• After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.

    I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.

    For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.

    From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.

    Sincerely, Jeff D.

F3 + Tornadoes since 1990

Joined
Dec 25, 2006
Messages
641
Location
Iowa City, Iowa
A bit bored this afternoon... I found myself reading through old storm reports. Thought I'd take a look at strong tornadoes -- defined as F3 and above -- since 1990. (wanted a more recent look, though, with still an appreciable sample size) They go through 2006.

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms
(not a perfect data source...but, not bad)

Texas 71
Kansas 70
Oklahoma 62
Arkansas 57
Tenn 55
Mississippi 53
Indiana 52 (23 on 06/02/1990! anyone remember that outbreak?)
Missouri 47
Iowa 45
Illinois 43
Nebraska 40
Alabama 34
Minnesota 32
Kentucky 28
Louisiana 21
Ohio 21
Georgia 20
South Dakota 17
Wisconsin 14
Michigan 13
Florida 8
Colorado 6
North Dakota 4

A few reactions: A bit surprised that the northern plains didn't yield a few more. Thought the Dakotas might be a bit higher.

Was also impressed by the amount of action the lower Mississippi valley/mid south gets in regards to strong tornadoes. They're not often thrown into the chilched phrase "Tornado alley", but I suppose they ought to be. (and this seems to jive with my memories of early spring Tornado disasters down there)

Nothing mind blowing here, just thought I'd share.
 
Of course, a strong tornado that hits nothing is an F0. The Dakotas are so sparsely populated that many strong tornadoes went unrated. Conversely, the Gulf states are pretty densely populated, thus the high counts.
 
I suppose coverage wouldn't be as good up there. One of the reasons I picked a recent date is that I thought it would give pretty complete coverage of all the occurances out there. (suppose they're be more prone to miss some up in those two states with populations < 1000)

Your other point is interesting... I was under the assumption that you could have tornadoes with > f0 strength that *didn't* strike any man made structures.

However, even if that is so, it's tougher -- though not impossible -- to measure the strength of the given tornado. (and so I can see it negatively affecting the Dakota stats)
 
Back
Top