Talk:1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak

Oklahoma High‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as High-importance).

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

DOW measurement

" 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 [1], 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)Hebrooks87[reply]

Thanks for the source; i apologize for the innacurate information and will make corrections.

Update: article now states "up to 318 mph"

NCDC event log vs. actual tornadoes

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)Hebrooks87[reply]

I have taken into account the segmented tracks for this outbreak and the Andover Kansas Outbreak. Thanks for the info though. I will collaborate tornado reports for most of the recent outbreaks listed on the outbreak page in the coming weeks.

F5 or F6?

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)[reply]

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)Hebrooks87[reply]

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)[reply]

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)Hebrooks87[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Amber" tornado

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)[reply]

Tornado counts on 3 May

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)[reply]

Moore F5 damage-Where it ranks

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)[reply]

Naming of this article?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Robbie Knievel

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))[reply]

List of tornadoes

Considering the numerous number of tornadoes from this outbreak, I've switch the location of the list to List of Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak tornadoes as the full outbreak had 140 confirmed tornadoes from May 3 to May 8

Edit needed for 10 costliest US tornadoes chart

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)[reply]

Moore F-5 recorded wind speeds.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mulhall width

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

David Green —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.62.106 (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Number of Buildings Destroyed

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)[reply]

I really do not know how to cite on wikipedia, but here are my sources

http://books.google.com/books?id=4YzF-DT__aIC&pg=PR50&lpg=PR50&dq=%228000+buildings%22+tornado&source=web&ots=Rmfezgozk4&sig=qRnbNrSBzQk2CzwzaG1szznGjaw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

http://www.norman.noaa.gov/2000/05/first-anniversary-of-may-3-1999-tornado-outbreak-highlights-importance-of-warnings/

Needs expansion

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)[reply]

Fixed links to OUN storm event information

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)[reply]

Sources

Just in case I feel up for it...

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox problems

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)[reply]

Fixed--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 19:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

`{{Refimprove}}`

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Page title

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

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) 19:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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.

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) 22:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak

Hi. I saw that, in your article, you mentioned several times the amount of tornadoes that touched down, yet all of them are different, one being significantly different. In your first paragraph, you say that 154 tornadoes touched down, then you say that "a total of 72 tornadoes" touched down. Then, on your Fujita scale chart, you say that there are 152 tornadoes. Please fix this, so that I and everyone else reading your article may know the actual amount of tornadoes that touched down.