Wikipedia

Talk:List of Storm Prediction Center high risk days

Latest comment: 1 month ago by ModdiWX in topic Semi protection?
Learn more about this page

2/27/20 - High risk day of March 13, 1990

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article mentions the risk is uncertain for this day, but is presumed to be high risk due to results. I worked as an intern for the National Weather Service in Wichita during this time and specifically remember this day. This was a moderate risk, 100% certain. The results would certainly point towards a high risk event, but every outlook that day maintained a moderate risk.

Djkc28 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC) Casey Osburn "djkc28"Reply

I have removed it since that cited source states that it was probably a moderate risk day. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

4/24/07 - What constitues a bust?

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Food for thought. If someone has the graphical technology to melt the high risk area into the Storm Reports graphic from the two links below, I believe you'll show that there was almost nothing that happened with the high risk area. One tornado, maybe two. All of the bad weather stayed away from it.

Gopher backer 05:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

A bust typically means little or no severe weather in the high risk area (I tend to think of a bust as when the severe weather would have only verified a slight risk at the most), but that is definitely used differently by different people. CrazyC83 22:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
This list can't just be about whether or not any tornadoes occurred and/or how many people were killed. SPC/SELS isn't (and hasn't) been issuing these kind of outlooks for just tornado occurrence for a very long time now. See further discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Severe_weather#List_of_SPC_high-risk_days. Guy1890 (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
How do these sound, then for suggested information to list on top of what we have: event type (e.g. derecho, tornado outbreak), total severe weather and/or wind reports, strongest non-tornadic gust. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's a pretty good start, and certainly better than the current article has right now. To verify an SPC High Risk day, you'll need to know the # of tornadoes (and how strong they were on the EF scale, which was changed only as of early 2007), whether there was a derecho or not (I'm not sure if SPC would issue a High Risk just for a nasty Squall line or not), and the highest wind gusts (which will likely be a range of values) that occurred during the event. You'll also obviously need to eyeball where the severe weather actually occurred on a map, and if it occurred in (or at least pretty near) the SPC High Risk area. I'm sure that you know that SPC issues their risk areas several times per day and that the areas that they highlight can change over time. Guy1890 (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
In terms of where the severe weather was, I think the outlook verifications such as this one would come in handy, though I don't think we need to go too in-depth. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Guy1890 (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Source?

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

What was the source for this list? Is it available to the public? As far as I can see, the SPC's website only goes back to 2000. Thanks. Adam 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

For the most part, the website link at the bottom has a compilation. If any are omitted from that site but later discovered (this list may be incomplete), then the new source should get mentioned. CrazyC83 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, that link disappeared as the site lapsed. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re-research project?

edit

Since the site that had compiled the list disappeared, I think we need to re-research this to find additional links (if possible). I know everything back to 2000 is verifiable easily. CrazyC83 (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've managed to source about half of them, and still working on the rest. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can't we just use the archive of the site as a source? http://web.archive.org/web/20070208162834/sphs.angeltowns.net/A_R_Wehrle/pasthighrisk.html --71.98.1.43 (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Found the new page

edit

Looks like the author went and got himself his own URL.

http://convectiveoutlook.com/highrisk/1999highrisk/outlooks.htm

Gopher backer (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

uh oh...

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

High risk underway today. (For the carolinas.) 74.12.126.46 (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC) (Thomas)Reply

Unmentioned High Risk Outlooks???

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't know how but here some older dates in this blog mentioned to have been High Risk- http://www.patricktmarsh.com/2011/02/aotw-storm-prediction-center-moderate-high-risks/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.160.123 (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Semi protection?

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments5 people in discussion

It seems these IP editors are getting rather insistent about "Satan's Ultimate Tornado Oubtreak." Should we semi-protect the article at least until May 13 so we don't have to deal with this? TornadoLGS (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, this vandalism is continuing. This article should be semi-protected.TornadoLGS (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok, this vandalism has come to a stop. This article should no longer be semi-protected.TornadoLGS (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.123.147 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 June 2013Reply
The vandalism stopped because it's protected. It'll stay as such for a month due to the consistency of the vandalism before. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I did not say that. An IP user copied my signature. Look at the talk page history.TornadoLGS (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Huh....well now. Well, that IP gets the point now :P Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I added everything back for archiving purposes. The discussion must be kept, but I added a strike. United States Man (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well I mean, them IP’s weren’t completely and utterly wrong. They predicted that a major tornado outbreak would happen on May 18, 2013; if happened two days later on the 20th and Moore, OK was destroyed. But there wasn’t a high risk out. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
they knew something we didn't ModdiWX (You Got Mail!) 13:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Graphics

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was the original author of the archive site. The host was hacked and the site disappeared in September, 2007. Someone else created the domain at convectiveoutlook.com and I passed along all the pages and graphics I still had.

If you'd like to fill in some of the missing graphics, I have uploaded all the ones I have from prior to 2003 (when they all become available on the SPC's own archive) to my Photobucket:

http://s26.photobucket.com/user/wisconsinskies/library/WildWeather/Convective%20Outlooks%201989-2002/High%20Risks

72.128.200.92 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

blatantly incorrect death tolls

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone should check all the death tolls. I just browsed and found two obvious mistakes without checking others. Andover had a death toll of 56 when it was really in the 20s.. and Super Tuesday had a death toll in the 40s even though it was 56. Super Tuesday was the deadliest tornado day since Ohio/Pennsylvania until 4/27/11. Sounds like someone wants to deflate that day, imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.95.2 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Storm Prediction Center high risk days. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

  • Attempted to fix sourcing for www.firedispatcher.com/1991/april_28,_1991.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Storm Prediction Center high risk days. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

  • Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.firedispatcher.com/1991/april_11,_1991.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

old high risk day discovered

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There was a high risk area for parts of west Texas and Oklahoma on May 16. 1989. see link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGra7mrshSo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.246.12 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Storm Prediction Center high risk days. 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) 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of Storm Prediction Center high risk days. 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) 18:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

High Risk on May 20, 2019

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The high risk map has been updated, and the high risk area has been enlarged and shifted slightly east.

https://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/day1otlk.html

--RSVBibleReader52738 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Expected high risk upgrade - March 2021 Event

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

12:33pm CDT SPC Day2 Outlook has a Moderate Risk, with a mention of a possible upgrade to high risk on day 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0w0 catt0s (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply


....................... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiveinchheels (talk • contribs) 10:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

High Risk was briefly carried over into March 18, but downgraded to Moderate at 05:48Z

Forecaster: Darrow Issued: 18/0044Z Valid: 18/0100Z - 18/1200Z Forecast Risk of Severe Storms: High Risk

Forecaster: Darrow/Lyons Issued: 18/0548Z Valid: 18/1200Z - 19/1200Z Forecast Risk of Severe Storms: Moderate Risk


Second High Risk Event - March 2021

edit

Edits seem badly worded. Suggest more care.

READ before uploading outlooks!

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please make sure your outlooks have proper data when uploaded. Copyright information and source should be included.

== {{int:filedesc}} ==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=SPC's Day 1 convective outlook issued at 'ZZ':'ZZ'z ('local time') on `Month` `Day`, `year`, indicating a High and enhanced risk over `area`.}}
|date=`YYYY`-`MM`-`DD` `ZZ`:`ZZ`
|source=https://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/archive/'YYYY'/day1otlk_'YYYYMMDD'_'ZZZZ'.html
|author=National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center
|permission=
|other versions=
|additional_information =
}}
=={{int:license-header}}==
{{PD-USGov-NOAA}}
[[Category:Tornadoes of 'year']]
[[Category:Storm Prediction Center convective outlooks]]


Using UTC time, replace all "YYYY" areas with the year, All "MM" areas with the month number, and all "D" areas with the day number. "ZZ:ZZ" is the Zulu (UTC) time the product was issued and "local time" with the the central time (CDT or CST) of the issued product. This is because the SPC uses both. Replace "area" with the area of the high risk, and add any more information needed. This is just a guide, but it should solve a few problems. 0w0 catt0s (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Display issue

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Notes column is too narrow and long. Stretches page requiring scrolling to read. Fiveinchheels (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Tornado and fatality count should be calculated by day not by outlook period

edit
Latest comment: 6 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

There seems to be a lot of inconsistency in how the totals are being calculated. Most of the earlier high risk days on this list have the number of tornadoes that occured on the day of the high risk. At some point, someone changed it and started including tornadoes that occured during the outlook period, which stretches from 12z on the high risk day to 12z of the following day. Some of the more recent high risk days are calculated this way. But if we do this then we need to list both days as high risk days, which we haven't been doing. I think that its much less complicated and easier for the reader to understand if we go back to just including tornadoes and fatalities from the day that the high risk was issued, and not the following day. Undescribed (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I respectfully disagree; IMO it's more important to have the counts correspond to the time the outlook is actually valid for. A simple note at the top of the list should alleviate any confusion that this might cause. Would like to hear from other editors to determine which way we should go. Ionmars10 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem that we have right now is that only the recent high risk days are 12z to 12z, so there really is no consistency at all. If we were to change it to 12z then someone needs to recalculate the totals for all the other days on this list. Also, if we were to go that route then I would argue that this article should be renamed List of Storm Prediction Center high risk outlooks, because it is not limited to a single day. But then we would have to do the same thing with the sister page List of Storm Prediction Center extremely critical days so that there aren't any inconsistencies. But as of right now this whole system is very misleading IMO. Undescribed (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Tornado Archive (tornadoarchive.com) tracks the tornadoes from 12z-12z for what looks to be all of their database, or at least in the period of when High Risks began to be issued. That's an option for a source to use.
I do agree that some consistency should be maintained. Jamisonsupame (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The main issue with including 12z to 12z has to do more with the fact that it spans two calendar days. Yes, we could make a note of that in the article but I do not think that even having a note would be sufficient in clarification because you have some events with multiple consecutive high risk days, especially back in the 90s and 2000's which would look like a redundant error since the page would already include outlooks from a multi-day span (12z to 12z). Also, having the tornado count from 12z to 12z but yet the death toll from 0z to 0z doesn't make much sense either. Undescribed (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The outlook day is for 12z-12z. It is wrong, imo, to make it just for the day because the high risk is for the forecast period and changing it from that would make it inconsistent. Take this for example, if a high risk for severe weather was for storms that formed at 0600Z, are we just not going include the weather occurred the next day and say that the day was a bust? That does not make any sense, which is why we need to include weather that occurred from 1200Z to 1200Z instead of 0500Z to 0500Z. As far as the death count, not being consistent with the other stats, that can easily be fixed. ChessEric 17:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Excessive rainfall outlooks?

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

We should have an article for WPC high risks on the excessive rainfall outlook. They are probably rarer than SPC high risks in some cases. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

And they haven’t been issued for as long. Only about the last ten years. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You should probably bring this up on the general weather project talk page. ChessEric 20:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Those IPs were mine from before I registered. And I will probably do that. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 13:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Really? An IP that didn’t belong to Andrew5 or Lokicat? That’s crazy! LOL! ChessEric 15:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I edited for about 6, 7 months as an IP before registering. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 15:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
And FYI @ChessEric, I did post that question on WP:Weather talk page today. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Storm_Prediction_Center_high_risk_days&oldid=1253901585"