Talk:Tornado outbreak of May 22–27, 2008

Memo

Since the system has moved on, I would suggest the following edit to the first sentence: "The May 2008 Plains tornado outbreak was a severe storm system that began May 22, 2008, and affected the Central Plains of the United States." --Wikidude62, 00:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude62 (talk • contribs)

Be on the lookout, somebody briefly rated the Windsor tornado as an EF5 before reverted back. Also, I have not found any ratings confirmed in Colorado other then the Windsor and also the Cheyenne NWS has not posted its rating. However, it may have been from local sources. If nothing is found, we should revert those changes However, this is the area where the infamous sockpuppets used to cover tornado events.--JForget 00:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard any ratings from the other Colorado or Wyoming tornadoes either, so they can be reverted back (except for the EF3 in Windsor). Another source said Laramie was an EF1, but I haven't heard NWS Cheyenne say anything. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it's someone from the NWS who said that, so we could at least rated it as an EF1 and mention it is a preliminary rating. I did the same thing with the Earle, AR tornado on May 1, 2008 when someone from the NWS told WMC-TV that the damage was about EF3 before NWS Memphis post it. For the rest we could revert it back. Actually, it may be the same tornado for the other CO reports.--JForget 00:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's possible it was the same tornado, but that is quite a long distance between the locations with no damage in between. I agree it can be listed as an EF1 saying "preliminary rating". CrazyC83 (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a more reliable source for the EF4 rating for the Windsor, CO? It is coming from a blog and even the source is not sure if it is an EF4.JForget 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any updates since Friday's initial update saying they found sections of EF2 and EF3 damage. Although the EF? at the SPC site suggests the rating is not final, I haven't heard anything to suggest it will be upgraded. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Outbreak Sequence

Should we consider re-naming this article "Late May 2008 Plains tornado outbreak sequence", since it appears that another impulse will emerge from the rockies this week posing a continued severe risk? --Bigphishy56 (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really an outbreak sequence yet, as it is involving a single very slow-moving system with long slow moving fronts. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If tornadoes occur in Canada...

It is not likely, but possible that tornadoes may take place in Canada (pretty hard to catch them in the sparsely populated area). Unless they quietly changed things in the winter, I don't think the EF scale is used there. However, if they occur and are rated on the old scale, I think they should be listed in the total chart (not in the grids) in the same number category (i.e. F0 = EF0), similar to how January 2007 tornadoes in the US were treated on the annual total. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Article assumes U.S. only audience. Rename desirable.

The article is unintentionally named assuming a U.S.-only audience. There are several plains on all of the continents. Rename desirable. Proposals invited. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What about May 2008 US Midwest tornado outbreak ? I agree a rename is in order. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for addition

I live in Fayette County Iowa and we had a significant experience here where the debris from the tornadoes around Waterloo rained down upon us here and items were found as far away as Pairie du Chien, Wi. I'm not adept at this site or else I would add the information. I think it's important to the article as it shows the raw power exhibited by this Oklahoma style tornado. Information on this can be found at the NWS LaCrosse page and various newspapers including the Waterloo Courier and Cedar Rapids Gazette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.23.92 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No source for EF-4 rating at parkersburg

Someone has listed the rating as EF-4, and as of now i haven't been able to find a source to back that up (though it sure looks like EF-4). If someone can't produce a source this rating should be removed for the time being. --Bigphishy56 (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, since I see no source for it either. (It may have been EF5 for what I know) CrazyC83 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been mentioned on NPR, and they haven't stated a source. NWS Des Moines will post a final event summary on Tuesday, so for now the EF4 is definitely not official.Davidals (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, it is "at least EF3". When such is mentioned, the policy is to list it at the lowest rating in the range until the final assessment is done. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Parkersburg has been rated as a EF-5 according to the NWS in Des Moines IA http://www.crh.noaa.gov/crnews/display_story.php?wfo=dmx&storyid=14909&source=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragbrai (talk • contribs) 00:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Today's high risk

A high risk has been issued for the Central Plains including Omaha and a moderate risk basically for the areas that were the hardest hit on Sunday. Should a major outbreak occur today, should it included as part of another outbreak sequence like Plains Outbreak Sequence of May (Late?) 2008? At the same time, we could add the tornadoes that occured May 26-28 including two confirmed Canadian tornadoes since it would follow tradition like the May 1995, 2003 and 2004 outbreak sequence articles as did the event earlier this month. By the way the tornadoes should be included even though there were not a lot on that day - it was from the same storm and the same area (except the two tornadoes in Ontario) and traditionnaly, 00all/most tornadoes from the same storm are included (i.e the Oklahoma Outbreak in 1999 which I've put all tornadoes until May 8, or again the Greensburg outbreak which includes May 6 even though the event on that day was similar to May 26 of this year).

Quite frankly I did not see this upcoming threat coming ... well in part because I was offline most of Tuesday.--JForget 13:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is major activity tonight, I would be in favor of renaming it to an outbreak sequnce article. Even though there were very few reports from May 26 - May 28, this would still mark about 8 straight days of reports of tornadic activity in the plains of the U.S. and Canada (assuming you include eastern New Mexico in that). WxGopher (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Rename to outbreak sequence if activity is high today. Depending on the number, we might need to move the tornadoes to "List of tornadoes...". -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 15:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should consider moving the list of tornadoes now anyway. I think that the coordinates that we're putting in the table are really slowing down the load time of the page, at least for me. WxGopher (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the data currently (5PM EDT) on the SPC website, I think we'd probably better start monitoring SPC and the local WFO sites pretty closely--there's already two tornado warnings issued, a large PDS tornado watch that covers basically the eastern half of Nebraska and western half of Iowa, and the MD for the High-risk area indicates "initiation likely around 22-23Z;" if we're getting some spinups now, when it's only 2100Z, then I think it's gonna be a busy, busy night. Rdfox 76 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (Edited by Rdfox 76 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC) to correct position of the PDS watch, whoopsie.)

There was no significant activity the last three days though, but it might be worth calling it an outbreak sequence even though I have been treating them as separate events though. If the outbreak is not significant though (i.e. article-worthy on its own), then I'd treat it separate. The fact that it is the same area impacted does give an argument to continuing the article here rather than starting a new article. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep also in mind there is moderate risk for tommorrow for Illinois and Indiana as well and there very will be a moderate risk for Saturday as the area of slight risk is very large - from Oklahoma City to Ottawa, ON to the Middle Atlantic States. I think even though only 40 tornadoes have been confirmed (I'm including the two in Ontario on the 26th), the list should be separate as soon as possible (waiting for approval from the rest). The article size could easily jump at 7o or 80k quickly. We're already over 50k before this outbreak even started and the tornadoes on the 26th through the 28th have not even been placed. --JForget 22:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added those from the 26 to the 28 as well as the on-going outbreak (already at least 7 tornadoes), but are still hidden for the moment.--JForget 22:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So far 9 reliable reports (since the 2220-2235 Kearney reports were likely all the same tornado). The list would go to List of tornadoes in the Late-May 2008 tornado outbreak sequence (with the May 7-15 article becoming Mid-May 2008 tornado outbreak sequence to best disambiguate). This month has been incredible - it seems half the time we are in a tornado outbreak... CrazyC83 (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The local news in the Kearney area continue to say there were multiple confirmed touchdowns in the city. The most recent quote I could find was from an emergency management official who said that he believed that at least four and possibly as many as six tornadoes touched down in and near Kearney. I read that early this morning, though, and that article has since been moved or changed. It is known that a confirmed EF2 passed just south of the city, following Interstate 80, and based on the damage locations there had to have been at least two others. Toroca (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at reports, there were tornado reports (most not yet confirmed) on each of the 26th, 27th and 28th in areas already affected, so there are no gaps in activity. Conclusion: continue here. The tornadoes from the 26th in Ontario (there may have been more since that area is very sparsely populated) was from the same system that produced Parkersburg and the other killers, while the rest are from the precursors to the current system. One other thing to remember about today - we are likely going to see a major derecho this evening/overnight, and that will likely warrant a large section in the article (whether here or at a new location) even if the tornado count is lower. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There were only 11 tornado reports total on May 26-28, most of which had the qualifier "brief touchdown, no damage". This is a completely different storm system, and does not quite warrant its own article as of yet, IMO. It just smells a little of WP:OR to me to include all of these days under a single banner. -RunningOnBrains 03:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

They were all related to one of the two main systems though. By definition, an "outbreak sequence" always involves 2 or more storm systems - a single system would be one outbreak. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Manitoba tornado

I am sure that Environment Canada will never post the confirmation of the two tornadoes online, but considering the photograph confirmation and I believe the initial report was from EC spotters it, I think it would save to say that at least one tornado can be rated F0 - the one shown on the image, which looks like the same that was spotted from EC. The CTV article says it confirmed two touchdowns with no damage, thus an F0.JForget 13:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about that too. You're right though...no damage always means F0 or EF0 if absolutely confirmed. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)