Jump to content

Talk:2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell tornado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-free file problems with File:Waff Tower Cam.jpg

[edit]

File:Waff Tower Cam.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Waff Tower Cam.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


210 mph winds? You have to be kidding me. Forgive me for the edit, but the new EF scale is a joke. This monster scoured concrete from the earth. The statement that this tornado had winds that slow is a scientific fallacy. 210 mph winds cannot create that damage. The Hackleburg tornado was a F5 monster with winds nearing 300 mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.183.184.187 (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we cannot include something based just on your personal opinion due to WP:OR. Unless you have a reliable source stating that winds were estimated near 300 mph, we cannot have it in the article. TornadoLGS (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell, Alabama 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) 21:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was it one long tracked or two separate ones?

[edit]

Clearly there was evidence of this tornado not tracking into Tennessee and it dissipating in Alabama while another EF3 tracked into Tennessee by the same supercell thunderstorm. I think it’s safe for this tornado to be 103 miles long tracked and the other EF3 tornado being 29 miles long tracked. And that’s a fact because again the survey damage team and with radar evidence showed the supercell recycling Colin777724 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, the official source is considered definitive, but we could perhaps mention it if the source is sufficiently reliable. The case is kinda similar to the Fargo tornado, though I haven't heard of it happening with a modern tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m well aware of this. However, can’t do anything here until/unless the NWS acknowledges it. United States Man (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the members from tornado talked confirmed that the news said that there were 2 tornadoes from that supercell. SO does that mean we change it to 104 miles? Colin777724 (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is twisting information on this page...

[edit]

Some incognito editor has butchered the page, downplaying the tornado's rating and refusing to acknowledge the Enhanced Fujita Scale. A fix is required. Aquario (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be rude, Aquario, but this is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, which means you could have changed what you felt was wrong, under the advice of WP:SOFIXIT. As it goes, i have reverted the anonymous editor, but you can feel free to next time! Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 14:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Velzzyo

[edit]

Please stop pretending to be me and vandalising wikipedia pages. Thnxs!!! Clearly, you haven't read the talk above the 'Someone is twisting information on this page' talk.. Veljjagi (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bold naming

[edit]

@MarioProtIV:, why do you keep adding "2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell tornado" in the lead? MOS:AVOIDBOLD suggests against this. Sources cited also uppercase the "tornado" in "Hackleburg tornado". I personally don't think the "violent" in the lead is needed as it's covered by the "EF5" part, but that's for a wider discussion. EF5 22:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this sort of discussion with Mario before on bolding. I don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies unless you can find good sourcing that refers to it as such. I was the one who actually started this article and only briefly discussed the title with USM when it was in my sandbox. I chose this title because it was descriptive but without being overly cumbersome with all the places this tornado hit. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it is known as the "hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado", the holding of the article title contradicts AVOIDBOLD. EF5 22:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bolding* I'm on mobile. EF5 22:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am in favor of the lead sentence as it was before Mario's edit. My point here is that I chose the title somewhat arbitrarily. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the name seems to have caught on with other media outlets. EF5 22:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly due to this article, though Phil Campbell did get the most media attention for this tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went with COMMONNAME since I have found some sources that name it as such, like this and this NASA source (though this page might’ve expired but it’s closest to official government name?) Not sure if that’s enough. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with EF5 here, though, that MOS:AVOIDBOLD applies in this instance. The page there even cites weather events like this as an example. Also, for some reason my browser is flagging the NASA link as a security risk. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link was just cause the domain changed (change msfc to ndc), but I’m not so sure given that this is kind of(?) like 1999 Bridge Creek-Moore, i.e. both towns in the article name sustained (E)F5 damage, and most commonly referred to here. I’m fine either way. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and modified per the feedback. Hopefully that’s better now. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed by NWS new path length + more

[edit]

If you look at April 27, 2011 on the damage assessment toolkit, The Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado has an updated path length of 132 miles (in the EF3 and EF2 damage polygons). I measured using a tool in the DAT and the path length of the entire tornado path (not just EF3 and EF2 damage swath) is around 103 miles. This did not make sense so I tried to figure out why.

If you follow the end of the path and continue in that direction you will find an EF3 damage line with this text at the bottom of its “comments” section, “SHAMBURGER (2024) - This time and path of this tornado was adjusted and extended by several miles based on radar data and high resolution satellite imagery of the damage path.” You will also find the following text at the TOP of the “comments” section, “NWS HUNTSVILLE - More storm damage was surveyed by National Weather Service personal [sic] on Friday and Saturday (April 29th and 30th) across southwest Franklin County Tennessee. The long track tornado that affected parts of northern Alabama created more damage south of Huntland.”

I used the measuring tool to measured the distance of the beginning of the Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado path and the end of the EF3 damage lines end and got almost exactly 132 miles.

This would mean a LOT of changes to this article, and some to the 2011 Super Outbreak article and the Cordova-Blountsville tornado article (as it would no longer be the longest tracked tornado of the outbreak by 4-5 miles).

There are also a lot of other places where NWS has said the path length is 132 miles (including citations in the article). But we changed it in the article to a little over 100 miles since NWS didn’t acknowledge the two paths in the DAT were one tornado until recently. (The change to 103 miles was discussed in a 2022 conversation)

This would be WP:SYNTH but SYNTH is not a rigid rule (according to the page), and if this is stopping us from being able to correctly state facts, then we need to find a way to correct it.

There was a conversation that ended in 2022 about this on this talk page, but since December 4, 2024 we have had official acknowledgement by NWS that this was one tornado, and not 2 from the same supercell.

I can’t fix it all now, and I want input through discussion before changing anything. Lavabite (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is WP:OR. EF5 16:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I’m not 100% sure what you meant by this short comment. If you skimmed it over and saw me say I was measuring the paths myself, that was more for storytelling, which I suppose should be kept out of this formal context. But because of this 2024 edit to the comments, we should either remove that EF3 tornado from the List of tornadoes from the 2011 Super Outbreak, or add it to another tornado (which would be original research, since which tornado is not explicitly stated). Unless I’m missing something critically important (which I would appreciate being told), this is a big dilemma, as there are MANY (even recent) examples of NWS saying the path is 131/132 miles long, but we are also citing NWS for the little over 100 miles number (being stated from 103-109.6 miles), which means our primary source for the information contradicts itself, which causes many issues since people can pick and choose which number they use to make different impressions and claims, which decreases factuality.
Also, I spent over 40 minutes on that message: WP:BITE Lavabite (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Lavabite and EF5. I did some verification myself and I see the changes and I am left with more questions than answers. However, I think I figured our problem. A little over a month ago, MarioProtIV updated the article based on an AMS publication by OU/NSSL. In that analysis, the tornado was shortened to 102 miles, rather than the very large track it was previously (132 miles). It crossed two NWS WFOs, so like normal, the path lengths published are combined (25.14 + 106.9 gives 132.04 miles. That path length is officially published by the NWS on their websites (weather.gov). The DAT, however, is updated to show the path split, showing the EF5 tornado to be approximately 102 miles (user measured / OR). The DAT text when clicking on the path length of the EF5 tornado does show the 132 miles still. The DAT does show the new split EF3 tornado and shows it was updated in 2024.
Yes, that is probably very confusing, so I will build a timeline below:
2011 – EF5 tornado occurs
2011 – Both NWS offices rate and measure it to be 132 miles. This 132 miles is then published on weather.gov
2018 – The DAT is updated with the 2011 tornadoes (note: DAT was only started/required starting in May 2013...so the 2011 tornadoes were added not right after the outbreak, but rather in 2018). The DAT now reflects 132 miles for a path length. The DAT was updated by the two respective NWS offices themselves.
2022 – OU & NSSL (Note: NWS was not involved in the paper) publish a paper in AMS to indicate it was actually two tornadoes; an EF5 and EF3. The paper indicates the EF5 tornado was only 102 miles long, not 132 miles.
2024 – The DAT is updated to show the two tornadoes; an EF5 and an EF3. However, the DAT text is not updated. The DAT itself still directly says (text wise) 132 mile path length. User measurements (OR) show the EF5 is 102 miles long now on the DAT.
2024 – The DAT now shows updated information for this new EF3 tornado.
As of May 2025, based on non-original research/sources:
Weather.gov = 132 miles; a single EF5 tornado. (Still verified to say this information as of May 28, 2025). The EF3 is not mentioned by the NWS on weather.gov.
DAT = Two tornadoes; an EF5 and an EF3. EF3 has its own unique information, all published/updated in 2024. The EF5 directly says 132 mile path length. OR/User measurements show it is actually 102 miles.
OU/NSSL paper = Two tornadoes; an EF5 and an EF3.
Hopefully that better explains the confusion from above for y'all and anyone else who comes into this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s pretty obvious that NWS is likely never going to update the page itself to correct the EF5 length (it hasn’t been updated since 2012 I think), but it’s also clear they have the same analysis as this given the recent DAT updates. As NSSL is a governmental-funded agency this does carry official weight in the absence of NWS. If you really want confirmation from them, maybe email NWS Huntsville for verification. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know you didn’t mean it buuuuuuuuut
https://cubeupload.com/im/Lavabite/IMG6589.jpeg
https://cubeupload.com/im/Lavabite/IMG6590.jpeg
https://cubeupload.com/im/Lavabite/IMG6591.jpeg
Official acknowledgement by NWS that the StormData is the right track, and not the little over 100 miles track.
I’m releasing these images under CC BY-SA 4.0
(I removed my email address and real name from the email for privacy)
@EF5
@MarioProtIV
@WeatherWriter I can’t thank you enough, this would not be done without you!
@Departure– I know you are very active and I think you should be aware Lavabite (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lavabite, both NOAA and NWS-made DAT still maintain a final of less than that, though (and that's what I'd personally go for). Also, NWS Huntsville was emailed a few years ago and they confirmed the short track, are you sure you emailed the right person/they are aware of the shortened track? — EF5 21:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% sure they are aware. He is the meteorologist in charge at NWS Huntsville, and CCed the other two highest ranking people there too.
Chart of highest ranking personnel at each WFO: https://www.weather.gov/media/nws/wcm-soo.pdf
Them highlighted: https://cubeupload.com/im/Lavabite/IMG6593.jpeg Lavabite (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for easier reading, I’ll copy the email here.
Thank you for reaching out. To directly answer your question, the information logged and certified in StormData represents the official record and stance for this tornado track.
I understand the confusion the DAT display might cause. In 2011, the DAT was not yet in operational use at WFO Huntsville; only a few offices, like WFO Birmingham (BMX), were testing it. This is why their tracks in the DAT from that period appear more detailed.
For the Huntsville area of responsibility, damage points were logged locally (standard operating procedure at the time), submitted, and then verified in StormData. The apparent gap in the DAT for northern Madison County, for instance, was surveyed several days after April 27, 2011, and after WFO BMX and DAT developers manually added points in the DAT. Damage was found, leading to the connection of the two track segments in the official StormData record. My understanding, though I and much of the current staff were not here in 2011, is that these connected tracks were logged locally and certified in StormData, but not retroactively entered into the DAT, as Huntsville did not have access to the tool during its test phase.
Therefore, for information regarding the 2011 event, please rely on the official, certified StormData. The DAT became a more consistently accurate operational tool a few years later, and since its full implementation, DAT viewer entries align much more closely with what is certified in StormData.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
Thanks!
Todd Lavabite (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5 Lavabite (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was very helpful, and I appreciate your time working on this!
I think a good example of switching jurisdictions causing two paths with different info is the 2019 Beauregard EF4 Tornado. When the path goes from Birmingham’s CWA to Atlanta’s CWA, the path splits into a second damage line, this one marked as EF3 instead of EF4. The info also changes, like peak width going from 1,600 to 750, max wind from 170 to 140, path length going from 26.64 miles to 42.02 miles et cetera. The End time for the EF4 line and the Start time for the EF3 line are both 3:29 PM, but the tornado was at roughly continuous strength during the switch.
This next part is my theory for the large amount of confusion surrounding these tornado paths, based on examples within the 2011 Super Outbreak on the DAT.
I believe the problem with the Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado is that it had a lot of EF0 damage for a big stretch that wasn’t really surveyed much, so the path on the DAT was not continuous originally. This is important because, if you pay attention, you can see that out of every office (in TN, AL, GA, and MS) that used the DAT for the 2011 super outbreak, only Atlanta and Birmingham’s offices used EF damage swaths. All the others that had tornado paths (Mobile, Jackson, Memphis, Huntsville, Nashville) had *only damage lines to represent the tornado paths.
If you pay even greater attention you may notice that the Damage Swaths are *only applied for tornadoes that started somewhere else, then entered Atlanta/Birmingham’s CWAs or, if they started in Atlanta/Birmingham’s CWAs. The most crucial part of the latter qualification is that even if the tornado left Atlanta/Birmingham’s jurisdiction into one that *only used damage lines, if it is an unbroken path of tornado damage, the EF damage swathes continue into the new CWA(s). The former qualification is well shown by this EF4 tornado, which went through Jackson’s and Mobile’s CWAs before entering Birmingham’s. The latter qualification is well shown by the ~102 mile long Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado path.
The application of Damage Swaths in a path and differing statistics on separated paths coincide with each other, since it is two offices doing paths in different ways.
The main Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado path starts in Birmingham’s CWA, then moves into Huntsville’s CWA, all the while keeping its damage swaths. But when the second part of the tornado’s path crops up, it is starting within Huntville’s CWA, which *means it will only have a damage line, and will have different statistics (even if it is the same tornado).
The two paths of the tornado are disconnected with significant distance between them due to no surveying in between the two paths, so the end time of the first path and start of the second are different (unlike the Beauregard tornado), which I think also led to confusion.
This is my explanation for why the two paths of the Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado are so different (looks, distance, time discrepancies, statistical discrepancies), as well as hopefully some answers to questions that may have been brought up about it.
Sorry for the redundancies. Also, this took me a little over 2 hours to write, so please excuse any grammatical mistakes you come across, I’m practically a zombie right now.
*the Cullman-Arab EF4 Tornado is the only exception, which unfortunately starts in the Huntsville CWA, where the EF3 tornado path starts as well Lavabite (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lavabite, I wasn't BITING you, most of your message seemed based on yourself using the length finder to determine the EF5's track, which is indeed WP:OR. Sorry if it came off that way. — EF5 21:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s totally fine! It just hurt a little that I got a 5 word answer to something I spent 40 minutes on. As I said in the reply, I already figured it was because of the length measuring part, so we cool.
Also, what do you think about the new message I sent? Do you think it’s credible enough? Lavabite (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lavabite, yes, if you feel that way I apologize. I'm not completely sure how we deal with this, because while the NWS has now confirmed that the EF5 is still 132 miles, the Damage Assessment Toolkit directly contradicts their statement. — EF5 21:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NWS is telling us to ignore the visible paths, and just look at the StormData.
I copy and pasted the email into a separate comment for easier reading. Lavabite (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we just do something identical to what the Tri-state tornado of 1925 did with the path discrepancy. As I’m reading the above conversation correctly, the NWS still beliebes as of today when reached out to that the tornado was 132 miles, and the gap was due to the differing offices, and the NSSL analysis remains unofficial (despite being a government agency)? This is really weird having this sort of discrepancy especially given the technology today that should reduce this type of problem from occurring. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavabite: and @MarioProtIV: The StormData says that it lifted in Madison County and touched back down in TN. — EF5 02:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Actually, it says "The tornado weakened or may have lifted briefly across extreme northeast Madison County before re-strengthening again as it entered Lincoln County in Southern Middle Tennessee." which doesn’t necessarily imply that they had enough confidence to split it there but leaned more towards it being very weak but still on the ground. Then there’s the OU/NSSL/NOAA survey which didnt have NWS input but still government-affiliated. Given this, and the fact NWS is still adamant on the two being continuous, it may be best to write out the length similar to 1925, where that was likely several tornadoes instead of one extremely long-tracked one, but without an official NWS confirmation, it remains unofficial. That’s the easiest way I can see correcting this (though I’ll have to add a hatnote on the outbreak page and list of tornadoes to emphasize this. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MarioProtIV, The tornado lifted just south of Patterson Lane is as clear as it gets. Either it's one EF5 and an EF3 in TN or one EF5, one EF0 and one EF3 later on. — EF5 02:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Oh I didn’t see that. Weird, not sure why they didn’t terminate it there. Maybe the funnel didn’t fully lift and it was still the same tornado but that’s OR/SYNTH. So then what do you suggest then we do? Going by the description verbatim by NWS, it’s one EF5 and one EF3, yet they don’t indicate as such on their website. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main image for the article does not correspond to the track length stated.

[edit]

We need to find a new image if we are going to keep the 102 mile long track figure, as the one shown is 132 miles long. Lavabite (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I don’t know how or where to get it so I’m putting this on the talk page) Lavabite (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Hackleburg–Phil_Campbell_tornado&oldid=1293003612"