Talk:Tornado

Second draft text adapted from text at the US Federal Emergency Management Agency site. "Information presented on this FEMA WWW site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied."

Note - I'm having a hell of a lot of trouble saving this article each time, and have had to do many small changes, saving each time, to get it all in there. Anyone have any ideas why? -- April

Removal of Useless args and comments

I have removed alot of bad science junk and arguments. But I have left the sections. I will come back and remove the sections in a week or so if nobody has any problems with them being gone. Really it was mostly clutter and gibberish. Hard Raspy Sci 06:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Associated Electromagnetic and Plasma Effects of Tornadoes

(...removed...06:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC))

The moral of the story is if a tornado were a spinning vortex of plasma, the electromagnetic activity would drown out the the already detected lightning...etc, etc, etc. Hard Raspy Sci 06:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More Useless Page Protection

(...removed...06:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC))

errata

(...removed...06:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Causes

(...removed...06:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Plasma

(...removed...06:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Largesse for a Beggar

(...removed...06:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Plautus and plasma

Plautus satire has a very bad habit of making edits with citations to external articles attached... but when you click on the links and actually read the articles, they do NOT support what he wrote at all. I personally have caught him at this several times. This is a deliberate, deceptive practice. I strongly suspect this is the case with his plasma section here. Curps 22:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Enough already. The cites have NO relevence and there is no mainstream support for this fanciful plasma connection. --SheikYerBooty 23:02, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

The article currently states "these hypotheses remain outside the mainstream". So it would appear that you agree with that section as written. Perhaps you could explain why you felt the need to delete a section that you apparently agree with? Martin 23:18, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Outside the mainstream and outside the bounds of science are two different things. If plasma gets a fair shake, even though it's outside the mainstream, should invisible fairy wings or farting giants also get a short mention each? Every dilution of accurate articles reduces the value of the entire wikipedia. Why would the wikipedia want to have even the smallest mention of plasma in the tornado entry? The references fall flat on their faces. If this was a genuine scientific debate then there would be some mention of it, somewhere, in modern and relevant fields of study. There isn't, so why is this even an issue? --SheikYerBooty 23:46, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Because doing so reduces conflict in the short term, while not harming the quality of Wikipedia in the long term. There are around 200,000 articles in Wikipedia that need work: one more or less is nothing to get excited about. The section is marked as disputed - it will be easy enough to remove at a later time, should it turn out to be unnecessary. Martin 00:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, I understand the need for reducing the short term conflict. --SheikYerBooty 03:43, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Right, no relevance to mainstream fantasies, plenty of relevance to abundant observational evidence. - Plautus satire 23:04, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is chiefly an excercise in mainstream fantasies. Non-mainstream content is typically treated with brief mentions, and possibley seperate linked articles. This is how we operate. If you would like us to operate differently, that is a matter of regret. Martin 00:42, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the plasma stuff needs to go into its own separate article. Curps 06:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Citing evidence is a bad habit? What treachery is this? - Plautus satire 23:05, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Do read everything that Curps wrote. Martin 00:42, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of whether tornados actually produce plasma, its clear that a significant number of people think they do. Very few people believe in "farting giants" and we have articles on fairies -- the "popularity" of this theory is why it should be mentioned. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Those people should create their own separate article. The material doesn't belong on the mainstream page. - Curps 06:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

All attempts to find that significant number of people have met with abject failure, they don't appear to exist. Indeed, the only available "supporting" references are to a UFO report written in 1968 and two links to papers written by the same person, those two papers are located in a website that promotes cold fusion, anti-gravity, and "free energy" devices, among other things. None of the reference papers deal with tornadoes in anything but the most peripheral way, basically amounting to a few anecdotal tales. When you do find a reference to plasma and tornadoes, in modern, relevant literature, you find the it's completely and unequivocally dismissed. If the alleged effect was there it would have been observed, noted, studied, debated, reported, etc. Why can't we find the info? Plautus would like us to believe that scientists that study tornadoes "ignore" this information, those same scientists promote "fables" and at least one of them is a "madman with a degree". I was reading this page Wikipedia:Verifiability and wondering why it's being ignored in this case? --SheikYerBooty 07:37, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

You mean this "UFO report (http://ncas.sawco.com/condon/)", conducted by the University of Colorado under contract No. 44620-67-C-0035 With the United States Air Force? Is this the source you mean? - Plautus satire 07:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Until the article starts to reach 37k in size, its arguable that it should go on the mainstream page. Furthermore, its understandable that noobs would not think to do that -- so as an editor, your job is to move the text, rather than deleting it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

What title should the new page have? "Tornado plasma hypothesis" ? Curps 06:59, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

(...removed...06:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Support (and peer review) for Observable Reality

(...removed...06:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Dance of the SheikYerBooty

In case you forgot, here's a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Links_to_Wikipedia_articles) to the other talk page you ruined, SheikYerBooty.

Seperate Article for Facts Deemed "Good Solution"

Separate article with a reference is a good solution. Good work guys. DJ Clayworth 15:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(...removed...06:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Proposed Move to NPOV Classroom

If people like Martin and Lir are willing to join me in teaching the art of NPOV editing, I will move (or copy) all the relevant text from talk:tornado to Wikipedia:NPOV classroom. --Uncle Ed 15:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see no text here of use for teaching NPOV, as this is a clear-cut case of disputed facts. - Plautus satire 16:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your latest comment may be of use. NPOV is a policy for describing disputed facts. May I tell you about it? --Uncle Ed 16:41, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let me be almost brutally honest with you, Ed Poor. I reached out to you in a sincere effort for help against a mischaracterization of this debate. I inserted factual material based on research papers done on behalf of the US Air Force on plasma effects, and these sources clearly attribute many plasma effects to tornoadoes.

Instead of accepting my plea for assistance and protection in the good faith in which I made it, you (I presume) skimmed quickly over the talk page, saw that many disagreed with the notion that tornadoes are caused by plasma discharges, and being the sensible story checker that you are, you did some quick research and discovered that indeed, few people realize that plasma discharges cause tornadoes, ergo NPOV violation, polite dressing down (humiliation) is okay, etcetera.

I feel you abused my trust, Ed Poor, and for that reason you are not likely to get it again in the future.

Are you still confused? Let me explain. As I stated above, I inserted factual, virtually irrefutable entries that ascribed the various observed electromagnetic and plasma effects of tornadoes. Others disagreed with the inferences they made from those factual data sets, so they called it "NPOV" and said it was my "tornado plasma hypothesis". I proposed or inserted no hypothesis into the entry, I merely added factual information that was both verifiable and credible (US Air Force study of naturally-occuring plasmas).

I appreciate your attempted patience and your attempted honesty, Ed Poor, but can you kindly explain why you deleted two of my relevant passages in between two "personal" comments and claimed the entire block was personal chit-chat? I mean can you explain it so that it does not make necessary an apology from you? - Plautus satire 16:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry I cut that text. I thought cutting it would help, but since you disagree (and since Martin put it back), I apologize and think it should stay here.
You are in trouble, and I am trying to help you. If you accept my help, I guarantee that you won't be banned. Almost everyone else in this project who has expressed an opinion has lost patience and wants to expel you. Won't you let me help?
The essential question you and I need to address is: How shall articles like tornade accommodate disputed facts?

--Uncle Ed 17:01, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you, Ed Poor, and as I said I have no confidence in your assertion that you have my interests factored into your solution. These facts I inserted are not disputed, they are simply denied and marginalized by people who didn't know these facts before yesterday. - Plautus satire 17:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And just to make things nice and sparkling clear, there is not one published paper I can find that refutes anything in the paper I cited. It is a paper that reports on observations and draws bland, reasonable conclusions from that data. Would anyone here care to present the case that this particular source contains "fringe" or "crackpot" science or has been refuted numerous times by "peer review"? I'll wait forever on this one, take all the time you need to try and make that case. - Plautus satire 17:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And another thing, I do not object to my personal comments and the "lol" response being cut from the discussion, what I object to is you cutting relevant points out of my debate. If you are unwilling to admit you did it in haste and made a mistake, or if you are unwilling to admit that you deleted the comments so there would be no refutation of your subsequent attempts to dress me down, then I have nothing more to say on this issue until you apologize. - Plautus satire 17:12, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So once again we're back to "essential questions". In my opinion, the "essential question" is why are these factual observations debatable? - Plautus satire 17:14, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Disputed POV Presented as Fact

(...removed...06:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC))

NOAA -- 1877 monograph by John P. Finley

At http://www.lib.noaa.gov/edocs/heritage.html there is a link to:

Tornadoes by John P. Finley M.S., F.S.Sc. A classic 1887 work by the Grandaddy of all storm chasers. (http://www.lib.noaa.gov/edocs/tornado/tornado.html)

Following the link and in particular http://www.lib.noaa.gov/edocs/tornado/tornado3.html , it seems that historically some claimed that the destructive force of tornadoes was caused by electrical effects, but this was discredited as long ago as 1887.

The same source says:
"The terms lightning and electric discharge, as used in this circular, are synonymous."

So it seems better to use the more familiar term "lightning".

Misunderstanding

(...removed...06:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Supersonic

In the article it is mentioned that some computer models predict winds that could be considered supersonic. However, it is my understanding that fluids (ie air) cannot flow faster than the speed of sound due to a pressure gradient. See Compressible_flow. I know for instance NASCAR engineers found that they were fundamentally limited in the amount of air they could draw when the channel was restricted (in cross section) by the speed of sound. It's in essence impossible for the information of the low to propogate faster than the speed of sound, and thus induce supersonic winds, even if if were meteorologically possible to produce a low that otherwise could.

I'm not so much concerned for correcting the article (the models have very well predicted those results - perhaps not taking into account compressibility effects near supersonic speeds) but I'm more concerned as to whether or not it is possible, as a weather geek. --JimboOmega 14:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, supersonic flow in open atmosphere is possible, when the gradient conditions are met in a fluid to allow it to happen. However, the probability for it to happen on Earth, short of a meteor impact, is extremely small (nil). Simply, the large reason for the low probability would have to do with the limits of the atmosphere itself. Hence, the latest speed limit on tornadoes is posted as 318mph. ;) Hard Raspy Sci 05:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Be wary of statistics

From this article as of 06:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC):

The United States experiences by far the most tornadoes of any country, and has also suffered the most intense ones. However, tornadoes do occur throughout the world; the most tornado-prone region of the world, as measured by number of tornadoes per unit area, is the United Kingdom, especially England

Really, the US observes the most activity. It wasn't until the late 1980's that the exponential growth of observed tornadoes began to slow. This artifact is due to the improved radar system and large number of trained spotters available in the US. Does this mean a large percentage of the rest of the world doesn't realize what is happening around them? --Possibly yes...

Secondly, I can pick several regions within the US, that are the size of England, and that have higher concentration of tornadic events (reported).

But to slap your senses with Catch-22, my second point could theoretically invalidate my first point...or is it the other way around... hehe --Hard Raspy Sci 06:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Tornado Characteristics

The article introduces the terms F0, F1, etc, without first mentioning what the terms mean, or even talking about the Fujita scale. The Fujita scale is only mentioned in passing at the end of the section.

Tornadoes vs. other meteorological vortices

There is disagreement on whether a waterspout is a tornado. One source, the National Weather Service FAQ on Tornadoes at [1] (http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/) states that a waterspout is a tornado. Other users have consistently provided text that states a waterspout is not a tornado, however, no sources were cited. Would appreciate any authoritative comments and/or references in order to avoid a revert war.

Whichever is correct, Wikipedia:Verifiability policy requires that references be listed.

I have never seen any authoritative source state that a waterspout is not a tornado. I'm tempted to revert the whole article back to before that stuff was introduced. -- Cyrius|✎

How do actually tornados form?!

A rather glaring omission from the article! If I knew, I'd add it, but that's what I was looking for when I came here... Dan100 18:40, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I know there is the line "They are believed to be produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly", but how does that result in the rapidly spinning columns we see? Dan100 18:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Tornado"