Talk:Tornadoes of 2006

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lists Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Low-importance).

Cleanup

Cleanup needed - this is not the right format for tornado outbreaks (it goes outbreak-by-outbreak, not clustered up as two into one article), as well as more comprehensive reports - a copy and paste from the SPC is not enough. NSL E _(T+C) 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly agreed on cleanup and expansion. I do not, however, object to the inclusion of multiple days IF under the auspices of a tornado outbreak "sequence" or "series", these are terms used in research meteorology and have been published in various journals and conference proceedings over the years. Additionally, the article for May 4-10, 2003 does include multiple separate consecutive outbreaks. On the other hand, although I don't object to the article, I do not think inclusion in the tornado listing is warranted, as there was not much significance in terms of human impact or anomalous meteorology. Evolauxia 06:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the formation of six strong (F2-F3) tornadoes in the month of January, including five on the same day, counts as anomalous, if not unprecedented, meteorology. 07:53 UTC 21 January 2006

I'm working on a pretty table that will make tornado outbreak pages much easier to write. It will allow all tornadoes to be included in minor detail while the big ones are written in full sections. I didn't think that they were quite enough for an article to be warranted, but the article makes sense anyway. CrazyC83 02:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreaks in November are far from rare, even multiple outbreaks are not too uncommon; and in the south, January events of this caliber are not especially unusual >==March 8-9===

Conditions currently appear ripe for a moderate outbreak starting tomorrow in the Plains and extending eastward Thursday. It is being downplayed at the SPC (saying "slight risk" of severe weather), but Accuweather is being quite blunt about the situation. While this is certainly no November 15th scenario (which I called a Level 5 alert), I wouldn't be surprised to see something blossom tomorrow.

Alert Level: 3 (out of 5, 5 being highest). Chance of an outbreak: 40% (20% for a major outbreak). CrazyC83 04:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threat level at the SPC increased to Moderate Risk of Severe Weather. Chance increases to 60% and 40% for a major outbreak - and this will likely be an evening/overnight outbreak too! Could be quite dangerous! Move the alert level up to Level 4! CrazyC83 16:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the SPC a little gun-shy when it gave a Slight/30% probabilistic in its Day 2 at 0800, or are things really shaping up to become worse? I see that the probabilistic has increased to 45% with hatches, and the coverage has increased dramatically. (The risk has increased considerably for where I live, SW Michigan.) I wouldn't be all too surprised to wake up to see a High Risk on the 0600 Day 1 for AK, LA, MS. —BazookaJoe 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I am thinking. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same. I'd say that there is a slight risk where you live - and even up where I live, central Ontario, there is a chance of thunderstorms (although not severe). By morning, there could be a separate article for the outbreak - not sure what to call it at this point, if it develops. Nothing is certain at this point though. I've modified the hurricane warning template for general storm use, with a different background color and information. CrazyC83 21:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Weather Channel is pushing their projected map for tomorrow's outbreak eastward. Now it covers the entire state of Alabama. I just talked to a weatherman here in Atlanta (one of the hazards of working for a television station) who suggests that he expects the system to fall apart before it gets here, but that stranger things have happened. --Mhking 22:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting in that forecast...I think that it could very well reach there as it tracks eastward and picks up the daytime heating. CrazyC83 00:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

More of an extremely long serial derecho than a tornado outbreak, as there have been countless reports of wind damage but only isolated tornadoes. CrazyC83 21:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, there have been hundreds of reports of wind damage! I'm thinking, looking at the derecho articles, this warrants one, likely under the name Mississippi Valley Derecho of March 2006. CrazyC83 03:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a pretty bad derecho. Yesterday the SPC was torn between a tornado event and a wind event, looks like it evolved into a wind event. Here in Michigan, just a fairly heavy, steady rain. No thunder, some flooding. (As a bad-weather lover, I yawn at our weather here.) —BazookaJoe 04:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are, as of this writing, an astonishing 337 severe weather reports at the SPC!!! 288 for wind, 47 for hail and two for confirmed tornadoes. CrazyC83 05:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 11-13

Believe it or not, one model shows that conditions WORSE than today's massive derecho are possible this weekend! See for yourself! (It is a bit early to jump to conclusions though) CrazyC83 03:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holee crud... Mhking 03:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it caught me by surprise! I thought today was pretty bad...even if the tornadoes didn't show up (although there were a few, it was certainly no tornado outbreak). Tomorrow I should have a better idea on what is expected. CrazyC83 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be watching, of course. Mind you, the squall line (of today's storms) is falling apart as it approaches Atlanta. It looks more like it'll be a minor rain event once it gets here... Mhking 03:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate risk of severe storms...however no tornado watches yet. Just developing...stay tuned. CrazyC83 15:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MD 234 says the moderate risk will be extended northward. Tomorrow looks like another significant outbreak, too. —BazookaJoe 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like so; it seems that the conditions are more favorable for tornadoes than straight-line winds which had to have caused close to, if not over, $100 million in damage on Thursday (based on descriptions). For the moment, I am waiting this one out before creating an article for the Thursday event. CrazyC83 20:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Article: March 2006 Tornado Outbreak Sequence, covering both Thursday's derecho and tonight's tornado outbreak (11 so far and counting). It has opened early due to a major report of a potentially devastating hit on a mobile home park. CrazyC83 04:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPC HIGH RISK ISSUED!!! All we can do is hope and pray now for those in the Midwest likely to be affected!!! CrazyC83 06:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their new Day 2 (for March 13) gives another good chance for a severe weather outbreak in Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. That may become a moderate risk at 1730 if the uncertainties get ironed out. Forgive me for saying so, but why can't today's system be 500 miles northeast where I live? Today's outbreak is going to be affecting the same people, so let's wish 'em the best. —BazookaJoe 06:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's all we can say! I think though that this will sustain itself all the way there for a late evening outbreak in the Ohio Valley. This could be Super Outbreak II I think! There have been at least 20 tornadoes reported over the past 18 hours, plus several on Thursday. CrazyC83 18:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought that a couple of supercells was the extent of it, but now that the large broken line formed, looks like we're in for rougher ride than before. —BazookaJoe 01:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That supercell currently past Springfield, Illinois is HUGE. That thing's been producing a hook all the way across Missouri and Illinois. I bet this one will end up being the worst. F4, perhaps?

ILC039-115-130345-
/O.CON.KILX.TO.W.0012.000000T0000Z-060313T0345Z/
MACON-DE WITT-
923 PM CST SUN MAR 12 2006

...A TORNADO WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 945 PM CST FOR NORTHERN
MACON AND DE WITT COUNTIES...

AT 919 PM CST...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR AND STORM
SPOTTERS WERE TRACKING AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TORNADO. THIS TORNADO
WAS LOCATED NEAR ROWELL...OR ABOUT 11 MILES SOUTHWEST OF CLINTON...
MOVING NORTHEAST AT 40 MPH.

—BazookaJoe 03:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a full section on the article above. Damage reports sound like an F3 in my view. CrazyC83 04:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Well, this outbreak is now over. It was certainly a bad one. Last night I was on the very northern edge of the line of tornado watches, but we never got more than a lot of rain and some good lightning. River Flood Warnings and High Wind Warnings are all over my area. Temperatures are plummeting. Looking for some snow this week. Looking far into the horizon, another outbreak may be shaping up for the 10 day period. Dr. Jaff Masters, referring to the Texas wildfires: "The 10-day forecast is also somewhat promising, as a very active jet stream pattern is forecast to bring the chance of a major storm system to the desert Southwest and Texas early next week. However, this could also bring another severe weather outbreak to the country." —BazookaJoe 22:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT over - there are still tornadoes being reported in Alabama and Mississippi...definitely a major outbreak - the worst one since at least May 2004. CrazyC83 01:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

Moderate risk of severe weather in parts of southern Mississippi and northeastern Louisiana. There is the chance of isolated major tornadoes, that could be noteworthy. I will update the season page as necessary. There was one isolated tornado last night in Texas.

Chance of an outbreak: 20% (5% for a major outbreak). However, despite the low numbers of tornadoes, one or two could be strong or violent. I can't put the alert level above 3 though (Significant threat). CrazyC83 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classic bust. The moderate risk was only there because of the isolated potential. CrazyC83 23:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 27

I don't really follow weather events overseas, especially non-tropical events, but that sounds like a pretty strong tornado in Hamburg! I added a little bit of additional information about it, but I am searching for more. The two killed were on construction cranes. Damage sounds like an F2 or maybe an F3 but I don't know if the Fujita Scale is in use there... CrazyC83 20:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 30-31

SPC starting to get concerned about a potential end-of-month outbreak, especially on Thursday. Still too early to tell how it will exactly turn out. CrazyC83 15:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much time to go into detail, but suffice it to say this has been watched for over a week and looks like a significant system. The Quad Cities, IA/IL NWSFO said this in an AFD today:

"A SYNOPTICALLY EVIDENT SEVERE WX EVENT IS ON TAP FOR THE MIDWEST LATE THURSDAY AFTERNOON/NIGHT. ECMWF/UKMET HAVE BEEN ADVERTISING THIS FOR SEVERAL DAYS. EVENTS LIKE THIS ARE SEEN ABOUT 5 TIMES A YEAR ACROSS THE COUNTRY."

NWS/SPC/NHC chooses its words carefully, that is very strong wording indicating their anticipation of the strong potential for a major outbreak. Evolauxia 06:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this rate, I may have to change the words on the last article to Early-March 2006 Tornado Outbreak Sequence... CrazyC83 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still being downplayed by the SPC - only a slight risk, although at the high end of it (45% chance). CrazyC83 00:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a moderate risk now with a PDS watch issued - could go high risk later? CrazyC83 16:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April

April 1-3

Hot on the heels of this event, another outbreak brewing! Already a Day 2 Moderate Risk (which is rare!) CrazyC83 15:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The March tornado record appears to have been broken this year (180 in 1976 was the previous record). Of oourse, data is badly skewed by increasing numbers with spotters, chasers, and increased verification efforts, but it was an active month to say the least with a few more to tack on today. Sat-Sun indeed look impressive, in fact, at least the entire first half of April looks active.

Which means I'll be fairly busy and not active on here, of course. Also, SPC improved the archives for their products and severe weather data, as well as climatology, on their site. Evolauxia 02:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - in real numbers, there had to have been close to, if not over, 100 tornadoes in March. The 160+ tornadoes in the big outbreak turned out to really be 84. This setup seems a lot like 1998, which was unusually active throughout the year. CrazyC83 03:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate risk for April 1 and 2. A 60% chance of hail... that's the first time I've seen them use 60%. —BazookaJoe 06:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a weekend to watch! I wouldn't be surprised if a High Risk is issued for either day later on. CrazyC83 16:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like April 2 could be worse than April 1. And it's going to happen in the same area as the mid-March outbreak. I'm also well included in the slight risk. :) —BazookaJoe 18:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be just as bad, if not worse, than March 12 too! CrazyC83 19:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really heating up now...it's all for the count now. The outbreak gets its own article at 25 tornado reports with at least one killer tornado, or at 50 total tornado reports, or a major killer, since it is a widespread event. However, since one has hit a fair-sized city, if it was significant, I will make the article immediately if it was at least an F2. CrazyC83 23:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another destructive tornado in the Sprinfield, IL area. Can you believe it? —BazookaJoe 23:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unreal! I haven't made an article yet since the damage reports are too spotty and not clear. I don't know what to name it - Deja Vu Tornado Outbreak? Most of the areas were hit on March 12 or last November 15 or 27. Reports of buildings DESTROYED in Taylorville, IL. CrazyC83 23:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Many* of the tornadoes farther north (much of IL, some of MO/IA stuff) were not actual tornadoes, there are a lot of gustnadoes in there and damage from straight-line winds. Some of the NWS statements and damage reports were overdone as well. The tornado outbreak is not as bad as it seems *from the numbers there*, however, the stuff farther south in S MO, AR, KY, and TN is definitely bona fide tornadoes from intense supercells. I'm not sure how the official numbers will flesch for the tornado count farther north, but my guess is the numbers will remain higher than they should. Some were "spinup tornadoes" which are legitimate (nonsupercell) tornadoes, but not the big supercell ones that cause the majority of damage and casualties, and are what people think of when they think tornado. Evolauxia 07:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, they were not supercells in the northern areas - but tornado reports are tornado reports and are listed as such. The northern ones will likely be mostly F0's or F1's. However, the big cell north of Memphis alone warrants the article as at least 20 died in it. CrazyC83 15:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying it didn't warrant an article, the southern stuff obviously does for example, just noting that it's not nearly as bad as it sounds farther north...noting that although there are tornado reports, they're inflated, many of them were NOT tornadoes and many that were weren't supercellular tornadoes indicative of the calibre outbreak the reports make it seem. Evolauxia 19:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already one reported "tornado" was false. I remove any references to that tornado once it is confirmed to have been false, unless notable as a microburst (where it should go in Nontornadic events). CrazyC83 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 2 (Israel)

A supercell thunderstorm spawned a tornado in Israel on 2 Apr. There were also significant flooding. http://www.seasonet.com/upload/seasonet_2373.JPG http://www.seasonet.com/pic/pic_2385.JPG http://www.panet.co.il/ysc.php?ac=showarticle&article_id=27466 http://www.panet.co.il/ysc.php?ac=showarticle&article_id=27476

Interesting, just as the Central US was getting hammered... CrazyC83 02:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 6-8

Just as they clean up, yet another possible outbreak might be brewing. Too early to tell but this could be another bad one. Thursday and Friday would be most of it if indeed true. CrazyC83 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Models are now suggesting that it could be WORSE than anything we've seen this year. A few have even called it "Super Outbreak II"! CrazyC83 18:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't call it Tornado Alley for nothing. I wonder if the SPC will make it a high risk? They were quite gun-shy on the last one; in hindsight they should have made it a high risk and expanded the coverage. Well, here it comes again... —BazookaJoe 00:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe tomorrow they will. CrazyC83 02:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HIGH RISK TODAY AND TOMORROW!!! This is likely to be REALLY bad...the latest watch says >95% chance of many tornadoes, 60% chance of a major outbreak. CrazyC83 18:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talked to my meteorologist before our early newscasts, and it's looking pretty nasty for the evening hours here (Atlanta) tomorrow night. He says that right now they are saying northwest Georgia will be in the high-risk category, but he noted (as I did) that the risk area has shifted further east over the past couple of projections, so it may slide down this far before long. I guess I'm going to be in "one-armed-paper-hanger-mode" for much of the evening. Mhking 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, did activity just fall apart or what? We were well on our way to a big outbreak yesterday - and it fizzled...today will be interesting though! (The article was moved to User:CrazyC83/Outbreak0407 since we did NOT reach the levels of warranting it; it had looked like we would earlier so I made the call to create it, but it fizzled. It may be reinstated if necessary. 25+ tornadoes with a killer, 50+ tornadoes or 10+ deaths is the criteria set) CrazyC83 14:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That first watch is pretty damn big! The newest mesoscale discussion is for nearly all of the northern halves of Mississippi and Alabama. It suggests a watch for most of that area within the hour. Plus they actually said "A few strong tornadoes are possible." Everyone is suggesting that Georgia won't come until after midnight, but looking at those models, I'd push that up into the 9P-12M range for entering Georgia (if not earlier)... --Mhking 16:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 13-16 (Easter Weekend)

Could be an Easter weekend event coming up...although I currently doubt that Good Friday will be active (as the SPC suggests in the southern Great Lakes and Ohio Valley), Saturday in the middle Plains and Easter Sunday in the Ohio Valley could be interesting...Note: any outbreak that weekend will include Easter Sunday or Easter Weekend in its name.CrazyC83 03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow there's a slight risk for my area. Not looking for any tornadoes. Mostly hail or winds. Sunday remains to be seen. —BazookaJoe 00:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It started early - at least 15 tornadoes reported so far. Not article-worthy, but will be mentioned on this page. CrazyC83 02:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That was quite the hefty complex in eastern Iowa... especially that one supercell that is ongoing. Once they move across Wisconsin, it's my turn. I'll be waiting for the next mesoscale discussion. Going to see some scattered hail and/or winds here. —BazookaJoe 02:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One person confirmed dead and 18 tornadoes reported, one of them hitting downtown Iowa City directly. CrazyC83 05:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another tornado death.. that's too bad. This season is a pretty bad one. Had a spectacular light show here. No warnings have been issued yet in watch 180. The watch still has another 5.5 hours left on it; I don't know why it's going so long. Maybe there's a round 2 on the way, like the stuff popping up in Wisconsin. —BazookaJoe 05:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a article should be put up now because this system looks more then minor. The tornado count is around 20 by now so this whole thing could be all in one! A 4 day tornado outbreak! I didn't think we would get this much action already but I guess it can't wait to release the power of the tornados! There was a report of a large and bad tornado on the ground and the damage is quite bad in Iowa city. 216.110.254.167 06:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else did put it up. I think the Iowa City (only) tornadoes make the article warranted, after all the consensus was that ANY F2 or stronger tornado hitting a major or mid-sized city is article-worthy. That had to have been at least F2, possibly F3, in Iowa City. I wasn't expecting this to happen either! I did rename the article so that it better represents the dates with words, not numbers (the numbers used on the last two articles were only because there was no other way to distinguish them). CrazyC83 14:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it is firing up again...13 tornadoes so far this evening and several good cells out there. CrazyC83 02:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 18-19

Yet another round of severe weather seems to be in store for mid-week. I have a feeling this will be a repeat of April 2 and 7, not an event that is anchored by one strong tornado that hits a decent-sized city (with a swarm of weak tornadoes to go along with it).

If it transpires, should it be considered part of the same article as this weekend and the current one be renamed Mid-April 2006 Tornado Outbreak Sequence? After all, it is the same air mass and same areas being affected. The last time there was a break (March 10), the same article was kept for both ends. CrazyC83 02:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 28-30

This time the activity has shifted southward. It is looking like Texas is going to be hardest hit. Still a lot of uncertainty though on what exactly will happen - I think there is a chance of a major outbreak, but it could easily bust. CrazyC83 17:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May

May 9-11

After a consistent, steady string of weak tornadoes in the first week of May, tomorrow it gets serious. Moderate Risk of severe weather issued for a large area; I wouldn't be surprised to see the risk go up to a High Risk later. I also think the threat will extend much farther north into the Great Lakes as well. Something to watch for sure! CrazyC83 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It began early! While isolated, there has been a report of severe damage in Childress, Texas... CrazyC83 03:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 people dead in Westminster, Texas. It is not really article-worthy though due to the isolated nature (it does not meet the standards set out). However, if today is bad, it will be considered part of the same outbreak and the standards are reduced for an article today. CrazyC83 14:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article

I am definitely on the fence on this one, just like with Iowa City in April. If someone wants to make an article, go ahead, but it falls (just) under what I believe are the standards. CrazyC83 15:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, then just leave it as is. By the way, there was also an F0 in Kalamazoo County, Michigan on May 10. No warnings were issued for a variety of reasons. It hasn't yet made it on the storm reports map. [1] —BazookaJoe 16:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had the tornado hit a fair-sized population center, I would have created it. The consensus for the article is:

F2 or larger in the heart of a mid-sized or large city (i.e. 50,000+) (Not met - largest town with major was 7,000)
10+ fatalities (Not met - 3 dead)
50+ overall tornadoes (Not met - 23 reported total (with an unconfirmed report in the wind section))
25+ overall tornadoes plus a killer (Not met, but came close)
Killer F5 tornado in any circumstance (Not met - strongest was high-F3)

Hence I will leave it alone. I had considered making it but decided against it. CrazyC83 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 24-25

More severe weather again this week, except the core will be farther north. Moderate risk out, with the main threat being in the southern Great Lakes and Ohio Valley. CrazyC83 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June

June 5-8

Missed the start of this one as I was away, but there were a surprisingly large number of reports yesterday! At least they were fairly weak... CrazyC83 21:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 20-22

CrazyC83, I'm quite excited. We are on the eastern edge of the slight risk today and on the northern edge of the moderate risk tomorrow. 60% chance of severe weather is something that southwest Michigan doesn't see too often. I commented on my local met.'s blog last night and said, this could be one of the few Big Ones of 2006. Now, who knows, it could be another Late-May 1998 Tornado Outbreak and Derecho, though a less severe one. —BazookaJoe 13:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards a repeat of the 1998 derecho. I don't see a huge tornado risk (although some are sure to happen if it fans out), but the wind threat is the greatest we have seen since May 2004. I wouldn't be surprised to see them go High Risk tomorrow. Main threat area covers several jurisdictions - including southern Wisconsin, northern Illinois, northern Indiana, most of lower Michigan, northern and central Ohio, northwestern Pennsylvania, western New York and southern Ontario. I'm in the slight risk area. Since some tornadoes are likely, it will be covered here. CrazyC83 05:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't been getting any sunshine so far, so a moderate risk is all we can muster. A repeat of 1998 is very unlikely — certainly the winds won't come close to 90 or 115 miles per hour today — but a healthy line of storms that comes through now and then does seem probable. If only we can get the sunshine going. —BazookaJoe 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the 22nd, because it is a repeat performance today in the same two spots - actually it covers even more areas since we should include Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and possibly the Carolinas.--JForget 23:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It looks like it will stretch down farther south somewhat, but that may be pushing it. The I-64 corridor seems to be the southern boundary in my view. The double-moderate risk by the SPC is a rarity though - if (unlikely) this requires a separate article (either for a tornado outbreak or a derecho), should both areas be covered together? CrazyC83 20:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well with the three areas consisting of the Ohio Valley, the southern Plains and the Dakotas it was close for requiring that but there were no fatalities just yet and no tornado that really left its mark though.--JForget 19:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't even close. Too widespread, no areas of major notable damage and no fatalities. Too few tornadoes or significant severe reports to justify. CrazyC83 04:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July

July 11-14

Wow, did the Plains dodge somewhat a bullet, yesterday. Omaha, Des Moines and portions of South Dakota and northern Missouri were under a moderate risk of severe weather and there were quite some big ones there but no tornadoes only those in Ohio on the 11th. It was sizzling hot there yesterday and in Omaha, there was a storm that hit the area and dropped the temperature from the mid/upper 90's (35-36 Celsius) to the low 70's (21 Celsius) in an hour. There were lots of winds, but I was surprised that ther were no tornadoes (not even a single weak one). Now the heat is going to be bad, maybe not as bad as in 1995, but is there potential for derechos. I know in order to breakup the heat, there could be some wicked thunderstorms, but not sure how bad would it be, but is there any possibility of a derecho in the coming days.--JForget 19:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 17-18

Derecho event in northeastern Ontario!! See: Northeastern Ontario derecho page newly created

I may add these these dates in the list (and possibly in the derecho events), because there is some very serious weather hitting Northeastern Ontario, there could have been a damaging tornado in Manitoulin Island as there have been reports of homes heavily damaged, possibly destroyed. I will wait the reports of Environment Canada as they will likely visit the area and whether it was a tornado. Right now, North Bay is getting pounding and there is a tornado warning there as well as Algonquin Park, as there is a wicked line there (close to a derecho if it isn't one already). Most of southern Ontario could get big ones tonight as there are nasty storms in Michigan in forms of lines. Maybe Thursday could be a big day too--JForget 21:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was caught IN IT!! Tornado on my street!!! CrazyC83 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...how often does that happen? bob rulz 09:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 19-20

Here we go again! This time, somewhat farther south. Moderate risk issued today. There could be tornadoes in this one, but the main threat is again straight-line winds. Somewhat farther south than the worst of Monday, but not much.

If this gets bad, should this go into that article already existing? CrazyC83 15:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August

August 1-3

I have took a look a the line of storms that hit Southern Quebec and this was quite close to a derecho, lots of lightning, widespread damaging wind, and fast motion of the storms. Although the shape of the storm, almost like a snakeing type of line and the fact that it was nearly only half the speed (65-70 KM/H)of the July 17 storm, forced me to put near-derecho in the article (August 1)Although, anyone thinking that this is a derecho, can feel free to discuss in the derecho events talk page.By the way, quite a strong tornado that hit the Eastern Townships, luckly the damage was limited to a few structures.JForget 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not article-worthy overall, but it does warrant mention due to the tornadoes. CrazyC83 03:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I doubt about it, but I just wanted to see if others had followed more throughly the storm then me since it was late-night and was sleeping. I will wait for more details on tonight's storms that slammed, all of Ontario (Georgian Bay squall line and Ottawa supercell), including my place, wondering what will be the rating for the Cumbermore tornado, with the amount of damage premilinary reports from crews there, it may very well by close to an F3 if it ain't. --JForget 04:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There could be more today in the Ohio Valley and in the northeastern US - I also put mention of an F3 tornado in Minnesota that was part of the same system. If today is bad, it may be warranting of an article just on length. CrazyC83 15:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

Do I make an article about that event? It is a borderline case.

F2 or larger in the heart of a mid-sized or large city (i.e. 50,000+) (Not likely met - largest town with major was <10,000)
10+ fatalities (Not met - 1 dead)
50+ overall tornadoes (Not met)
25+ overall tornadoes plus a killer (Possibly met if confirmed is higher)
Killer F5 tornado in any circumstance (Not likely met)CrazyC83 15:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, unless they add up after surveys, but we may never know. In Ontario on August 2, there was only a couple of reports but ended up with 8 confirmed + 1 unconfirmed.--JForget 20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, someone else made the article anyway. CrazyC83 01:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September

Traditionally a slow month, except when an outbreak is caused by a hurricane or tropical storm. (BTW, none were confirmed due to Ernesto) I wouldn't expect any major outbreaks in September, but stranger things have happened. CrazyC83 00:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 16-18

After the slowest period this year so far in the first half of September (not unusual), the activity should pick up quickly - and it could with a vengeance. We could go from nothing at all to an article-worthy outbreak, if it develops. What St. Louis WFO had to say CrazyC83 05:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really firing up now in South Dakota. CrazyC83 22:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong cold front. I don't want to say goodbye to summer for at least a week. Maybe we will get something severe-ish tomorrow before I go back to CMU. —BazookaJoe 03:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, slight risk. There were a lot of cells but not a lot of reports - yet. CrazyC83 18:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poo. A disappointing way in Michigan to shove the last summer air away. I hope we at least get a good lightning show, but I'm going NE tonight, so I'll probably have less of a chance. —BazookaJoe 19:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fall is upon us, that means the "second season" for tornadoes. CrazyC83 04:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 wind reports, I've thought it would be bad today, but luckly not. Environnement Canada only predict a chance of non-severe storms for Central Ontario and Tuesday where most of the activity will pass my area - no storms expected. Thought it would active tommrrow.--JForget 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, today was a bust, and I don't think tomorrow will be very active either. CrazyC83 04:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 21-23

Just in time for the equinox, the SPC released some fairly stunning outlooks today. A moderate risk from Chicago to Arkansas on Friday, and an elevated chance for severe weather from Michigan to Texas on Saturday. It will be interesting to see if it's not going to bust. I wish I were in Illinois this weekend. —BazookaJoe 18:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks much worse than last weekend for this far out. This is very stunning indeed - I wouldn't be surprised to see a High Risk - a first for September - issued. An article may very well be needed. CrazyC83 19:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is starting early for a matter of fact, tornado watches being issued. Prepare for a 3-day assault...ah, the second season started early. CrazyC83 19:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This September has been very interesting weatherwise so far. bob rulz 04:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0600 Day 1 not even close to a high risk, luckily. —BazookaJoe 06:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1630 Day 1 is much closer and over a large area. I wouldn't be surprised to see a HIGH at 2000 if things continue to deteriorate. Already 7 tornado warnings - and it is only 2:00 pm local time! CrazyC83 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an article would be require later on, should we called it : "The Fall Equinox Tornado outbreak"?. Meanwhile, there is a slight risk (to approach severe limits) for Southwestern Ontario for Saturday, but maybe it will include Toronto later on. My area should be okay though.--JForget 19:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting name, but it would be a decision that would need to be made. I would have called it "Late-September 2006 Tornado Outbreak" (disambiguate from last week's, even though it lacks an article). Tomorrow it should be more of a derecho than a tornado outbreak, but if that is really bad and today requires an article, they will go together. (Precedent is March 9-13) CrazyC83 19:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered moving it to an article - and I am working on a shell for the individual tornadoes - but I want to wait for it to really be validated. After all, there have been no fatalities yet. As soon as a report comes in (although I hope there isn't), the article will be created. We haven't hit the number of raw tornadoes needed though. The shell will be at User:CrazyC83/outbreak0922. CrazyC83 21:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already a bad one. Tornadoes everywhere! The one near O'Hare will alone merit an article if it is a devastating tornado. Is it April today? —BazookaJoe 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard nothing from there, but you are right - one really bad tornado (such as Evansville last fall) warrants an article on its own if it is really deadly. CrazyC83 00:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 23 is going to be the weak, isolated crap in the northern states. Already a probable F0 in Wisconsin, and some showers with rotation and funnel clouds reported back home in SW Mich (I am in Central Mich right now, unfortunately). I want Michigan to get some F0s in some fields... that would make me excited. —BazookaJoe 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November

November 7: Japan

[2] Should warrant a mention. – Ch acor 11:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agreed, although I know little about Japan weather (with no SPC-equivalent like there is in Europe). I can't really help much with that, unfortunately. It has its own article (definitely warranted) even though I cannot really help out other than organize it. CrazyC83 15:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 14-16

This could be THE big outbreak of the fall, right in the middle of November for the second straight year. The SPC is ALREADY picking up what could be a major outbreak, particularly on the 14th. That despite the fact it is a week away. I can't remember them being so bold 8 days out... CrazyC83 23:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is supposed to be the cold front crossing the east coast today (November 11) that would have spawned that possible outbreak or another storm? --JForget 14:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that one had a modest squall line attached, but little in the way of tornadoes. It was much weaker. A moderate risk has been issued for tonight. CrazyC83 15:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite ominous now. PDS watch issued mentioning a nocturnal outbreak. Those can definitely be devastating, especially with many in FEMA trailers in the region. It will be a tough one to track being overnight, but if an article is needed, it should be at Gulf Coast Tornado Outbreak of November 2006. CrazyC83 04:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First fatality reported. Due to its widespread nature, it is not yet article-worthy at this time, but I will continue to watch (if the number of tornadoes keeps growing significantly, or if more people are confirmed dead). CrazyC83 18:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best tornado number I have is 28 (many are in the wind report section). While that combined with the fatality are in article territory if they all hold up, the coverage area reduces the overall impact. CrazyC83 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How it ranks against the standards:

F2 or larger in the heart of a mid-sized or large city (i.e. 50,000+) (Arguable, depending on how suburbs count)
10+ fatalities (Not met - 1 dead)
50+ overall tornadoes (Not met - 32 reported total (with an unconfirmed reports in the wind section)
25+ overall tornadoes plus a killer (Likely met, depending on how it all turns out)
Killer F5 tornado in any circumstance (Not met - strongest was likely F3) CrazyC83 05:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least 5 killed last night in North Carolina. That takes care of the article question. Mid-November 2006 Tornado Outbreak created (disambiguate from smaller events, plus no more geographic range as it spread northeast). CrazyC83 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 30-December 2

Early models seem to be picking up a potential double-whammy, with severe weather - including tornadoes - in the southern Plains down to the Gulf Coast, which the SPC has even mentioned. (Combined with the winter weather farther north, see Talk:Winter storms of 2006-07#November 27-December 1 for that part) CrazyC83 03:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears it won't be a tornado outbreak after all, but rather a rare late fall derecho with some isolated tornadoes possible. Almost went with a MDT for Friday... CrazyC83 06:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Late November in UK

A number of small tornadoes have struck England and Wales in the last few days with moderate damage for that area. Multiple outlets are covering it, including BBC. [3] Severe storms and tornadoes have been forecasted TORRO, ESTOFEX. ESWD. Evolauxia 19:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December

December 1

Tornadoes in PA killed at least one with straight-line wind killing another. NWS survey page on Lucerne Co F2; NWS summary and survey on Halifax F1; PNS on Greensburg F1. media 1 2 Evolauxia 07:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 7: Freak London street tornado

Might be worth a mention. A freak tornado hit in London, England today - with damage confined to a single street. Six hurt. [4] – Ch acor 14:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just created an article - stub so far... London Tornado of 2006 Crimsone 17:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad start. I think the article is warranted as it hit a major city that is not normally hit by tornadoes. CrazyC83 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 16 Australia (Brisbane) Possible Tornado

I've seen on TV heavy damage that came from what look like a tornado in Australia (near Brisbane). Anyone had more info on that one (I will give you links on the details of the storms that hit the area on the 16? I've seen that some of the storms packed winds of near 200 km/h and there were storm cells. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9][10]--JForget 03:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was it confirmed as a tornado? I hadven't updated this site due to lack of action (low season in the northern hemisphere). However, late this week could see some action to end the year on the Gulf Coast. CrazyC83 16:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado watches are actually out right now for most of FL... – Ch acor 16:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xmas Day (December 25)

Tornado watches for most of FL, tornado warnings for parts of FL, GA and SC. – Ch acor 16:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently added some information for December 25 (Christmas Day). Not exactly a good Christmas gift for some... :( CrazyC83 21:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 28-31: Year end outbreak?

Signs are pointing to one last outbreak to end 2006, this time across the Gulf Coast primarily once again. Still too early to tell exactly how severe. CrazyC83 21:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion

What counts as a "reported" tornado? An entry on the NWS list of storm reports? (I give permission for anyone to move this comment to keep the weather discussions together.) Ardric47 03:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reported = listed on the NWS list of storm reports. Confirmed = actually confirmed by a post-storm survey by the local offices. Isolated weak tornadoes are generally not included in the page (unless very unusual, i.e. the one in Hawaii) but they are included in the statistics. This page covers small outbreaks, moderate tornadoes and otherwise notable events. It also acts as a bridge to their own article for major events. CrazyC83 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find I take a minute to check here after events now :-). Those criteria for events are good. Evolauxia 07:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The final tornado count for events won't be available until up to six months after the end of the month in question when the smooth report data have to be turned in. Counts can still change in both directions.Hebrooks87 10:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Hebrooks87[reply]

Yes. The reported vs. confirmed distinction I have no problem with, but those numbers are still preliminary and subject to change. It will be important to update the numbers when the final numbers are released. Evolauxia 22:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes in Europe

Is there a site that documents European events at all? All I'm able to get here are the major events... CrazyC83 15:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is the European Severe Weather Database (ESWD) http://essl.org/ESWD/. Concerning the question, whether the Fujita scale is in use in Europe: Tornadoes and Downbursts are rated using the Fujita scale as well as the twice-as-fine TORRO scale. An overview can be found here: http://www.tordach.org/topics/intensity_en.htm Feldfrei 23:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analyses of Austrian events can be found here. (in german)-- WmE 13:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List

I'm wondering; I've been looking all over the Internet (including at the National Weather Service website) and I have been unable to find a list of tornadoes that have been confirmed by the NWS. Where can I find a list like this? bob rulz 02:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six months after the end of the calendar month, the final reports are supposed to be at the National Climatic Data Center's Storm Data web site [11]. Note that tornadoes are listed there by county, not by tornado. If a tornado goes through more than one county, it will have more than one listing. The Storm Prediction Center has put out a version the database that has one listing per tornado at their historical storm page, but that typically happens later, usually in the late summer following the end of the calendar year. It's not the official repository. Sometimes, local forecast offices will put out their final official report for their local area in a public statement, but there is no requirement to do so. Hebrooks87 12:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been just tracking all the reports from NWS offices and compiling them as I go along for the actual confirmations. The list at the SPC site is NOT a list of confirmations - often there will be multiple reports of the same tornado, or some reported tornadoes that were actually microbursts or funnel clouds. (When an outbreak is underway with an article, however, they all get separate lines in the table until the confirmation or denial take place) Also sometimes they will miss some reports that come in late or were initially thought to be straight-line winds but were tornadic.

Take March 12th for example. The SPC reported a total of 140 tornadoes (almost as many as the Super Outbreak) but many were duplicate or incorrect reports. Using the NWS office confirmations and the article, that day, 50 tornadoes were actually confirmed (out of a five-day total of 84). CrazyC83 00:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the questions is what to do at this point for an annual total. On the SPC table, the rough log sum (the prelim column) still just adds up the reports that came in though the first few days after an event, but by this point of the year, the final totals are in for the first few months in the smooth log (final column). As of 12 UTC on 23 August, the sum of the first 3 months of the rough log was 286. The smooth log has only 203. It seems to me that using the smooth log numbers, once they're in, for the running annual total would be more informative. For instance, through 22 August, there are the 203 tornadoes in the final total for January-March and 739 in the rough log for April through 22 August. If all of the events in the rough log ended up in the smooth log (and no more were added), we'd have a total of 942, instead of the 1025 from summing the rough log numbers. I'd recommend using the final totals, once they appear on the SPC monthly climo page, in the annual total, rather than the rough log column sum. I don't think anyone would say, "there were 1200 reported tornadoes (of which 1264 were confirmed) in 2005." Once the final report from the local office has been sent to NCDC and the count gets put on the SPC web site, the changes should be over.Hebrooks87 09:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems prudent. Has anyone been doing this? I will try to get around to it, if not. Evolauxia 20:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes of Canada

Similarly, is there any place, where there is a list of Canadian Tornadoes Reported/confirmed, so I may add it for each month after the US numbers. Also, their statements are kept very breifly in the Special Weather Statements (generally 24 hours or less) is they state any tornadoes which is hard to fully keep track on the numbers I could have easily missed most of the tornadoes of the Haliburton tornado outbreak (no I won't create an article) of August 2. --JForget 00:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of, sorry. Agreed - it is not article worthy as overall it does not meet the standards. There have been larger outbreaks in the US (and Europe) this year that did not get articles. (And yes, the last 2 weeks have been really slow!)

Where does it fall vs. the general criteria? (Since it was more of a tornado outbreak than derecho, this applies)

F2 or larger in the heart of a mid-sized or large city (i.e. 50,000+) (Not met - largest town with major was <1,000)
10+ fatalities (Not met - 0 dead)
50+ overall tornadoes (Not even close)
25+ overall tornadoes plus a killer (Not applicable)
Killer F5 tornado in any circumstance (Not applicable)

CrazyC83 00:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish tornado

I may not be good in Polish, but if I understand a bit the article it was 14 injuries and 100 houses damaged in that storm? Unfortunate that the site doesn't have an English version and AltaVista does not have a Polish to English translation. Based on the images of the devastation, looks like more like an F2, perhaps F3 - however, I may overestimate since the structures are probably not as solidly built as in the U.S - so that who be more likely an F2--JForget 21:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The estimate from the European Severe Weather Database translation by Thilo Kühne, who is good in Polish, is F2.Hebrooks87 11:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time translating into other languages, but that definitely deserves mention here. CrazyC83 18:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 1-3 question

That section is getting very long on here. It seems that was a web of several events - none of them were article-worthy on their own, but altogether possibly. Maybe one should be started for the whole thing? More information could be found from other regions. CrazyC83 03:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the weather offices would have called the Quebec August 1 and Southern Ontario August 2 storms derechos, an article would have long existed. But of course Environment Canada is certainly not the NWS for such events. There is plenty of events that could have been puzzled together to create an article about the severe weather in Quebec and Ontario together with the major power outages in Quebec along with the two fatalities and the F2 Lac Drolet twister, the severe weather in Ottawa on August 1 and 2, the tornadoes in the Haliburton area, the super heat and humidity. Since, an article about the severe weather in Ohio on August 28th was created, maybe it can warrant an article.

Looks like a 2007 severe weather events in Canada article may be necessary too. Too late for this year though.--JForget 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That August 28 was created by someone else and is IMO unnecessary. It was nowhere near article-worthy - then we would have an article every week. There were 7 tornadoes confirmed and no fatalities and none stronger than F1. F1-anchored outbreaks are almost never article-worthy in any event. F2-anchored occasionally (if there are a large number or there is one or more in an urban area), F3-anchored quite often but not always, F4 or F5-anchored usually end up with articles. CrazyC83 04:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I should forget August 1-2, unless I do it in the User Page/events (or whatever). Maybe we should put that article in nomination for deletion unless WikiProject Ohio prefers to keep it, or put a list of severe events in Ohio ( i had created their 1969 windstorm event, because it was one of the deadliest derechos ever in the U.S). Maybe I should also put starting next year in a new user page a list of severe weather events across Canada. --JForget 19:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know other languages well, so we can get information on overseas tornadoes? They are on this page too. CrazyC83 04:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only French and maybe a bit of Spanish but that's it. --JForget 19:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I've decided to abandon ideas of creating an article for the event especially since no fatalities were caused by tornadoes.--JForget 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updating tornado totals with confirmed numbers?

Currently, the page shows 1102 reported tornadoes in the US for 2006 and 463 confirmed, with the SPC monthly stats page listed as a source. The January-April final totals are out and should be used. From January-April, there were 447 confirmed tornadoes. Since then there have been (trying to include post-12 September) 582 more reported tornadoes, with 16 confirmed. Given that we already know that there are 163 fewer confirmed tornadoes than reported tornadoes in the first four months of the year, that information should be included. Hebrooks87 10:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will require a major re-analysis before everything is complete. The 463 is based on NWS office reports of tornadoes that got an F-scale rating. However, I would make the final numbers (confirmed) the official numbers. I'd be curious to see how that affects the major outbreaks... CrazyC83 02:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For 12-13 March, there were 140 reports. The final count of tornadoes was 49. For 2 April, as best I can tell, the Memphis warning area went from 29 to 10, Davenport from 15 to 10, and Lincoln, IL from 27 to 25. Hebrooks87 15:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the March 12 total, and also the number that I managed to find as well for the article. CrazyC83 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm even more confused by what's getting counted with the 30 September update. In the article, it says there have been 530 confirmed tornadoes, with that part of what I assume is a reference to the SPC monthly stats page. At that location, it gives 586 as the total confirmed tornadoes through May. For January through May, there were 192 fewer confirmed tornadoes than preliminary reports.Hebrooks87 02:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those tornadoes in the database are repeated for every county they hit. Nonetheless, I walked through it for March 9-13 and found 105 tornadoes, 21 more than the initial estimate. One of the new tornadoes was an F2, but most were F0. CrazyC83 01:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The final count for the month of March, from the NWS SPC monthly stats is 143 (the second column on numbers on the page). That's based on the F8 forms submitted by the local offices, with the Warning Coordination Meteorologist at the SPC combining the segments. If we're not going to use the SPC website as a reference for the totals, then it shouldn't be referenced at the top of the article.Hebrooks87 13:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those should be used, and the 143 seems correct. About 75% took place in the big outbreak. CrazyC83 00:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Due to this AfD, September Upper Midwest Tornado Outbreak is to be merged with this article. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westchester Tornado

IMHO, this should be merged here. The image is pretty good too, could be used here, but the article just doesnt stand alone. -Runningonbrains 20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. One F2 article does not make an article unless it really stands out (i.e. Salt Lake City Tornado). It never hit a major city to make it article-worthy. CrazyC83 00:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree I think it was notable enough to stand alone. It was the biggest tornado that Westchaster County has ever seen and very uncommmon. It was a huge deal for the residents and should not be merged with some other article. It will take away the importance of it.

Sorry, I just do not see the notability. There were two tornadoes in nearby Connecticut in the past few weeks, they are not as uncommon in the northeast as many would think. The merge notice was removed previously without explanation by an anon editor, I would move to merge sooner rather than later. -Running On Brains 03:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good source of links to news articles and other sites

Sirlinksalot Tornado Links has a large collection of links to various tornadoes sites, and if you go to "News Articles about Tornadoes" has links to many, many news articles about tornado events around the globe. Evolauxia 22:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also,

Subjectivity

See Talk:Tornadoes of 2007#"Most Tornadoes form in the U.S.". Simply south 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Tornadoes of 2006. 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tornadoes of 2006. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100428091518/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/07/04/tornado.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/07/04/tornado.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tornadoes of 2006. 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 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tornadoes of 2006. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230120330/http://weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/warnings/SWS_bulletins_e.html?prov=on to http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/warnings/SWS_bulletins_e.html?prov=on
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030821125801/http://www.criacc.qc.ca/climat/suivi/tornade_f.html to http://www.criacc.qc.ca/climat/suivi/tornade_f.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C20043442-2%2C00.html

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) 06:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tornadoes of 2006. 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:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tornadoliste.de/tornadoliste2006.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sams-weather.com/weather/surveys/060330_andharr.txt
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sams-weather.com/weather/surveys/060330_johnpett.txt
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sams-weather.com/weather/surveys/060330_papi.txt
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140312062645/http://tornadostormshelters.com/Westminster.htm to http://tornadostormshelters.com/Westminster.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213093420/http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-031306-al-tornado.3f76e0e8.html to http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-031306-al-tornado.3f76e0e8.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_193162354.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lcn.canoe.com/infos/regional/archives/2006/07/20060727-205328.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512145537/http://www.ontariostorms.com/2006/index.html to http://www.ontariostorms.com/2006/index.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ottawasun.com/News/BreakingNews/2006/08/03/1717121.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930065645/http://ww6.tvp.pl/View?Cat=120&id=384270 to http://ww6.tvp.pl/View?Cat=120&id=384270
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.startribune.com/127/story/682389.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wetter-zentrale.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/wzconfig2.pl?read=2089
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=5685358
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5871545
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207081208/http://www.tornadoproject.com/past/pastts06.htm to http://www.tornadoproject.com/past/pastts06.htm

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) 22:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tornadoes of 2006. 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) 01:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

about Saroma tornado

I suggest marge 2006 Saroma tornado to Tornadoes_of_2006#November_7_(Japan). 2006 Saroma tornado is substub, and it uses bare URLs, which are uninformative and vulnerable to link rot.126.167.163.127 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done 126.179.88.30 (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]