC83 14:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly-worded MDT for Day 2 (not nearly as rare) as well now. CrazyC83 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, the previous Day 3 MDTs were 35% probs, whereas today's Day 3 is a 45% hatched. I guess it's wait-and-see at this point. —BazookaJoe 20:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes this stand out. If they go HIGH on Day 2, that would be a good tell-tale sign; it has only happened once before and that time it verified. Such requires a 60% hatched. CrazyC83 02:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have our high risk and it looks like the threat will continue into tomorrow in the South...the list for a possible article will begin soon at User:CrazyC83/Outbreak0424 even though we are still a ways away from requiring an article (no major tornado touchdown yet, thankfully). CrazyC83 20:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest tornadic cell is in Mexico. That makes things more difficult to figure out. CrazyC83 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to say that busted ... only 22 reports, and half of them weren't even in the moderate/high risk area. Incubusman27 06:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outside the HIGH area, 9 people died on the Mexican border (6 in Eagle Pass, 3 in Piedras Negras). This may require an article anyway, even though it wasn't really an "outbreak" due to the scattered nature. If the death toll rises any more, I'll quickly create an article just for that storm, even if the whole event treatment is still to be determined. CrazyC83 11:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May[edit]

May 2[edit]

Not a tornado, but a really powerful derecho headed for Dallas-Fort Worth right now... CrazyC83 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread wind damage reported. Waiting for it all to come in - maybe this needs an article? (for the derecho, not the tornadoes) CrazyC83 00:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 4-6[edit]

Caught a tornado warning mentionning that a large tornado was confirmed in south central Kansas (possibly violent).--JForget 02:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing buildings were flattened there by a violent tornado. Hopefully no one killed, but I don't know about that!!! Since it is not an outbreak though, I think any articles should be held off until information comes in. However, if it is as bad as the radar indicated, it might on its own warrant an article if the death toll goes high or if it is an EF5 with even a modest death toll. CrazyC83 03:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They've issued a High risk in the same area hit by the twister.--JForget 13:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that verifies (or even comes close to it), an article will be needed. Maybe someone else already created one? (If so, it should stand) Lucky that only one person died...based on last night alone, it should be called the Greensburg, Kansas Tornado (or Tornado Outbreak) but with another destructive and deadly day today, it should be the Early-May 2007 Tornado Outbreak or even the May 4-6, 2007 Tornado Outbreak. CrazyC83 13:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with May (or Early May) 2007 Tornado Outbreak. If it turns out that Greensburg is the only major tornado, we could change the name later. For now, it looks like today should continue the outbreak.-RunningOnBrains 15:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the article with the current title proposed, but I have no doubt it will need to be renamed considering the threat today, unless it is a bust--JForget 15:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 9[edit]

That tornado with 14 deaths could probably use an article if enough information is found... CrazyC83 15:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June[edit]

June 6-9[edit]

An interesting weather scenario expected today through at least Friday, possibly Saturday. It should start with tornadoes (outbreak if the cap breaks, which is not at all a guarantee) and turn into a massive bow echo with a major derecho possible tonight from about Bismarck/Rapid City east through the Red River (of the North) Valley, into Minnesota and Iowa. CrazyC83 14:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the numbers at this point do not warrant an article, if such is needed there could be an interesting naming issue if this turns into a derecho this evening or overnight. I haven't thought of a potential name... CrazyC83 22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12 tornadoes reported. 79 severe reports. ---CWY2190TC 23:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the cap held in much of the areas possibly affected, although Wisconsin was hit fairly hard (not article-worthy though). The main threat now is straight-line winds. CrazyC83 01:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty impressive wind event today from this system. ---CWY2190TC 23:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. If the reports keep coming in, that part may warrant an article, even though it will be very difficult to assemble due to the extremely widespread nature - the line is over 1,500 miles long! I don't know if this can be called a serial derecho at this point though... CrazyC83 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
193 wind reports. ---CWY2190TC 01:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still going...almost a solid line of severe thunderstorm warnings heading into the northeast. Should start to weaken though as it hits the marine layer near the coast in a few hours. If not already, it should soon qualify as a derecho. -RunningOnBrains 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think of it as a derecho unless the damage or wind reports suggest winds of at least 75 mph (120 km/h) along at least part of the track. The SPC has used the term before for much smaller events though (once on May 30 for a bow echo in Oklahoma, which didn't do a whole lot of damage). CrazyC83 15:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

193 reports in the US only but add Ontario and Quebec and you may double or more the total. Toronto, Hamilton and London were hammered with the winds and possible tornadoes in some areas. Probably the worst hit areas for the outbreak today was those areas as over 100 000 lost power in addition to the damage. Ottawa got pretty good (not as bad as the rest of the province) as the line briefly weakened (before 8PM) before firing back with tornado warnings for areas east of the city. Here's a story from Toronto's City TV [4]. Next to be hit by the line, Montreal based on the storm detector here and it's quite nasty [5].--JForget 01:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

208 reports now. And as you said, thats just the US. ---CWY2190TC 01:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Environment Canada should put up a map like that and If they have done that, the number of wind reports would have been impressive. They are quite bad for storm archiving and stuff like that--JForget 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a possible article, what would the name be? June 2007 Ohio Valley derecho? Then you have the tornadoes in the Upper Midwest yesterday. June 7-8 2007 Severe Weather Outbreak? ---CWY2190TC 01:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hum not sure if the Montreal to West Virginia line is considered a derecho looks broken up in several small lines and clusters, although earlier in the day I almost though the line that came through London, and then Toronto and Hamilton was one--JForget 01:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really that important anyway. But 226 wind reports and climbing quick. Could reach 300. ---CWY2190TC 01:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
263 US reports now. Right now I don't think an article is quite warranted, without the high number of very high-end wind reports and no known deaths (from the entire severe weather outbreak - tornadoes, wind and hail). The line stretched all the way to Texas and significant damage reports as far south as Tennessee, meaning a regional qualifier was impossible. Could this be the longest serial derecho (if that is what it is) ever recorded though? CrazyC83 14:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking through the SPC archives and the days that match for the derechos and I haven't found anything near 263 wind reports for a day. As for the 3 day storm totals: 21 reported tornadoes, 442 (7) wind reports, 168 (8) hail reports. ---CWY2190TC 15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EC only described it as a squall line, not a bow echo nor a derecho.--JForget 00:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is because most derecho events with articles were progressive or hybrid derechos, not squall line/serial derechos. Those affect a much smaller area. An article would be very difficult to assemble due to the fact that it was such a large area. CrazyC83 04:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) For your information - see http://www.crh.noaa.gov/grb/?n=070607 on results of the outbreak in NE Wisconsin. Yeah its a part of the whole, but it's seems significant enough. 1 EF3, 1 EF2 and 3 smaller ones (EF0?) and images of the two larger twisters, their paths and and detailed information of the damage and cost. It might not be an article of its own, but it could help justify an article for the entire outbreak itself. • master_sonTalk - Edits 22:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five tornadoes in mostly rural areas and no fatalities does not equal an article. Maybe if one was EF5, but that would require considerable discussion. A somewhat similar event happened in the Central Plains on June 4, 2005. CrazyC83 23:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't talking about WI alone, but the same, you're right 8) master sonT - C 00:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 22-23[edit]

First violent tornado in Canada since 1987. F4 hit Elie, Manitoba according to EC. [6] I wouldn't create an article for it though (unless an outbreak happens today) since the damage was only to a few houses (thank God!). CrazyC83 22:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storm chasers had another field day in MB today. Lots more info should be coming out from them, media, and other outlets soon. Evolauxia 04:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least it appears all the big ones missed real populated areas. (There aren't many large communities in Manitoba outside the Winnipeg area; only five other cities have over 10,000 people) Had that Friday tornado been 25 miles to the east it would have been devastating... CrazyC83 19:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[7] The Elie tornado has just be recently upgraded to an F5, the first official one in Canada and the first unofficial one in quite a while.--JForget 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that. Too bad information is scarce on the other tornadoes (I am sure the next day they were stronger than F3), since a decent article could be made with that. I'm not sure if I agree with the F5 rating, as it didn't look quite as bad as Greensburg... CrazyC83 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July[edit]

July 3-4[edit]

Just added up a tornado in China [8] that killed 14 yesterday (after seeing it in the Portal Current Events section (as I added the news about the 6 soldiers killed in Afghanistan). This may meet the criteria for an article, although someone else can do it if more info is found, as probably an article may not add more then what it is there.--JForget 19:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14 deaths certainly warrants an article if enough information can be found. CrazyC83 18:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-July[edit]

Talk about slow right now! While there have been SLGT risks almost every day (as is normal for July), it seems the atmosphere doesn't want to bring down much! I guess we'll have to wait for the tropics to become active, or the patterns to change in the Northern Plains and Great Lakes (where most non-tropical summer outbreaks are). Of course, a major derecho - which can happen out of nowhere this time of year - can have embedded tornadoes as well. CrazyC83 04:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August[edit]

August 3[edit]

Was the storms this morning in Quebec, Maine and New Brunswick part of a derecho? I'm mentionning this because there have been extensive damage from Quebec City to the Maine/New Brunswick border and the line of storms were moving at close to 100 km/h and looked like a bow-shaped line/cluster. Storms were in Quebec City at 5 AM, the Eastern Townships at 7 AM, and in Maine at around 9 AM before entering NB at around 10 AM. There were no tornadoes but some were warnings popped out in Maine--JForget 02:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 8[edit]

Can someone look at this report and see if they are describing one or two tornadoes? It sounds to me like they hint at two tornadoes, one EF2 and one EF1, but it never definatively says.

-RunningOnBrains 22:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just as confused as you are. I think there were two tornadoes based on how that was worded. CrazyC83 23:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same problem I ran into when writing skipping tornado. It seems some meteorologists just don't care about the actual definition of the word tornado.-RunningOnBrains 00:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the heat wave is certainly contributing to all this mess, although not related to the New York, this derecho in Missouri looks quite severe with more tornadoes possibly. [9]JForget 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bow echo broke down pretty fast though...there have been several that have tried to form the last couple days (including this morning in PA) but they break down before turning into real derechos, and there haven't really been much in the way of high-end reports (a bunch of 60-70 mph wind reports does not make a derecho IMO). As for the article on the NYC tornado, I do think it should be kept simply because it hit a major city (although not downtown). I didn't think about creating it, but it is good enough to be kept. As for the heat wave, it is definitely the trigger for the severe weather roughly between I-70 and I-80. CrazyC83 00:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 23[edit]

It may not be to be posted but I've caught this on the CNN videos about an extremely rare tornado that was caught on tape in Bogota, Colombia. I don't about tornado frequencies in Colombia but they look to be quite rare in that country. [10] --JForget 18:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 24[edit]

Exciting day in mid-Michigan today. I'm still trying to get confirmation and more information on the Vermontville storm that did what may be a small amount of EF5 damage. If rated as such (and given NWS practice this year, that seems unlikely), it'd be the first F5/EF5 in Michigan since 1975... on a personal note, nothing gets the blood pumping like waking up from a nap to hear the sirens firing for a tornado eight miles north of you (I'm in Howell). Rdfox 76 23:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is very possible. However, even that is not always article-worthy if it is on a single house (although perhaps the Chicagoland derecho yesterday is article-worthy if combined up?) CrazyC83 02:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean to imply it needed its own article, just noting the damage level reported. However, looking at the video embedded in this page at WILX-TV's website, it's probably EF3 or EF4 damage, assuming they confirm it was a tornado. Rdfox 76 04:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added: More information and better video footage, [11]. NWS Grand Rapids confirming it was a tornado, but not a rating beyond "preliminary wind speed estimates in excess of 130 mph" here; NWS Detroit/Pontiac's preliminary report for their part of the tornado event is posted here. Rdfox 76 04:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, rewrote 8-24 based on information available this morning. Preliminary NWS reports show total of eight tornadoes across Michigan today, a large outbreak by Michigan standards, but not enough to warrant a separate article, particularly given that the strongest has a preliminary rating of "EF2 or EF3," and early warnings resulted in no deaths and only five injuries connected to the storms. Rdfox 76 12:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September[edit]

September 30-October 1[edit]

  • I know Henry Margusity always tries to boost up any severe threat, but seems we may see a significant outbreak coming this weekend over the middle Plains and that the Slight risk has been posted by the NWS, while Margusity had pretty much slammed them for not putting a Moderate Risk without waiting to see if the perfect conditions for a significant tornado outbreak will be met. Although, we will see what will happen.JForget 01:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put up brief mention on that, we got a few tornadoes including one mean long-tracker that seemed to miss populated areas. Looking like a low-topped supercell event today... CrazyC83 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October[edit]

October 17-19[edit]

Major outbreak perhaps? The numbers increased out of nowhere! CrazyC83 14:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. A Day Three MDT forecast is usually a good sign something big's gonna happen, but I don't know for certain. I'll be sure to keep an eye on my regional weather on Thursday, since the MDT zone comes close to my location, but I don't expect anything too big up here. Rdfox 76 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa listening to Margusity today and Severe weather possible all the way to central Quebec possibly and looking at Day 4 on the SPC, the 30% risk of severe weather is all the way to northern New York, which means that at least a slight risk perhaps a moderate risk, may go all the way up there and perhaps Quebec and Ontario. This has been quite a while that severe weather is possible that far north--JForget 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The latest GFS suggests the FOCAL POINT on Friday could be northern New York/eastern Ontario...but we have two long days to get through first. BTW, of the five past Day 3 MDT risks, three of them busted. CrazyC83 19:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's now the 17th, and not only do we still have the MDT risk in about the same place as was forecast yesterday for today, it's 8AM ET and we've already got a couple of good lines of storms moving through severe thunderstorm and tornado watches to the west of the MDT area. And the Day 2 MDT zone is now far larger than the Day 3 MDT zone was yesterday. In fact, the WSO GRR Hazardous Weather Outlook for today says that "a severe weather outbreak is expected across southern lower Michigan" tomorrow. The only thing that makes me wonder if the computers have gone nuts is that the high is only forecast to be around 70F in the MDT zone tomorrow, which seems rather low for such a high probability of severe weather. Still, potential for something big is definitely here. Rdfox 76 12:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MDT has been extended eastward for today, although no signs of going up to a HIGH yet. The temperatures won't be super-high but still more than enough for an outbreak; we could see dewpoints above 60F as far north as northern Ontario. CrazyC83 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since two fatalities occured I've already started an article in a sub-user page User:JForget/October 2007 North America Tornado Outbreak and I'm allowing the users to do updats if necessary before it will be moved into mainspace once we are confident that one of the criterias will be met. --JForget 15:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. The Pensacola tornado (downtown hit on an urban area, was it strong enough?) may warrant an article itself though...but we still have a ways to go as the tornado numbers do not warrant an article though. CrazyC83 17:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's potential for a pretty decent little tornado outbreak in central Lower Michigan today; we've already had two tornado warnings issued in northern Lower Michigan, there's severe thunderstorm warnings cropping up all OVER up there, and it's an hour and a half before the area's peak-probability timeframe. Also note that SPC's website seems to be running behind; the local WSO websites posted the Michigan-Indiana watch several minutes before SPC did. (As seems to be normal the last couple of years in Michigan, the first warnings were issued before the watch; it seems that whoever's responsible for issuing watches at SPC right now is having problems with to Lake Michigan.) Rdfox 76 20:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storms are popping up as far north as the Upper Peninsula of Michigan now...and the Ohio Valley is just exploding...maybe an article will be required late this evening, or tomorrow morning if the data comes late... CrazyC83 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably you're right, I or someone else will probably have to move the article to mainspace soon, as we are at 21 - probably tommorrow morning would be the best.--JForget 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes current trends continue. If this slows down considerably soon, an article may not be needed. My suggested location: October 2007 Tornado Outbreak (or Mid-October 2007 Tornado Outbreak if desired). If we get to really big numbers tonight, or if there is a really deadly tornado, it should be moved tonight. CrazyC83 23:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've put North America, considering that maybe Quebec and Ontario may be involved, but that was just preliminary.--JForget 02:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably will be needed. Several bad tornadoes out there. CrazyC83 03:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep i've just moved the article into mainspace, it has at least 40 reports of tornadoes so + 1 confirmed report from the Louisville WLKY 32 live webcast which I've counted and will likely be added in coming hours.--JForget 03:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any details yet, and I'm too busy trying to get information right now, but a mesocyclone that produced confirmed tornadoes in Williamston and Perry, MI, in the past hour and a half is now coming up on radar as having 120 knots of shear. Insane. Rdfox 76 03:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That 120 knot mesocyclone was near Flushing, Michigan at the time; no reports (yet) of a tornado there, but the storm went through a real "party mix" phase shortly after that, with two separate mesocyclones simultaneously(!) and dumping "ping pong ball-sized" hail in that general area, then eventually spawned two reported tornadoes further northeast and eventually wandered off into Lake Huron. Note that this thing was a tornadic supercell for at least six hours. We just don't get storms like that in Michigan! Rdfox 76 12:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The final F-scale tornado[edit]

This is an email that I received from an NWS rep after contacting them about the final tornado to be rated on the Fujita scale:

The Troy Texas tornado that occurred on 1/12/07 will likely be rated as F-0. It happened to occur close to Interstate 35 AND close to a Waco Television station. There is video documentation and numerous photographs of the tornado, which had a subtle radar signature. Some off-duty meteorologists from Oklahoma were on their way down to the national American Meteorological Society meeting in San Antonio and they observed the tornado. Our damage reports indicate a roof was peeled off a house, a damaged barn, and several roofs with shingle damage. No injuries were reported.

This will not be the last tornado to be rated on the old Fujita Scale. The next day, Saturday morning, a tornado rated F-1 occurred in San Marcos TX. See the attached summary of the damage survey conducted by the San Antonio forecast office on 1/13/07.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Greg Patrick, NWS Fort Worth

I think this would be relevant to the scope of this article, no? -RunningOnBrains 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section titles[edit]

I don't think that the section titles should have parenthetical qualifiers such as "January 18 (Europe)"...there is no reason to, this is not an article about US tornadoes, it about all notable 2007 tornadoes. I will be removing these qualifiers, and, if there are duplicate dates, merging them. -RunningOnBrains 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional qualifiers are needed for completely separate events on the same date (usually in different parts of the world). If a US tornado event and a European tornado event happened on the same day, it would say "May 15 (USA)" and "May 15 (Europe)" for instance. That happened on November 7, 2006 (see Tornadoes of 2006#November for an example). They are only used for duplicate dates and not for all international events. CrazyC83 01:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your section-splitting works as well, with the side infoboxes showing they were distinct events. Too bad overseas tornadoes are hard to find significant information on... CrazyC83 01:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado deaths[edit]

Interesting fact: this is the first year since 1997 that there has been a tornado fatality in each of the first five months of the year. Just thought it was an interesting tidbit. -RunningOnBrains 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last month without a US tornado death was October. As well, the current stretch of 36 days without a US tornado fatality is the longest since September 16-November 15, 2006 (61 days). CrazyC83 01:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the worldwide death toll is climbing again...that is very difficult to assemble though as many probably go unreported... CrazyC83 23:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Carson County Tornado Outbreak[edit]

A 67.xxx IP and Ckimpson made this article, but I've tagged it for a merger mostly because it is not enough to meet any criterias for a tornado article. Also, there is no sources for the ratings and I'm not sure also there is an article about the tornadoes in Colorado in July 3, 2007.--JForget 01:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes should not be merged to this article; tornadoes of any consequencee should have their own article. Hmains 18:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the thing; this isn't an outbreak of consequence, dozens of events like this occur every year. It doesn't meet any of the general notability criteria (multiple deaths, 50+ tornadoes, F5 or EF5, unusual circumstances, etc). I support a merge w/deletion of unsourced material. -RunningOnBrains 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Gopher backer 03:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although you are probably aware but Ckimpson and the 67.xxx are sockpuppets of Cgkimpson who was been blocked indefinitely. I'm supporting a merge but considering the history of the user I have an impression these are not correct informations judging the lack of sources--JForget 14:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, some info! As I suspected, this article is partly truth, but mostly a lie. This is not official, but it's the best I've been able to find so far. According to a Kansas news site there were 10 tornadoes on this day, all in Kit Carson County. Except for one EF1, all were rated EF0. Definitely merge the tornadoes into Tornadoes of 2007 and wipe away the rest of the details. [12] Gopher backer 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just redirected the article here considering that it confirms the non-notability of the event. I'm also hesitant to file a sock report since the user did some OR and factual mistakes again.--JForget 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not a bad idea, althought they haven't contributed anything under that name in a couple weeks. Special:Contributions/67.166.58.4 Special:Contributions/Ckimpson. Gopher backer 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 tornadoes with none stronger than EF1 and no deaths is certainly not article-worthy. CrazyC83 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock tags have been placed on all his accounts as clear block evasion, the IP was blocked for 1 year, while CamKimpson is under review for a sockpuppet.JForget 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Most tornadoes form in the U.S."[edit]

I think this is very subjective. If looking at per km2, i think the UK has the most tormadoes. I also do not think this, or rather these sets of, article(s) represent a worlwide view. It also seems to say that it hardly happens anywhere else. So therefore:

Simply south 16:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Although a little unusual for the number, see here for UK on Monday.

While that is true, the heaviest reporting takes place there, and the US is far larger than the UK. Feel free to add other sections for other areas (remember to put regional modifiers on each section if there are multiple events on the same day). CrazyC83 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Most," in this case, isn't all that clear, but it's not subjective--more than half the reported total number of tornadoes worldwide occur in the U.S. As cited in the main tornado article, the Netherlands has the highest frequency per unit land area, with the U.K. second; the U.S.'s frequency is greatly reduced by the sheer size of the nation. For example, Alaska, with a climate that makes tornadoes almost unheard of, is almost seven times the size of the U.K. all by itself. As also cited in the main article, the U.S. sees an average of 1,200 tornadoes per year; the U.K. sees an average of 33 per year. Also see tornado climatology for a more detailed breakdown. Rdfox 76 17:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little confused as to what you mean is true and why you compared Alaska. Simply south 16:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is true is that there are more tornadoes reported, per year, in the US than in the rest of the world combined. The reason that I mentioned Alaska is to explain why the US's frequency per square kilometer is lower than the UK's--the US just has so much space that hardly ever gets tornadoes that it drops the frequency greatly. When you're saying that "most" of anything occur somewhere, it's about the percentage of the total that occur there, not the frequency per unit area. Rdfox 76 00:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In 2006 up to 630 tornadoes occured over European Territory. The Netherlands and the UK have a high frequency per unit land area, but countries like Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Denmark or even Russia have also high numbers of tornado frequency per year. In 2006, 112 tornadoes occured over Germany, 52 over Poland, up to 75 over Russia (European parts only)... . I've tried to add some European tornadoes in this list here, but this information is "going under" within all of the US-tornado reports. So I opened a European Tornado Overview: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornados_in_Europa_%28Jahr_2007%29 . Surely, only the German version is available at present, but I would be very thankful if we can expand it for other languages. Thilo Kühne 23:58, 05 December 2007 (CET)

Images[edit]

I think we should add images (satellite, radars, tracks and damage) in this article to make it better. Since the images of NOAA can be put without problem, I can we should add those, unless most here object to that.--JForget 23:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a good idea, if you can find them. Apparently, my references for the August 24 mid-Michigan tornadoes were recently bumped off of the NWS servers--and with them, the track maps for those storms. We don't want to overload the article with images, though. One or two images of the most notable storm from the significant outbreaks would be enough, I'd say. Rdfox 76 12:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC) EDIT: OK, apparently the Eaton County EF3's report is still up where I linked it from, and after a little digging with NOAA's search engine, I found the report on the long-track Livingston-Genesee-Oakland County EF2 and other DTX-area tornadoes. I've updated the link to that one; if you want to consider images from those pages, make sure you confirm which ones are NOAA-generated and which ones were created by others who might have copyright on them! Rdfox 76 12:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list?[edit]

I've been doing some formatting work on the article (though there is still quite a bit more to do) and thought that it could possibly become a featured list at some point in the future. If there are people available to collaboratively make the push for FL, then please comment here! Kakofonous (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection for European Tornadoes?[edit]

Due to the number of tornadoes (at least 60) and the ever growing size of this article, I think we should make a subsection for European tornadoes as this article is set up almost specifically for tornadoes in the U.S. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might work, Tornadoes of 2007 in Europe or something. About 80% of major tornado events take place in (or mostly in) the US, but not all of them do. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to get the tornado infobox to not have the (US) beside tornadoes caused, damages, and fatalities? That's one of the few problems with laying it out there may be...otherwise, just getting images would be a minor problem. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late March 2007 Tornado Outbreak Sequence[edit]

The Late-March 2007 Tornado Outbreak should be re-named as a tornado outbreak sequence as tornadoes took place every day from the 23 to the 31. Originally, the article had it beginning on the 28 but there were several tornadoes in the 4-5 days before hand, about 30 to 40, which I think would qualify this as an outbreak sequence Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good point, but I actually think that if anything the article should be trimmed to include just March 28. Here is the data I could find for these days. March 28th is obviously article worthy, but the rest of the days are not IMO, with possible exception of March 23 because of the relatively high number of tornadoes and the 2 deaths.

3/23 (2 deaths)

  • F0 = 14
  • F1 = 1
  • F2 = 4

3/24

  • F0 = 7
  • F1 = 1

3/25

  • F0 = 4

3/26

  • F0 = 0

3/27

  • F0 = 3
  • F1 = 1

3/29

  • F0 = 2
  • F1 = 1
  • F2 = 1

3/30

  • F0 = 11
  • F1 = 2

3/31

  • F0 = 3
  • F1 = 4
  • F2 = 1

Gopher backer (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Tornado[edit]

Didin't a tornado touch down in Minnesota on Thursday, September 20th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.43.200 (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, an EF0 did touchdown on the 20th. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F5/EF5[edit]

There was only one F5, the Manitoba one, but two EF5's, the Manitoba one and the Kansas one. Cause the EF5 one in Kansas had winds of 330 km/hr (205 mph), making it a low end F4. Yet the scale chart seems to say that there was only one EF5? UltimateDarkloid (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tornadoes of 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Tornadoes of 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tornadoes of 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tornadoes of 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornadoes_of_2007&oldid=1209939561"