Jump to content

Talk:2005 Birmingham tornado

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

Significance

[edit]

Is this event significant enough to warrant an entry in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlucas (talk • contribs)

As it's the strongest tornado ever recorded in the UK then I'd say yes.--Ukdan999 23:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Except that further down the page its says that a stronger tornado occurred in 1810 in Plymouth! treesmill 19:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is pretty clear - it was an unusually strong tornado striking the largest provincial city in Britain. In case the American contingent still don't get the significance, just imagine if it were your country's largest provincial city, New York - we'd get pages of speculation, edit wars, and conspiracy theories. A435(m) 21:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THE LARGEST PROVINCIAL CITY IN ENGLAND OR THE UK!!!
Sorry... People using the word 'britain' or 'british' really annoys me for some reason... --81.97.195.36 20:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at Great Britain - it is a legitimate term used to describe the largest island in the British Isles.-Localzuk(talk) 20:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry

[edit]

I question the Coventry tornado report and have asked for a citation. I believe this may refer to an event that occurred not on the day of the Birmingham tornado, but on 24 June 2005. Certainly the locations fit the report that appeared in the local media. TORRO (the UK's leading tornado and storm reporting organisation) found no evidence of a tornado on the ground and concluded that video evidence showed a rainshaft, not a tornado or funnel cloud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp saunders (talk • contribs) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:42, 4 June 2010 (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) 00:38, 12 June 2011 (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) 00:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2005 Birmingham tornado. 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:

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

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 21:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2005 Birmingham 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) 12:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tornado was rated F2, or T4, not “T5-6” or F3

[edit]

Not sure the recent tendency I’ve seen on the part of some to exaggerate European tornadoes. The official damage survey clearly says it was rated F2 or T4:

“Within days after the event, the authors conducted a ground damage survey. We found the damage path extended about 11 km long and ranged up to about 300 m wide. Some of the most intense damage occurred in the Sparkbrook subdivision where numerous roofs were removed. The authors rated the damage at EF-2 on the Enhanced Fujita scale and T-4 on the TORRO scale. Maximum three-second wind speeds were estimated at between 50 and 60 ms.”

this can be found here:https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/115203.pdf Luffaloaf (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not the official survey. In the United Kingdom, the official organizations are the Met Office and TORRO. In 2015, TORRO upgraded the tornado to T5/T6: “Ten years ago this month on 28th July 2005 shortly after 1:30pm a tornado struck Birmingham causing extensive damage…Rated T5/6 making it the strongest tornado since 1954. It hasn’t been equalled since.” The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file does not contain a damage survey. The file I posted contains the damage survey, which includes Tim Marshall, who applied the EF wind scale, and it specifically says that the most intense damage peaked at T4 or F2 strength - not remotely F3. The images clearly do not display “strong” tornado damage. You are deliberately trying to exaggerate European tornado climatology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luffaloaf (talk • contribs) 02:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you think Haag Engineering Company can “officially” rate tornadoes? Note, that paper was not written by the NWS, but Haag Engineering Company, i.e. not even a government organization. Do you have any proof to back up your statement that the Haag Engineering Company is the “official” tornado rater for the UK? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. established the methodological precedent for tornado damage surveys - they are always carried out with engineers to analyze what winds certain components failed at. It is my understating that Europe does the same when rating tornadoes along the IF scale. Your PDF file doesn't contain the actual damage survey from the tornado. Mine does. Here's the ResearchGate link for it: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327022710_Birmingham_UK_Tornado_28_July_2005. The F2 rating was also established in a BBC documentary. The Met office, which wasn't involved in the damage survey to my knowledge, informally exaggerated the tornado's damage by saying it could've reached T5 strength at one point. I'm not sure what case you think you have here. So in the commemorative PDF they said it was T5-6? We have an actual damage survey, as we've seen with more rigorously documented US tornadoes, that gives an EF scale rating of EF-2. How can you ignore this? Luffaloaf (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luffaloaf: — So we do not get into an edit war, do you mind if I start a community discussion to figure out if the article infobox should say F2/T4 or F3/T5-T6? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Luffaloaf (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article’s infobox indicate EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6?

[edit]

Should the article’s infobox reflect EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6? This question stems from the fact the infobox inputs can only accept a single set of values (i.e. EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6, not both). The EF2/T4 rating comes from a peer reviewed paper by Timothy P. Marshall and Stuart Robinson with the Haag Engineering Co. which was published in the American Meteorological Society in August 2006. The F3/T5-6 rating comes from the Tornado and Storm Research Organisation (TORRO), the creators of the TORRO scale, T-scale, published in this 2015 paper.

Since the infobox can only contain one set of the ratings, this discussion more or less needs to determine which source (Haag Engineering Co. or TORRO) should be the infobox source.

  • Option 1 — EF2/T4 using the Haag Engineering Co. paper.
  • Option 2 — F3/T5-6 using the TORRO paper.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) NOTE: EF2 is from the Enhanced Fujita scale, F3 is from the Fujita scale, and T4/T5-6 is from the TORRO scale.[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Option 1 - The damage survey of the Birmingham tornado is found in the PDF file I posted, courtesy of Haag Engineering and the American Meteorological Society. It includes a complete meteorological analysis, picture documentation of the damage, estimated wind speeds per point of damage, and a path-length analysis of where damage was the most intense. It includes official declaration of both EF rating (EF-2) and TORRO rating (T4), which aligns with the Met Office's description of the event.[1] The damage survey involved a TORRO affiliate (Stuart Robinson) and an American structural engineer and "principal trainer in damage surveys" for the National Weather Service, Timothy P. Marshall, who has surveyed tornado damage in the US since the 1970s. This damage survey was carried out with an engineer and NWS/NOAA affiliate who was a team member on the "Fujita Scale Enhancement Project" to develop the Enhanced Fujita scale. This is the information that should be used, as it's the only damage survey that recruits a structural engineer to analyze the damage and assign an EF rating. The assigned TORRO rating should not be higher than 5, as this is the peak value the Met Office and the TORRO damage survey assigns. The 4-5 TORRO values are equivalent to the EF-2 rating, which is the only official EF-value officially assigned to this tornado (by someone involved in creating that scale). Luffaloaf (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Luffaloaf has been indefinitely blocked as a confirmed ban-evading sock account of Dcasey98. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Discussion between WeatherWriter and confirmed and now-indefinitely blocked ban-evader Luffaloaf All Luffaloaf are removed from the discussion as such. Drop-down removal of discussion instead of a lot of strikethroughts. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Luffaloaf: I started this discussion in a more clear format so it can be alerted to other editors in a clear manner. In the “Survey” section, you can drop your single WP:!VOTE or single “I choose this”-style comment. In the discussion section here is where all the “back and forth” discussion will occur. This discussion started is an RFC or Request for Comment, which is a 30-day discussion to help figure out which source should be the infobox source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luffaloaf, you mentioned in your !vote that that Stuart Robinson is affiliated with TORRO, however, the paper on ResearchGate does not indicate he is. Could you link where you found that information? The only entity linked to the AMS paper is Haag Engineering Co. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had suspected he was because upon researching his name I saw it appear on the TORRO website multiple times, but apparently, he is not. However, I should point out that the damage survey includes an estimate of "maximum three-second winds" that caused the most intense damage at 60 meters per second, which corresponds to 134 MPH, or T4 on the TORRO scale. This is the only source that includes a specific wind speed estimate linked to a specific point of damage. Luffaloaf (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Luffaloaf: I highly recommend you strike through the following statement, “Since the official damage survey that was carried out with a team of engineers and NWS personnel assigns values of EF-2 and T4, this is the information that should be used.” and reword it. NWS was not involved in the survey at all. Currently, the way you worded it, you stated the U.S. government conducted official duty on foreign soil and overstepped on the Met Office, the British governments weather service. So, I recommend striking through and rewording it or just striking through the NWS part entirely, given that sentence currently is 100% false. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said NWS personnel did, and they did. Tim Marshall works for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and is a "principal trainer in damage surveys" for the NWS. I haven't seen any damage survey that cites Met Office personnel. Luffaloaf (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Actually, he isn’t. Marshall is a weird case. Since 1983, he has worked specifically for Haag Engineering Co. (Timothy P. Marshall#Career). In 2002, when the Quick Response Team was formed by NOAA (parent organization of NWS, not NWS directly), he worked on a few select tornadoes (i.e. those with EF4/EF5 ratings). His Wikipedia article itself is wrong now (after reading it), since the QRT wasn’t formed until after the 2002 La Plata tornado (see History of tornado research#2000s). The QRT can only be called specifically by a local NWS office to investigate if F3/EF3 damage qualifies for a F4/EF4 or F5/EF5 rating, nothing else. The QRT itself is not part of the NWS, but a separate NOAA entity. But Marshall himself does not and has not ever actually worked for NWS and works for Haag. On all academic papers, you will notice he is marked as Haag, not even NOAA (Example paper for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, published jointly by Marshall (marked as Haag) along with two NWS employees, who are marked as NWS affiliated). So correctly, Marshall is Haag, not NWS or NOAA in this tornado’s circumstance. NWS and NOAA respectively were not involved at all in this tornado, just a meteorologist who often works with NWS/NOAA, but not an actual NWS/NOAA personnel. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a part of that team would allow him to be characterized as an NOAA personnel, and an NWS affiliate. Luffaloaf (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it does not. If he was an NWS affiliate, the paper would indicate that. The paper indicates he is a Haag employee. He was not conducting any official NOAA duties and therefore is not an NOAA affiliate. Please understand NOAA is not NWS. NWS is a branch of NOAA. Marshall has done absolutely no work ever for NWS. He works for Haag and does a secondary job for NOAA, not NWS. For this paper, there is no indication whatsoever that he was affiliated with NOAA nor that NOAA was involved at all. This was done under his Haag job. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are attempting to derail your opposing point by problematizing it and nitpicking it. I could say "frequent NWS affiliate" and it would be more or less true - Tim Marshall has been employed as a principal trainer for damage surveys at the NWS. He is not on NWS assignment in the UK, but this is not said in my edit. It is not said that the NWS assigned a rating for this tornado or coordinated a damage survey for it, it's said that Tim Marshall is an NWS affiliate who surveyed the Birmingham tornado. This is not incorrect. Luffaloaf (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still incorrect. Stop saying NWS. In that entire statement above, replace every NWS with NOAA. That would make it true. Basically any mention fo “NWS” in this discussion is wrong, academically speaking. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't, though. He is an NWS affiliate - I described in what capacity the NWS employs him, which it does. To say he has done "no work ever for the NWS" is simply false, it literally says, in multiple sources, from the Haag Global website to the University of Illinois website, that he is employed as a member of the NWS Quick Response Team and a damage survey trainer for the NWS. Luffaloaf (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, but I think being blunt here is necessary since you keep saying he works for NWS. The Quick Response Team is a NOAA Team, not an NWS team. “ NWS employs him” is factually incorrect to say. Picture NOAA as the Department of Defense and the NWS as the U.S. Air Force. Tim Marshall is equivalent to a government employee working for the DoD on an air force base. In that equivalent example, he is not an employee of the Air Force (i.e. not an airman nor U.S. military personnel), but he works for the DoD, the parent company to those he works with. Exactly the same thing. Bluntly, Marshall does not and has never worked for the NWS. Any statement attempting to say he is affiliated with the NWS is factually incorrect. His affiliation is with NOAA only with the Quick Response Team. If the Quick Response Team is not involved in a specific survey, Marshall is not involved whatsoever with NOAA. Marshall works for Haag Engineering Company and has worked for them since 1983. Per his bio, Marshall does not work for NWS and is only a “member” of the Quick Response Team. I’m sorry if this seemed blunt, but every attempt at explaining it did not seem to work. For this specific tornado, Marshall is not whatsoever associated with NOAA and from what I can tell based on the sources I mentioned as well as the sources you mentioned, the only organizations that should be relevant for this discussion are: Haag Engineering Co., TORRO, American Meteorological Society, and ResearchGate. No other organization are relevant to this discussion at all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "NWS/NOAA affiliate" and "principal trainer in damage surveys for the NWS" (in quotes) are not edits that conflict with anything you say here. I didn't say he was surveying the Birmingham tornado for the NOAA or NWS, but the fact that he is an engineer often affiliated with the NWS/NOAA is relevant, as it highlights his status as an authority on the topic. Luffaloaf (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to go at it from that angle, just keep in mind Marshall, someone you say has an "authority" on the topic, is using the TORRO scale, creating by TORRO, who rated the tornado T5-6. If Marshall is using their own scale, why is Marshall more of an authority than the group who creating the very scale Marshall is using? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) The superior source is the Tim Marshall/Stuart Robinson damage survey, as this involved analysis by structural engineers in assigning a damage rating, not just meteorologists. It assigns both EF and T-scale values, with wind scale estimates at greatest point of damage, meteorological analysis, and visual documentation of the damage along the path of the tornado.
    2) When 3 disparate sources contain 3-4 disparate ratings, you err on the side of the most empirical and the most cautious, and that is not the "T5-6" claim in the commemorative TORRO paper, that's the damage survey that was taken when the damage was present, the year the tornado hit. The documentation of the tornado's damage does not align with EF-3 "strong" damage, which typically involves extensive exterior wall damage and thrown vehicles. The tornado impacted brick load-bearing structures and only knocked down some upper walls and tore off roofs. This doesn't register as damage that is 1 value away from that seen in the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, for instance, which impacted similar brick load-bearing structures, but completely demolished them and some masonry structures, alongside splintering and debarking trees, throwing cars, toppling water towers, and damaging or destroying numerous metal structures, apartment buildings, and more.
    3) A big reason why Tim Marshall's analysis matters more (aside from his co-written damage survey being the obviously superior source) is his status as an engineer (key for understanding what wind speeds occurred to cause a given structure to fail), and because the global precedent for scientific analysis of tornadoes and their damage was set by him and others in the US. TORRO is a much more informal organization than, say, the NWS or NOAA, and it stands to reason that they would be more sensationalistic in their reportage because it enhances interest in tornadoes (in the UK) to informally exaggerate or "hedge" tornado intensity towards the upper value. Even the Met Office does the hedging thing, but does not remotely report a T6 value, saying instead "As it moved north through the Moseley area it strengthened to a force T4 (strong) and reached its most powerful around the Balsall Heath area, probably touching force T5 (strong) before weakening as it moved through the Small Heath and Erdington areas". The TORRO commemorative report is the weaker one here, and as the bulk of the reports on the tornado (Met and Tim Marshall/Stuart Robinson) report an EF-2 rating, or equivalent EF-2 values on TORRO of T4-T5, this is what should be reflected in the article. The TORRO survey in the International Journal of Meteorology reports an absolute peak T-value of T5 with estimated winds of 62 to 72 meters per second, aligning with the Met's estimated peak. Rating the tornado T6 is not warranted, claiming it is an F3 is unwarranted as it was not rated as such by the American engineer of violent tornadoes who surveyed the damage and rated it F2/EF-2. Luffaloaf (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait Luffaloaf! LOL. Marshall’s use of the EF scale was 100% confirmed an unofficial rating. The EF-scale formally didn’t exist and was not even used formally by the NWS until 2007. (NWS EF-scale). Marshall’s paper was published in 2006. Legit, your argument on the EF-scale being more official just got shattered, given the EF-scale was never formally used by anyone until February 1, 2007. Read it. I’m going to revert. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Marshall was an unofficial rating, hands down. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...No, it did not "just get shattered", as he was a part of the project that designed the EF scale. He implements it in the damage report he wrote. In contrast, there is zero objective assignment of any "F3" rating to the tornado whatsoever. This is almost offensively slimey and weak argumentation. The F scale is an evolution of the scale Tim Marshall and Haag Engineering used. Please be serious. Luffaloaf (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per NWS: “The Enhanced Fujita Scale or EF Scale, which became operational on February 1, 2007…”. Literally, the scale in 2006 was not an operation scale and therefore, was an unofficial scale to rate tornadoes. This is similar to the tornadoes rated on the first draft versions of the IF scale (List of tornadoes rated on the 2018 International Fujita scale), as the IF scale was not a formal scale until July 2023. From 2018-2023, Europe test-rated tornadoes on various draft versions of the IF-scale. However, those tornadoes were not only rated on the IF-scale, since the scale did not exist yet. Obviously they test rated tornadoes. However, the EF-scale itself was not operational. Yes, the argument for the most part was “shattered” since Marshalls paper itself proves the EF2 rating was unofficial. Unless you have a source for the EF2 rating post February 1, 2007, then the TORRO ratings will remain. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I knew about the date the EF scale was officially instituted in damage surveys in the US before I supported Tim Marshall's survey as the only real source for application of the EF-scale, as he is literally responsible for helping to develop it and assigned an EF-rating to the tornado himself. This doesn't make my argument weaker, it only strengthens it. Whether the scale was officially put to use a year later or not is irrelevant. I do not need a source for the EF rating post-2007, and the only official T rating we have via Met and TORRO from their damage survey is T5 - the only official wind estimates we have peak at 72 meters per second according to TORRO, which is equivalent to T5, or F2/EF2. You have no argument, so are trying to use silly technicalities to "win" here. The edits with actual sources to their credit will remain. Luffaloaf (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 - but with a footnote explaining situation. The official met organization for the local area, whether it be EU or other places, should have the final say. Marshall is a very respected figure and hence I suggest the footnote addition. The only case where I might accept overriding local meteorological organizations is with pre-F era tornadoes with no official rating but retroactively rated by Grazulis. In addition, per Departure's latest comment, I agree with T5.
the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entering a !vote yet but I will comment. What I'm not sure about here is who the official governing body for this rating should be. Initially, I was inclined to go with the F3/T5-6 rating in the sense that TORRO is the official body while we would treat Marshall's paper in the same way as we would a rating by Grazulis for a US tornado. But now I see that the ESWD gives a rating of F2/T4. I don't think it's an issue that the EF scale didn't exist then. The practice of not applying it to tornadoes before 2007 is an NWS policy, not something intrinsic to the scale itself. Another body using the scale can apply it retroactively if it so chooses. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TornadoLGS: The key difference here is that the EF scale had not even been released yet. The EF scale was operational in February 2007 and Marshall used the test/unpublished EF-scale to rate it in the August 2006 paper. It is accepted to rate pre-2007 tornadoes on the EF scale and NWS does that now. However, at the time Marshall rated it, the EF scale officially/formally did not exist. That is where the key question comes in. Do we accept Marshalls rating over the TORRO rating (infobox wise), despite it being on a scale, that at the time of rating, did not formally exist yet in the version we know today? This is a similar case to the 2018/2023 IF-scale ratings, where various European tornadoes were rated on different test-versions of the IF scale (which is why list of tornadoes rated on the 2018 International Fujita scale exists), since the first draft IF-scale version (12-step version) was used to test-rate various tornadoes over the years until the formal IF-scale (9-step version) was released in 2023. For example, on the 2018 version, IF0- and IF0+ were actual ratings that tornadoes were given, while on the 2023 version, only IF0 and IF0.5 exist…no + or -. That is where the question arises for Marshall’s paper, given it used the EF scale in a draft/test version and not the version we know it today. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TornadoLGS: That is what I do not know. TORRO created the T-scale, so if the ESSL (via the ESWD) are using the T-scale, then I would almost feel like TORRO would be the authoritative body for the UK and specifically only the UK. TORRO is the ones who issue the severe weather watches/warnings for the UK (RS sources confirmed that as well [1][2]). It is hard to compare anything to any other country, but if I have the organizations correct, this would be the layout/comparisons:
  1. Met Office is equal to the National Weather Service. Both are the government official meteorological entities. Note, Met Office does not issue severe weather watches/warnings as far as I can tell.
  2. TORRO is equal to the Storm Prediction Center (SPC). TORRO itself doesn’t appear to be a government organization, except, they seem to issue the convective watches/warnings for the UK specifically. RS seem to back that up as well.
  3. European Severe Storms Laboratory (ESSL) is equal to the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) combined with the Storm Prediction Center (SPC). ESSL is basically the overall “EU”-style organization for severe weather research (like NSSL) and they do European weather archival work (like SPC does for the US). ESSL manages the European Severe Weather Database (ESWD), but it is done by the ESSL. ESSL also works extremely similar to the American Meteorological Society, in that they host all of the European weather-related academic conferences and a ton of European publications come out of the ESSL and/or ESSL cooperation.
It is almost stupidly hard to tell if TORRO or ESSL is the more authoritative body for the UK. Like dang-near-impossible, given both TORRO and the ESSL act similar but different. For me, I almost want to say for the UK specifically, it would be TORRO since the T-rating (using by TORRO and ESSL) was made by them & they do all the severe weather (tornadic-style) watched/warnings for the UK and the UK only. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth contacting TORRO and ESSL for clarification then. If we were to treat ESWD as equivalent to NCEI then it would be the more definitive one. I have a couple thoughts that do lean a bit in favor of the TORRO rating, but I don't put much weight on the since they lean a bit into OR/SYNTH territory.
  1. Marshall rated this tornado on a preliminary version of the EF scale, which is designed mainly around U.S. construction and may not apply as well to construction in the U.K.
  2. I've had personal doubts about some information on ESWD since some entries cite sources that likely wouldn't meet WP:RS if we tried to cite them here. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So everyone is aware, Luffaloaf, the editor who initially changed the ratings away from T5-6/F3 has been indef blocked as a confirmed ban-evader. Their comments have been removed from the discussion. WP:Weather has a third new LTA weather-related editor now (not Loki or A5 surprisingly). Courtesy pings: EF5, TornadoLGS, Wildfireupdateman, Departure–, and United States Man. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Come to think of it, I haven't seen Lokicat in a while. No activity from their range (I'm guessing it's used by a school, so edits from there still get reverted usually) either. Andrew5's IPv6 just got rangeblocked as well. So in reality, we're down to just one, assuming Andrew5 doesn't go back to using proxies. Departure– (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! I don’t know if I’m supposed to reply here or what- idrk what I’m doing with Wikipedia haha.
    As someone who is rather knowledgeable on UK weather affairs/tornadoes (hence I made the edits to this page), The Met Office have pretty much nothing to do with tornadoes here. Most of their information is rehashed from TORRO (and in some cases highly incorrect and against common knowledge regarding tornadoes).
    TORRO is the agency I would be consulting with as per the tornado’s rating, as they are the ones who are responsible for assigning the rating and documenting the tornado.
    As far as I’m aware, the 2015 upgrade to T5-6 (from T5) was due to a house in Roshven Road suffering collapsed exterior walls. Either that or they determined the 2 homes in Alder Road deserved T6 for their respective wall losses.
    Either way, my personal opinion is that the rating assigned by TORRO (T5-6) is probably best to be used in this case. In terms of F scale that would be between F2 and F3 (ergo F3). 2A02:C7C:E815:D200:ACFB:4E8D:302E:D3BB (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You really should have checked here first before reinstating the rating. Although thanks for changing the caption. Welcome to Wikipedia. Departure– (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Thursday 28 July 2005 (Birmingham Tornado)" (PDF). Met Office. Retrieved 20 December 2024.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Birmingham_tornado&oldid=1264857745"