Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes

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

2024 Greenfield, Iowa EF3+[edit]

Doppler on wheels preliminary analysis shows peak winds of 250+mph at 144ft AGL from the Greenfield tornado yesterday. Still preliminary, but would this count as evidence of possible F/EF5 intensity (given that Minden, Iowa from April 26 is included, despite the winds being at a lower speed and higher altitude)? Theforge129 (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Jesus christ that is high.
2. I'd honestly support this once more information is released. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd lean against including it unless a source explicitly mentioned possible EF5 intensity. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on grounds of the above discussion of the Oklahoma tornado being omitted. United States Man (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above decision was based on traditional radar. In this case, it's DOW data. I would defer on adding until someone reputable draws the link between the DOW measurements and EF5 intensity, though. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
X-band, S-band, doesn't matter. Hundreds of tornadoes could make this list if we added every mesocyclone with >200 mph wind. United States Man (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support inclusion. USM, stop removing select DOW inclusion tornadoes. If you say "No" to the 2024 DOW tornadoes, then remove all DOW tornadoes. You are removing select on original research. Community consensus seems strong that DOW is acceptable. Previous discussion was on NEXRAD data, not these tornadoes. You are using a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, so I am reverting. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a reliable source that states those were possible EF5? Citing tweets of wind speeds isn't a reliable source. United States Man (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should note to your point as well he has also used this point to revert what should’ve been a uncontroversial move at December 2021 Midwest derecho and tornado outbreak to a much simpler title that aligns with other such examples. Seems its not the first time. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV: You should focus on the content and not the editor. United States Man (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The Washington Post - "It’s possible that the catastrophic damage in Greenfield could earn an EF4 or EF5 rating....A mobile DOW, or Doppler on wheels — an ultrasensitive radar on a truck — was collecting data as the tornado tore through Greenfield. It detected winds of at least 250 mph just above the ground....Debris was lofted to 40,000 feet — as high as many commercial aircraft fly. Debris height is proportional to tornado strength, indicating that this was an EF4 or EF5 tornado....Damage observed in Greenfield, which includes several foundations wiped bare, would also suggest an EF4 or EF5 rating will be assigned.". I request you self-revert as there is RS quoting the DOW measurements. Like I stated below, if we remove one DOW-inclusion over 200 mph, we need to remove all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article speculating on damage surveys before a final rating has been established isn't something I'd consider reliable. Drop the stick for now and let others comment here first. United States Man (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the stick? Ha! Nope. Am I going to edit war? Nope. But I ain't dropping the overall topic. I may foresee a discussion occurring soon to either remove all radar-data or just maybe remove the entire possible EF5 intensity list. Heck, so many debates and discussions occur over it. If we aren't going to include some of the strongest tornadoes in history (as stated by meteorologists), then the list is useless. Removal may be better than trying to maintain it with so many stupid discussions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The strongest tornadoes in history are all included here as they were rated F5/EF5. Tornadoes rated below F5/EF5 obviously weren't the strongest tornadoes in history. Consensus also has seemed to form here against adding these particular tornadoes for now. United States Man (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tornadoes rated below F5/EF5 obviously weren't the strongest tornadoes in history."
There's a pretty big asterisk here, that being the numerous tornadoes rated below EF5 despite DOW or other low-altitude windspeed measurements indicating winds in that category (the main topic of discussion here). The most obvious example I can think of is with El Reno 2013, with the (as I'm sure you already know) ~300mph wind measurements. Despite the fact that those winds were recorded only briefly in a subvortex, it's still basically tied (with Bridge Creek/Moore 1999) as the fastest windspeeds measured on Earth. However, as you also likely know, the tornado was only rated EF3. I don't think you could in good faith argue that it wasn't one of the strongest tornadoes ever recorded, simply because it wasn't rated EF5. Theforge129 (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are going to have a disagreement about this tornado (inclusion on DOW data), I propose we have a discussion to remove all radar-based inclusions on the lists...i.e. NEXRAD, DOW, RaXPOL, ect... The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on that. There is actually a fine line. Some sources will explicitly say that the storm reached F5/EF5 intensity or was capable of causing F5/EF5 damage. Others, like the ones we're discussing, just give the numbers. Might seem like splitting hairs but I think we're sort of verging into synthesis territory. This has long been my stance on radar-based inclusions for this list. That and I think I'd like to see it on a platform a little more robust than Twitter. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full agreement here. Penitentes (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to bother opening up another discussion just for this, but it looks like DOW recorded another EF5 strength tornado today in southwest Oklahoma (though, admittedly, the winds were sampled somewhat higher up in the atmosphere than with Greenfield). Should at least be noted here somewhere, in my opinion. Theforge129 (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - WP:TNT and restart possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornado list[edit]

I am wanting to formally proposal that we do a WP:TNT on the entire possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornado list. We then hold discussions about setting community-consensus criteria about what to include or exclude from the list, similar to how we set criteria on WP:TornadoCriteria. Then we rebuild the list based on community consensus. That will easily stop debates about what to include or exclude on the list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need. This article has already been redone over and over. No need to take drastic measures because other editors disagreed with an addition that was made. United States Man (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding what USM says. Honestly there will always be debates on this, regardless of which tornadoes we include or exclude. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this has anything to do with editors disagreeing with me? Focusing on me over the content? I proposed setting formal community criteria for the list. Since you say that is "drastic measures", are you saying no community consensus is better than a community consensus for the criteria, which currently does not exist? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was a straight proposal about setting formal criteria. Opposing this means you think there is no need to have criteria on the page. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that we had formal criteria, being a reliable source based on verifiable expertise explicitly stating that a tornado was or may have been F5/EF5. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS: Correct. United States Man (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Then 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, which was added by community consensus would need to be removed as "EF5" was never stated. Please remove 1957 Dallas, 1973 Union City, 1973 Central Alabama tornado, 1999 Mulhall, 2013 Bennington, 2016 Sulphur, and 2016 Dodge City, as neither of those tornadoes had "F5" or "EF5" quoted, and were all either estimations of 200+ mph intensity or radar measurements over 200+ mph. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No opposition from me if reliable sources don't exist. United States Man (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose removal of all *except* 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, as a 2-3 editor discussion here shouldn't override the formal (and uninvolved closed) discussion which added it back in 2022. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the entries have reliable sources stating they are possible F5/EF5. Many entries here are included based only on mentioned wind speeds that happen to coincide with F5/EF5 speeds without a clear link being established. Those should be removed. United States Man (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed I have opposed such inclusions previously. I think entries that don't belong do sneak on here occasionally and it has to be pruned. I did an overhaul of this article back in 2020. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Minden/Harlan tornado is included based solely on tweets about radar-estimated instantaneous wind speeds and should also be removed. Penitentes (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the 2021 Kentucky tornado initially rated a low-end EF5? That should stay, even though it was later downgraded. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not ever rated EF5, preliminarily or otherwise. Penitentes (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's my bad. I thought the EF5 rating was brought into play. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was widely speculated, for sure, I can see how the memory worms in! About two-and-a-half years ago now. Penitentes (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've had so many similiar tornadoes in the 3 years since eg. (Rolling Fork, Tri-State, now Greenfield) that it's so hard to keep track of what is preliminarily assigned what. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 14:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024 — Possible F5/EF5/IF5 List Tornado Statuses[edit]

Below is a detailed list of tornadoes which are on the list or have been discussed for the list and what the current consensus (by discussion, silent, or unchallenged BRD) is as of this message on May 23, 2024. This list did involve me going back through the talk page discussion archives.

Tornado Consensus
1666 Lincolnshire Include
1927 Neede Exclude
1931 Lublin Include
1946 Windsor Include
1951 Olney Include
1951 Waupaca Include
1952 Byhalia-Moscow Include
1952 Linwood Include
1953 Worcester Include
1953 Cygnet Include
1954 Crowell Include
1955 Walcott Include
1957 Dallas Include
1957 Fremont Include
1957 Pavia Include
1958 El Dorado Include
1960 Wamego-St. Marys Include
1961 Custer County Include
1963 Patricia Include
1964 Lawrence Include
1965 Dunlap Include
1965 Lebanon-Sheridan Include
1965 Strongsville Include
1965 Wolbach-Primrose Include
1968 Falmouth-Ripley Include
1969 Chuhegang Include
1970 Bulahdelah Exclude
1971 Gosser Ridge Include
1973 Union City Include
1973 Central Alabama Include
1979 Cheyenne Exclude
1974 Franklin County Include
1983 Belle Pointe Exclude
1984 Ivanovo Include
1984 Kostroma Include
1985 Parker Dam State Park Include
1987 Edmonton Include
1989 Allendale Include
1990 Stratton Exclude
1991 Red Rock Include
1991 Arkansas City Include
1992 Bucca Include
1995 Pampa Include
1995 Hoover Exclude
1995 McLean Include
1995 Allison Include
1998 Spencer Include
1998 Wayne County Include
1999 Mulhall Include
1999 Loyal Valley Include
2002 La Plata Include
2003 Franklin Exclude
2004 Harper Include
2004 Marion Include
2006 Westminster Exclude
2008 Clinton-Mountain View Exclude
2010 Bowdle Exclude
2010 Wilkins County Exclude
2011 New Wren Include
2011 Tuscaloosa Include
2011 Cullman Exclude
2011 Cordova Exclude
2011 Flat Rock-Trenton Exclude
2011 Chickasha Include
2011 Goldsby Include
2012 Henryville Include
2012 Cherokee Exclude
2013 Shawnee Exclude
2013 Bennington Include
2013 El Reno Include
2013 East Peoria–Washington Exclude
2014 Vilonia Include
2014 Pilger Exclude
2015 Rochelle Exclude
2015 Ashland Exclude
2016 Sulphur Include
2016 Dodge City Include
2016 Chapman Include
2016 Ensign Exclude
2016 Friend Exclude
2016 Jiangsu Exclude
2017 Maloye Pes'yanovo Include
2018 Alonsa Include
2019 Nepal Include
2019 Greenwood Springs Include
2020 Bassfield Exclude
2020 Sandy Hook-Purvis Exclude
2021 South Moravia Exclude
2021 Western Kentucky Include
2022 Andover Exclude
2023 Rolling Fork Exclude
2024 Harlan Exclude
2024 Hollister Exclude
2024 Greenfield Exclude

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know where else to add this, but I found this recent email response someone got from NWS Paducah about nearly rating the Perryville, MO tornado (2/28/2017) an EF-5. Don't know if a more reliable source is required, or if this counts, but I'll send it anyways since it may be noteworthy. https://twitter.com/LimWeather/status/1793993961545355550 67.69.165.178 (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_F5_and_EF5_tornadoes&oldid=1225447550"