Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes

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

The 2020 Sandy Hook - Purvis EF4[edit]

Hello. I'm more experienced now, so i entered into this page talk. I found a good candidate for an Possible EF5 damage list, the April 19, 2020 Sandy Hook, Mississippi EF4 tornado. This tornado obliterated an anchor-bolted home and debarked trees in nearby field across the road. However, the higher rating wasn't applied due to the foundation that was not swept clean and debris wasn't strewn far away. This was a note from NWS surveyors, which is means that this tornado has suspected by surveyors to be EF5. Алексеев Н. (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The fact that the foundation was not swept clean is specific evidence against an EF5 rating. That tornado should not be added here. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 20:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hollister tornado[edit]

Making a note here to clear up any confusion. I think everybody agrees that the Hollister tornado near the KFDR radar on April 30 was much stronger over a rural area. However, winds estimated by traditional radar cannot be used as the basis for adding a tornado to this list. Winds from a traditional radar are not reliable estimates of strength in and of themselves. This list is for tornadoes that have concrete evidence they may have been EF5 strength, such as a ratings dispute among experts or mobile radar (DOW, RaXPol). wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: While the Greenwood Springs tornado is listed, the discussion about radar imagery is supplemental, not the main focus. The main focus is on the observed tree damage that tornado caused. In fact, that paper notes the problem with inferring strength based on radar winds: "This study highlights some of the challenges in relating tornado intensity to radar observations and in assessing tornado damage intensity, particularly once substantial debris has been lofted into the vortex. While close-range observations from the GWX radar exist, comparison of the radar observations to tree damage is complicated by the fact that the radar-inferred vertical wind profile of the tornado differed substantially from the observed peak-intensity damage, despite some of the radar observations being collected at an estimated mean beam height below 50 m ARL." Tucker is not stating in his tweet that this is a potential EF5, just that radar has very strong winds aloft. Please undo your edit. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah here is the discussion. Hollister was noted, by RS media, that NEXRAD did measure a gate-to-gate of about 260 mph. The rating isn't disputed, but it passed the 201 mph criteria we unintendedly set for the possible EF5-intensity list, as long as reliable source(s) mention it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The gate-to-gate measurement was not surface level, NEXRAD is not a reliable indicator of possible EF5 strength, and multiple tornadoes every year pass that threshold in NEXRAD radar. They are not worthy of addition here. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DOW measurements are not surface level. I was edit-conflicted while typing this, but to note, Hollisters NEXRAD measurement was stronger & closer to the surface than Harlan's DOW measurements days earlier. This is a circumstance were RS stated a tornado had X winds measured by radar at X height, which happens to be stronger and faster than other radar measurements on the list days earlier and years earlier. There is no difference. I will tell you why other NEXRAD-measured 201+ mph wind tornadoes are not on this list: RS do not mention them as being 201+ mph on radar. If NEXRAD isn't allowed, then we need to remove all radar-based additions by RS, since NEXRAD and DOW are both U.S.-based radars. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just found an article from KLAW talking about the Hollister tornado. "Meteorologist Eric Graves stated that based on these tornadoes, the EF scale needs to be amended to not just measure based on damage. They stated that "one of the most powerful tornadoes on Earth occurred just east of Hollister, Oklahoma."" Debate solved as we have further RS talking about the 260 mph gate-to-gate winds & a meteorologist saying it was one of the strongest tornadoes ever. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Debate is not solved. The list's criteria is purposely stringent to avoid situations like this where any random meteorologist can make a claim that X tornado was the strongest on record. The criteria for this page, as listed on the page, is specifically a) The US Government, b) DOW, c) tornado experts, or d) meteorological research institutions. Meteorologist Eric Graves, storm chaser Adam Lucio, or TV met Tucker Antico do not fit that criteria. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate: Meteorologists, subject-experts in the field of meteorology, state on a secondary reliable source that a tornado was measured by NEXRAD, a government owned and operated radar, to have winds measured in the EF5-range & that it was one of the strongest tornadoes of all time. Yeah, no. Your reasoning does not make sense to remove it. If you want to be a stickler for the "rules", then I would say WP:IAR and listen to Wikipedia verifiability policy over "rules" which have yet to actually consensus, since my last 2-attempts to get a consensus ended with almost no participation, which could even be interpreted as a silent consensus. But still, no clear consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting to add a tornado based on a method the National Weather Service does not consider an accurate way to rate tornado intensity, even though they own and operate that said radar. That overrides whatever commentary a local television meteorologist has to say. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 22:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My turn to ask now: What is your direct source, from the National Weather Service, indicating NEXRAD is unreliable. Since you do not consider RS to be viable for comments, I will not consider it either. Please send a .gov source from NWS saying NEXRAD is unreliable, otherwise your whole statement and reasoning, to me at least, will be based on original research and will be, as far as I am concerned, invalid on Wikipedia for this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tornado was confirmed by the NWS to be 300+ MPH estimate, if NWS isn't a reliable source I don't know what is MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not a thing that happened lol. What was confirmed by NWS Norman: "This tornado produced EF1 damage, although it was likely much stronger. The tornado was first observed by a storm chaser around 932 pm. The tornado moved east through very rural areas producing occasional power pole, tree and outbuilding damage. The tornado turned northeast and damaged two farmsteads about 6 miles east- northeast of Hollister. The tornado then turned west-northwest and dissipated about two miles northeast of where it began." wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 22:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible EF5 Intensity. The keyword here is intensity, we're talking about wind, not damage. This tornado was a major disappointment in terms of damage, but wind speed wise, it was insane. There is NEXRAD radar of that thing looking like a hurricane because of how strong the rotation is, pulling in the things around it. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also confirmed 260+ mph wind speeds, aka an EF5 of n terms of speed, not damage MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware. We are still attempting to draw some invisible line from "it was likely much stronger" to being a worthy addition to this page, however. That line does not exist. It could have been EF2, EF3, or EF4 intensity as well. We will never know. The Robert Lee tornado on May 3 had an equally impressive presentation on radar with an eye (I tracked both). That one was just assigned EF1 intensity as well. This page is not a source of rampant speculation about what strength a tornado could have been based on NEXRAD radar. It would spiral out of control with how many extreme signatures we see on conventional radar each year, many of which have winds well above 200 mph aloft. Winds aloft is not how tornadoes are rated though. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 22:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good point. Also yea, tracking this thing live was absolutely insane, it looked like Hurricane Katrina just randomly popped up on my radar and had the weirdest movements I've ever seen MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Eric Graves and why do I care what they have to say about a tornado in Oklahoma? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you and why do I care what you have to say on Wikipedia? They are a meteorologist quoted by a secondary reliable source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are literally a meteorologist. Just like James Spann, who I'm sure you'd say is reliable. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MemeGod27 I may trust James Spann, but he's no reason to add a tornado to this list, and nor is any Tom, Dick, or Harry with a meteorology degree. There are specific criteria for adding a tornado to this list, and unfortunately none of them are met for this tornado. And @WeatherWriter, I would urge you to not let this become personal. Maybe take a breath and step away for a while. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC
Nah, no need for a step back. Discussion is over anyway with a clear consensus to exclude it. So, now officially per consensus: No tornado may be added to the list if the statement of possible EF5 intensity comes from NEXRAD data, including if this statement comes from a meteorologist. Effective per community consensus, NEXRAD-measured EF5 intensity tornadoes are prohibited from the list. There, that is exactly what the community consensus has determined and I stated it. Even if NWS themselves stated NEXRAD measured EF5 winds, we shall not add it per this consensus, because, as several people have stated, NEXRAD is not reliable whatsoever, therefore, any statements would automatically bring into question the clear community consensus that NEXRAD should not be involved on this list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again you have demonstrated the behavior of unilaterally supporting one side of an argument only to have consensus form against you and then proceed to drastically swing all the way to the other side with unnecessary drastic statements and actions. This has been repeated behavior out of you in discussions and this type of behavior has no place on Wikipedia. United States Man (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? You want me to remain in opposition, despite me understanding there is a consensus against my idea and proposal? Seriously, I just stated the discussion/debate was over and that I conceded. I am now dropping out and backing away from the discussion, as there is a consensus. Do I still think I am right? Yes, absolutely. However, consensus trumps my idea. No sir, I did not "switch sides". I simply conceded. Please do not focus on me and focus on the content. You trying to bring my actions into this to twist it is wrong. Now, I am dropping this and shall be unsubscribing from the discussion so I will no longer receive notifications regarding it and I do not wish to be pinged in here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • One last comment: I really do need to learn to not try to make unilateral comments or rationales. I have struckthrough my statement below. As far as I am concerned, there is a consensus to exclude the Hollister tornado, however concensus can change. I am out of this discussion now. Peace y'all! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sections like these run the risk of being rife with speculation. We really should be limiting entries in this section to high-quality secondary analyses of quality-controlled data published in reliable sources (with largely unassailable repute, such as established academic journal) that explicitly refer to tornadic intensity exceeding the EF5 threshold, rather than speculative commentary on preliminary data readouts. The onus is on reliable sources to make the rigorous assessment that some tornado is potentially EF5 intensity, not us. I agree with wxtrackercody in affirming the stringent criteria § Possible F5/EF5 intensity demands, and none of the sources raised thus far rise to the level of supporting the inclusion of the Hollister tornado in this list. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 23:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We never actually set the criteria for the list. Last time I tried, it gathered nearly no actual responses. We probably should hold a discussion to set the criteria for the list once and for all though. Clearly, it isn't the basic Wikipedia policy (since WP:RS alone isn't valid), so we need a discussion similar to what set WP:TornadoCriteria to se this criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A little late but just wanted to add my opposition to this inclusion and any similar on the grounds of radar not being an accurate nor reliable way to estimate tornado intensity, partially due to the science of the near-surface environment not always correlating mesocyclone strength to a tornado. Mesocyclone sampled by radar does not equal tornado intensity. United States Man (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_F5_and_EF5_tornadoes&oldid=1223982280"