Talk:Tornado records

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Mid-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Tornado was copied or moved into Tornado records with this edit on 22:24, November 14, 2009. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

older entries

I removed

Greatest Pressure Drop

"However, the pressure instrument was inside a vehicle which experienced winds greater than 50 metres per second (110 mph) and therefore this measurement was likely contaminated substantially by dynamic effects."

This statement contained errors of fact and conclusion. Most importantly, the instrument was mounted outside the vehicle, not inside. The Vaisala pressure sensor was installed inside an R.M. Young static pressure head and the entire package was mounted on a mast on the vehicle's roof. The sensor was tested extensively after the event by the authors and the manufacturer and found to be in perfect working order. Therefore this could not be a cause of contamination. In fact, nowhere does the article, or any literature to follow, demonstrate the reading was "contaminated substantially." On the contrary, the article describes modeling conditions under which such a reading is possible via single cell vortex breakdown. Blair, Scott F.; D.R. Deroche, A.E. Pietrycha (2008). "In Situ Observations of the 21 April 2007 Tulia, Texas Tornado". Electronic Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology 3 (3): 1–27. Amaglioc 17:14, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I removed

"Costliest thunderstorm: May 16, 1995 during the "Mayfest" in Fort Worth, Texas. A hailstorm with hailstones the size of grapefruits hit the city causing $2 billion in damage.

The list is about tornadoes, and I could find no mention anywhere that a tornado was involved in this event. Joyous 05:27, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention it isn't even accurate as the most destructive (non-tornadic? non-tornadic damage?) thunderstorm and it is very difficult to obtain all the damage costs from thunderstorms compared to tornadoes. Evolauxia 23:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My deletions

Biggest single tornado: During the Super Outbreak of April 3, 1974, one tornado left a 5 mile wide damage path near Frankfort, Kentucky.

This appears to be Tetsuya Theodore Fujita's Super Outbreak tornado #54, which is documented as 800 yards wide in Thomas Grazulis' Significant Tornadoes 1680-1991. However, in the various maps shown in this reference, the path of #54 seems to be exceptionally wide as it died out - significantly more than other 800 y tornadoes in the Super Outbreak, although not likely to be five miles wide. If someone can clearly document a wider pathlength, please cite a reference.

I would shy away from a 'biggest single tornado' entry in any case, since methods of estimation of tornado size aren't especially reliable.

That entry is definitely erroneous; and yes there are great problems in determining "widest" tornado. It is no longer listed as a record due to various issues. A decent candidate is the Hallam, Nebraska tornado of May 22, 2004 which was found to have a 2.5 mile wide damage path by an expert survey team. Evolauxia 23:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wilber/Hallam Nebraska Tornado is the largest, according to both[1] and [2].

Neither of which are authoritative sources (such sources are listed in the Hallam tornado outbreak article) and it doesn't change the very real difficulties involved in path width determination, but Hallam is a solid candidate.

Slowest ground speed: Less than 10 mph (16 km/h) during the Central Texas tornado outbreak.

Ground speeds of essentially zero for tornadoes have been noted in the past. According to Grazulis, the June 2, 1929 Hardtner, Kansas tornado was observed to be nearly stationary at several places in its path. Its parent cloud was stationary for an hour.

Yes, many tornadoes have been stationary part or all of their lives, so it should not be listed. Evolauxia 23:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree because it never happens and you’re not a weather channel person so stop talking if you’re not about the channel person because they have all the data not you 2600:8807:A04:3D00:EC41:4BED:3A3B:BFCF (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verification

Most significant coincidence: A small town in Kansas called Codell was hit by a tornado on the exact same date three years straight! A tornado hit on May 20, 1916, 1917, and 1918. The U.S. gets 100,000 storms a year; only 1% produces a tornado. The odds of this coincidence occurring again is practically infinitesimal to nonexistent.

Yes, according to Grazulis. Such an occurrence is extremely unlikely - again according to Grazulis, the average frequency for a tornado strike at any particular place in Kansas is once per 2,060 years. The chance of three strikes in successive years on the same day in (relatively) the same place is very low. But the most likely place for it to happen is Oklahoma, followed by Kansas.

Reference - Thomas P. Grazulis; Significant Tornadoes: 1860 - 1991; Environmental Films; ISBN 1879362007 (hardcover, 1993)

Catbar (Brian Rock) 02:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is worthy of mention but I renamed the subtitle. Evolauxia 23:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No fatal tornadoes in Canada during the 1990's?

The fact that Canada didn't had a killer tornado in the 1990's is not true. I checked in La Presse's archives and there has been one fatal F2 tornado in St-Charles east of Montreal in July 1994 - which killed a local doctor. The article is in French and not accessible by Internet but here's the source : M-F Leger, "Deja six tornades et l'annee n'est pas fini", June 11th 1994, La Presse, Montreal, p.A1 ---> The translation should be : "Already six tornadoes and the year is not over"--JForget 19:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Path Lengths

In accordance with the following website [3], the longest tornado path was 293 miles. A weather book I own confirms this measurement.

That is definitively wrong. The 293-mile path length for the Mattoon-Charleston, Illinois Tornado of May 26, 1917 was listed as the longest tornado decades ago but was found to be a tornado family. The longest tornado path is fairly indisputably the Tri-State Tornado where no breaks in damage were found; even in possible cases where differing members of a tornado family and downbursts masked damage, it still would hold the record. Evolauxia 23:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Rochelle tornado, September 1669 is said to have travelled over 400km (maybe even more, as it possibly began as a waterspout over Bay of Biscay). However, it is entirely possiblethat it was a family of tornadoes. --Mikoyan21 15:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Winds

I edited the wind speeds to agree with the Doppler on Wheels website [4] and with the refereed publication on the Red Rock tornado. Hebrooks87 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Hebrooks87[reply]

Narrowest F5 tornado

I was wondering if anyone knows what was the "smallest" F5 tornado in width, I know I saw at a page ([5] the Oakfield tornado was only 100 yards wide when it was an F5, although there were probably one or two that may have been smaller then that when they were AT F5 strength. --JForget 01:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas May 2003 F5?

Is there a citation for the statement that one of the F4s in Kansas in May 2003 was considered to be an F5 before being rated F4? There were two F4s that month in Kansas (Crawford County and Leavenworth/Wyandotte County). I don't know the thought process of the Quick Response Team survey on Crawford County, but my office mate was on the other one that assigned the rating and no one on the team considered it an F5. It had marginal F4 damage [6]. Hebrooks87 13:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Hebrooks87[reply]

I believe there was some talk about the NWS Springfield rating the Franklin/Girard, KS tornado an F5, but they didn't do it for whatever reason. However, they did say that it was high-end F4 [7]. Incubusman27 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the issue was that a house had been totally oblitterated and debris scattered, however, it was downwind of a lumberyard, and since the flying lumber likely did most of the damage, it was downgraded to an F4. -Running On Brains 07:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Deadliest tornado of the 80's"

Umm ok why are the 80's so special?? Were there no deadly tornadoes in the 70's? Or even the 60's for that mater?DPM 21:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly were deadly tornadoes in every decade preceding and following the 1980s, but the '80s are considered by some to have been a relative low point in tornado activity, especially violent activity - and violent tornadoes have historically caused the most deaths on average. However, the Saragosa event of 1987 was far from being a sole outlier in an otherwise lull. Other major events of the 1980s included the 1989 Huntsville, AL tornado, which killed 21; the 1985 outbreak in OH and PA which was the worst on record for that region; and the 1984 Carolinas outbreak which included several F4 tornadoes and caused 57 deaths. Perhaps a list of deadliest tornadoes by year or by decade would be better, and would show death toll trends better than highlighting one event from one decade. CapeFearWX 03:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence?

A tornado occurring at a specific date and time doesnt seem to be much of a coincidence. I'm sure if you look hard enough you could find one at 12:34 on 5/6 of one year...it's just not that spectacular of an occurrance. Plus, it was 11:11 PM, which is 23:11 in many countries. I'm going to remove it. -Runningonbrains 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most damaging

The SPC top 10 damage table has some serious problems and shouldn't be used. For starters, it only goes back to the beginning of Storm Data. Second, the use of the central values in the damage category that were used up through 1995 creates some really odd values, given the breadth of the categories (e.g., 50 million-500 million is designated as 250 million.) This is especially troublesome given that some of the cases actually have damage amounts in the text entry in Storm Data (the paper copies, not necessarily the online approximation.) As an example of this problem, combined with another problem, the first entry, with $1,250,000,000 in 1973 dollars is the Conyers, GA tornado. In the paper version of Storm Data, the damage is given as $89M for the tornado. This gets translated using the central value as $250M, nearly tripling the damage from the reported value. In addition, for that case, the tornado hit a total of 5 counties. In the online Storm Data, each county is credited as having $250M in damage (the central value of the class). When it gets taken from the county-based description back to the total track, that results in a total of $1,250M compared to the actual reported damage from the text description of $89M, a factor of 14 overestimate. On the other hand, the Wichita Falls tornado gets underestimated since the reported damage was $400M.

This doesn't even take into account the fact that inflation-adjustment is probably not the correct adjustment to make in any event. Wealth adjustment is probably more representative. A better reference to the history of damage, starting with the historical work on collecting damage estmates done by Tom Grazulis, is Brooks and Doswell (2001), which gives both inflation and wealth adjustment numbers going back to 1890. From that, the Oklahoma City tornado is the most damaging tornado when an inflation adjustment is applied, and 11th most damaging when wealth-adjustment is applied. 1896 St. Louis, is the damaging tornado by that metric, in US history. Hebrooks87 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Why is that even on the SPC site? Edwards or whomever should know better than publicizing data in that way. Evolauxia 07:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had no idea the data was so inaccurate. I assumed an SPC page would be accurate enough. Will correct using the source given. -Running On Brains 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the newly updated damages list pretty well matches that found in Grazulis' newer book, The Tornado: Nature's Ultimate Windstorm (ISBN # 0-8061-3258-2). The one discrepancy is that Grazulis ranks the Omaha, NE tornado of 1975 lower, placing it between the St. Louis and Xenia events in adjusted damage. His listing of approx. $111 million in (unadjusted) damages comes from a 1976 article in the Omaha Sunday World-Herald which apparently estimated the final damage total at $111,234,732. At any rate, both that total and the one on this page are much lower than the $500 million to $1 billion estimates that used to be quoted for that storm (including on the SPC page!). Anyway, glad to see the updates. CapeFearWX 03:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the name of Wesley F. Unruh to Wesley P. Unruh in reference 6. I knew the man (who has recently died). However the citation is correct. The error is in the journal. Is it more appropriate to cite the correct name or the correct article? contribs) 12:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joplin Vs. St Louis

Why is the Joplin tornado listed as the deadliest in Missouri history? Should the 1896 St. Louis tornado take that title with its 255 deaths versus Joplin's ~160? Or were a significant number of the St. Louis Tornado's fatalities in Illinois? TornadoLGS (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The JLN total exceeds the confirmed count from the Missouri side in 1896, which was 137 in STL (with 118 more in ESTL). It is likely that in 1896 scores more were killed and weren't counted for various reasons, most notably that many people living on boats or the shoreline floated downriver and were also often poor, who tend to be undercounted. The Joplin tornado is exceptional in being the deadliest tornado since 1947. High death tolls occurred every few years til 1953, after which nothing of that order occurred until 2011 (and JLN was an exceptional event in an exceptional year). Evolauxia (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1999-2010, nothing over $250 million?

I took a look at thee NCDC data seems to contradict the statement that no tornadoes between 1999 and 2012 caused more than $250 million worth of damage. It would appear that the database lists county segments for individual tornadoes separately. With that in mind I looked at a few surveys and found that the F4 tornado that hit the Oklahoma city area on May 8, 2003 caused $210 million in damage Cleveland County and $160 million in Oklahoma county for a total of $370 million. The individual pages for these two segments state that they were both part of the same damage path. The details given for the two damage segments state that they were from the same tornado. I realize this doesn't put it in the top 10, but it would make the statement about tornadoes from 1999 to 2010 incorrect. TornadoLGS (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the statement discussed above be removed? TornadoLGS (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is definitely untrue given that three of last years' tornadoes broke $1 billion. Unfortunately we don't have any good up-to-date sources, so we have to do some reference finagling. I can tell you that no tornado from 2000-2010 will come close to breaking the list, especially after last year's three billion dollar tornadoes. But I would be ecstatic if someone could find an up-to-date list from an official source. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 01:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize they wouldn't make the list, but maybe we should change the statement to say no tornado from 2000-2010 broke $400 million? The NCDC storm events archive is down for now, but the Tornado History Project, which uses SPC data, lists the same figure of $370 million for the May 8, 2003 F4.

PS, the 2012 I said there was a typo, I meant to say 2010.

Widest Tornadoes Contestant

During the 1985 tornado outbreak in Pennsylvania there was a F4 in the Moshannon/Sproul State Forest that was at least 2.5 miles wide. Maccoat (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)maccoat[reply]

It may at least be worth a mention, but I've found varying figures on the size of that tornado. The most consistent figure I've found is 2.2 miles. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me to find some sources?Maccoat (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)maccoat[reply]

Semi protection?

It seems the article is getting a steady stream of vandalism from IP users. Is it enough to warrant semi-protection? TornadoLGS (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widest Tornado Record

According to the National Weather Service, the El Reno EF5 tornado of May 31, 2013 was 2.6 miles wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.89.119 (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That probably will be disputed for some time to come, despite all the recent talk about the El Reno storm. Note that the Mulhall, OK tornado of 1999 (see 1999 Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak talk page for citation) was, by some measurements, as much as twice that size. 72.0.15.8 (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit today to the Widest Damage Width section; the Diameter of Maximum Winds figure for the Mulhall, OK tornado was cited as 1600 feet when it was actually 1600 meters (=5200 feet or ~ 1 mile). This is supported in the 1999 Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak page (q.v.), where there is more extensive discussion and citation of the Mulhall storm. Regards, 72.0.15.8 (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new section

I want to get other opinions, but should we have a section titled, "Most documented F5/EF-5 tornadoes in one day", or even "Most documented F5/EF-5 tornadoes in one tornado outbreak"? I think the first one is probably unnessecary, as the max is probably 2-3. The most F5s tornadoes in one outbreak would probably be more noteworthy. But I'd like to get some second opinions. - 1morey July 19, 2013 3:19 PM (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1morey (talk • contribs)

As it turns out most in a day and most in a single outbreak are the same in this case (7 F5 tornadoes on April 3, 1974) which is already mentioned under "Most tornadoes in single 24-hour period" TornadoLGS (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 Costliest Tornadoes

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/damage$.htm as you see its changed so we need to update it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.207.158 (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Largest outbreak in the fall

What is the significance of having the section for the largest tornado outbreak in the fall? It seems to be a rather odd qualifier and I don't think it is necessary. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is rather arbitrary, unless all seasons are included. I'm okay with removal. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 04:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tornado records. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110503214406/http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/sd/sd.html to http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/sd/sd.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EF5 rated tornadoes Disputed by NOAA since 2007?

Why is this a thing? Several EF5s have been confirmed to an absolute certainty since then, especially in 2011, with the last recorded being Moore 2013. Why would NOAA dispute these at all? Are they just stubborn idiots????? Makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:8100:BA0:94CC:E5DC:963E:C450 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some instances where they gave a rating to a tornado that was lower than what other scientists though it warranted, and there was at least one scenario where the reverse happened if I recall correctly. Dustin (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tornado records. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tornado records. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

more for Exceptional coincidences and extra data for others

so for exceptional coincidences , i find Tuscaloosa/Birmingham should be there , a lot of F4/F5 have hit there a lot of times , and St Louis , infact ive read somewhere that i cant find now... about st Louis had it worst then Moore Oklahoma.

there are others that im unsure that should be there but i have been wondering about it... like Lazbuddie, Texas for 2 different days of having this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubuz-V4RO94 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ0rOXM_ArE

And at southwestern Corfu there were 32 waterspouts within a hour from one storm cell... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0skeowmIDw

and what about the Pilger event? or dodge city event? having multiple strong violent tornadoes all over the place at the same time.

As for tornado damage width for example there should be a graph of the largest tornadoes of over 2 + miles wide , including the noaa official path width and the disputed max width , example el reno tornado 2.6 mile wide for official and 4.2 mile wide for disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshoctober16 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the apparent possible 300 tornado in one day in south america...

at first i tougth it was some troll , but i keep noticing it never stop and was all over the place , found a forum with a bunch of people acting as if it happend , then i started to find sattelite imagery , then finnely youtube vids... however still no proof on how much tornadoes happen, but some one posted somthing on my talk page , and i found this http://archivo.laarena.com.ar/el_pais-a-25-anos-de-la-noche-de-los-tornados-1206122-113.html issue is it still dose'nt tell how much tornadoes and how long this lasted just more then 100 tornadoes i dont know if this is 24 hours or not but ive been wondering now why is there almost no record of this event? why is it so secretive? https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleada_de_tornados_de_Buenos_Aires_de_1993 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiny4xJ-7do Joshoctober16 (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i think we do have good amount of proof to add it kinda however the real count of tornado isnt realy put it all it states is 23 hours of 100+ tornadoes ^[1] Joshoctober16 (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.facebook.com/SMN.ar/posts/1843453979040727/

400 - 398 = 2, not 4

Just noticed this inconsistency in the "Exceptional survivors" section: "On March 12, 2006 he was carried 1,307 feet (398 m), 13 feet (4.0 m) shy of one-quarter mile (400 m)" 398 plus 4 is 402, so I'm wondering if someone mistyped the second measurement. -Yoshinion (on mobile) 2600:1004:B04F:2BD1:65EE:53B8:1B1D:6600 (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It think it's just an issue of rounding. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest Moving Tornado

It has been recently discovered that the the first tornado of the Pilger Tornado family (part of the June 16–18, 2014 outbreak), towards the end of it's life, was sling-shotted by the forming Wakefield tornado to a speed of roughly 94.6 mph, over 20 mph faster than the tri-state tornado, and held it for roughly 5-10 seconds. Should we nominate it as the fastest moving tornado on record? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMws8ueXJ7U. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JustAnotherWikiUser0816: Not yet. See the hidden comment I left on the section for fastest forward speed. While I don't doubt that Hank et al. know what they're talking about, a YouTube video is generally not considered a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#YouTube. Though I would not be terribly surprised if this ends up in a scientific paper, which we could cite.TornadoLGS (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: Im fully aware that YouTube isn't a reliable source, I've been looking for a more acceptable source to use but since this is recently public I doubt there will be one for a couple days atleast. Until so I do agree on waiting, therefore, nominate, not outright declare yet. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a journal article is in the works it could take a few months. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although it said "fastest significant tornado" Muonium777 (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 things , should we change the fastest winds from mph/kmph to ms/mph and if no EF5 happen before may 24.

1:Dow seems to use M/s alot and somtimes mentions MPH , this makes alot of confusion with 1999 2013 record , one is at 301 and the other at 302 , however its stated both were 135 M/s meaning both should be the same number , rounds up at 301.986 mph , the real info use m/s , so we should likely use this instead.

2:also on may 24 of this year if no EF5 happen , then the EF5 drought record will be broken , so if none happens before may 24 , and its may 24 come and change up this record.Joshoctober16 (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox lists in superlative sections

Hi United States Man: it strikes me as quite odd having lists (and navboxes at that) appear in sections labeled as superlatives. For example, the subsection Deadliest single tornado in world history suddenly has a navbox that lists the deadliest tornadoes in Canada (?). The U.S. navbox lists are a little more fitting, but still fall under superlative headings like Deadliest single tornado in US history and Most damaging tornado, which describe a single event, rather than a collection of events. In other words, the section headings don't describe the sections' content, or the sections' content doesn't fit the section headings. When I was reading this, I found it quite jarring and took me a bit to figure out what was going on. My solution — to move the navbox lists under a new section heading that at least attempts to describe its content — might not be the best one. Do you think there is a better way to fix this, or do you not think it a problem at all? Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi United States Man, pinging to see if you had a chance to look at the above. I'll revert back for now, but feel free to revert again if you think it's worth discussing here. Brycehughes (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pilger speed record?

Would it be possible to change the highest speed record from the Tri-State Tornado to the 93mph record set by the Pilger EF4 in 2014? Or is what is listed the highest average speed? Theforge129 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ya that is somthing i kept forgeting to talk about , pilger seem to have been moving 96+ mph in foward speed at one moment , however last year in december some tornado warning storms were moving 110 mph , im unsure if some had tornadoes or not but one that had a average moving speed of 90 mph did had a tornado it seem. Joshoctober16 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshoctober16 and Theforge129: It's the top speed (The Tri State tornado's record was 73 mph, but its average speed was 62 mph). The issue is that the source for the speed of the Pilger tornado is a YouTube video from a personal channel, which, as user-generated content does not qualify as a reliable source for reference purposes. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1891 Germany forward speed

ChessEric, United States Man, TornadoLGS. I have not found any sources except ESWD for this, but a F4/T9 tornado in Germany on July 1, 1891 had a forward speed of about 300 km/h. (ESWD does not mention the forward speed, but says 20km path length in 4 minutes). Almost certainly a mistake, but ESSL's ESWD does have it listed. I went ahead and put it in the highest forward speed section and specified that Tri-State is still the highest accepted. Weird, so I ain't too sure what to do. I came across it when building the List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5 km/m? WTH is that? I HIGHLY doubt that. I think we should just leave the detail out entirely. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am very certain it is a mistake. I am in agreement to leave it out as well (well remove it since I added it earlier). But, I ain’t sure what to really do here since ESSL is a reliable source and it technically is a major tornado. I want to remove it since I am certain it is a mistake, but at the same time, that would be WP:OR, since we do have a source saying it, albeit, a single source. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it out or try to submit an inquiry somewhere to find out. United States Man (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say we exercise WP:COMMONSENSE and remove it. There is clearly an error somewhere, and we already know that old tornado records should be taken with a grain of salt. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: The nightmare of doing the older tornado pages has indeed taught me that well. Its hard to differentiate between the NCEI, CDNS, and Storm Data. I'm glad I'm doing it though. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and took it out. United States Man (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@United States Man: Thank you. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most active tornado outbreaks now tied

The March 31st-April 1st tornado outbreak is now tied 3rd most active within a 24 hour period with 132 tornadoes confirmed within 24 hours. How should we handle situations like this when they occur? ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 00:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1953 F2 tornado in Louisiana

While watching a Pecos Hank video, I stumbled upon a comment that said, according to a news report he found, an F2 tornado tracked 235 miles across Louisiana into far northwest Mississippi, I became curious and with a quick search, I found a KJAS article mentioning an F2 tornado that tracked 234 miles, killing two and injuring 22, they said it was according to Tornado Archive, so I checked out the tornado archive map and I found the F2 tornado they talked about, It tracked 234.7 miles, It's unbelievable, Should I include it? SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am gonna include it, feel free to remove it if I did something wrong SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SomeoneWiki04: That one was excluded because that was a tornado family. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield wind speed

I added greenfield to the wind speed list due to the 290 mph max possible winds. If anyone has the most likely max possible winds you should add it. Remove it from the list if you think it shouldn’t be on there. EPhC4 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the increase in the windspeeds of greenfields tornado, this no longer applies. EPhC4 (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the order on the highest winds table ?

It seems there is no consensus on if the the table is based on minimum possible maximum winds or most likely maximum winds. We need to decide how to order it. EPhC4 (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be mean wind speeds, if bridge creek Moore is higher than greenfield then shouldn’t el Reno be highest out of all? 12.75.115.121 (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it were mean it should probably be most likely or mean if there is no most likely. EPhC4 (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EPhC4 I might be an outside opinion here. let's just stay more on the conservative side here and order by minimum possible wind speed because we know they have to exist 199.247.75.126 (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't say "most likely". The column heading is not accurate. Master of Time (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Master of Time: Problem solved. I re-made the chart to match the layout of Mobile radar observation of tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been resolved. EPhC4 (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verification Check: Highest winds observed in a tornado

As of this edit at 22:02, 24 June 2024, the Highest winds observed in a tornado section in the article accurate and complies with Wikipedia’s verifiability guidelines. The information in the section should not be altered unless it is determined present information does not pertain to the section or if new information should be added. But as of this moment, the section contains entirely verifiable information. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dovah12333: — To stop the edit war, can you please explain why the information about tornadoes like Xenia and Woldegk is not important for the article? The information is entirely sourced and the sentence started out “While never observed…” Like, various meteorologists have directly stated or calculated the idea of those five tornadoes having 300+ mph winds. In your most recent reversion, you stated, “Stop trying to spread information that cannot be testified thank you. Unless you can provide evidence as to why 300 mph should be deserved other than the subjective opinion of individuals like Grazulis then you cannot pass it off as fact.”

It is not Wikipedia editors job to “test” things. That is part of the no original research policy. Secondly, editors do not have to provide evidence, since it is from reliable people. It actually is a direct fact that those individuals either calculated it or stated it. I am going to re-revert the material to re-add it following this edit, since it does follow all of Wikipedia’s policy and guidelines, specifically the verifiability policy. Just as a small note, Wikipedia does not have to be 100% true/truth, only 100% verifiable. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick note, the only valid arguments in this case would be: (1) arguing the information is not valid at all for the section / article in general or (2) arguing the sources themselves are not reliable, following the guidelines of WP:RS and WP:SPS. But the reasoning you gave in the most recent reversion does not actually suffice as a reason to remove the information in my opinion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can send all the damage images there are, besides someone's own words which have no scientific backing as there is no way to testify such winds at the surface structurally or contextually they are going off of opinion or subjectivity. Woldegk is too old in general to even have in this argument, the report made by the German author who wrote the report does not have enough information to verify 300 either. Dovah12333 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my own research, but the arguments against the so called "findings" of Grazulis etc, there is no structural or contextual way one can infer 300 mph winds, that is just factual forensic engineering. Saying Wikipedia isn't 100% accurate does not excuse you from denying the truth. Dovah12333 (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for “there is no structural or contextual way one can infer 300 mph winds”? Everything needs a source stated, so can you provide a source for that statement? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under the guidelines of the Wiki itself these tornadoes happened in the 20th century and so did Fujita, before forensic engineering and the implementation of the EF scale, therefore any contemporary "estimates" are not factoring this in and are not reliable given the context, no home is able to withstand 300 mph winds AND NOT FAIL, per the EF scale the maximum DOD for a well built home is 10 with an UB of 220 mph maximum. Considering none of the homes in Xenia would meet this threshold anyway (as an example) there is no way one can estimate scientifically or accurately a 300 mph estimate, this is especially true for tornadoes such as Woldegk and Tri-state which were before the F scale was even conceived. Dovah12333 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would qualify as WP:SYNTH unless there is a specific source disputing these estimates. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:!TRUTHFINDERS applies here. Thomas P. Grazulis, Ted Fujita, the ESSL and the NWS are reliable sources in themselves, as experts and organizations at the head of their field. There is no reason to doubt their reliability on this article, and the claim that it's the claim of one man is irrelevant when that man is an expert in their field or a leading organization in that field. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above as to why they cannot be taken as accurate. Dovah12333 (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even inside the article this argument fails; the Greenfield tornado in the same section was officially rated EF4 based on damage, but was confirmed to have over 300mph based on DOW. This argument cannot be applied to Xenia, Tri-state, etc., especially without a source. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But without measuring tools we have no way of knowing, so we cannot make assumptions. This entire argument for 300 boils down to a maybe. Dovah12333 (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence literally opens with 'While never observed,' and ends with 'are believed to have had winds >300 miles per hour'. We are not trying to pass these off as concrete facts, only likely occurrences based on the opinion of leading experts. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes without wind speed observations are not appropriate to include in a section titled "Highest winds observed in tornado". A section already exists for tornadoes which produced the most intense damage; if the wind speed estimates on these unobserved tornadoes are based on the damage they caused, then they are more appropriate to include in that section than in one specifying "observed" wind speeds. 2605:AD80:B0:100F:5CA3:F270:6767:EB0A (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had added the 1997 Jarrell EF-5 tornado (and corresponding wiki page and NOAA and NIST references) to the “while not observed” section as this tornado although not directly measured is widely acknowledged to have the most intense damage ever seen from a tornado and the wiki page on Jarrell references the EF5 rating and wind speed (>261 mph)from the damage studies However this edit was removed. Can someone provide the rationale why ? Deepcoolclear (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the tornadoes mentioned in that little bit all directly mention, in some capacity, the potential for winds >300 mph, which is not directly stated for the Jarrell tornado. The figure of >261 mph is given because that is the minimum wind speed indicated for an F5 tornado on the original Fujita scale. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that I moved it to the Most intense tornado damage section, as I couldn't find any sources saying it was over 300 miles per hour. The damage in Jarrell was incredibly intense, but windspeeds were estimated around 260 miles per hour, and damage surveys may have been biased by the fact the tornado stopped in its tracks at peak intensity over Double Creek Estate. If you can find a reliable source that states it had winds over 300 miles per hour, feel free to re-add it GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George, okay I understand, thank you. Would this be the case for the Elie, Manitoba tornado as well? It was rated F5 in Canada (where I live) and was Canada’s only F5 to date. Deepcoolclear (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering both Elie 2007 as well as 2011 Smithville to that section once I get a chance and find some sources on the damage being particularly intense. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m aware of the footage of it throwing a house, but does the damage intensity actually stand out by F5 standards? TornadoLGS (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember hearing stated that, similar to Jarrell, it lingered over areas which intensified the damage it did there, so I wouldn't doubt that it had the potential to cause extreme damage. I'll have to check official surveys and literature. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The survey I read, which upgraded the initial F4 rating to F5, actually found the tornado was moving faster than initially thought because of its looping path, so it did not linger as long. Only one house suffered F5 damage with a few others rated F3-F4. TornadoLGS (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This survey I found states the tornado was at F5 intensity and only caused F5 damage to one home, leaving an open basement. While this is severe damage, I wouldn't classify it as out of the ordinary for an F5 tornado, even if the tornado did linger over it. I'll continue analyzing 2011 Smithville for future inclusion. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks George Deepcoolclear (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I've noted the 2011 Smithville tornado and 2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell tornado as the most likely candidates for inclusion in the list, specifically Smithville having an SUV lofted .75 miles (1.21 km) and paper debris from Phil Campbell being recovered over 353 km (219 miles) away in Lenoir City, Tennessee, but I've yet to find a source calling these feats in themselves extraordinary. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so perhaps I am missing something but I decided to dig into the sources for the upgrade in wind speeds for Bridge Creek/Moore. The two sources listed are first off redundant, as the second source merely points to the first source, though the first source doesn't actually mention the Tornado at all (still trying to work out what the deal here is, I'm almost leaning to a mistaken source in the more recent Greenfield measurement statement as there is a different Wurman et al 2021 paper that makes a lot more sense to reference: "Supercell tornadoes are much stronger and wider than damage-based ratings indicate" (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.202153511) This paper does make indirect references to the BCM tornado, and even features the 321mph value (as 144m•s^-1). The thing about that value is it is explicitly listed as a "V_gmax" value, which is a value calculated via the direct measurements (as described in this paper using what I am assuming to be those "improved methods", see Materials and Methods on page 5). To the best of my knowledge without a more detailed report on the Greensville tornado, this appears to be the exact same way they calculated the 300+mph values for it from their reported high 200mph values.

Saying all this, something feels like it doesn't add up in the current sources, as the 2024 source seems to imply they somehow managed to dig up a directly observed reading of 321mph 25 years after the fact, which conveniently is the exact same speed as the calculated ground velocity in the other Wurman et al (2021) I linked above.

At best things aren't clear but I am willing to bet that that 321 mph values wasn't a direct measurement, but rather a calculated value which isnt how it's being presented in the chart. I haven't looked into the others the claim they were "revised" yet at least, but it wouldn't surprise me if they are similar cases (El Reno in particular)

Perhaps I am missing something obvious. Regardless though, despite all you guy's best efforts, that chart is still incredibly confusing and not particularly transparent. I get this is a "hot" topic right now, which spurred me to dig into it a bit more, but I think the end goal should be for things to be made a bit more clear than they are. Maurus1729 (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pampa tornado wind speed

So lately we've been talking a lot about entries in the 300 mph club for tornadoes. One entry I notice that currently isn't included is the 1995 Pampa, Texas tornado. While I myself have not seen the source, my understanding is that Grazulis estimated wind speeds at >300 mph based on photogrammetry in his elusive F5-F6 Tornadoes book. If anyone here can check an appropriate source to verify, I think it should be mentioned. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

313.5 for Greenfield?

Hey @MarioProtIV: — What source says Greenfield had confirmed 313.5 mph winds? I had been reverting that so much during the massive edit war yesterday as original research. The current source listed for Greenfield does not list that it had 313.5 mph winds confirmed, so you either should revert the change or add the source for 313.5 mph being confirmed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had left it in the body paragraph so I thought it was fine. Guess not even though it is technically the median range of the estimate. I’ll remove it then. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Greenfield was weird. Read the summary of that tornado as it explains it. 263-271 was directly measured. All the 309-318 mph wind was calculated, not measured. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WeatherWriter can you explain your sourcing for coming to this conclusion? The calculation is a refinement of the direct measurements, it's the same refinements done according to the bridge creek paper. The way it's worded now sounds like analysis after the fact does not count for the record? I'm confused. Wikiwillz (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit

There appears to be an ongoing gag on a subreddit called r/EF5 where users change information about the Moore-Bridge Creek and Greenfield tornadoes in an attempt to make one "win" over the other, or something like that. Not sure if this information is useful to anyone but I thought I should put it here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t cover such things. WP:NOTFORUM. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page was protected for a year against non-confirmed users due to vandalism on the chart; this shouldn't be too much of an issue. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that I think sometimes such things are worth mentioning since off-wiki activity driving vandalism can be used to indicate a need for protection. Moot now that this page is protected. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 University of Illinois publication

Ok. Since the edit war finally subsided, let's have a nice, calm discussion, with no reversions or changes until we have a community consensus, for how to manage the three tornadoes and the new University of Illinois publication (seen here).

Key things to remember for this discussion:

We have to follow Wikipedia policy. For this, the main policies would be no original research and that everything has to be verifiable. And of course, we need to be civil and not do personal attacks on any editor.

Courtesy pings for editors (with pingable accounts) who participated in either the edit war or on the talk page: GeorgeMemulous, MarioProtIV, Poodle23, Arbitrary tornado, Dovah12333, Jaydonhiltyee, Tesh285, Pookiebear154, HouseDavid2016, Rwalfrey, Bensonpaul14, ProjectInsta, Wikiwillz, EPhC4, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, TornadoLGS, Deepcoolclear. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado

The publication states, "Wurman et al. 2007 originally reported 302 mph in the Bridgecreek, Oklahoma, 3 May 1999 tornado. This was subsequently revised upwards in Wurman et al. 2021, to 321 mph, using improved techniques."

In a discussion earlier, Maurus1729 linked the DOI to the 2021 Wurman et al. paper ([8]), however, that goes to an error website. Maurus1729 also stated it does reference 144 m/s, which is 322 mph. I cannot verify this as the DOI website is being weird I guess. Either way, since the Doppler on Wheels team stated the winds (measured by a Doppler on Wheels) were "revised upwards" to 321 mph, that seems to pass the verifiability policy. For me, this seems solid enough and seems to be a direct statement that 321 mph was measured. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my point was that I believe this revision was done based on the method explained in that paper that I linked but apperantly it didn't work. (Try this: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2021535118)

This paper implies that that 321mph number was actually not directly observed, but rather a product of that process (it is again listed as a Vgmax value, which is the calculated ground speeds).

To me it seems that the DOW 2024 statement isn't particularly clear on what these values actually represent, and where that "revision" comes from, so it is left open to interpretation. This, in my opinion, is the most reasonable interpretation, unless it's suggested that this revised direct measurement happens to be the exact same speed as the calculated ground speeds that were created in the exact same year. This however just doesn't seem to add up. They do refer to the 300+mph Greenfield ground speeds in direct comparison to the "revised" values for El Reno and BCM, which doesn't make as much sense if you are comparing a calculated value to measured values.

It seems that if you are going by directly observed wind speeds, the original 302mph value is the one to use. If we accept the accuracy of their ground speed calculations, thats when the 321 mph value should be used. This argument likely stands for El Reno as well. Maurus1729 (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

slight clarification for El Reno, this stands in the case of the DOW's "revised" value for its wind speeds, not a seemingly directly observed 313mph measurement. I haven't done as much research into El Reno for this. Maurus1729 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say what got said for the Greenfield tornado below. The column for the highest confirmed winds wasn't for the highest "measured" winds. Just the highest winds reliable sources say. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should stay 321, as they did specify they "revised upwards in Wurman et al. 2021, to 321 mph, using improved techniques." EPhC4 (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 El Reno tornado

The publication states, "Wurman et al. 2014 reported 291-336 mph and Bluestein et al. 2015 reported 313 mph in extremely small extremely rapidly moving sub-tornado scale vortices in the El Reno, Oklahoma 31 May 2013 tornado."

This one seems fairly straight forward honestly. The range is 291-336 and an AMS publication in 2015 directly reported a 313 mph wind gust was measured. The 2015 paper is currently cited in the article, as well as the 2014 paper for the range as well as this 2024 publication. 313 was called out, so that is the highest confirmed wind gust that was measured, as published in AMS in 2015. To me, this passes the verifiability policy fairly easily. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a paper published in March 2024 entitled Comparison of Tornado Damage Characteristics to Low-Altitude WSR-88D Radar Observations and Implications for Tornado Intensity Estimation that is cited in the 2013 El Reno tornado article as estimating peak winds may have reached 340 mph (550 km/h) (I cannot verify as it is a paid source). Should this be included as a mention towards possible peak intensity? I'm assuming the 2015 AMET paper isn't the one I'm referring to here. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reply to GeorgeMemulous: I have access to the source, so here is what it says: “115–150 m s^-1 at or below 100 m ARL on 31 May 2013 at El Reno, Oklahoma (Wurman et al. 2014a; Bluestein et al. 2018).”

We could change it to be 336 mph (336 mph = 150 m/s) since we would have a source for it. Although, that 2015 paper talked about the 313 mph. I really don’t know if it should be 313 or 336, since we have a source going up to 336 and a source talking about 313 being measured. What do y’all think? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check my latest post on the Greenfield section for my input here. Anyway, if the source didn't mention 340mph and instead mentioned 150m/s at peak, I'll change the claim on the El Reno page. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like El Reno's claim of 340mph was a rounding error with Wikipedia's Convert tag, I assume because 336 to 340 is a much smaller jump relatively here. I've manually changed the accepted speed to comply with actual estimates. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on us using the highest stated winds for Greenfield & highest stated winds for 1999 Moore, I am ok to go with the 336 mph for this tornado. We technically have two reliable sources (the University of Illinois publication + the March 2024 AMS published paper), both saying the wind speed range for the tornado, both with the peak at 336 mph. We stated for Greenfield below that 318 was the highest confirmed wind speed, even though it was a range. This seems to be no different. Anyone else agree – I.e. replacing the "313" with "336"? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So there almost seems to be 3 types of numbers here. There is the directly observed speeds (for BCM, this is 302mph), the speeds calculated from the formula discussed in Wurman et al 2021, (321mph as stated by them), and then estimated wind speeds based on some other, likely less accurate method (this is an assumption on my part as I haven't dug into these methods, but this is where 336mph comes from).

I think at the very least, whatever numbers we choose to use, perhaps a note is used to explain where these values come from. Maurus1729 (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be 313, they never confirmed it actually got to 336, and they directly said they "reported 313 mph in extremely small extremely rapidly moving sub-tornado scale vortices in the El Reno, Oklahoma 31 May 2013 tornado." EPhC4 (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to 313 because that’s the highest verified and 336 is just an estimate in a range. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Greenfield tornado

The publication states, "The DOW directly measured Doppler velocities as high as 263-271 mph (118-121 m/s). DOW measurements are used to calculate peak tornado wind speeds using methods described in Wurman et al (2021a) and an upcoming American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) formal standard for determining tornado wind speeds from proximate radar measurements. DOW scientists calculate peak ground-relative wind speeds, in a very narrow swath to the immediate east of the path of the center of the tornado circulation, as high as 309-318 mph (138-142 m/s)."

This one is where a lot of the controversy has recently been for the edit war. So, as stated by the publication 263-271 was directly measured. The 309-318 was calculated using formulas. We have the column set to be highest confirmed measured wind gust. In the publication, they did directly that what was measured vs calculated. Now, I did some additional checks outside of the academic realm. For their big release of the 300+ mph calculated info, NBC News published a really (very in fact) detailed article for it as well. NBC News does not mention the directly measured winds (263-271), but NBC News also was careful on their wording. They stated, "For less than a second, the researchers calculated wind speeds of more than 300 mph in a portion of the tornado."

For this, we have the University of Illinois saying directly measured vs calculated and we also have a secondary non-academic source which confirmed the 300+ was "calculated" not "measured" or "reported". I definitely want to hear from others, but per the no original research/verifiability policy, it seems clear that the highest confirmed wind gust should indeed be 271 mph for this tornado, not 318. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we have a reliable source indicating 318 as the max wind speed, I don't think OR is an issue. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are right. The column doesn’t actually say highest measured wind speed. It is for the “Highest confirmed peak wind speed”. Technically, 318 would be the highest confirmed peak wind speed. It wouldn’t be an OR issue. If someone else supports the 318 (or this doesn’t get any other comments for 24 more hours), I’ll go ahead and change it to 318. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the chart is doing; it has explicitly defined 'minimum defined peak speeds', but those are often lower than the confirmed peak speeds. Perhaps instead of Minimum Maximum and Confirmed, we could have Recorded, Min Peak and Max Peak? Greenfield's was 271 recorded, and confirmed between 309 and 318, so maybe we can change it to Recorded Peak 271, Min Peak 309, Max Peak 318. I'm unsure what analysis happened on Goshen County's tornado, but Greenfield is known for a fact to be above 300mph at peak and Goshen isn't so having them at the same 'peak confirmed' isn't helpful. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the 300+ rating for Greenfield since that's what the confirmed wind speeds were. We keep throwing around "calculated" and "measured" as terms without any definition. What does "calculated" mean? You have to calculate the measurements of any DOW measurement according to methodology from The El Reno 2013 paper. I don't understand why it was changed in the first place or why there's an edit war occurring. If none of us are DOW or X-Band Doppler experts we shouldn't be questioning the measurements they are publishing. Wikiwillz (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"calculated" in the case of DOW measurements is in reference to the process outlined in the "Materials and Methods" section of this paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2021535118 Maurus1729 (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this change, since the experts with dow technology are the people finding this 300+ measurement and they know more about this than we do. EPhC4 (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be 309. They confirmed 309-318 which means the highest confirmed windspeed was 309, and 318 is the maximum for the range of possible windspeeds. EPhC4 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't 309 mph the minimum? Hoguert (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They never specified a specific wind speed only a range so the highest they confirmed should be the 309. They never said it was 318 only it could have been between 309 and 318. EPhC4 (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But they also never said 309 was the confirmed windspeed Hoguert (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the idea of having it 309. I support the 271 (highest measured) or 318 (highest in the range given). I do not support 309. I know it was changed to 309, but I'm not sure the consensus is for that. The consensus is definitely not for 271, but it seems to be more towards 318, not 309. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They never confirmed 309 or 318, they confirmed 309-318. The reason I’m saying 309 is because that’s the highest they confirmed, not the highest in the range they published. They confirmed it was 309 up to 318. Since they never specified it was 318 we can only verify 309. We could also say >309 as the highest confirmed. EPhC4 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support ≥309. It's stated in the research paper and it's academically agreed to surely be stronger than, for instance, 2011 El Reno. 318 works just fine as the maximum estimate. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these values have been explicitly confirmed in the sense of a direct measurement. These are values that are calculated by applying a formula to the actual observed values to estimate the ground velocities (this, among other things, gives us numbers that can better be used to compare tornadoes that were measured slightly differently from one another). The range of values they have directly corresponds to the actual range of observed values they saw, so if we accept the validity of this simple adjustment process they have, 318 is just as valid as 309, if not more so. Complete clarity will come when the DOW team releases a full report on the event, but for the sake of what we are doing, 318 is the right value to be using. Maurus1729 (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never observed 300+ mph wind tornadoes

Hey Dovah12333, let’s not get into an edit war over the section. Let’s instead discuss it here and come to a community consensus. If I may ask, why do you think the information should be removed from the article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already gone over this, it is senseless to put these tornadoes in a category where 300 mph might be observed, it cannot. Methods for determining windspeed in tornadoes prior to the conception of the EF scale like Lubbok are inherently inaccurate. For example an F5 tornado like Elie as it is rated F5 is listed as 261-318 mph, which is by the laws of the F scale which have been literally disproven. Not to mention the date for some of these are far too old to make a proper judgement on. Stop Spreading Misinformation. Dovah12333 (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument we previously had in an above section; Dovah12333, you argue that 300+ mile per hour winds are impossible and should not be mentioned in the section. You back this up by saying there are inconsistencies in the scale and that analysis of damage proves there is no way to know; however, you must recognize that these estimates are from recognized experts with authority in their field that should not be downplayed. These tornadoes may not have produced 300mph damage and the wind speeds may have been estimated well above the ground, and the damage intensity scales are inherently imperfect, however, the claims for all of the tornadoes in that section are from the National Weather Service, European Severe Storms Laboratory, Ted Fujita, and Thomas P. Grazulis, all of which are considered reliable sources and experts in their field by Wikipedia standards. Removing this section on account of your own review of damage photographs is considered original research and isn't a valid reason to add or remove information. Unless you can find a reliable source in which these specific claims can be disputed, please do not remove the information. Also, claiming the reinstating editors are intentionally 'spreading misinformation' can be considered a light personal attack and would be best off avoided. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

300+mph winds in Worcester 1953 and Jarrell 1997

The article for the 1997 Jarrell tornado had it with 300mph winds, as multiple sources claimed, but I couldn't find any reliable academic literature and all the sources that existed seemed faulty (see the talk page there). Also, I've seen online that the 1953 Worcester tornado may have had winds in excess of 300mph, up to 327mph, but I haven't checked all the sources. I assume Grazulis (who has a close connection to Worcester specifically) made that claim, so if anyone can check that, I'll be sure to add it to the article. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallam, Custer City, and Timber Lake

May 19, 2024's Custer County tornado was nearly 3 miles wide if we're counting the entire width of EF0 damage. On the Damage Assessment Toolkit, all 3 miles (nearly, I measured 2.75) are considered tornadic damage instead of wind damage. Also, Hallam, NE's 2.4 mile tornado and Timber Lake's supposed 4 mile tornado were assessed via damage paths (Timber Lake specifically doesn't call the 4-mile measurement a tornado, instead saying "tornadic wind"). It's not necessarily easy to differentiate between strong, EF0-intensity rear-flank downdraft and inflow winds from direct tornadic winds... but, at the same time, what is the difference? Hallam and Timber Lake were assessed from damage paths, so I added Custer County 2024 in the largest width section on account of its damage path, even if it was only 1 mile wide, based on the assessment from NOAA on the Damage Assessment Toolkit and the PNS from Norman. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially turning the "Exceptional coincidences" section into a page

As of now, I think the section is fitting. However, this will change over time. As more entries are added, the page will eventually become overloaded. Instead of deleting parts / contenders, creating + linking a page may be more ideal. I think this is a healthy future life plan for the article, but I'm opened to ideas. Uhdebbie (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes

There was a EF12 in 1933 tornado Ari hit Louisiana State and destroy every single thing in that area and had a wind speed of 345mph

2600:8807:A04:3D00:EC41:4BED:3A3B:BFCF (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love

don’t choose a man who doesn’t pay attention to you, you were you and you don’t need a man to help you cause you’re an independent woman who can do anything she wants to do. Don’t let men stop you. 2600:8807:A04:3D00:EC41:4BED:3A3B:BFCF (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of US tornado records by state

I promise this isn't WP:LISTCRUFT as specific as it might sound, but I've started work on a list of tornado records based on the states in which they occurred. Feel free to contribute. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadliest fire whirl

Is the fire whirl formed by the 1923 Kanto earthquake worthy of mention as the deadliest tornado? It killed 30,000 in 15 minutes and, while not exactly a mesocyclonic tornado, was in the same ballpark as a normal tornado. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was it associated with a cumuliform cloud? That would be a requirement for it to meet the meteorological definition of a tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure and sources are hell to find, especially for a fact like this, but I feel it's worth at least a mention, since fire whirls are often referred to as firenadoes, even if they aren't true tornadoes, which this may or may not have been. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave it out without better sources on that matter. I know that there have been true tornadoes spawned by pyrocumulonimbus clouds while most firewhirls are not. I wouldn't want to falsely imply that the Kanto firewhirl was the former. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of places hit multiple times by significant tornadoes

I've begun this draft, which will be able to, when it's complete, replace the "Exceptional Coincidences" portion of this page onto its own list with a stricter criteria and hopefully cleaner presentation. @Uhdebbie, feel free to contribute to this draft as the section here likely is done being expanded. Departure– (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.facebook.com/SMN.ar/posts/1843453979040727/

[1]