Jump to content

Talk:Tornadoes of 2008

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

Need a ALERT Template for May 1

[edit]

...and one for May 4 onwards. The Weather Channel has reported a possible outbreak of servere weather, tornadoes to happen on these days onward. This will save some lives, mitigate damage, help people prepare. 205.240.144.214 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing online yet that I can see to cite, but TV coverage (KMBC in Kansas City) is reporting that six tornadoes were spawned by the storm system that passed across Kansas and Missouri tonight. Ubernostrum (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


===NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE TULSA OK===

847 PM CDT THU MAY 1 2008

AT 843 PM CDT...WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR AND STORM SPOTTERS CONTINUED TO TRACK A LARGE AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TORNADO. THIS TORNADIC STORM WAS LOCATED 6 MILES EAST OF RALSTON...MOVING NORTHEAST AT 30 MPH. A LARGE TORNADO HAS BEEN CONFIRMED...TAKE COVER IMMEDIATELY!

SOME LOCATIONS NEAR THE PATH OF THIS STORM INCLUDE...SHIDLER AND PAWHUSKA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.251.247 (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]



===NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SPRINGFIELD MO===

635 AM CDT FRI MAY 2 2008

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN SPRINGFIELD HAS ISSUED A

  • TORNADO WARNING FOR...

EASTERN OZARK COUNTY IN SOUTHWEST MISSOURI... HOWELL COUNTY IN SOUTH CENTRAL MISSOURI... SOUTHERN TEXAS COUNTY IN SOUTH CENTRAL MISSOURI...

  • UNTIL 715 AM CDT.
  • AT 633 AM CDT...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED

TORNADIC STORMS ALONG A LINE EXTENDING FROM 8 MILES NORTHEAST OF HARTVILLE TO 8 MILES SOUTH OF CABOOL TO 12 MILES SOUTH OF GAINESVILLE...MOVING SOUTH AT 23 MPH.

  • THESE TORNADIC STORMS WILL REMAIN OVER MAINLY RURAL AREAS OF

EASTERN OZARK...HOWELL AND SOUTHERN TEXAS COUNTIES...INCLUDING THE TOWNS OF DORA...TECUMSEH AND UDALL. ONE OF THESE SHORT LIVED TORNADOES LIKELY CAUSED SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE IN AVA SHORTLY AFTER 6 AM.

75.7.251.247 (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City derecho

[edit]

Depending on the numbers that come in, an article may be warranted being a major city hit (the numbers don't warrant it yet). That creates an interesting issue if today warrants an article for a tornado outbreak... CrazyC83 (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WMCtv.com (from a report from KAIT) reported two fatalities in ARkansas west of Jonesboro, so I will start a userfy draft of the tornadoes of yesterday and those from today.--JForget 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:JForget/May 2008 Tornado outbreak is set up, you can add updates and other stuff needed. It is likely that with the three fatalities, an article will be required not to mention it is only midday on a moderate risk date with several weather possible tomorrow.--JForget 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KAIT-TV in Jonesboro, Arkansas now reports six fatalities, so it's just a matter of time before this will be moved to mainspaceJForget 17:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes CONFIRMED

[edit]

As of the time displayed here, got two counties in Texas, four in Arkansas that have been hit by tornadoes. One of those hit near Carthage, Texas. All featured have been seen and been detected on radar. Watching it on the Weather Channel, NOAA radio. We do have a hell of a outbreak.205.240.144.214 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone place this?! Info is from www.weather.com and www.noaa.gov 205.240.144.214 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alert Template

[edit]

We need a Emergency Alert template in the article as well. I can't place one, since I may have to evacuate due to the ongoing tornado alert for my area. 205.240.144.214 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Tornado outbreak

[edit]

Hope I'm wrong on this. The Weather Channel, NOAA has indicated that this may happen. Need a Alert template on this matter. Affected areas: Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, states north of these to the Canadian border. Servere storms, hail, frequent lightning, even TORNADOES are expected on May 6 - 8 so far, given the fact that the last weather system has produced 50+ tornadoes, very servere weather. In the Texas and Louisiana area, storms will fire up this afternoon AND at night as a front moves through, a surface low and a upper level low moves through this area, causing immense instability in this area today and tonight. This system has already produced servere weather AND tornadoes, prompting Thunderstorm and Tornado Watches in the past. This will happen when solar heating adds to the instability. Can someone place a Warning template, appropriate templates? 205.240.146.169 (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need Warning template

[edit]

Got violent and servere storms near me. Need this! Thanx. 205.240.146.121 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always do it yourself. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 02:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlottesville Warning

[edit]

Sometime between 8-9PM Charlottesville and Albemarle County got a tornado warning and the Charlottesville Pavillion was evacuated. The storm then weakened a bit and it ended at 9:15. This may have been the same storm to give a warning for Fredericksburg. A later storm briefly produced another tornado warning for Charlottesville.Stevv (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreak Sequence?

[edit]

If there was not one or two-day breaks between the Suffolk outbreak and the May 2 outbreak and that the most recent outbreak and then for potentially another coming up for the weekend this could easily be material for an outbreak sequence article from April 25 to this weekend's severe weather potential. Any thoughts?--JForget 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Article for May 6-9+?

[edit]

Because there have been some large, damaging tornadoes in this time period, and coupled with a fatality in Greensboro, NC with still more severe weather expected to happen tomorrow, I believe that an article may be needed. Comments? Chukonu xbow (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, this may be borderline for an article, however see my comment on the section above. I think this should be part of a larger article that includes the early May outbreak and the potential significant outbreak this weekend.--JForget 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. Right now I would say borderline no, but tomorrow looks like it certainly could change that. Gopher backer (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, we could call this April-May 2008 Tornado Outbreak Sequence for that matter if we have another bad outbreak. That would be four big outbreaks in a short two-week period.--JForget 02:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wait and see what the weekend brings - there's a wide area from the southern Plains to the SE Atlantic Coast that might be a potential area for severe weather developments during the next 49 hours. If there are any other significant developments over the weekend, then I'd say yes - there have been an abundance of significant tornadoes over the last several days, either in metropolitan locations, or in areas that have been hit repeatedly through the spring, and I think it is accumulating into a series of events that are deserving of something a bit more detailed.Davidals (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And apparently it's not over yet after that as there are D4 and D5 severe weather risk for the Deep South again. We may have to consider this too eventually.--JForget 14:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading what you guys have said, I think we should wait to see what the weekend brings, and if the weekend brings anything major like they say it will, then I agree that an outbreak sequence article may be needed. Chukonu xbow (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree regarding the outbreak sequence. What happened on May 7-9 does not warrant an article on its own, but if the weekend is bad, it should go into a new article with May 10-11 covering a five-day period. (What happened on May 1-2 IMO happened long enough ago to remain distinct since there were no confirmed tornadoes from May 3-6; just May 1-2 will need to be renamed). CrazyC83 (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now getting underway in a hurry. A sandbox will be started shortly if current trends continue. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the best name for May 2008 tornado outbreak? I'd go with May 1-2, 2008 tornado outbreak instead of "Early May". -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 22:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May 1-2 outbreak is the only thing that would work since the next one also falls in early May. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox about to be started at User:CrazyC83/May10-08outbreak. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you me to add the May 7-8 tornadoes in that list because an article would likely including the Tupelo-Greensboro-OKC tornadoes.--JForget 23:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't started that yet but they will need to be added in before it goes to an article (should it be warranted), at May 7-11, 2008 tornado outbreak sequence (or whatever else if it goes on further). Feel free to do it though. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already starting to built it, when I'm done with it, I'll transfered it to your draft page.--JForget 23:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's already 3 fatalities in Missouri, so I guess it is safe to say it now warrants an article .--JForget 01:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it now does. It just needs an improved lede. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures up on CNN look like EF4-5 damage.-RunningOnBrains 02:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it is transitioning into a derecho event - seems the straight-line damaging winds started at the Memphis Airport and there were possible wind gusts close to 100 mph based on the maps/tools used by WMC-TV. I'm done for tonight, but I won't be surprised to see widespread damaging wind in Tupelo, Huntsville and Birmingham tonight.--JForget 02:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job guys

[edit]

JForget and CrazyC, you guys are ridiculous. Every time I go to update this page, it's already been updated!. Because of you two, Wikipedia is generally a few hours ahead of CNN.

On a related note, with 10 fatalities, today and tomorrow should definitely have an article. -RunningOnBrains 02:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, SPC is now showing 18 fatalities from tornadoes alone in the past 24 hours on the Storm Reports page. Rdfox 76 (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see 19. I'm questioning whether the 10 fatalities and 3 fatalities are duplicate reports however, as they are in the same county at the same time. I revised the total downward, feel free to revert if you disagree.-RunningOnBrains 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. see http://www.ky3.com/. -RunningOnBrains 05:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it may still not be over - another active week is forecast. The amount of time separating the events will determine whether to continue them in the current article, or separate it all. Tomorrow should be quiet, but May 13-15 expects to be very active. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Keep it up. Where I'm at we have a severe weather outbreak going on w/ the possibility of tornadoes tonight and the next two or three days. 205.240.146.14 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article proposal

[edit]

I propose that an article about the April 28, 2008 tornadoes that hit virginia and north carolina should be created. Any thoughts? Storm05 (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe it is covered just fine here. Does not seem to be particularly notable; this could change when Storm Data comes out in a few months if the outbreak was particularly damaging. It's a borderline case, certainly if you think you can make a Featured Article out of it eventually go right ahead. Just be sure, before creating the article (if you do), that you can easily tell why the topic is notable enough for an article just by reading it. -RunningOnBrains 16:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that. As it stands right now, this does not meet the general notability criteria we use, but that could change when the damage amounts come out (but that likely will not happen until late this summer at the earliest). Gopher backer (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with leaving it here for now, since there is no article to put it into (too far away from the May 1-2 activity geographically) and it doesn't warrant an article on its own. If the numbers change when the final data come out, it might be warranted though. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although there is a two-day gap (just like between the April 28 and May 1-2 outbreak) between the Mother's Day outbreak (May 10-11) and the May 14-15 outbreak though both were included together in the Outbreak sequence article. I think we should consider this as well. That single tornado on May 13 was not even confirmed. Also, the April 28 outbreak was far more destructive then May 14-15. --JForget 19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they were not in the same geographical area (there were no tornadoes anywhere near Virginia on May 1-2). CrazyC83 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 22-24+

[edit]

Someone else decided to create an article for this developing outbreak (not linked to this page). IMO it is way too early (although there is a good chance it will be warranted in the end), but it created a bit of an argument. Let it stand or delete it? CrazyC83 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let it stand for now. As for the name, is it really late-May? -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is my preferred format (to ensure the words combine up). If it lasts into the weekend, something like 2008 Memorial Day Weekend tornado outbreak, but not if it stops well before then. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is enough to warrant an article now: 3 deaths, much of Laramie, WY (3rd biggest city in Wyoming) considerably damaged, high risk issued, more strong tornadoes expected.-RunningOnBrains 21:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question, was that supercell north of Denver moving west? That radar image does not look like your typical supercell. Speaking of that radar image, is that legal for us to use? It came wunderground.com, and while they do use public domain data from the NWS, they may have their own "spin" that their company puts on the radar images, and I'm wondering if that is allowable for use here. Gopher backer (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, to answer your question, most storms today are moving NNW-NNE (it's an unusual storm mode). Second, these folks just retracted their claim of three dead, its back down to one. Third and lastly, I'm fairly certain that a derivative of a Federal Govt work is still PD, I could be wrong though.-RunningOnBrains 21:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox underway at User:CrazyC83/Outbreak0522. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've notice something that might be interesting for the synopsis section, that might be added in regards to Laramie. Right now after getting the tornado, they are having thundersnow and 0.5 mile visibility and 32 degrees and accumulating snow forecast tonight. A tornado warning is in effect just one county east of Laramie in Cheyenne. Sorry for not helping out tonight.JForget 02:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up, a huge supercell is heading right towards Greensburg... again with a reported tornado on the ground and possible baseball size hail. I think CrazyC we should send the article to mainspace since it will likely surpass the 25+ tornadoes + at least 1 killer criteria.--JForget 01:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, an article is probably warranted now, I've been slowly working on the chart but not much else. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is insane...even if it is weaker, the FEMA trailers cannot withstand anything. Plus the cells in the north are as bad as Greensburg I... CrazyC83 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too everyone, there is another strong supercell that needs to be watched as well - this one is heading towards Medecine Lodge and if it holds together perhaps Wichita. This one also has the TVS indicator on the Microsoft Virtual Earth. Looks like there is almost a hook echo there.--JForget 02:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 4-6 outbreak

[edit]

Even though an article will probably not be required tonight, I might start out a sandbox since the forecast for tomorrow is bad. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess we may have another outbreak sequence situation, especially if there are several tornadoes in the same area hit yesterday. This is all from a series of storms along the ring of fire/stationary boundary. The storms have caused three deaths, should an article do happen I think the DC derecho might need its own section - maybe its own article if we don't include yesterday's outbreak.--JForget 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a complicated situation here on how to treat everything. The stationary front does provide a connection between the systems, even though no tornado activity yet warrants an article - the DC derecho almost does (I thought about it but held back on it due to the lack of many structural damage reports even though about 510,000 lost power). None of the deaths were tornado-related BTW (1 due to winds, 2 due to flooding). Basically, I see June 1 and 2 as isolated events that don't really have much of a role at all in this, while yesterday's systems in the Midwest are now in the Mid-Atlantic, with the main tornado outbreak system (likely to be tomorrow's big issue) back over the Oklahoma Panhandle and New Mexico currently. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox at User:CrazyC83/Outbreak0604. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do derechos count towards this page and towards the death total? I thought this was just for tornadoes. 63.215.29.212 (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The death tolls from derechos do NOT count towards the season total. In outbreak articles, they get listed as (x + y non-tornadic), with x representing tornado deaths and y representing the total deaths from thunderstorms in the outbreak not related to tornadoes (i.e. straight-line winds, hail, lightning, heavy rain/flooding), if there are any. Since most derechos have embedded tornadoes, those with such are listed on this page. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly, a high risk today. The article may be needed fairly quickly once things get going. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPC is saying that the storm will rapidly intensify within the next 2-3 hours. The risk for EF2-5 tornadoes is 60% with an almost definate chance of >2 tornadoes. This may be one of the strongest of the year the way they're putting this info out. I just hope everyone is ready again. It's been a rough time for them in the past month or so. It's sad to see this keep happening to the same areas over and over again. To all that may be affected, stay safe! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already built a lead and synopsis section on the draft version as I'm anticipating to move it to mainspace tonight. I've put in bold June 2008 tornado outbreak sequence for the moment as possible title. I think, we will have a sufficient number of tornadoes that even if there are no tornadic deaths an article will be needed.JForget 19:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is probable - but not certain - that the article will be warranted by this evening. Also the fact that this is likely to turn into a major derecho event this evening could also change things. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's wait-and-see now. There have been tornadoes but nothing significant today. The big unknown is whether we see an evening outbreak or major derecho that pulls the article trigger. Either way, it will likely be a mixed tornado outbreak/derecho article. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this was really serious where I was. A large tornado did some damage south of chicago and there was a large funnel cloud where I was which prompted tornado sirens. Fortunately it looks to be over here. Rvk41 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just waiting for more details. If there are fatalities or if things look terrible, I'll get the article going. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reports of homes flattened in Richton Park. Hope no one was killed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 10-14

[edit]

I guess we might have another article to deal with, unless there is the need to solidify even further the notability case of the previous article since (notice it is another Midwest outbreak), there have been questions about it. I've thought we would finally get a break from the intense tornado activity and that the stuff today would not have been worth mentioning anywhere. I guess I'm wrong.--JForget 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 dead so far. I'm not sure if we should continue to build the article already in place, or start a new article since there were no confirmed tornadoes on June 9 or 10. That of course assumes that things continue to develop. It is amazing that for the last 7 weeks we have had virtually no breaks in the activity. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I'm wrong there was a confirmed tornado yesterday, which would be related to the current outbreak. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they had tornadoes in Iowa on the 8th as well, and given there is one as you said on the 10th, and given that we did had outbreak sequence articles that included up to 15 days in scope in the past with similar breaks (days with 1 or 2 tornadoes in different areas), I would be ready to add this up - however, in condition to split the list ASAP as the main article is 80k in size - and if he add more on the heatwave and a bit little more on the 4 derecho events and a bit more on the flooding, this could approach 85-90k.--JForget 01:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've started to add them to the newly split article. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had already put in the sandbox. Use User:JForget/Sandbox to put the rest in one shot if you prefer to save time.--JForget 02:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent>Well, it looks like we're going the way of the Tropical Cyclones, needing an article for every outbreak causing damage. Not that thats a bad thing, I'd like to have as many articles as we can chug out, especially for years past. It's only unfortunate that we don't get six months off to polish the articles between seasons ;-) -RunningOnBrains 05:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have had nearly continuous outbreaks lately though that it seems everything is warranting an article...but being mid-June, the tornado threat should change to a tropics-based threat soon (unless climatology is being ignored). CrazyC83 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what, it may not be over just yet, with the large MDT risk from London, ON to OKC for today. Even my area is on the edge of the Slight risk area.--JForget 14:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly a derecho threat today (there are 2 of the very rare PDS Severe Thunderstorm Watches out), although a few isolated tornadoes are possible. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And those PDS watches busted. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article size?

[edit]

It's only June and the article is already at 83 kb. Should there be any concern about this? Rvk41 (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not much we can do about it, since this year has been incredibly active. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that once the season is over we will be able to trim down and/or remove some non-events, as well as move some text from this article to the various subarticles. We really shouldn't worry about it, as the old long-article editing problems have been long-since fixed, and not many people (excluding me, sadly) have slow modems any more.-RunningOnBrains 06:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general, if weeding out takes place, anything involving an F2/EF2 or greater tornado, a fatality or at least 5 injuries, or in an urban area or other historically notable event for any reasons should remain here. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California tornados

[edit]

There were two confirmed tornados in California on May 23rd 2008. Can someone add those in? I don't know how. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.156.152 (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you would provide a source. I see no tornadoes reported on May 23. There were two reported on the 22nd, however, these have not yet been officially confirmed (it will likely be another month or so before official tornado records for May are released).-RunningOnBrains 05:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European tornadoes

[edit]

After loooking at ESWD most of those tornadoes aren't even verified, even the one that killed a person in Russia. One that was F3 appears to be an opinion from someone on a message board. What makes this a reliable source? Rvk41 (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I thought that list was well-verified. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've always found that database confusing (mostly because most of it is not in english), but also because there are tornadoes certified F5 from the 1700s (which no reputable meteorologist would support given lack of engineering data). I wish the EU or some other European organization would gather continent-wide statistics, keeping track of official tornado counts. Sigh, wishful thinking. -RunningOnBrains 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicagoland derecho - August 4

[edit]

PDS Severe Thunderstorm Watch out (a rare thing). Embedded tornadoes may warrant a section here, but with millions of people in the way, it might very well warrant an article. We'll have to watch closely. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav outbreak sandbox

[edit]

Not currently warranted, but depending on damage reports and duration, it may eventually be. (Tropical-related outbreaks are always tricky as they are an undercard to the main event - in this case Gustav itself.) I started it at User:CrazyC83/Outbreak0901. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost warranted, if the number of tornado reports exceeds 50 (which appears likely) I'd put it in the mainspace. However, to whomever added it to the article, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't predict the future in articles! I don't ever want to see "tornado outbreak is expected to occur" in an article again, it's very bad. It's ok to mention SPC forecasts, but in almost all situations a section should not be created until tornado reports are already coming in. Sorry if I seem harsh, but it's BAD BAD BAD. Ok I'm done now :-P -RunningOnBrains 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas/Missouri September 12

[edit]

Waiting for stuff to pop up on the web with confirmations, but Kansas City area TV stations are tracking a tornado on the ground, and warnings over the past hour have coincided with one confirmed twister prior to that one. Ubernostrum (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collating TV news reports and warnings from my weather radio: one in Eudora, one in De Soto/Bonner Springs, one possibly in Olathe or Overland Park and a funnel near Whiteman AFB a little while back. Ubernostrum (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an enigma for treatment here, as that system is expected to merge with Ike and combine two "outbreaks" into one. I combined them knowing the fact, but they can be separated on the page if so desired. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 5-6

[edit]

It looks like there could be a notable tornado outbreak in the midwest. There is already a moderate risk for today and maybe tomorrow. Rvk41 (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reports and one warning so far.Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete bust. I wasn't paying a lot of attention as it never developed. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 15

[edit]

Could somebody expand on the Nov 15 section? It seems to be a notable storm, as it has two fatalities. Although I couldn't find a lot of info, perhaps somebody else could? Chukonu xbow Talk Contribs 16:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a minor outbreak. There is a large area under a tornado watch, including where I live in NY of all places...this year really is too strange. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some expansion may be necessary, but an article is not warranted as there were too few overall tornadoes. BTW, November 15 is quite infamous for tornadoes - there were killer tornadoes/outbreaks in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1994, 2005 and 2006 as well. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, well save the two tornadoes very early this morning, it's been a bust thus far. There was a nice line of storms heading my way, but it broke up and significantly weakened before passing through. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rethinking the hyperactive period?

[edit]

I'm rethinking how the hyperactive period (from about May 7 to June 13 and three articles) should be treated on here. Since outbreaks were almost daily and difficult to differentiate, there are several thoughts in my opinion:

1) Leave alone in three articles. The quieter periods from May 16-21 and June 1-2 would act as breakpoints.

2) Combine into a single article (May-June 2008 tornado outbreak sequence), with the tornado lists on multiple articles if necessary. That would show that everything happened so fast and eliminate all breakpoints. But putting 5 weeks of activity on a single article would be a tough task, very long and unprecedented.

3) Undo all the sequences and put each system on single articles (*indicates that tornado event alone warrants an article). Although that would create date duplication for different regions, it would create single events for the following: May 7-9, May 10-11*, May 14-15, May 20-22 (Southeast), May 22-27 (Midwest/Plains)*, May 29-31*, June 2-4 (Midwest/Mid-Atlantic), June 4-8 (Plains/Midwest)*, June 11-13*. That would put it into standard Wikipedia standards, but it creates difficult breakpoints and at least 5 articles (plus several new sections in this article).

There are pros and cons to all the options. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak sequence is a recently introduced term and not (yet) widely used in meteorology. Thus, the definition may evolve, but in all instances so far, it means a period of continuous tornado outbreaks on successive days with no (or very little) days without significant tornado activity (one day with only a few tornadoes is about the most that a lull can be stretched). It's not a handy way to lump multiple tornado outbreaks within a set period, the key is the continuity and thus TOS tend to be fairly rare. Certainly, there were "hyperactive" periods in May 2003, 2004, and 2008.
Also, the director of SPC presented a summary of the 2008 US tornado season at the AMS meeting last week. Evolauxia (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like much of that information came directly from us! Except for November (should be available very soon) and December, all the numbers are based on NCDC data. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

[edit]
  • Copyedit needed
  • The lead should be expanded to include quick summaries of each month and state the most significant tornado of that month.
  • Final information (once available) for October-December
  • Missing references and current references needed to be cited correctly
  • Summarize outbreaks better (since the article is rather large). Emphasis on the large outbreaks, try to keep the minor ones smaller than the infoboxes
  • April 8-11 should have an article so that it's section can be shortened
  • Something is wrong with the infobox in the May 7-15 event
  • May 22-25 and 29-31 should be combined (since they are being treated as an outbreak sequence) and shortened
  • Shorten the section on 3-8 and possibly merge 11-13 into it
  • Formatting with images needs to be improved

Those are some basic things that either need to be or could be done to improve this article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tornadoes of 2008. 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 12:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tornadoes of 2008. 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 13:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Tornadoes of 2008. 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) 05:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tornadoes of 2008. 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) 11:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Canada
Japan

~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornadoes_of_2008&oldid=1209645982"