Jump to content

Talk:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 22, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1999 Bridge Creek – Moore tornado, ranked F5 on the Fujita scale, was the costliest tornado in United States history?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 3, 2018, May 3, 2019, May 3, 2022, and May 3, 2024.


Improvements

[edit]

The only major improvements I can see this needing are some expansion of content (possibly along the lines of this and this), expansion of the lead section, possibly creating subsections by county in the synopsis and impact sections, and more in depth impact information on impact (especially relating to Oklahoma County). Other than those issues, the article appears exceptional. I would say if it is C class at the moment, it is extremely close to B-class. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with almost all these weather articles, the writing style is absolutely awful, on the level of an untalented high school student. I'm not sure why, but the weather seems to bring out writers with no skill at exposition and a penchant for strained grammar and hyperbolic language. This article is a confusing disaster considering the importance of the event. Antimatter33 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to Wikipedia:Positivity for tips on how to be a positive person. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Name

[edit]

I understand that some of the worst damage may have been recorded in Moore, but why is Oklahoma City left out of the title? According to the National Weather Service, there were fatalities in Bridge Creek(12), Oklahoma City(9), Del City(6), Moore(5), Midwest City(3), and Newcastle(1). That puts Moore at only fourth out of six cities in terms of fatalities. I don't understand why so many people seem to make the assumption that everyone who died from this tornado was in Moore and Bridge Creek, when Moore only contained five of the fatalities. Why is Oklahoma City completely left out of this? It seems that whoever was naming this tornado's article was only going by known damage, and ignored the fatalities altogether. Even Del City, who most people do not here as much about when they talk about this tornado, had more fatalities than Moore. I am not saying that Moore should have to be removed from the title, just that Oklahoma City might possibly be referenced. Moore was an impressive location in terms of damage, but not quite so much in terms of fatalities. I would suggest a reference to Oklahoma City, due to the fact that it appears to have had the second most fatalities in from this deadly tornado. 72.198.89.119 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC) MySuggestions[reply]

Most of the time there isn't a good consensus from official sources on what to name a tornado. In this case, since it was an F5, the Storm Prediction Center has a listing that we can use to provide a name. There, it's listed as Bridge Creek/Moore, so those are the areas used for the name. I believe the naming would stem from where the tornado reached F5 status rather than where the fatalities took place. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, what part of the National Weather Service rates tornadoes? Other branches of the NWS refer to it OKC inclusive. This method of naming makes little sense to me; there ought to be a more inclusive name for this tornado. Everyone seems to refer to it as the 1999 Moore tornado, when in all actuality, Moore was only significant in terms of damage; the 301+-20 mph weren't even recorded there. There were other areas that had more significant impacts. I could have almost sworn that at some point, I read an article that was named by metro area due to the impacted area being too expansive. A tornado doesn't need to be F5/EF5 strength to be significant, so another question of mine is, how do you name non-EF5 tornadoes on Wikipedia? Sorry to bother you, I don't want it to seem like I am arguing or anything. Dustin talk 15:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likely the NWS severe storm center. To answer the question about non-EF5 articles, if the tornado was significant and the only one to hit the city, name it [City] tornado. If it was significant but another tornado was also recorded there and both were significant, put [Year] [City] tornado. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debris

[edit]

It first says that 

  "The Bridge Creek−Moore tornado produced an estimated 220 cubic yards (170 m3) of debris from the buildings that were destroyed in the storm.[27][28]"

which seems like a oddly small amount of debris for several thousand destroyed home, especially since building materials, like lumber, tend to take up a lot of volume in a landfill. Then later it says 

  "According to the Army Corps of Engineers, roughly 500,000 cubic yards (382,277 cubic meters) of debris was left behind and would likely take weeks to clear.[38]"

The difference between 220 and 500,000 is huge; obviously not all of the 500,000 cubic yards is debris from buildings, but it should be a larger proportion than 220 cubic yards. Worse, a bit later it goes on to say 

  "By this date, the Army Corps of Engineers reported that 964,170 cubic yards (737,160 cubic meters), roughly 58%, of the 1.65 million cubic yards (1.26 million cubic meters) of debris had been removed.[46]"

Now we're up to 1,650,000 cubic yards of debris as opposed to 220 cubic yards. Obviously these can't all be correct. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. So, they are rough estimates. As time goes on, more and more debris is counted. This leads to more cubic yards (cbyds) of debris in total. Therefore, at some point in time, all of these were correct, just not at once. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado. 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) 19:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

302 mph

[edit]

The given figure on the DOW website is 135 m/s and the subsequent cited paper cites this as well. Per the Wikipedia converter, this gives 135 ± 10 m/s (302 ± 22 mph; 486 ± 36 km/h), and converting 135 m/s to mph raw gives 301.986 which is rounded to 302. The DOW website (which is now a dead link and only relies off a 10-year old archive of it and was likely never updated or fixed considering someone likely mistyped the digits or rounded wrong in mph. @United States Man: insists this is WP:OR but this explicitly used the 135 ± 10 value on the website. This is a pointless argument to be having about but this aligns with the El Reno tornado which also had 135 m/s and is listed as 302 mph. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 05:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, 135 m/s is the accurate number. The El Reno number is actually outdated, with NOAA/OU published in March 2024 that it was 115 to 150 m/s. The new academic paper can be found at https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-23-0242.1. With that being said, the standard process would be {{convert|135|m/s|mph km/h}}, without the plus/minus, as long as the new paper is cited. I will be updated the El Reno article following this message as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the convert template works weird without the plus minus as it lists as 300 instead of 302, so it might be best in this case to just list as normal wiki text. Additionally I can’t access that paper so if there’s an alternate way to see where they stated this I would appreciate it. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 06:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is because due to significant figures, it was decreased from 301.9 to 300. Also, the paper is a pre-print/early access paper. I have access to it though. I can confirm on page 42, it states “135 m s^-1 at 32 m ARL on 3 May 1999 at Bridge Creek, Oklahoma (Wurman et al. 2007);”. Don’t worry too much about it though, full access should be out soon. The paper and parts of it are cited on History of tornado research#2024 as well, which gives more insight, but basically, NOAA/OU did a major study on tornadoes based on radar observations (NEXRAD & Mobile Radar observations), and they went through listing stuff. They had “updated” wind speeds for 1991 Ceres tornado, 1999 Bridge Creek, 1999 Mulhall, 2011 El Reno, and 2013 El Reno. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind giving those other two so I can update them if necessary? Unless they didn’t really change much (i.e if 2011 is still 295 mph) in the “updated” wind speeds. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 06:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
120-125 m/s for Ceres and 115 m/s for Mulhall. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: I’m coming back to this again because it seems like you may be misrepresenting the 2013 El Reno measurement, at least from what I’m seeing from what you’ve provided. You said it was a range of 115-150 m/s, so I’m not sure if it’s the best idea to use the high end as official (and I recall earlier studies said these winds were measured higher in the storm then the 1999 tornado), and instead give the range itself and note that if the higher end is accurate then it could be the highest measured. Just want to make sure we’re writing this correctly. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was the range of 115-150 m/s. However, they were stated to be "near-surface tornado wind speeds". In the 2014 paper, 135 m/s (301.9 mph) was directly observed, with a 7.5 m/s (16 mph) standard deviation. Actually the article is wrong since it is listed as 302 ± 34 mph, when it should be 302 ± 16 mph, just based on the 2014 paper cited in the article / sourced by the 2024 paper. Before hand, the article read up to 135 m/s, since 135 m/s was the highest directly observed measurement, and the ± was strictly due to "standard deviation" (quoted from the 2014 paper). In the new paper, they gave the direct "observations" of "near-surface tornado wind speeds" for the tornado as 115 to 150 m/s, meaning 150 m/s isn't standard deviation, but rather a direct "observation". All of that to say the article (as it is as of this message) seems to be ok, since the lead has "winds up to 150 m/s (340 mph; 540 km/h) within the vortex" and the full explanation below has "In March 2024, NOAA and OU published a new analysis, which estimated that winds may have reached up to anywhere between 115–150 metres per second (260–340 mph; 410–540 km/h)". Either way, it seems to be explained as a range + direct observations up to the peak observed wind speed, which is what we had previously with the 135 m/s from the 2014 paper. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. The issue is then how do we represent this record-wise, as it’s conflicting with the Moore tornado as the highest wind speed. The new range up to 150 m/s could be taken as dethroning the Moore tornado. It seems like they didn’t give a specific number for El Reno which is why I am very hesitant to declare El Reno having the highest winds when it is simply the high end of the observations (additionally there’s the need for it to say if the paper actually stated the wind speed dethrones Moore as the highest). That’s why I suggested the above for El Reno (which honestly I should be talking about on its page but since this involves Moore’s position as well I guess it’s fine staying here) to give us leeway without violating OR, since anything saying El Reno is the highest without a direct source (vs many statements out there for Moore 1999) may be taken as OR. I hope that makes sense. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that there is a related entry at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 3 that will need updating. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anniversary template page updated accordingly now! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity and Greenfield's confirmed peak intensity

[edit]

The opening of this article contained "the highest wind speeds ever measured globally were recorded at 135 metres per second (302 mph; 486 km/h) by a Doppler on Wheels (DOW) radar." I'm unsure if this claim can stand in the modern day, given the revelation of the 2024 Greenfield Tornado's Doppler on Wheels wind measurement of between 309 mph (497 km/h) and 318 mph (512 km/h), now confirmed by the FARM team headed by Joshua Wurman. 2013 El Reno wasn't able to take the title, despite academic evidence of ~340mph winds, due to lack of DOW evidence, meaning Greenfield is the only legitimate challenger. However, ambiguity remains for Moore's estimate: the 302mph figure with a 20mph (between 282 and 322 miles per hour). Greenfield's estimate is 309-318. These can be written as 302±20 and 313.5±4.5 (the numbers here are less than pretty, in meters per second it's Moore's 135±10 to Greenfield's roughly 140±2), however, it's clear the dead center of Moore's DOW estimate is below the dead center of Greenfield's DOW estimate. I'm rewording the inital statement, and ask we come to some sort of consensus on this, given the ambiguity of this subject gives no clear answer. (Yes, Moore's was closer to the ground, however they won't stand for the highest wind speeds recorded on earth.) GeorgeMemulous (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough to just amend the sentence to "some of the highest wind speeds ever measured", at least until more is published about the new measurement. Penitentes (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources accept Moore as the highest winds on Earth, and even the WMO considers this true in terms of strongest winds by radar. We shouldn’t adjust this yet unless many sources pick up on this and more reviews are conducted. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but until post-Greenfield sources take a side (that isn't just regurgitating old knowledge) or we get an official opinion from the SPC, NWS, ESSL, or another recognized meteorological association, neither Greenfield nor Moore should be explicitly considered the record holder. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That last sentence proves the point. Moore is closer to the ground and more representative of the likely ground winds of the tornado. Not so for Greenfield (there are always higher winds further up you go but with tornadoes they aren’t really representative of the true intensity). Additionally, there is still lots of preliminary data yet to be surveyed so, and we don’t even have any academic papers yet for Greenfield (and likely won’t for a few years), so this is all still preliminary data subject to change and should not be taken at face value. Moore’s upper end possibility is higher the Greenfield’s so this also means that even in the high-end scenario, Moore is the strongest. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
American sci-fi movies sometimes uses romantic scenes where shockingly massive F6 tornadoes roll into downtown city centers; and that brings me to the point that despite Greenfield's winds being well above the ground, that doesn't mean it wasn't stronger than Moore. 170 feet above the ground is unfathomably high to a rural community like Greenfield, but to a metropolis like Des Moines or Oklahoma City, it comes into perspective that 170 feet is 'only' 17 stories (see the proposed Legends Tower in downtown OKC, whose planned finished height of 1907 feet dwarfs the height above ground that the wind speed was measured). Also, yes, in the case that both tornado's true intensity was at the high end of their estimates, Moore would have been 4mph stronger than Greenfield. But, if both were at their minimum estimates, Greenfield would be a full 27mph above, and at their median and most likely values, Greenfield is 11.5mph above Moore.
Moore was stronger than Greenfield near the ground. That is evident by Greenfield's EF4 rating survey, which estimates a peak intensity of between 175 and 185 miles per hour. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was it multi-vortex

[edit]

Was it a multiple vortex tornado? Did it have multiple vortices, just like the dead man walking tornado of 1997? Beluga732 (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, yes.
Both literally and technically.
The definition of "multiple vortices" you are probably thinking of is when there is no defined main circulation. In which, the tornado is made up of smaller visible columns of rotating air.
Literally, however, all tornadoes are multi-vortex.
The main portions of most, if not all tornadoes are only achieving windspeeds of EF1 intensity. There are smaller "sub-vortices" inside the parent circulation that do the damaging aspect of the tornado(es) in question. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to add a section

[edit]

Can I add a section that includes the damage markers and the reasons for giving them that rating. (Or at least the significant ones) GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:1999_Bridge_Creek–Moore_tornado&oldid=1257874004"