Jump to content

Talk:Tornadoes of 2011

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

Overnight tornadoes on January 1 after midnight - 2010 or 2011?

[edit]

I placed them here (the Mississippi tornadoes after midnight), but I am not sure if they are officially considered 2010 or 2011 tornadoes in the SPC statistics? Once that is confirmed, they will get moved to 2010 if they belong there or left here, with footnotes. I used 0600Z (midnight CST) as the timepoint. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger from March 2011 tornado outbreak

[edit]

Agreed, only a few tornadoes occurred. Not a very significant event and does not deserve it's own article. Create articles on The March 5-10 outbreak and February 24-28 outbreak instead.

Missing 2011 Outbreak Articles

[edit]

I noticed that the article for the February 2011 tornado outbreak is missing. From the 24th to the 28th, there were 55 tornadoes confirmed. There were two back-to back systems that caused the tornadoes. That in my book is a significant outbreak and well deserving of an article.

The March 5-10 sequence may be worthy of an article as well. A total of 32 tornadoes with this outbreak. —Preceding Sharkguy05 comment added by 184.58.26.140 (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 04-05 outbreak

[edit]

I'm going to make a temporary section about the early April outbreak. I don't know much about it but I'll make it until someone comes along with better info ~~I don't have an account on here~~ UPDATE:It appears someone added an april section just as I wrote this. No I'm telling you it wasn't there before I wrote this. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.218.232 (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that an article MIGHT be warranted after the fact on this event (especially mentioning the extensive and widespread wind damage but also the tornadoes) even if it didn't appear so initially. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it does warrant an article given its record size (SPC stated that it was the third largest severe outbreak and largest strong wind outbreak on record). The focus of the article would be towards the wind rather than tornadoes though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 4 totally warrants an article. Major high impact event that caused major damage over huge areas. Just because there weren't devastating tornadoes doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. There's plenty of noteworthy damage... dozens of homes were heavily damaged especially in places like Memphis and Charlotte. Worst derecho in years... clearly deserves an article sicne lots of other derechos have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.95.2 (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get it started and I will help fill in the tornado chart descriptions. Don't forget to add the Ararat, NC tornado, which seems to be left out of tornadoes of 2011.The tornado reports are now at 63 and wind damage reports are in the thousands. Surely this needs an article. Sharkguy05 (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

Ok got it started. Is going to need some work though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkguy05 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent content removal

[edit]

Just so no one gets confused or angry, I've been removing a few events listed in the main article that really don't warrant mention. These include events with less than three tornadoes (unless one was EF2 or higher) and events in which no damage took place or was limited to vegitation. This includes areas outside the United States as a standard has to be set to keep this page under control (though it's relatively small for the time being) as time goes by. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Anything with EF2 or greater or a fatality should be mentioned though. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that sounds about right. What should we do with events that have a bunch of EF0/1 and cumulative damage is relatively significant? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the numbers, as well as other factors (rarity of the event, major cities hit, etc.). Looks like January has been released and my first question was answered (it is all 2011 after 0600Z). I'm also hoping reports from this current event clears up before the next one starting Saturday which looks ominous (Sunday looks really big). I hate QLCS/squall line outbreaks since they never get too many initial reports (making it hard to jump on an article) yet it all adds up in final totals. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delayed reports can really throw things off, especially initiative to write an article :P Got another question...when the intensity of a tornado is stated, why is it placed in bold? I don't see any reason to bold it and can't find anything about it in the MOS. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and change them. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about we make it so that if it gets significant coverage short-term, we leave it in until the final figures are out, so we know with accuracy whether it was large enough to be significant? That way, we'd also avoid people who don't understand WP:RECENTISM fighting to get their highly unusual local tornado put back in because it just happened and it's still big in their local news? (I agree with the standard as an overall idea, though some exception should be made for highly unusual and noteworthy tornadic events that might not otherwise meet those criteria. As a hypothetical example, if a single EF0 were to blow through McMurdo Sound, doing no damage and causing no injuries, while it normally wouldn't warrant coverage, it happening in Antarctica, where there has *never* been a recorded tornado, would make it notable and significant enough to cover anyway.) rdfox 76 (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea! Maybe we should get a consensus to make it policy or a guideline? I would make it that significant damage(like what was seen in NZ today as a minimum?) needs to be done, not some broken limbs, broken window, ect. Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of April 14-15

[edit]

Should today be bad, an article will likely be warranted. How should we treat it:

Since there was a significant blizzard on the backside of this storm and widespread wind damage, I was thinking of using one of the more generic titles April 2011 North American storm complex. Could also name the current one as the Mid-April outbreak and the 9-10 one as the Iowa-Wisconsin outbreak. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it appears the tornadoes will take presence this time. There wasn't anything stronger than EF2 in the April 4 storm. This time, it appears the tornadoes will be the headlines, as the Tushka tornado looks to be a solid EF3-EF4. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the latter option seems reasonable? Move Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak to April 2011 Iowa-Wisconsin tornado outbreak and have the current one as the Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I recommend. Moderate risk TOMORROW as well for the Carolinas, so this could be a 3-day outbreak before it gets into the Atlantic. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should get an article published today, reports of casualties in Jackson. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is all up. 11 deaths, if they are all from tornadoes, clearly warrants an article. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4/22/11

[edit]

Do you think we need an article for the st. louis tornado?24.235.72.105 (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, even though the day as a whole does not otherwise warrant an article, something like 2011 St. Louis tornado. April 19-20 might also warrant an article based on tornado counts, it was another of those much-hated QLCS/squall line outbreaks with loads of delayed reports. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it was at least an EF4. Since surveys are still ongoing, they might find EF5 damage somewhere. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider the Saint Louis tornado in question to be notable due to the extensive damage it caused to a major city, not sure what the title would be called though since we don't know the total number of tornadoes. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the system is *still* going almost 20 hours after hitting Lambert Field, I think we're going to reach the required numbers for an outbreak article. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I missed if you've been there already, Crazy, but it seems that the St. Louis WFO is actually pretty good about getting information out (unlike, say, Green Bay), because they've got a preliminary survey report and some photos up on their site. Might be a useful source for the St. Louis storm in a day or two. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've been seeing reports that this is the worst tornado to hit St. Louis in over 40 years...I believe that makes it rather notable by itself. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WFO Green Bay isn't that bad, they too have a preliminary report for the outbreak that happened up there.-Marcusmax(speak) 01:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant that WFO St. Louis had their first preliminary report up less than 24 hours later, but WFO Green Bay seems to usually take at least 72 hours to get anything up on their site. There's worse; it's just frustrating when you're trying to help a friend find out what happened to the town he grew up in. (Merrill, Wisconsin, in that case.) rdfox 76 (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it warrants an article. They do have good details out indeed, although it is still a bit disorganized (it makes it appear there were multiple tornadoes when it is likely it was a single tornado - we will have to wait and see). CrazyC83 (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With two smaller back-to-back outbreaks in the same areas center around MO, IL, and down into OK on the 22nd and IN and western OH on the 19th. it might be best to create April 2011 tornado outbreak sequence. On the 19th there were 74 tornado reports, with what looks like some multi reports of the same tornadoes so probably will be in the 55-60 range and yesterday there was just about 30 tornado reports and about 10 from the Bridgeton EF4 area so the number of tornadoes for April 22 (early 23rd will probably be around 20-25. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, depending on how early next week plays out since ANOTHER outbreak is likely starting Monday until Thursday. For the first time this month, they will be geographically overlapping as well (IMO a key deliniation for sequence vs. separate outbreaks). CrazyC83 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe naming the outbreaks after their certain dates would make more sense (ie. April 22-23, 2011 tornado outbreak) -Marcusmax(speak) 02:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it weren't for the fact that there was a dominant tornado that could take the name (St. Louis), yes. However, it could be merged into a sequence article later if this week is as bad as forecast. The expected flooding may need an article itself as well, but that is beyond our scope. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 24-25 and beyond

[edit]

Article already created at Late-April 2011 tornado outbreak sequence. Options are:

I prefer Option 1. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would warrant its own article, but if bookended then it is pointless to keep it separate when it would be handled better in a large section in the main article. Option 2 creates 3 articles (and 6 articles for April outbreaks!) CrazyC83 (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Urf...I think the outbreak sequence is the best way to go and have the St. Louis tornado as it didn't result in a lot of casualties. So much going on....jeez...How many PDS watches are we at for the month? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 5th one this month. Not a record - many DAYS, especially in 2003 and 2004, have had more than 5. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is ... have we reached the record tornado emergency record for a month time period? there is another one tonight. 24.235.72.105 (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think due to the nature of all these outbreaks, and the fact that many have little to nothing to do with the one that preceded it Option 2 makes more sense. That being said, I would leave the St. Louis Article alone. We have done articles with date ranges instead of the "Mid-April, Late-April etc." in the past, and I think using the date ranges makes more sense in this situation. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 deaths have been confirmed in arkensas, should we make an article about this outbreak? 99.191.118.211 (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There already is an article at Late-April 2011 tornado outbreak sequence. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The map is wrong

[edit]

The map under "Synopsis" is incorrect. There were many deaths in areas not in the red spots. There were deaths throughout north alabama (especially Hackleburg and Phil Campbell). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.248.200 (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Storm Prediction Center maintains that map on their website and has yet to update it with the recent tornadoes. It'll be some time before all the killer tornadoes are added in. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24th or 25th of April

[edit]

Minor detail, but the section for the 24-28th of April 2011 outbreak links to a main article titled 25-28th. Any clarification?MrZoolook (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 EF5

[edit]

It is listed in the the list of F5 and EF5 tornadoes that they were two recorded EF5 but here it says they were only one so which article is right? --109.76.99.32 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes on May 7th

[edit]

2 have been reported at the time of my entry, but both occured in open fields and did no damage

here's an article for one.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-severe-storm-watch-called-for-south-and-west-of-city-20110507,0,2074880.story

99.126.97.154 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this and couldn't find anything from the National Weather Service stating that there was confirmation of this. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 19-24 section

[edit]

There is a section in the article titled April 19-24 and another title April 22. As a result the St. Louis tornado and a few others are listed twice. If these tornadoes were produce by the same storm system the two articles should be merged or the latter removed. If they are not the time span for former section should be changed along with the list of tornadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 21-23+

[edit]

Will this warrant an article I wonder? So far it hasn't but today is just cranking up. Should a sandbox begin? CrazyC83 (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the Joplin tornado, an article is likely to be necessary at May 2011 tornado outbreak (no other outbreaks in May to need disambiguating). CrazyC83 (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


FACT CHECK: The Joplin tornadoes' early death toll was not 125; initial reports suggested a low of 24 and high of 35. The number 125 did not spring up until several days later. (Early article: [1]) 209.33.105.208 (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ in the Kansas City Star

Small Tornado charts

[edit]

The small tornado charts do not include Total tornadoes. Is this intentional or arbitrary? I find not having the totals to be like there is something missing. I tend to look in the EF0 column and think that is the total number of tornadoes, because I expect there to be a total. TimL (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional. Tiny isolated events with only a small number of weak tornadoes that are inconsequential would have no section. The lists of tornadoes by month would be where to go to get to the total numbers. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like this?: [1] TimL (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why no 'why'?

[edit]

Humans like to solve puzzles. They like to find reasons for events. I ask myself why there is suddenly an almost exponential increase in the rate of occurrence of strong, damaging tornadoes in the USA this year. I would like to see WP articles like this one report the developing thinking of scientists: is the greater rate just a statistical fluctuation, or are there specific reasons, causes? Also, is there a corresponding increased occurrence of strong tornadoes in countries other than the USA or not? Perhaps I haven't looked in the right place, and WP has already answered these questions... David Spector (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists have looked into this and found that it was not climate change, rather the effects of a strong La Nina event. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Tornado Listed Twice

[edit]

The St. Louis, Missouri EF4 tornado and a few other tornadoes on April 22 seem to be listed twice, first in the section of the April 19-20 outbreak, and then in the April 22 outbreak. I personally do not know if these were part of the same outbreak or different outbreak, though the article implies that they were part of the same event. If that's the case then the April 22 section is redundant and should be removed and the previous section should be expanded up through April 22 as it already mentions those tornadoes anyway. Though I am not quite certain enough of this to make the edit myself. I have previously mentioned this issue, but it seems no attempt has been made to resolve it. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sections in question :Tornadoes of 2011#April 19 – 20 and Tornadoes of 2011#April 22 TornadoLGS (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major severe events with few tornadoes

[edit]

Over the past few weeks there have been a few major/notable severe events that produced widespread wind and/or hail damage but few tornadoes. Since this article is focused on tornadoes, should these events be included within the article or removed (examples: May 29/30 and June 8-9). If they're removed there will be no mention of them on the site but the focus of this article will remain intact. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be removed. They're just severe thunderstorms, which happen quite often. If we included every severe thunderstorm on this site, Wikipedia would explode. People often try to predict these things before they happen, which was the case for the June 8-9 event, and it results in these tornado-less entries. Sometimes it's wishful thinking, or sometimes, if the SPC puts a moderate risk over where you live, people get a little excited and start blowing things out of proportion.
And in regards to the "few tornadoes" part, hasn't that always been a general rule with these articles? I remember in August 2010 there were two confirmed EF1 tornadoes just a few miles from my home, yet none of them made it into the article because they weren't part of a huge outbreak and no one cares about rural Upstate New York. If anyone remembers September 16th, 2010, you'd remember that one EF0 tornado and one EF1 tornado hit New York City, and it was national news. So I guess unless the tornadoes are severe (Joplin), part of an outbreak (the minor Maine tornadoes in the New England outbreak), or strike in a notable area (New York City EF0 tornadoes), they shouldn't be included.--74.70.57.184 (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of these minor tornadic events should have their own article, but perhaps a paragraph may be in order for some? The June 14th event might be notable enough, or perhaps the 15th event. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the topic, should this latest thing with Maryland even be included? Doesn't seem too significant at all. --74.70.57.184 (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They should get some weight on getting a section in borderline cases, but if there were few or no tornadoes, it should not be added. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 19 - Tornado Outbreak

[edit]

If this system spawns more then 40 tornadoes (confirmed that is), should it be considered for an article? Or will a section on the main article suffice? -Marcusmax(speak) 20:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the tornadoes were mostly in open rural country, an article is probably not warranted. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once the NCDC data for April comes out...

[edit]

Here is the priority order IMO for updating everything (it will take a while):

1) Update the April 25-28 outbreak page. That was clearly the most prolific event and could ultimately take the title 2011 Super Outbreak but more consensus is necessary and is Top-importance. That should be updated first.

2) Update the April 14-16 outbreak page. That was the #2 outbreak for the month and will, combined with 25-28, have much of the totals. It should have major updates and perhaps rating changes, so it would be better to work from there.

3) Update the April 2011 tornadoes page. That will allow the remaining pages to have final numbers available, and it would be simpler to go there then copy and paste all the other articles and merge back there.

4) Update the remaining event articles and on this page. Most will be minor other than copying and pasting and are lower importance.

CrazyC83 (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partial data is out now. 715 tornado segments but such is not the final total (I expect it to approach or exceed 1,000 segments with about 700-750 actual tornadoes, including about 370 in the Super Outbreak), several WFOs do not have data out yet. Quite difficult to update with some storms missing. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think we can do anything with the missing reports. There's no specific set of dates missing, it's quite haphazard. I believe most of the tornadoes for 14-16 are on there but there's no certainty. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario killer tornado rating.

[edit]

I wanted to make sure before making any edits, but shouldn't the Goderich, Ontario tornado be listed as an F3 rather than an EF3? I was under the impression the Environment Canada still rated tornadoes the original Fujita scale. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change title to something else?

[edit]

A bunch of my posts were deleted - these tornados are "Tornadoes of 2011". Who decided that "Tornadoes of 2011" meant "Non-isolated, significantly damaging Tornadoes of 2011"?

2011 confirmed tornadoes with F-ratings

Fergus, Ontario April 27, 2011 F0 Downed trees and siding ripped off store buildings.

Shaunavon, Saskatchewan June 2, 2011 F0 Granaries near Highway 37 were damaged and thrown from their original location. Several power lines were also damaged.

Ottawa River between Aylmer, Quebec and Kanata, Ontario June 23, 2011 F0 Localized damage in remote wooded areas.

Calgary, Alberta July 13, 2011 F0 12 buildings over a one block area were affected. Some damaged roofs and flooded streets.

Between Saguenay and Quebec City, Quebec July 20, 2011 F1 Powerful wind gusts were able to pick up a driving car.

Between Wyoming and Watford, Ontario July 23, 2011 F2 Several steel hydro towers crumpled and damage to a barn.

Sainte-Elisabeth-de Proulx, Quebec August 6, 2011 F1 Uprooted trees, damage to cottages and hydro poles.

From west of Kenora to Sioux Lookout, Ontario August 16, 2011 F0 Trees flattened, uprooted.

Goderich, Ontario August 21, 2011 F3 One fatality, numerous people injured, structural damage to buildings, roofs removed, numerous vehicles overturned and trees down.

Between Cambridge and Burlington, Ontario August 24, 2011 F1 Trees downed, greatest damage in Kirkwall.

Nairn, northwest of London, Ontario August 24, 2011 F1 Destruction of large farm shed and numerous trees.

These are all Tornadoes of 2011 in my opinion. If not going to be listed under tornadoes of 2011 where is a better place on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napdaw (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't this one be included according to the criteria? But it was deleted. Between Wyoming and Watford, Ontario July 23, 2011 F2 Several steel hydro towers crumpled and damage to a barn. Maybe there is more to your "critera".

I think a change of title or disclosure on the main page of the critera would keep things informative, open and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napdaw (talk • contribs) 21:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Lee - New York tornado

[edit]

"In addition, an EF1 tornado associated with a cold front related to Lee touched down in New York." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I actually think that tornado had nothing to do with Lee. Lee was still hovering over the Gulf states when that cold front passed through and created the tornado. Should this tornado get its own section or should it be removed? I think it's kind of notable, since the footage of it was on the national news. 129.3.150.59 (talk)

Why is the tornado report totals listed well below the actual reported totals according to the SPC ?

[edit]

Reports are just that reports, and wouldn't it be "accurate" to reflect the actual amount of reports the SPC has received? I spent a good 15 minutes at least going through the SPC report logs for this year, starting with January 1st, and adding up the total "reports" of tornadoes, and editing this article accordingly, only to have it "edited". The total was over 2,100, not including the last 8-10 days of reports. This puts it well ahead of the listed 1,817 reports that this article reflects. Accuracy should be tantamount here. And "reports" means "tornadoes reported", not "only those considered to be 'reporting' different tornadoes". 76.1.1.13 (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPC's totals include a separate report for every county in a damage path. Many of the reports in late April were long-track tornadoes that would be counted many times in SPC's totals. Additionally, I believe (but am not certain) that our listed total is also adjusted for later when final figures come out, but I'm not certain. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New yearly total

[edit]

I have calculated new totals based on this map from the SPC for January-July and the monthly charts on this site for August-December and have arrived at the following:

Confirmed tornadoes by Enhanced Fujita rating
EFU EF0 EF1 EF2 EF3 EF4 EF5 Total
0 788 635 198 61 17 6 1705

Should this be the new total for the chart under the United States yearly total? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TornadoLGS (talk • contribs) 05:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it is the new year should this go in the main article? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
January - March and July - September are final totals. There are still tornadoes missing from April, May, and June. I am working on that and will be done soon. I am also going to work on Oct. - Dec. but I will have to wait until NCDC reports come out. United States Man (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but wouldn't it be at least more up to date than the totals we have listed on the main page right now? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just saying that it probably won't be the final total. It is more up to date and you can go ahead and add it. United States Man (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
October should be released soon...the SPC has released the monthly total and stated that the November and December ones will be out by March. The current preliminary yearly total is now at 1,725. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I find this anyway? The page I've found still only shows updates through July. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No specifics on the ratings SPC Monthly totals Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With final totals from January - October and preliminary totals for November and December, we stand at 1,705 rated tornadoes and 2 unrated tornadoes from May 11 and November 15. United States Man (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May/June Tornadoes

[edit]

There are several tornadoes missing from May 22 and May 24-30. There are also some missing from these days in June: 1, 10-12, 14, 17-20, 26-27, and 29. I would like to ask everyone to help in adding them. Details are on NCDC. United States Man (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of May and June are done except May 30. Does anyone know of 4 more tornadoes in June? All that I can find is 156 tornadoes but the SPC Monthly and Annual Summaries says that there are 160 tornadoes. Also in July it says 103 tornadoes but all I can find is 101. Does anyone know anything about this. United States Man (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead toll revised downward

[edit]

It would appear that the SPC has revised the U.S. death toll down to 550. From what I can tell it has to do with deaths not directly attributable to tornadoes. This appears to have moved 2011 down to the 4th deadliest from a tie for 2nd. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include April 25-28 outbreak tornadoes with monthly lists

[edit]

Should a link to the List of tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak be included in the "Events" section along side the links to the monthly list? The list accounts for nearly half of April's tornado which aren't included in the monthly list and contains more tornadoes than any of the other monthly lists. TornadoLGS (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such could be confusing to people since the monthly lists are all that are ever put in that section. I think it is easy enough to get to that we could get by with keeping it as is. United States Man (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPC totals

[edit]

According to the SPC there were 1692 recorded tornadoes in the U.S. but we list 1704. My question is, where to the extra 12 tornadoes come from? Were there some that, for some reason, the SPC didn't count, or were some events later consolidated or determined to have been non-tornadic? TornadoLGS (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got into an argument with Cyclonebiskit about this very thing. The problem is that EF0s that are missed by the SPC turn up on NCDC and mess up the totals. The 2012 total may have the same problem. I will send out some emails to try to straighten this out. United States Man (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. I do some work for WikiAnswers and am sometimes confused as to which figures to use. It also seems that some EF1s and 2s get lost as well. And are these emails to the SPC? TornadoLGS (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They will be at first. They might go other places if they have to. United States Man (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file problems with File:Waff Tower Cam.jpg

[edit]

File:Waff Tower Cam.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Waff Tower Cam.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Six rated EF5

[edit]

There were six rated EF5 on three different days-

@Liz-I did just what you said for me to do. I saved this edit and I see that someone posted a link at the bottom of this talk page. I know the order is from oldest to newest. I don't if my subject has to be below that link and not above it. If it does, I need some help.--Kevjgav (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The Enhanced Fujita scale is flawed in that it is a damage-only scale as can be seen when it comes to a certain instance in May 2013... so if a tornado doesn't strike something with high enough durability for the scale to cause EF5 damage (and while the tornado is at that intensity), it won't be rated as such. The 2011 outbreak largely affected the South, much of which is more densely populated and has more trees than the plains, so while that is the most (at least since the adoption of the EF scale) tornadoes to be rated EF5 in one day, it probably isn't the most tornadoes with EF5 winds to have occurred on a single day. Dustin (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tornadoes of 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tornadoes of 2011. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tornadoes of 2011. 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) 19:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge St. Louis tornado

[edit]

I posted a comment a while ago suggesting that the 2011 St. Louis tornado should be merged with the Tornado outbreak sequence of April 19–24, 2011. My comments there, so far, have not gotten any feedback. I suspect that few or possibly none of the active members of the severe weather project are currently watching that page. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Total Damage Estimate

[edit]

It appears most sources are highly out of date, and as a result this page's estimation is extremely off base. A simple summation of given estimates for the events that have estimates gave a grand total of $26.537 Billion in 2011 USD. All one needs to do is look at 2011 Super Outbreak and Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011 to know that ~$10 Billion is an impossible approximation of the damage estimates, as these two events alone total up to ~$19.2 Billion USD. As such, I've adjusted the damage estimate to match the total that can be concluded from the articles here on Wikipedia. If anyone has any problems with this, please let me know. --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New tornadoes on April 21

[edit]

@TornadoLGS, TropicalAnalystwx13, and ChessEric: In going through and updating the tables with NCDC/NCEI data, I found two reports for EF0 tornadoes in Pecos County, Texas that had been missed over the last 11 years. So now, the totals for April and 2011 have gone up by two EF0s to 773 and 1705, respectively. I know the former numbers (771 and 1703) are on different pages, so I'd like to ask for help in tracking down and changing these to the new correct totals. United States Man (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I know that if a comprehensive reanalysis were ever done by the NWS on April 27, the number of tornadoes would likely increase by a dozen or two. United States Man (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean on other WP pages that include these pages? I'll take a look at it tomorrow. I'm about to sign off for the night, but I'll try to take a look tomorrow. Just had my own little taste of what a mess NCDC records can be. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are some other pages (such as tornado records) where the totals of 771 and 1703 appear. Those would need to be changed. United States Man (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, nice timing that you posted this right on the anniversary. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornadoes_of_2011&oldid=1258432108"