Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@TornadoLGS: Correct. United States Man (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

No opposition from me if reliable sources don't exist. United States Man (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It was not ever rated EF5, preliminarily or otherwise. Penitentes (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

May 2024 — Possible F5/EF5/IF5 List Tornado Statuses

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)

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)

Should tornadoes with EF5 winds confirmed by DOW or other radars be included in a separate section? Many strong tornadoes have had that without causing much damage, including (I believe) a tornado just yesterday in Midland County, Texas which reached peak intensity just a few miles away from NWS Midland/Odessa's radar but produced little damage.

I'm also unsure as to the relevance of gate-to-gate shear, so I understand not including Hollister etc., but perhaps tornadoes with extreme measured winds should get at least a mention. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

We might include it with the note that the cited sources in the section mention winds in the EF5 range but don't explicitly state the tornado was an EF5. Either that or we might have a separate list for highest measured winds in tornadoes. I wouldn't include gate-to-gate shear. I'd say the tweet doesn't quite meet RS. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, one more consideration: the International Fujita scale which is currently being developed and deployed in Europe has been used to rate a few US tornadoes; note that, unlike the damage-based Enhanced Fujita scale, the IF scale does accept wind speed measurements. 117 m/s or 261 mph for a zero-second measurement and 3 second measurements of 104 m/s or 232 mph is IF5, even if the National Weather Service continues using the Enhanced Fujita scale to officially rate the tornado based on damage. I'm unsure as to the protocol for US tornadoes being rated on a non-US scale, however there is a non-zero chance that, for instance, Greenfield or another similar tornado gets rated IF5 by the ESSL without being rated EF5 by the National Weather Service, and if and when that happens, those should almost certainly be included. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Where have you seen the IF scale applied to U.S. tornadoes? In any case, scale crossovers might get tricky. I think we do have a tornado or two in this list that is officially EF4 but with a comment that it would likely be rated F5 if assessed on the original Fujita scale. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

As a quick note on scale cross-overs, we have two opposing consensuses (so far) on that. 1998 Tennessee tornado was added as NWS rated it F4, but later said it would warrant EF5 in modern day (2013 NWS reassessment). Despite scale-crossovers being allowed per consensus, back in late 2021, there was a discussion about excluding the 2021 Andover tornado, despite ESSL saying (at an AMS conference no less) it would be rated IF5 had it occurred in Europe. Also, 2023 Rolling Fork was said to be equivalent to an F5 tornado, however, that was removed from the list. Also, the ESSL director along with other European meteorologists stated 2024 Greenfield’s DOW measurements would rate it IF5 in Europe. So as janky as it seems, the current consensus (as of this point in time) seems to be:

Include F —> EF

Exclude EF —> F

Exclude EF —> IF

With that said though, I would be in support in including any rating crossovers, given NWS has done it and we included that. Either way, the consensus seems split on that idea as of this time. So we should make a hard decision on “Yes” include rating crossovers (if from RS) or “No” and remove that 1998 NWS crossover inclusion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I have seen comments that the 2014 Vilonia tornado and the 2011 Tuscaloosa tornado would likely have been rated F5, but we have other sources supporting potential EF5 on those, so scale crossover is not the only thing we have for those. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm definitely in favor of including rating crossovers in the Possible F5/EF5 intensity category; again, if a recognized body of meteorology says a tornado would be an IF5 in Europe by the ESSL, that should be mentioned (Take the reverse, where a tornado in Europe rated IF5 by the ESSL gets reviewed by the NWS, who puts it at an EF4 or below; that would obviously be accepted on this list, even though the rating is not universally consistent across the scales.). GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, here's my personal opinion on how we should go about adding to the Potential F5/EF5 intensity section, presented as scenarios:

1.) A tornado reaches peak intensity over a field and produces minor damage. DOW finds winds of 200+ mph in the center. (i.e. Harlan 2024)

This should be excluded; it produced no EF5 damage, and didn't reach the criteria for an F5 or IF5.

2.) A tornado reaches peak intensity over a field and produces moderate damage. DOW finds winds of 260+ mph in the center. (i.e. El Reno 2013, Greenfield 2024)

This should be included; no damage, however the winds would qualify it as F5 / IF5 had those been used by the nation's primary weather agency.

3.) A tornado reaches peak intensity over poorly-anchored structures. Analysis of footage finds winds of 260+ mph (no DOW or NEXRAD). (i.e. Andover 2022)

This should be included IF it was decided by a respected organization (the ESSL, in this case). As unreliable as footage can be, both Reed Timmer and the ESSL are trained and respected professionals.

4.) A tornado reaches peak intensity over a town, producing moderate damage. NEXRAD finds gate-to-gate shear of 200+ mph. (i.e. Hollister 2024)

This should be excluded; gate-to-gate means nothing when so far from a radar site, and is by no means capable of telling the actual windspeeds on the ground. (G2G of 200 is equivalent to 100mph either side, meaning EF1 intensity at the height it's recorded.)

5.) A tornado reaches peak intensity over a suburb or field near a radar site, causing major damage. NEXRAD captures velocity of over 260 mph. (hypothetical)

This is debatable; while the chances of a tornado being so close to a radar site are low, let alone without knocking off its power, at very close range it could be equivalent to a DOW measurement.

6.) A tornado impacts an area of well-built housing at high-end EF4 intensity. Surveyors are split on whether the damage constitutes EF5 intensity. (i.e. Perryville 2017)

This should be included in the Possible F5/EF5 damage section; multiple trained experts agreed on it being EF5 damage initially, even if it ultimately ended up being rated below that.

7.) A fast-moving EF4 tornado impacts well-built structures. Academic analysis states it may have had EF5 intensity had it moved slower. (i.e. Mayfield 2021)

This should be included; any sort of academic analysis from an established expert deserves inclusion in the list.

Also please note for Perryville 2017 that the tweet by itself is not a reliable source per WP:RSPTWITTER, as it is a screenshot of an email that could easily have been altered. Whether or not it was, however, a follow-up posted by Chris Noles on their personal account or on the weather.gov story / past events database for NWS Paducah would be reliable (until either of these happens, please do not add 2017 Perryville to the article). GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Greenfield's winds were recorded IN Greenfield. It says it in the tweet made by DOWFacility.

"Very prelim analysis of DOW data show >250 mph peak winds, possibly high as 290, at 44 m (144 ft) above ground in Greenfield, IA."

Not outside of Greenfield, or near Greenfield; they specifically specify those winds were recorded inside of Greenfield itself. Even if you consider it to be "above" the town instead of inside it (which is technically true), then that would invalidate any other DOW or radar reading because virtually none of them have winds recorded exactly on the ground. 142.113.118.158 (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This is where a lot of trouble comes in. Only EF4 damage was recorded from Greenfield, and at the location estimated to have the >250mph gust, only EF3 damage was found. However, we included El Reno even though all we had to run on was radar considerably above the ground. Also note that 144 ft is about the same height as a 15 story building; had this tornado impacted a large city with many high-rises, for instance, Des Moines, which was only about 30 miles away and has many buildings well over 144ft, could have had its high-rise buildings (some of which go well over 200 feet) impacted at F5 intensity / have had EF5 damage done to them. Plus, Pieter Groenemeijer of the European Severe Storms Laboratory, who is developing the recorded wind-based IF scale, stated in reference to Greenfield's recorded wind gust that winds must be recorded 60 meters or less above the ground. Greenfield's DOW measurements were at 44 meters, meaning they were valid. The only thing holding me back from giving it my full support to add to the list is that pesky probability of the recorded winds being 250-259mph, IF4 intensity. I'm fairly confident, however, that a more in-depth analysis and refining of this measurement will be completed in the near future. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)