Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Severe weather This article is part of WikiProject Severe weather, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to severe weather. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Severe weather.

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

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

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

— FJG 13:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Contents

[edit] Incorrect Image Captions

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

[edit] Information about a tornado with no article yet

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

Certainly it warrants an article and there is enough there for at least a good 'stub' article. Evolauxia 04:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've created a small stub. There's little info out there on this; I did find an article from the Greenville MS newspaper published the next morning, but little scientific info in the article beyond the obvious. I've run across a few photos - mainly of the Candlestick Pk Shopping Center which was completely flattened, but they are both copyrighted and are of very poor quality.Davidals 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allendale, Illinois

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

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

That tornado has been removed. It was the most questionable event on there and one I was considering removing (I've cleaned up the list, though it is in the referenced Grazulis work but the way it was used raised significant doubts).
Given that username and the relative limited number of people doing surveys, I think I know who you are, and your input is more than enough to remove the already shaky event. Evolauxia 11:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Since 1880??

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

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

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

I largely share you're sentiment. Grazulis, however, uses 1880 as a general cutoff for much of his data, and he is the most experienced and knowledegable person on the historic record. In general, and especially for older stuff, his data is actually superior to the official database. There are three primary databases, the NCDC/NSSFC-SPC database, the University of Chicago database (no longer updated), and the Grazulis/Tornado Project database. Grazulis essentially used the StormData/National Tornado Database data, and improved on it with further information that he uncovered, as well going back before that database starts in 1950 (that's why you see so much data starting at 1950). Also, once an event is entered in the official database, it is very unlikely to be changed, whereas Grazulis can and does update as new information becomes available. Additionally, the official database events for 1950 to ~1972 were rated by grad students hired to pour over newspaper and similar information, some of the same that Grazulis uses, though he uses more, spent much more time, and is much more experienced.
F5/F6 Tornadoes (or The F5 Report) is an addendum booklet to The Tornado. There is mention of it on the Tornado Project page, see [3] [4]. That said, it is not formally registered as far as I know, but it is very reputable. Evolauxia 03:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
We should keep everything to what is documented. If a rating is questionable, it should specifically state such. CrazyC83 01:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


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

by Thomas P. Grazulis

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

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

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

Americasroof 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official List

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

[edit] The "Marmaduke" Tornado

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

[edit] The La Plata Maryland Tornado

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

[edit] F5s in Canada

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

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

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

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

[edit] Red Rock - 1991

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

[edit] May 1999 F5 Oaklahoma City Tornado not mentioned

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

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

[edit] A possible second F5 for May 3?

I found this site [5] and the stormchaser mentionned that the tornado was so huge (1.5 miles wide) and may have been as violent as the Bridge Creek wedge tornado, but like Red Rock, we may never know due to lack of structures south of Mulhall, but I have put the Mulhall tornado in the disputed list as "probably F5" for now--JForget 02:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Fargo in 1957

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

[edit] Omaha 1913 tornado

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

This reference [6] also shows Omaha's event as an F4JForget 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing prior to 1950

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

I agree with that line of thinking, but it's going to be tough to enforce. Any good willing person who wants to make a contribution to an article like this could see the following link and would never have a reason to assume otherwise. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/arx/tornado/olmsted.php Gopher backer 00:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortuantely, that does appear on an NWS website, but it is reproduced from Grazulis, which is not an official source. I did add a note at the top of the section saying that no tornadoes have been officially rated before 1950, so hopefully that explanation will suffice. -RunningOnBrains 05:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks yet again for your efforts. When I first came across this article it was a mess, I cleaned it up using the Grazulis database because he is extremely experienced and competent, in some way it's a superior database and the research community accepts and heavily uses it in addition to the NOAA National Tornado Database and Fujita's database which ended in 1992. The Tornado Project database more readily changes as new information becomes available and goes back farther (for significant tornadoes), using the same retroactive methods as for the official tornadoes which went back to 1950 because that's when the era of tornado prediction and warning began and there were limited resources to go back farther as well as data problems. Those retroactive ratings were done by graduate students pouring over newspaper and other information whereas Grazulis made a lifetime of collection and analysis.
So there were no official and unofficial or possible tornadoes listed after that revision, I merely noted the official rating and a citation to a NOAA source when there was a difference. That worked well, but it's a constant effort to maintain the article with the more readily available NOAA F5 data much less the more difficult to obtain Tornado Project data. I support using the official listings, with a note for obvious problems, such as Worcester 1953 which is admitted by NWS to be F5 as new data became available but I don't think has been updated in the database. For unofficial tornadoes, there must be authoritative sourcing for every event, citing the same source when applicable. Moreover, editors' own reasoning is not enough (that's also original research), there must be a good source for each event suggesting why the F5 rating may be appropriate. Evolauxia 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with list of EF5 tornadoes

The following is transcluded from Talk:List of EF5 tornadoes

I think at least until we get a decent number of EF5 tornadoes (hopefully not for a while) we ought to put this as a subsection of the list of F5 tornadoes. It seems kind of lame to have a list containing one entry. Incubusman27 19:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Support The List of F5 tornadoes should also be renamed List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. If we get a few more EF5s, then we'll talk. -RunningOnBrains 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Original research

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

[edit] Cheyenne, Wyoming

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

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