Talk:Tornado outbreak of November 27–28, 2005

Untitled
News article on autumn tornado outbreaks: Tornado 'second season': new outbreak, old risk.

November 28 tornadoes
So far there has been one tornado reported today (November 28) in Alabama. Should it be treated as part of this outbreak article? CrazyC83 20:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Definitions vary (by how much time can lapse between the last tornado of one event and the first of another), but for our purposes the same system is producing the tornadoes (plural) today so should be considered the same event. Indeed, the May 2003 series of outbreaks is "officially" considered as a single event, so there is room for interpretation. Evolauxia 23:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Windspeed in infobox
All tornado infoboxes should have maximum windspeed removed; it is pseudoscientific and unencyclopedic. Evolauxia 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's totally unjustified and not something that should be perpetuated by Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. Ask a NWS meteorologist if they really can say that those exact speeds are known and they would say no. NSSL, SPC, researchers, Fujita, Grazulis, etc. would tell you the same and it is very well reflected in the literature. Given that *some* NWS offices do unfortunately post this information, here a couple of authoritative online sources in support of my position:

http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/mesoscale/tornado.htm "The F-scale is to be used with great caution. Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors."

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#f-scale1 "Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the original F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors. Also, the process of rating the damage itself is largely a judgment call -- quite inconsistent and arbitrary (Doswell and Burgess, 1988). Even meteorologists and engineers highly experienced in damage survey techniques often came up with different F-scale ratings for the same damage."

"So if the original F-scale winds are just guesses, why are they so specific? Excellent question. Those winds were arbitrarily attached to the damage scale based on 12-step mathematical interpolation between the hurricane criteria of the Beaufort wind scale, and the threshold for Mach 1 (738 mph). Though the F-scale actually peaks at F12 (Mach 1), only F1 through F5 are used in practice, with F0 attached for tornadoes of winds weaker than hurricane force. Again, F-scale wind-to-damage relationships are untested, unknown and purely hypothetical. They have never been proven and may not represent real tornadoes. F-scale winds should not be taken literally."

"Confirmed" tornadoes
SPC reports are not confirmed tornadoes, those are preliminary reports. In this article, the listing of actual confirmed tornadoes have additional information and are sourced, however, the inference that SPC reports cited are confirmed tornadoes is demonstrably false. Evolauxia 03:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is in bad shape
There were 73 tornadoes in this outbreak according to NCDC/Tornado history project, and this page lists only 36 of them. The tornado table is formatted incorrectly as well. There is pretty much nothing here besides a hollow shell of an article. I don't have enough time to reconstruct it. Someone needs to go the the NCDC events page and fix this.