Talk:1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak

message: "  At around 7:00 P.M., a mobile Doppler radar detected winds of 318 mph inside a tornado that hit Moore, Oklahoma, but speeds up to 450 miles per hour could be spotted deep inside the tornado.  "
The winds were actually 301 +/- 17 mph, and this is the first I've heard about any 450 mph wind.  I'm going to edit this part of the article.
I agree that the 450 mph wind speed sounds somewhat unsubstantiated and erronious, but most sources have stated that the portable doppler radar detected a windspeed of 318 mph within the tornado.  I find it hard to believe these sources would mearly state the upper end of a 34 mph range.
:Most media sources tend to state the upper end of estimated wind speed ranges when the F-scale ratings are given, so I would expect them to pick the upper end of another range.  In an interview , Josh Wurman gives the maximum winds as about 135 m/s.  135 m/s=302 mph, so the 301 is pretty close.  I'd be surprised if wasn't giving the middle of the distribution. Hebrooks87 22:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOW measurement 

message: It's important to note that the NCDC log contains tornado segments, with one segment per county for a tornado.  Thus, if a tornado goes through 5 counties, NCDC's log will have five entries.  As of 15 April 2006, the database from 1950-2004 is available with the Severe Plot software package from the Storm Prediction Center.  From 1200 UTC 3 May 1999 to 1200 UTC 4 May 1999, it has 71 tornadoes listed in Texas (1), Oklahoma (58), Kansas (3), Nebraska (7), South Dakota (2).  By F-scale, there were 38 F0, 16 F1, 7 F2, 6 F3, 3 F4, 1 F5.  Hebrooks87 22:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCDC event log vs. actual tornadoes 

message: The tornado that had the wind speeds of 318 MPH is on the very border of an F5's upper limit... does that mean it's an F6? I doubt i'm the only one that considers it as such (an F6). NOAA chart, depicting this tornado as an F6  User:Raccoon Fox - Talk  03:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one in the tornado climatology or research fields considers it an F6.  The image you show doesn't show it as an F6.  It's shown as an F5 (right next to the red dot depicting the second overpass fatality in the Oklahoma City area).  The  full image without the dots may be clearer.  By definition, there are no F6 tornadoes.  The wind measurements from the Doppler on Wheels on that day were 301 mph with a standard deviation of 20 mph, according to the DOW website.  Those winds are higher in the atmosphere and over a shorter duration than the associated F-scale wind speed definitions, as discussed here, so that comparisons really can't be made.  Hebrooks87 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say makes sense...but i still wonder why they have two brown Sixes (6) in that image you've given, if the tornado was an F5... was that an incorrect reading, given by the DopplerOnWheels unit, or like you said...from a few hundred feet in the air?  User:Raccoon Fox - Talk  23:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't any sixes on the track of A10 (the Oklahoma City tornado).  The maximum number is a five.  In the legend at the upper left of the full image without the dots, it indicates that F5s are brown.  The maximum intensity for each tornado is given next to the track.  For the Oklahoma City tornado, it's F5.  In order, the point damage estimates along the track are 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2.  Hebrooks87 02:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, you're right. I had to zoom in on that image a great deal to make out the numbers, though. I guess I need to wear my glasses once more.  User:Raccoon Fox - Talk  17:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hopefully the new EF scale will correct some of these issues. The Doppler-On-Wheels project has certainly given us some very useful insight into the differentials between measured wind speeds aloft and those that actually impact the ground -- indeed, on the old scale, high F5 winds at ground level were more or less impossible. The reality is that we need to separate the idea of damage from wind speeds anyway, given the chaotic nature of a mesocyclone and its associated tornado. RoboNerd 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  F5 or F6? 

message: There is no "Amber County" in Oklahoma.  The "Amber" tornado is the same tornado as the Moore/Oklahoma City/Del City tornado, as can be seen in the track map.  There was only one F5 tornado in the US that day (in fact, only one that year).Hebrooks87 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Amber" tornado 

message: Trying to get the count by F-scale right:
For those tornadoes warned on by the Norman forecast office, the tornado identifiers are included.  See [track map.  Locations are in parentheses.
F5-1 OK-A9 (Amber-OKC-Moore-Del City)
F4-3 OK-B20 (1st Mulhall), OK-E6 (Dover), Kansas-(Sedgwick County)
F3-6 OK-A3 (Apache), OK-A6 (Laverty), OK-D4 (Stroud), OK-E3 (Kingfisher County), OK-G3 (Canadian-Kingfisher Counties), OK-G5 (Crescent)
F2-7 OK-A8 (Chickasha), OK-A12 (Choctaw), OK-B17 (Piedmont), OK-D2 (Shawnee), OK-G6 (2nd Mulhall), OK-H3 (Hennessey), OK-H4 (Marshall)
F1-18 2-Nebraska (Ewing and Hartingon), 1-Kansas (Mayfield), 15 in Oklahoma (2nd Sapulpa-Tulsa, and A14, B3, B8, B9, B10, B11, B16, B18, B19, D1, D3, E2, E7, I1)
F0-38 2-South Dakota (Springfield and Greenwood), 5-Nebraska (Orchard, Creighton, Verdigre, Belden, and Niobrara), 1-Kansas (Augusta), 1-Texas (Maryneal), 29-OK (1st Sapulpa, A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A10, A11, A13, B1, B2, B4, B5, B6, B7, B12, B13, B14, B15, C1, C2, E1, E4, E5, G1, G3, G4, H1, and H2)
Total for the day (1200 UTC 3 May 1999-1200 UTC 4 May 1999) = 73.Hebrooks87 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tornado counts on 3 May 

message: The [SPC top 10 damage table] has some serious problems and shouldn't be used.  For starters, it only goes back to the beginning of Storm Data.  Second, the use of the central values in the damage category that were used up through 1995 creates some really odd values, given the breadth of the categories (e.g., 50 million-500 million is designated as 250 million.)  This is especially troublesome given that some of the cases have actually damage amounts in the text entry in Storm Data (the paper copies, not necessarily the online approximation.)  As an example of this problem, combined with another problem, the first entry, with $1,250,000,000 in 1973 dollars is the Conyers, GA tornado.  In the paper version of Storm Data, the damage is given as $89M for the tornado.  This gets translated using the central value as $250M, nearly tripling the damage from the reported value.  In addition, for that case, the tornado hit a total of 5 counties.  In the online Storm Data, each county is credited as having $250M in damage (the central value of the class).  When it gets taken from the county-based description back to the total track, that results in a total of $1,250M compared to the actual reported damage from the text description of $89M, a factor of 14 overestimate.  On the other hand, the Wichita Falls tornado gets underestimated since the reported damage was $400M.
This doesn't even take into account the fact that inflation-adjustment is probably not the correct adjustment to make in any event.  Wealth adjustment is probably more representative.  A better reference to the history of damage, starting with the historical work on collecting damage estmates done by Tom Grazulis, is [Brooks and Doswell (2001)], which gives both inflation and wealth adjustment numbers going back to 1890.  From that, the Oklahoma City tornado is the most damaging tornado when inflation adjustment is applied, and 11th most damaging when wealth-adjustment is applied.  1896 St. Louis, is the damaging tornado by that metric, in US history. Hebrooks87 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moore F5 damage-Where it ranks 

message: Just a quick point: I'm concerned about the naming of this article. "Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak" is rather generic, and if 2007 for example brings another outbreak like that of 1999, that would further confuse things. Wouldn't it be better to rename this article "Tornado Outbreak of May 3-6 1999"? This is especially relevant since the event was from May 3-6, and not limited to Oklahoma in scope. I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, it just seems to me that the article name itself doesn't quite match the event. RoboNerd 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak of 1999 would be best, as the media adopted the name Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak. If the media never adopted the name, then the (Early-)May 1999 Tornado Outbreak would be better. However, for high-end systems, such names do get made. CrazyC83 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another issue is that tornadoes also occurred in other states, notably Kansas and Texas, with severe damage in the Wichita area of Kansas. Evolauxia 00:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few tornadic outbreaks that have occurred in Oklahoma, the name needs to be changed to be more specific to the May 3rd, 1999 event.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.42.2 (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of this article? 

message: On April 29, the son of Evil Knievel was scheduled to jump the Grand Canyon when a snow storm deluged the jump site.  This was the storm that later hit Oklahoma.   (205.250.167.76 21:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robbie Knievel 

message: I believe the following should be "millions" not "thousands."  
"2. Raw damage totals adjusted for inflation, in thousands of 1997 USD."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.196.111 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit needed for 10 costliest US tornadoes chart 

message: In the main article, it says that wind speeds were clocked at 301 (and "+/- 20") miles per hour.  But many television programs that I have seen say that there were actually at least two Doppler radar trucks on the scene and they clocked winds at 318 miles per hour inside the Moore, Ok Tornado. Darthvader1 (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The measurements were taken by the Doppler on Wheels.  The [DOW website] gives the measurement as 301 +/- 20 mph.  Their preliminary value had been higher, which got into the media, but their final analysis that they give is 301 +/- 20 mph.Hebrooks87 (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moore F-5 recorded wind speeds. 

message: Someone added that the Mulhall tornado had winds capable of causing damage in a diameter of up to 7 km, as determined by mobile radar.  I've not seen anything approaching this value in the refereed literature, including the big three papers by Wurman and/or the DOW team.  There is a citation of 
"Wurman, 2007" in the text, but there is no associated reference or footnote at the end of the article.  I do not know if this or any other source confirming the ~7 km measurement exists.  A section with this information was also added to the Tornado records article and also requires verification.  
Additionally, the article as a whole requires more references and some citations should be converted to inline references, so I've slapped a tag on the article which otherwise seems to have some decent information.  Evolauxia (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference for the 7 km diameter is Wurman, J., C. Alexander, P. Robinson, and Y. Richardson, 2007:  Low-Level Winds in Tornadoes and Potential Catastrophic Tornado Impacts in Urban Areas.  Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, 31-46.Hebrooks87 (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I added full references for all the citations listed in that section regarding the Mulhall maxitornado.  Evolauxia (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I'm curious as to the wording here. Are we describing the tornado itself with that 7km, or the associated RFD and other mesocyclone-driven winds? Of course, in the huge & powerful tornadic systems such as the ones we saw 10 years ago, the line begins to blur where wind fields are demarcated... but anyway, reading the entry here, I was a bit confused as to the meaning there. Do we need to clarify this a bit? RoboNerd (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: David, I'm a few years late to the party, but I can point you to the published paper that contains the 7 km figure.  The pertinent text is as follows: "Wind speeds capable of causing significant damage, >43 m s–1, extended across a swath over 7 km wide(Table 1), which is substantially wider than the damage swath of the Hallam, Nebraska, tornado of 22 May 2004 (McCarthy and Schaefer 2005)."  I presume those are DOW-indicated wind speeds, but I refer interested readers to the paper itself so that they may draw their own conclusions.  It's cited in Footnote 13 in the main article; here's a direct link (see page 33): http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-88-1-31   72.0.15.8 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mulhall width 

message: I don't think over 10000 buildings were destroyed by the Moore tornado alone.  I believe this is the total from the whole outbreak.  If I am wrong, I would like to see the source that says so.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Buildings Destroyed

message: This article needs expanding there were a lot more tornado's then just the ones listed this article needs to have info on all the tornado's--Steam Iron 08:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs expansion  

message: The Norman WFO made changes to their website that broke the URL to their event information page for this and other tornado outbreaks.  The links are fixed now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steppedleader (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed links to OUN storm event information  

message: Just in case I feel up for it...
*Investigation of Deaths and Injuries Resulting From the May 3, 1999 Tornadoes
*The Tornadoes of 3 May 1999: Event Verification in Central Oklahoma and Related Issues
*Collaborations Between Meteorologists and Emergency Managers: The Oklahoma Tornado of 3 May 1999 (Part 2)
*Synoptic Regulation of the 3 May 1999 Tornado Outbreak
Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The "Outbreak Death Toll" infobox is improperly categorized, as though somebody tampered with it since its creation. It now appears to be grouped along the lines of State|Fatalities|County|Fatalities in County
Is there a chance somebody could resolve this issue? KirkCliff2 (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox problems 

message: I removed a heavily outdated maintenance tag from when the article was far, far smaller, but United States Man added it back without explanation. The article looks like it has enough references, and so it appears quite unnecessary. Dustin (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a scan through the article and noticed a lot of content was still missing references, thus the tag is still necessary. United States Man (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That ugly tag has been there for a whopping six years now. There should be a way to categorize the article properly without having to display that for every reader of this article. Dustin (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Refimprove|Refimprove]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> 

message: This page has been named "1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak" for quite a long time now -- since 2004, as a matter of fact. It is hardly an uncommon name, with the outbreak being Oklahoma's most prolific outbreak on record. When it comes to outbreaks named after locations, I tend to be more opposed when said location is a city because the scale is too small. On the scale of a state, though, a better argument can be made. Oklahoma and the Oklahoma area encompass a very broad region where many/most of the most significant tornadoes occurred. I don't know at what point May 4-8 was added (even now, the article almost exclusively focuses on the May 3 outbreak), but those tornadoes affected a more nebulous area than the May 3 outbreak. That said, few of those tornadoes were particularly significant, and most of those that were occurred in states bordering Oklahoma and were not too far out of reach of the currently-existing title. I'm not saying there cannot be an argument made for a name change, but if there is one, it demands more elaboration than the brief edit summaries provided. Master of Time (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak. 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/20070205124033/http://www.cswr.org/dow/dow.htm to http://cswr.org/dow/DOW.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205124033/http://www.cswr.org/dow/dow.htm to http://cswr.org/dow/DOW.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607180426/http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9737 to http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9737
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607180145/http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9689 to http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9689
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607181739/http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9688 to http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9688
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607181042/http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9726 to http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9726
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607181800/http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9731 to http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9731
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607180302/http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9730 to http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9730
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607180114/http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9732 to http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9732
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607181810/http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9717 to http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9717
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608004335/http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9694 to http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=9694
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak. 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/20070927185037/http://www.koco.com/may3/index.html to http://www.koco.com/may3/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified