Jump to content

Talk:Tornado outbreak of May 26–31, 2013

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

TWISTEX hit with fatalities

[edit]

The Weather Channel is now reporting as "breaking, confirmed" news that three of the nine deaths in the El Reno tornado were members of the TWISTEX team, including Tim Samaras, his son Paul, and Carl Young. Given TWISTEX's having been included in the Storm Chasers TV show, should we include this alongside what happened to Bettes's team? It's already mentioned on the TWISTEX page. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, definitely yes. Also, we need an article on Tim Samaras now, he easily qualifies as notable enough, with this sad news underscoring this. I dont have time right now, im sure someone can do this right.(mercurywoodrose)99.23.81.234 (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Samaras needs an article. Anything about him can easily be covered on the TWISTEX page. But information is included in this page. United States Man (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"1500-pound" truck?!

[edit]

Do we have any source on the weight of the truck Samaras usually drove? The 1500-pound figure in the article currently seems dubious; that's roughly the weight of an Indy car, and not much more than a Formula One race car. He seemed to be using a Chevrolet Suburban or GMC Yukon when Storm Chasers was on the air; that's at least 4000 pounds. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just relaying what the source provided: "three-quarter ton truck." I'll try and find more sources to see if there's a better weight. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, that's the issue--"three-quarter ton" when referring to a truck isn't actually referring to its weight, but instead to its size category. See Truck classification#Ton rating. In this case, it would be something equivalent in size to a F350, Chevrolet 2500HD, or Ram 2500. rdfox 76 (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shows how much I know about trucks! :D Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's now corrected with a pipe link to the truck classification in the sub-article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the EF5

[edit]

Isn't normally the rating supposed to be based on damage (i.e like they've did in Moore on May 20) rather than velocity or they haven't identified the area of EF5 damage?. Sounds like the methods of classifying damage have changed. If it's the case there are quite a few tornadoes pre-2007 that would have earn a cat 5 rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.151.9 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly it is supposed to be damage, but it seems at least two tornadoes this year were rated based on wind speed measurements. I personally don't like it, but whatever the offices do is the official word. In regard to pre-2007, the F and EF scales are technically different rating systems even if one is derived from the other. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With technology constantly improving, meteorologists are having more faith in the wind measurements by Doppler radar and are starting to use them to rate tornadoes (when measurements are available). This is the third tornado this year to be rated based on mobile Doppler readings. They just take the winds and match them up with the EF-scale, so anything >200mph would qualify as EF5. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, though my main caveat is that we still aren't sure of how accurate the wind estimates for the EF scale are.TornadoLGS (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but the measured winds (296 mph) are also high enough to qualify as F5 on the old scale (260-319 mph); I suspect that's why the NWS chose to accept the radar wind speed to upgrade it. Apparently, NWS OUN is also saying unofficially that it was at least partly because it was in an area where there were almost no ratable structures for it to damage.
Alternatively, even though vehicles are not officially considered Degree of Damage indicators, perhaps they also applied the old F5 standard of "cars or trucks thrown more than 100 yards" to it, using the TWC truck as their point of evidence, based on that catch-all in the damage description of "Incredible phenomena will occur"? rdfox 76 (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that is good then, especially considering the chaser's truck, as such indicators were mentioned for some of the EF5 tornadoes from he April 27 outbreak. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember tornadoes that have thrown vehicles like that and have only received EF3-EF4. I don't think the vehicles had anything to do with the rating. If they had, the tornado would have already been given a higher rating. On a side note, over in Lawrence County, Tennessee (not far from my neck of the woods) on April 16, 1998 an F5 supposedly threw a car more than 20 miles (32 km). Of course that hasn't been proven (especially since the track itself was only 19 miles (31 km) and some change). Vehicles might have a small part in the rating but I don't think it is a determining factor. United States Man (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New image: File:20130531-ElRenoOK 2310Z.png

[edit]

I found an image from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It looks like an excellent image in my opinion, but it has been annotated. It seems that on the page I retrieved it from, there was a link to a non-annotated version, but sadly, that link has expired. If that were not the case, I would be less hesitant on including this picture. Still, it is a high-resolution depicting the outbreak as it occurred on its deadliest tornado day, and I think it would be good for the article. Still, I would like it if someone would give me an opinion on this. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, United States Man, you have been one of the more active editors of this article, what do you think? Dustin (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Just put it in the El Reno tornado section. United States Man (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you compare how it looked on the right versus on the left; I thought it looked significantly better on the left because you aren't cramming every single picture on the same side. Maybe there's more to your reasoning, but that is why I moved it to the left from the right. Dustin (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to force the El Reno section over into the middle. As big as that picture is, it would be better off on the right. United States Man (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The full size of the picture is 2048x1152. I shrank it to a much smaller size, but you still think it is too large? That's too bad... Dustin (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tornado outbreak of May 26–31, 2013. 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) 21:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_of_May_26–31,_2013&oldid=1258761170"