User talk:EF5

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2024/March; 2024/April; 2024/May; 2024/June; 2024/July; 2024/October; 2024/November; 2024/December; 2025/January; 2025/February; 2025/March; 2025/April; 2025/May;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

I never walk about after dark, it's my point of view, 'cause someone could break your neck, coming up behind you, always coming, and you'd never have a clue
"Tornadoes affect real people, at a real place, at a real time."
"I just want to take 'em down and burn 'em."

Adoption

Hello! Would you be open to discussing possible adoption? I also have a (big) interest in tornadoes (especially after going through a tornado outbreak myself :P) and I think overall you are a cool person who could provide valuable mentorship. Thank you, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure!! It's almost tornado season, so perfect time to ask. Do you have any off-the-bat questions? :) E_F⁵ 00:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what would the best way to communicate be? FarmerUpbeat (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer on-wiki, if that's fine. It's nothing personal, it's just that Wikipedia is the website I have access the most to throughout the day (and I've had at least one questionable experience with talking off-wiki). :D — E_F⁵ 01:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Historynerd361 (12:46, 6 May 2025)

Dear Mentor

I have a question regarding the age of sources. How ”old” can a source be in order to be adequate for an article?

King regards --Historynerd361 (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Historynerd361: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! As long as sources are reliable, they can be of any age. EF5 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up question -- I’m currently sitting on a source from the early 20th century. In the book, a part of the chapter still has academic support while another part of it no longer seems to be accurate because of archaeological finds. I know exactly what paragraphs are no longer deemed as ’’accurate.

Can I still use the part of that chapter that is still accurate while ignoring the other part that is not?

King regards Historynerd361 (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ef5: Historynerd361 (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historynerd361, sorry for not getting back. If some paragraphs are inaccurate, I'd say the entire book is inaccurate, as the inaccurate part kind of compromises the book's reliability. — ^EF⁵ 01:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sudbury tornado.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sudbury tornado.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday

On the topic of Thursday (continued from my talk page):

The 00z suite of global guidance did very little to quell forecast uncertainty - from Lincoln's most recent AFD. Some other selected quotes:

As a meteorologist or weather enthusiast, it's hard not to get sappy about Thursday. It's a rare convective environment taking shape for the Midwest, one that could yield a couple discreet, all- hazard supercells -- or nothing at all. Yesterday's phrase was boom-or-bust, and that's still the phrase today as we eagerly await this evening's 00z CAM output to help us resolve the Thursday pattern on a finer scale. Given the high degree of forecast uncertainty, SPC's Marginal Risk for most of our area seems appropriate.

The current record high for 5/15 at Peoria is 93 (1894), and the latest deterministic NBM guidance threatens that 130-yr old climate record.

From Romeoville:

Exceptionally warm low- level temps are expected at peak heating. In fact, progged 925 mb temps in the mid to perhaps upper 20s Celsius are above the 90th percentile of DVN and ILX mid May sounding climatology.

Even if a pre-frontal trough or surface wave keeps flow more backed, the large scale forcing is rather meager given the very warm EML base and associated capping from it. Versus the April 28th failed conditional potential, this setup appears much more likely to have strong heating through insolation, helping to erode the capping to an extent. Finally, another competing factor appears to be very dry air at the mid- levels that could provide deleterious dry air entrainment into some updraft attempts.

Taken in sum, the impressive ingredients for severe weather, but conditional nature support the level 2 of 5 threat for most of the area in SPC's day 3 outlook. In addition to damaging to potentially destructive hail, and strong downburst winds, elevated LCL heights and comparably more modest low-level shear forecast may limit the tornado threat somewhat, if a few supercells do indeed occur.

From Davenport:

Model soundings show large CAPE profiles with 0 to 6 km shear in the 40 to 50 knots range. If storms can form, they will have the potential to become severe but confidence is low given warmer air above the surface.

Please continue to monitor the forecast for Thursday as the track and timing of this storm system may still change impacting both temperatures and severe weather potential.

My, I don't know what to make of this. Maybe an article? 93 in mid-May in Peoria is... well, like they said, literally unheard of. I'm not too excited about the heat, because July is usually the hottest month here, and that's a solid 2 months away. Departure– (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no, see the last part of WP:NOTALLHIGH in relation to crystal-drafting anything under a high-risk. I'm most concerned about the "nothing at all" part, this could very well be another April 28. ^EF⁵ 19:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Maybe I'll work on it in userspace - it's marginally encyclopedic, and has the chance to go highly-encyclopedic on a 1-5 scale. And if it isn't, G7 is always watching. Departure– (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, both the Fultondale EF3 and Cookeville EF4 happened in MRGL risks, so you never know. I'd play it safe, though, March 14 was an incredibly rare case where a draftification that far out was worth it. ^EF⁵ 19:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about conditional risks, that giant Hyannis, Nebraska tornado two weeks ago and 2022 Winterset tornado might want to have a word. Departure– (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might have to do an article on the April 4-5, 2023 outbreak. I don't know how many individual cells happened that day (so maybe a tornado family type article) but it does interest me because apparently the soundings had an extremely strong cap and an elevated supercell caused 4 inch hail, 90 mph winds, and an EF2 tornado at 9 AM. Departure– (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm specifically talking about the "not-so-elevated" supercell. Per MarioProtIV, I think we really ought to rethink how we organize these tornado events - because the morning supercell was not part of the outbreak in full, even if it happened on the same day, much like how, from a meteorological sense, the March 14 and March 15 outbreaks this year were each separate outbreaks caused by different systems, even if they were egged on by the same upper-level system. I might do an article on just this supercell because it has a good amount of coverage on its own - about on par with June 2022 Chicago supercell - although I don't know how many project regulars will support this shift towards individual supercells getting their own article. I see it as no different than individual tornadoes getting their own article, in that it can only happen if the supercell itself and/or the tornadoes it produces are notable by themselves, and I think the April 4 supercell reaches that bar. Departure– (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was that the supercell that produced the EF3 that almost killed a storm chaser, who pulled the "let me see how close I can possibly get" move? ^EF⁵ 20:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe that was in Missouri the next day. This was Iowa and Illinois. Departure– (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was in Illinois, specifically the Lewiston EF3. Dumb chasing regardless. ^EF⁵ 20:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, iirc this was the same chaser who almost got hit by the Greenfield EF4. ^EF⁵ 20:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, Lewistown is out of the way of this supercell's path, which was weirdly curved (see the PDF I sent). Departure– (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost like it aimed directly at Chicago! What a coincidence. ^EF⁵ 20:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Chicago's had a lot of close calls with really scary supercells. I think it was some time in summer 2023 when a PDS-warned tornado warning was aimed straight for downtown, but I think the brief tornado dissipated before city limits and nothing came of it in the end. Departure– (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So kinda like El Reno. Back on-topic, a D3 ENH with a SIG SVR was issued a bit ago, I am right on that 15% border. ^EF⁵ 20:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a Wisconsin/Minnesota threat. Reminds me of Parkersburg a bit. I bet that's where they assume the greatest chance for convective initiation is. It might not be particularly strong, especially with what might happen further south, but I'd guess they're more sure anything'll happen at all. Departure– (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for defending my edit! Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 22:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've learned in the Civil Air Patrol that when someone's doing something dangerous or against policy, it's completely fine to stand up and say "cut it out" (or "stop edit warring", for example) regardless of rank, or in this case involvement. ^EF⁵ 22:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]