Talk:Tornado

Cyclone vs Tornado

A tornado is not the same as a cyclone, and the reference following this claim mentions nothing of the sort. Why is this statement on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.135.44 (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the definition of cyclone. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This definition you mention has no sources. Wikipedia cannot be a source of itself... I am sure that cyclone is also a term that CAN be used to name a tornado, irrespective of the technical term used by meteorologists, although it sounds a tad quaint. As you know, cyclone means something that turns or goes around in circles. I corrected the correction, trying to make clear that meteorologists have a narrower definition for the word "cyclone", narrower than the one that exists in English.

So, dear Ks0stm, following your lead, I feel I can also recommend to check definitions: I included one as reference to my correction, it's also in the printed version I have at hand.

With all due respect, I believe that correcting Mr. Webster by saying that cyclone is a word that cannot be used to name a tornado is like a mechanic saying that you cannot use the word thread except for bolt threads, because that is the only meaning he knows of the word. This hypothetical mechanic could say that "conversations in Internet are erroneously called 'threads'".Ciroa (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, this is pretty silly. Cyclone describes a form of rotational motion of a fluid (which you can observe by going into the bathroom and flushing your toilet, or filling the sink and pulling the plug), while tornado refers to a violent rotating column of air. In other words, all tornadoes are cyclones (or, in a small percentage of cases, anticyclones--which just spin the opposite direction), but not all cyclones are tornadoes. Despite this, until relatively recently (mid-1970s public information campaigns at the earliest), "cyclone" was still used fairly commonly as a synonym for "tornado;" witness how Dorothy consistently uses it in The Wizard of Oz.

Of course, none of this matters; as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive for accuracy in this and refer to tornadoes as, well, tornadoes. A brief mention of "cyclone" as a colloquial synonym for "tornado" isn't going amiss, 114, any more than mentioning "twister" or "whirlwind" as such would be. rdfox 76 (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A cyclone is a closed circulation around an area of relative low pressure. A tornado easily meets this definition. Not to mention it is an extension of a Mesocyclone to the ground. "Cyclone" is a correct term. It is a blanket term, however, so use should be limited.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 02:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Precipitation

I would've thought that freezing rain and hail would be the same thing? And I've never heard of snow during a tornado. If there ever is any snow, I would've thought it would be classified as 'sleet'. Hang on, that should be a category under precipitation..?! Destroyer000 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You are mixing apples and oranges. Freezing rain and sleet are stratiform type of precipitations where snow falling into a warm layer of air aloft melts and refreezes near or at the ground. Hail is associated with convective clouds and is formed in the updraft of a cumulonimbus when dropplet of supercool rain freeze, on their way up, and then increase in size by collision with others with coalescence, by Bergeron process and by condensation of ambiant water vapor.

As for a tornado and precipitations, these are two different phenomenon associated with thunderstorm and usually encountered in a different part of the cloud. The tornado is the concentration near the surface of a mesocyclonic rotation present in the cloud. On the other hand the precipitation type is dependant on the temperature structure and it is possible to have a snow thunderstorm (see lake effect snow) and a weak tornado or more likely a winter waterspout. Pierre cb (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Destroyer, I can address this in multiple parts for your convenience.

• Snow is the fundamental origin of all precipitation. It is ice crystals that form when water droplets collide in the atmosphere, at altitudes where it is always cold.
  • If lighting is present, this is "thundersnow"

• Rain is snow that melts on the way down.
  • If lightning is present, this is a "thunderstorm"

• Freezing Rain is the result when snow falls, melts on the way down like traditional rain, and then refreezes instantly on contact with the ground. This forms a continuous sheet of ice over any exposed surface.
• If lightning is present, this is "thunderice"

• Hail is snow that is blown up and down through a cloud by winds, and accumulates so much ice when doing so that it cannot melt before it hits the ground.
  • Lighting is always present with hail, but a thunderstorm with hail is called a "hailstorm"

• Sleet is snow that melts on the way down, but refreezes before hitting the ground.
  • If lighting is present, this is "thundersleet.

I hope this helps wherever precipitation types are confused.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 02:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BTI Tornado Index Indicator

I'm wondering if we could add details about the tornado index indicator which are used in most live radars which are a scale of 1 to 10, the highest the number is, the most likehood there is a tornado on the ground. --JForget 17:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the tornado article is more general, that's probably too specific. Radar aspects in general and the TVS and other algorithms aren't discussed in any detail (if at all), so I don't see privileging a proprietary thing (which I guess you mean is used by most television weather broadcasters [in the US] although I haven't found that to be the case). In interest of science and transparency, I'd also want to know more about where it comes from; specifically how it developed and what goes into the calculation. That information is guarded for obvious reasons.

It could conceivably fit into an article detailing tornado prediction/detection or radar analysis (perhaps in weather radar, but again, this is probably too specific an example for inclusion there). The closest to that right now probably is convective storm detection which isn't yet ready for primetime. Evolauxia (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

VIPIR is also a possibility. Evolauxia (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section on the BTI to the VIPIR page, I've tried to find who was the first station to use the index, even though this video showing coverage from the Super Tuesday Outbreak indicated that WMC-TV was the first to use the product or at least those circle indicators.--JForget 16:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Shaturia, Bangladesh, tornado

April 26, 1989: Shaturia, Bangladesh, 1,300 people died and 500 were left homeless in what is often called the world's deadliest tornado. Can anyone confirm this and add if appropriate? Alpheus (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Already in there (Tornado#Extremes), and has its own separate article (Daultipur-Salturia Tornado) although admittedly it is a pretty pitiful article for being the deadliest tornado in world history, I hope to improve it sometime this summer. -RunningOnBrains 01:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Most tornados

The article (2008-05-17) states "Although tornadoes have been observed on every continent except Antarctica, most occur in the United States." with a reference. Yet QI stated that this was a fallacy and that the UK had the most tornados - they just weren't very intense. Anyone know which is correct? -- SGBailey (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What is QI's source? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This bit of trivia has been mentioned time and again and it annoys me. Britain rarely has a tornado stronger than T3 (high-end F1) intensity; European windstorms tend to create very short-lived, weak tornadoes, and so per unit area Britain has more tornadoes than the US. This is subject to debate, due to Britain's much higher population density (and therefore higher rate of tornadoes being reported). However, Britain does not even have the highest tornado-per-unit-area, the Netherlands does! (see Tornado#Climatology, second paragraph). So I don't know where QI was getting their info, but it was wrong. -RunningOnBrains 01:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be (more) proper to refer to these as so-called gustnadoes? I didn't know the UK and Netherlands have the same type of geography and meteorology which allows classic supercell storm development (and attendant high F-scale tornado damage). 68Kustom (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know no official weather service keeps track of the number of tornadoes designated "gustnadoes" (in fact, in damage surveys it is impossible to tell which type of tornado occurred), but I suspect that many of the tornadoes in Britain are. In the Netherlands, I believe, a majority of reported tornadoes are landspouts or waterspouts moving onshore. Don't quote me on it though. -RunningOnBrains 09:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Netherlands has the most tornadoes per area, higher than Oklahoma or Florida in the US. (see [1]) Most, but not all, are weak (as is the case everywhere, though look for groundbreaking new findings coming from a preliminary climatology of wind speeds based on mobile doppler radar observations in the US). Nearly all recorded tornadoes are weak in the UK; although it's a mix of landspout type tornadoes and gustnadoes, I'm not sure of the exact breakdown but many are not mere gustnadoes but also rarely are there supercellular tornadoes. A large number of Netherlands tornadoes are waterspouts moving ashore, but supercellular tornadoes do occur. The main missing ingredient for Europe restricting supercellular tornadoes is strong instability.[2]

The intensity distribution is similar to the US and other (studied) countries, excluding the UK. (see [3] and [4]) No agency formally differentiates gustnado vs landspout vs mesocyclone tornado, however, in the US at least, gustnadoes are generally not recorded as tornadoes. There must be a connection to rotation at cloud base for it to meet the definition of a tornado, otherwise it's a shallow surface eddy. TORRO's standards are more relaxed. Evolauxia (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article states, "Bangladesh and surrounding areas of eastern India suffer from tornadoes of equal severity to those in the US, and occurring more frequently than anywhere else in the world, but such events are under-reported due to the scarcity of media coverage in third-world countries." This seems to contradict the 'US has the most' statement above. I'm also not convinced an editorial comment about 3rd-world news coverage is really needed in a tornado article. Agnosticaphid (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

its hard to know, before home video you could count the # of filmed twisters on your fingers, and theres still all those twisters out in the feild that only 1 or 2 people see but dont report. --Jakezing (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording should be tweaked. It may have been changed in subsequent edits or slipped through the cracks when the article originally passed FA review.

The news coverage issue is important in the sense of number of tornadoes is strongly related to the reporting network. It's a valid statement but also could use refinement. Evolauxia (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you all are right about the news coverage, I didn't really think about it that way. The way it was previously phrased just, to me, came off as more editorial than factual comment. At any rate, it sounds spiffy now! Agnosticaphid (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I love how Italy seems to be included in everything these days. This article includes regions in the world where tornadoes occur, and then lists Italy. Give me a break. There are hardly any tornadoes in Italy compared to other countries in Europe. Whoever added the word "Italy" to an article about tornadoes should be slapped. Ceejus (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Italian tornadoes are well-documented. See [5] for a recent discussion of their climatological distribution. The earliest well-documented event that I'm aware of was in 1456. Hebrooks87 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the only point I'm trying to make is that Italy seems to have had no more tornadoes than any other country in Europe, as is evident by another Wikipedia page listing tornado outbreaks in Europe. That page can be seen here [6]. So if this article is going to list basic regions where tornadoes have occured, it should list either certain overall regions in Europe or simply Europe as a whole rather than listing regions in Europe, then listing the country of Italy seperately as if its more significant. Ceejus (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the specific term "Italy" is included in the article only because one might think that it would not have many tornadoes when it actually does. I agree, though, that Italy is not signifigantly more important than the other European countries. Even though they do have better pizza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telemacusroxmysox (talk • contribs) 02:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Time for a Featured Article Review

This article has changed a lot since it became a Featured Article. I still believe it meets the criteria for an FA, but I believe it needs a review by the community to be sure. Unless there is significant objection to this, I'll post it myself.-RunningOnBrains 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I submitted the article for Peer Review instead, since FAR seems to be for articles with genuine delisting concerns. -RunningOnBrains 09:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur that it should be reviewed. I know there are things requiring cleanup that I haven't had a chance to review and fix yet. Evolauxia (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

WP HQ

While watching the news, I heard a tornado was in that area. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tornado to Hurricane

Are Tornado and Hurricanes the same thing but different sizes? What exactly is the distinction? Gavin Scott (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A hurricane is a large cyclonic storm that forms over water. A tornado is a rotational cloud that forms from a thunderstorm. Read the articles, you will learn a lot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They are fundamentally different phenomena, forming in different areas, different ways, and under different conditions. Additionally, tornadoes are much smaller, but more destructive and much harder to predict.-RunningOnBrains 02:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, tornadoes are devastatingly more powerful than hurricanes. The reason it's such a debate is because of the size of hurricanes compared to the size of tornadoes. Hurricanes, since they're more spread out, tend to unleash their strength over a widespread area, therefore not doing much on a smaller range. Tornadoes, on the other hand, focus their power on a concentrated area to maximize their damage. --Commander Lightning Never mess with the Galactic Empire!! —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

'fraid that's not true, Lighting. A tornado is VERY, VERY rarely more powerful than the stronger hurricanes. Only an EF5 tornado (F4 to F5 on original scale) produces the winds necessary to exceed the most powerful TCs' strength.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 02:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. TCs cover larger areas, but tornadoes have the potential to be vastly stronger than the deepest hurricanes. And they not infrequently are. Juliancolton (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Tornados in Europe

I found this article from BBC asserting UK and Netherlands are the european countries most visited by tornados. FYI.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3059663.stm
--TheDRaKKaR (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article covers that (see the climatology section). It's based on this paper which is also the source for the BBC story. Evolauxia (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ive heard this. It is true that America has the most tornadoes per year at up to 1000. However, the UK and The Netherlands have more tornadoes per square km than any other country. Saying this, they are infrequent (both having only 30 per year on average) and usally small and weak (EF0 and EF1) although they can go higher, see List of European tornadoes and tornado outbreaks and the 2005 Birmingham Tornado (UK). Regards. Andy (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel the need to interject a word of caution when quoting these statistics: Just because they have the highest concentration over the whole country does not mean that they contain the area with the highest concentration of tornadoes. For instance, Oklahoma is smaller than Great Britain, with a much more rural population (and thus presumably lower tornado-reporting rate), and yet records 52 tornadoes per year; many of which are of EF2 or greater intensity. The Netherlands has the most tornadoes in the world per square mile, though I suspect with better reporting Oklahoma would easily take the title. -RunningOnBrains 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Definately, Oklahoma or Kansas wold easily take the the regional title but for the whole country, states like California, have very little tornadic activity while the netherlands as a whole does not really have specific regions of activity or inactivity. Andy (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reporting networks, population density, and tornado counts

Although caution is advised, the presumption the there is a lower reporting rate in the United States and/or that it is substantially affecting the results is not robust. Oklahoma is more rural, but the United States, and Oklahoma in particular, have a much more advanced reporting system than does Europe. Outside the UK, in fact, formal reporting networks are only now being set up. Organized records of tornado occurrences were not kept, nor were there spotter networks, nor verification efforts (with often a lack weather radar) or much severe weather knowledge or attention (even among meteorologists). Pointing to a lack of awareness more generally, the European media tends to refer to tornadoes, even relatively large, long-track, damaging, and obviously strong supercellular tornadoes as "mini-tornadoes", as if actual tornadoes do not happen there.

This is not to say that the Netherlands or UK do have more a higher density of tornadoes. The population density is a real issue. The difference in reporting networks, however, does seem to counter the higher population density. So the caution stems from lack of data and no assurance can be made either way at this point, other than from the confirmed tornado numbers with which we have to work. It's safe to say that a large majority of strong tornadoes in the U.S. are counted and in Europe the events may be known but it's not clear until recently that all the events make it into any database.

There is some effort in Dotzek 2003 to account for the lack of reporting with an educated guess (by authorities in respective countries) as to actual (rather than observed) amounts of tornadoes. Although those expected actual numbers are probably relatively close to the actual numbers, the current situation doesn't permit us to know. In the United States, there is also an undercounting, with perhaps an ultimate total of 1500-2000 tornadoes per annum. That's a wide range, however, the majority of these tornadoes are small and ephemeral, just as is the tornado intensity distribution for most countries. In fact, other than the UK, European intensity distributions are similar to the US and even to Oklahoma/Tornado Alley. See: Brooks and Doswell, 2001; Brooks; Dotzek et al, 2003, Feuerstein et al, 2005, Dotzek et al, 2005. The rise in tornado numbers in the US in recent decades does not extend to significant tornadoes and it's unlikely that enough of such events are being missed to appreciably affect the statistics. The data:

Estonia . 45,227 km² .... 29/km² .... 10 tor ... .00022 tor/km²

UK ...... 244,820 km² ... 246/km² ... 33 tor ... .00013 tor/km²

US ...... 9,826,630 km² . 31/km² .... 1200 tor . .00012 tor/km²

OK ...... 181,196 km² ... 20/km² .... 57 tor ... .00031 tor/km²

FL ...... 170,304 km² ... 131/km² ... 55 tor ... .00032 tor/km²

NL ...... 41,526 km² .... 396/km² ... 20 tor ... .00048 tor/km²

(Source for OK/FL (1953-2004): NCDC)

The concentration of tornadoes in the UK is similar to even the US taken as a whole and is smaller than for Estonia. The Netherlands though does take a clear lead and, given the differences in reporting networks, it's not clear that Oklahoma or Florida would have a higher concentration if not for lack of population density. Both are undercounts.

A couple caveats. One, the dataset I used for OK/FL runs from 1953-2004 and the numbers are dependent on the period utilized. Two, although the reporting network counteracts population density for the number of tornadoes counted and these are almost entirely of small tornadoes, soon to be published findings of a mobile Doppler radar observations constructed climatology suggest that the baseline intensity for mesocyclonic tornadoes may be of winds in the EF2 range, thus population density matters even more for rating their intensity than previously thought. Evolauxia (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note, also, that although Florida is thought to be highly populated and indeed has a large population and population density, that most of the population is concentrated on the coasts and in metropolitan areas. There is much land and swamp where there is little to no population. Miles and miles where one will not see any humans or structures. Some of these areas have a high number of minisupercells which are very likely producing an unknown number of tornadoes that are never seen or counted. Evolauxia (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a question

This is a question that has been bugging me for a while. Scientists can still cannot accuratley predict tornadoes but is there an average warning time for people to get to shelter. Andy (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So what's your question? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make it clear. :-). The question is; What is the amount of warning before a tornado strikes? Hope that helps! Andy (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tornado warnings can be issues a half hour before the tornado strikes an area. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, thats 1 problem solved! Andy (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for the US, although tornado warning lead time is sometimes 30 minutes, that is an exception. The average is about 13 minutes. Occasionally there is no lead time and sometimes there is lead time of 45 minutes or more. Tornado warnings are for observed or incipient tornadoes as indicated by witnesses or radar. They can be thought of as a very short term forecast but are based on what is currently happening.

Conditions favorable to tornadoes, without being specific to exact location or time, are predicted hours in advance for the vast majority of tornadoes (e.g. tornado watch or convective outlook). Evolauxia (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, very true over there. Over here in the UK, usally we will get warnings of storms but not anything in particular like a tornado. I remember when the 2005 birmingham tornado came, there was no warning at all, thankfully there were no fatalities. Andy (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, very few contries have a weather warning program for convective storms. Because of the prevalence of severe thunderstorms in the Great Plains, the US have developped expertise in this domain and have been the only coutry to do so for a long time. Canada has followed because of similar situation and neighborly influence. Other countries are more focussed on synoptic and tropical cyclone problems, as tornadoes are less of a concern. The usual meso-scale problems outside of North-America are hail and downpours so a few european and asian countries have lately developped a convective warning program mostly aimed at those. Pierre cb (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, last I knew, the NWS guidelines were that the minimum acceptable lead time on a tornado warning was ten minutes, and the recommended maximum lead time was 30-40 minutes, on the theory that issuing a tornado warning further with more lead time than that tends to result in people taking cover, then thinking it was a false alarm and coming out just in time to get hit by the storm. However, the last time I heard these standards was at least five years ago, so I'm not sure if they've changed. (Failure to issue early enough to provide the minimum ten minute lead time usually results in an investigation as to why, and, if there's not a damn good reason, can lead to disciplinary action for not issuing soon enough, so you get a fairly high percentage of false alarms nationwide, particularly in areas that get just enough tornado activity to see them regularly, but not enough to get adequate practice in interpreting the NEXRAD imagery to identify when to issue.)

I don't know the details of the weather radar networks in Europe, but without a Doppler-based wind velocity-measuring radar system like the U.S. NEXRAD system, it's going to be extremely difficult to get a lead time for tornado warnings greater than five minutes, maximum, since the only ways to forecast one would be either spotting a hook echo on the radar, or a spotter reporting a funnel cloud descending. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, remember that most tornado warnings do not verify: Tornado warnings are false alarms 78% of the time [7]. Granted, almost all tornado warnings are followed by severe weather of some kind, so you should ALWAYS seek shelter when one is issued. Also, I found a cool graphic for tornado warnings vs. tornado events: [8] Apparently a significant number of tornadoes still occur with no tornado warning! -RunningOnBrains 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Although too many events are missed, the statements and map cited are misleading. The probability of detection for US tornado warnings is about 80% and almost all the missed events are small, weak tornadoes. Very few significant tornadoes, the ones which incur fatalities and substantial damage are missed. Now the false alarm rate is very high, it's 75%-80%, but given the nature of weather and resources currently available, it's very difficult to reduce that much further without reducing the probability of detection. Evolauxia (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

Several dictionaries I've checked have attribute the root of 'tornado' to the Spanish word "tronada" (thunderstorm), but doesn't "tornados" in Spanish mean 'to turn; turner'? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The article's Etymology section contains a discussion on this matter. -RunningOnBrains 19:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Deaths

How is it that this article doen't discuss how many people are killed by tornadoes? The only mentions are in reference to specific instances quoted as examples, no mention of average death rates, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point, just as a point, around 100 people are killed per year, but there are more tornadoes on average, with the deaths are coming down (forecasting and warnings are a lot better.) Take a look here: [9] for the stats for 1950-1999. Andy (talk)

These statistics are for the US. The world is bigger than that and not as sphisticated for the prevention, warning and reporting. Pierre cb (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see that, sorry people! You also raise another good points about other warning systems. I remember the Daltipur-Salturia Tornado in Bangladesh (which killed 1300 people and injured 12000) , although large, larger have occured elsewhere, with a much smaller number of deaths and injuries. Andy (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Bangladesh is so overcrowded and vulnerable that just leaky faucets have been known to wipe out villages. Baseball Bugs

^{What's up, Doc?} 00:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't hate on Bangledesh. Leaky faucets? A bit of an exageration, if you ask me. Telemacusroxmysox

<make love not war>vaccas amo

There's no such a thing as an unchanging climate.

"Although it is reasonable that the climate change phenomenon of global warming may affect tornado activity ..."

So, that's 'climate change' caused by a, er, 'changing climate'?

Try this: "there exists no tangible evidence of a link between alleged global warming and/or climate change and the development and/or severity of tornadoes, which are subject to local conditions as much as they are to synoptic weather patterns."

Regarding the tornado-'climate change' link, the word 'shrug' is yet more applicable, but I'm not going to fight currently fashionable opinion. 68Kustom (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder where the citation is for that quoted editorial comment. Maybe it's from the same place as the pronouncement, "Future events such as this will affect you in the future." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed around the wording; I agree, as it was, it was pretty awful.-RunningOnBrains 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at the climate change article that was wikilinked. To what the term refers is straightforward. It's a generic term for changes in climate, of which, global warming (anthropogenic or not), can be one aspect. There are now several studies which show evidence of a link of global warming and tornado activity (and this stands to reason since tornadoes are products of their atmospheric environment; which is why certain areas and times of year have more tornadoes than others), one of which is cited. For a variety of reasons, the details of such a link are not known, and the article reflects this. The article is/was clear in stating that not much is known about the effect climate change may have on tornado activity. This is important for a Wikipedia article of this size and quality, in tempering any wild claims there may be from the media, or for those seeking information in general.

However, since people may confuse the terms climate change and global warming, and conflate the two, the wording change is fine. Evolauxia (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

TORNADOES

Tornadoes are destructive whirling wind storms that can happen any where at any time. They mosly accur in spring. Tornadoes are formed b hot air and cold air meeting each other. They start to pick up speed and begin to form a funnel that looks like an elephants trunk. I t keeps heading to the ground. Its basicly like a game of tag in circles. Once the funnel hits its touchdown layers of dirt and dust start fill the air around a tornado. Thunderstorms, lightning and hail are commen warnings that a tornado is about to be born any second. Tornadoes are most likely i flat places. A tornado wouldnt be able to go over mountains. Once the tornado hit them it would slowly fade away. Tornadoes are very dangerous. They are like a giant vaccume that will destroy anything in its way. For safety go to a room closest to ground or a small tight room with no big things or glass. Cover your head with your hands and crouch down against a wall. Cover your neck so no pieces of glass or other dangerous things can hurt it. Wait and wait until its finally over. Try do avoid tornadoes. Talk:JonasStar 10:42 p.mp, January 29,2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.195.43 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

First Ever Tornado Photograph

A book I have from 2005 says the first tornado photograph was taken by AA Adams in 1884. Another photograph taken in 1879 (that I haven't been able to find) claims to be the first as well, which one is the true first or is the issue still up for debate? 68.51.41.46 (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the photograph at right versus an older one. Tom Grazulis, probably the ultimate authority on historical tornadoes, talks about it in his book "Significant Tornadoes 1680–1991". He says that the AA Adams photograph has questionable authenticity: it has at least been significantly retouched, and may be a complete fabrication. However, in his research he discovered an apparently genuine tornado photograph from 1879. Since the copyright on that photo has expired, I'll see if I can upload it later today, with a little more explanatory text.-RunningOnBrains 17:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This photograph's authenticity was denied at the time. It's not taken by A A Adams, but by F N Robinson. In the Significant Tornadoes book, Grazulis shows a photograph from A A Adams, a professional photographer, of a tornado near Garnett, Kansas on 26 April 1884, which predates the Robinson South Dakota picture anyway. From a letter about the Robinson photograph to the editor of Science on 13 March 1885, "The photograph of a Dakota tornado. A photograph of the Dakota tornado, a woodcut of which appeared in No. 107, Science, was submitted to me last November, when the question of admitting it in the New-Orleans exposition free of charge for space, was under discussion. The sharpness of outline, and the fact that it was claimed that the photograph was taken at a distance of twenty-six miles, made me doubt its genuineness so much, that I submitted it to two of the best out-door photographers connected with the government surveys. Both pronounced it a manufactured photograph, most probably taken from a crayon-drawing. J. W. GORE." Grazulis isn't always 100% on in his assessment of photos. For instance, he doubts the 1890 St. Paul photograph (p. 653 in the book), stating that a similar picture without the tornado is in the Minnesota historical archives. Comparison of the two show that the "with" tornado picture simply had a strip in the middle exposed longer in the printing process (the buildings and trees in a strip even with the tornado are darker as well, looking like a standard darkroom technique of exposing sections of a print more than others was used). Hebrooks87 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it turns out I'm a liar: I read the passage again, and the photo I was thinking of was also taken in 1884, but earlier in the year. The Garnett Kansas one was the one I was thinking of, Hebrooks87 is completely right. Sorry, from now on I'll actually have the book in front of me when I answer questions.-RunningOnBrains 18:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at my book wrong, it didn't say A.A. Adams took the first one, but that it was believed he did. Anyways, I appreciate the time you two put into your posts and the picture provided. This helps my research!

(Just from a personal standpoint, the tornado picture above looks a little fake, with the two mini tornadoes seemingly popping out of each side)

Anyways, thanks again guys! 68.51.41.46 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Tornado and funnel cloud definitions are not consistent

The definitions of tornado, condensation funnel and funnel cloud in this article are confusing and at odds with each other. Similar inconsistencies were found in the AMS Glossary of Meteorology and have recently been fixed in the latest online version of the Glossary (amsglossary.allenpress.com).

Here's the problem. The definition of tornado given in this Wikipedia article states that a tornado is "often (but not always) visible as a funnel cloud". Yet the same article has a definition of funnel cloud that says that "A funnel cloud is a visible condensation funnel with no associated strong winds at the surface" and that "Not all funnel clouds evolve into a tornado". Clearly, the definitions are at odds - this was the same problem found in the original AMS definitions.

The waters get further muddied by the introduction of the term "condensation funnel". In effect, what is described here is really a "funnel cloud". Note that the AMS Glossary of Meteorology does not recognize the term "condensation funnel".

Have a look at the AMS definition of tornado and and the new, consistent AMS definition of funnel cloud:

Tornado: "A violently rotating column of air, in contact with the ground, either pendant from a cumuliform cloud or underneath a cumuliform cloud, and often (but not always) visible as a funnel cloud."

Funnel Cloud: "A condensation cloud, typically funnel-shaped and extending outward from a cumuliform cloud, associated with a rotating column of air (a vortex) that may or may not be in contact with the ground. If the rotation is violent and in contact with the ground, the vortex is a tornado."

The main difference in the funnel cloud definition is that the AMS definition now correctly recognizes that a funnel cloud is in fact a cloud and not a wind process, and that a funnel cloud very often accompanies a tornado. Saying that a funnel cloud is "no [sic] associated with strong winds at the surface" is often not true in the case of tornadoes.

The incorrect usage of the term "funnel cloud" is widespread and it will be difficult to remedy that situation. However, correcting the definitions in this Wikipedia article will certainly help. I suggest revising the tornado and funnel cloud definitions to reflect the definitions in the AMS Glossary, and removing the definition for the term "condensation funnel".

Sundog22 (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to reconcile the conflicting definitions. Let me know if there are any other issues.-RunningOnBrains 21:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it is now worse than before. It makes it look like 'many meteorologists' aren't very good with logic.

The given tornado definition says it is a "violently rotating column of air, in contact with the ground, ... and often ... visible as a funnel cloud". Then just below that it says that many meteorologists strictly define a funnel cloud as "a rotating cloud which is NOT associated with strong winds at the surface" (emphasis mine). Clearly, it has to be one way or the other. As I said before, the AMS Glossary definition of funnel cloud had to be revised in order to correct this glaring problem with consistency. The same should be done here.

Sundog22 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the AMS has only complicated things by making a definition at odds with the common nomenclature. Unfortunately I won't be around for a couple weeks, so unless someone wants to fix it in the meantime, it'll have to wait.-RunningOnBrains 00:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The AMS didn't have a lot of choice, really. Their old definition used the 'common nomenclature' to which you refer, and that is why their funnel cloud definition was not consistent with their tornado definition. That is, the 'common nomenclature' is the problem - unfortunately it's wrong.

I've spoken with Roger Edwards whose SPC 'Tornado FAQ' you cite in your references, and he says he will soon be updating his FAQ to reflect the new funnel cloud definition. So, hopefully, the 'common nomenclature' won't be so common in the near future. Thanks in advance for updating this.

As an aside, I still think that we need a scientific term to describe a vortex that is in contact with the parent cloud but not the ground, since this does occur and is sometimes accompanied by a funnel cloud. So far, the best term I can come up with is 'non-tornadic vortex' or NTV. Who knows...maybe this will be adopted and widely used someday. Sundog22 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Satellite tornado

I redirected Satellite tornado to Tornado#Satellite_tornado as the current article on satellite tornado is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and adds no new information than that provided in this article. I was reverted, and am seeking other opinions. -Atmoz (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That was me. I was mainly concerned that you did it without explanation. However, I also believe it could be made into an article at least a few paragraphs long. I'll put it on my to-do list...if I can't find enough info to make a substantial article, I'll restore your redirect.-RunningOnBrains 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the merge, on the basis stated by Atmoz. The satellite tornado article is a simple definition of actions of a regular tornado. This is unlike phenomena like a waterspout which can be non-tornadic in nature. Alastairward (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I also support the merge (i will do so shortly), as I can't really find any more substantial info on them.-RunningOnBrains 00:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

The word "tornado" does NOT come from "tronada" but from the expression "viento tornado" or twisting wind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.164.72 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide a source for that assertion I'd be very grateful; as the article states, the etymology is unclear in this case. -RunningOnBrains 17:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The term cyclone is not used in The Wizard of Oz. The character Zeke exclaims: "It's a twister! It's a twister!" Please fix this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.131.34 (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And near the end, when the Wizard asks Dorothy how she got to Oz, she replies, "By cyclone." How is this relevant to this three-months-stale discussion? Or, put more simply... what's your point? rdfox 76 (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, when the tornado first takes Dorothy away, she exclaims "We must be up inside the cyclone!" -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 04:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

This was put on in august of last year. is it perhaps time to review the protection status? Destroyer000 (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; I was somewhat surprised to find the article semi-protected. Clearly Tornados are highly controversial. Anyway, if someone could change "affect" to "effect" in the final paragraph of the "Myths and Misconceptions" section I'd appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.110.1 (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Two points: Firstly, the article was unprotected for most of June, but high levels of vandalism forced re-protection. Secondly, the use of "affect" as it appears there is correct; see this helpful tutorial on "affect" versus "effect". -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 04:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no accounting for what trolls and vandals will latch onto. The Penguin article gets vandalized frequently also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

References?

It seems odd to add this section to a Featured article, but there are several paragraphs/sections which are unreferenced. If this is not resolved soon, we'll need to submit the article to FAR, delist it, and drop it down to C class, because this referencing issue wouldn't pass GA status either. I'll wait a month before pursuing FAR to give editors a chance to fix this issue, since I did help out this article a bit during its pre GA status, and even post-FA status, 2-3 years ago. Thegreatdr (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to first tornado forecast

The article 1948_Tinker_Air_Force_Base_tornadoes is flagged orphan and I figured a link to it would be appropriate in this article, but I cannot edit due to the semi-protect. I figure something in section 8.4 along the lines of "Historically, the first tornado forecast was made in 1948 at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma" with a link to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.135.29 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Done! Weatherstar4000 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Description of a tornado from 1761?

I just came across this in Gentleman's Magazine and Historical Chronicle, Volume 31, October 1761 p. 477 and I thought this might be good source material if anyone wants to add a "History" section to this article.

At a quarter paſt four in the afternoon, a moſt aſtoniſhing phӕnomen was ſeen at Great Malvern, in Worcheſterſhire, and parts adjacent. It had the appearance of a volcano, and was attended with a noiſe as if 100 forges had been at work at once ; it filled the air with a nausſeous ſulpherous ſmell ; it roſe from the mountains in the form of a prodigious thick ſmoak, and proceeded to the valleys, where it roſe and fell ſeveral times ; and at length it ſubfided in a turnep-field, where the leaves of the turneps, leaves of the trees, dirt, ſticks, &c. filled the air and flew higher than the higheſt hills. It was preceded with the moſt dreadful ſtorm of thunder and lightning ever heard in the memory of man, and spead an univerſal conſternation, wherever it was ſeen or heard.

--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did this event occur? It might be worthy of its own article if sourcing could be found, and if not, it would go well in one of the lists at List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I'll give it a little stub page and link it into that list. I'm pretty sure that's a London magazine, which would make it Great Malvern in England. European tornadoes seem rare enough for it to be notable. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the stub: Great Malvern Tornado of 1761 --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I rated it stub, but I will leave it up to a more experienced member of the project to rate its importance. The stub looks good. I will list it on the project's new articles list. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on an Australian tornado event page

The page can be found here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Noarlunga_Tornado . Thank you!

Adelaidelightning ^(T•C•G) 08:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Forests?

Do tornados develop rather in forest areas or in areas without much forest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.143.78 (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no real correlation that I know of (I could not find any papers on the topic). The worst tornadoes often in treeless areas of the American great plains, but this is mainly due to the favorable geography. Also, tornadoes in forested areas are more likely to be reported since they leave a damage path. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While the tracks might be easier to spot, if no one is there to report one or there was no ongoing search via plane or helicopter for its path after the fact, how would anyone know? Thegreatdr (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

myths section =

It was written in the myths section that hiding under a table will increase the chances of survival. This is incorrect. laying along side an object like a couch is safer. This has been proving on many occasions, it has to do with the falling objects. If part of the ceiling falls on the so called table, the table will collapse and fall on the person under it. If an object falls on the couch while the person is laying next to it the object is more likely to make a triangle around the person. I hope I explained that well. April 2010

148.61.237.253 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Jason

Detection of Tornadoes using RF (Radio Frequency)

It is my firm belief that tornadoes can be detected using RF (Radio Frequency) emitted during the formation and life cycle of a tornado. Please see my theory and notes for inclusion to the Tornado Wiki article. Full Document: RF (Radio Frequency) detection of Tornadoes

In addition to the above document I am finalizing a few other documents for research on the same subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FJSchrankJr (talk • contribs)

Please see this page, which details some research done on detecting tornadoes through sferics. It states, in part, "The scientific debate was completely put to rest by analyses of newly developed Doppler radar and electrical measurements from the Union City, OK tornado of 24 May 1973. The Union City measurements showed conclusively that the enhanced lightning activity originated with the parent storm as a whole, not with the tornado itself." and "Up to the current time, unique signatures for tornadoes have not been found in lightning data." When and if such a connection is found, and it is discovered that tornadoes can be detected through sferics, it will be included in the article. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In Response:

I try to refrain from using the term sferics because it generally implies the lower frequencies such as ELF/VLF.

In regards to research conducted in the 70s their spectrum analysis equipment was far less detailed or accurate as today’s. While there may have been no positive results at that time, it could indicate that it requires further amplification and digital pre-processing that were not as readily available then. I am quite certain there is more research to perform and strongly believe there is RF energy being transmitted from the tornado itself but again the RF power of which, I am uncertain.

I hope NWS and independent researchers look into it further. --FJSchrankJr (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe they are with the VORTEX2 project, but I'm not for sure. A better place for this whole conversation would probably be the Meteorology WikiProject's talk page, as it would attract more people into the discussion who can give an opinion on this. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Tornadoes are already detected using RF energy. The system is called NEXRAD. (Snark mode OFF.) More seriously, the discussion probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all; it should be done in a meteorology forum, instead, as Wiki talkpages are for discussing ways to improve the *article*, not to discuss the topic of the article itself. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: NEXRAD is a RADAR and yes of course it is based on RF. However it uses RF energy in the microwave spectrum and like any RADAR only receives the band it transmits that reflects back. What I have proposed differs from RADAR as I believe the tornado itself acts as a source of RF and it only needs to be received.

As a side note, RADAR is terrific and has come quite far but when the safety of people is at stake wouldn’t you like the redundancy and additional warning? This technology could be as common and inexpensive as a smoke detector.--F.J. Schrank 12:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but, as I said, this really isn't the venue to discuss it. This page is intended for discussions about improving the article itself. While I don't really know where an appropriate place to do so would be, perhaps contacting Josh Wurman or Howie Bluestein through their workplaces (both of them have links to their professional websites on the articles) would be a good place to start; even if they wouldn't necessarily be directly involved in such research, I expect that politely asking them for information on where discussion of such research occurs would get a helpful response. (Though it might not be for a month or two--both of them are, presumably, rather busy with VORTEX2 right now.)

This isn't meant as an attempt to shoot your idea down, mind--it's interesting, and I certainly wouldn't mind something new to help with tornado detection, but it's just that this isn't the right venue. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I will look in to that.--F.J. Schrank 23:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have to agree with Rdfox 76. Wikipedia is quite clear on this. Since it is an encyclopedia, only settled matters can be written about on here. If what you are proposing is published via peer review in some meteorological or scientific journal, then we can include it into this article. Otherwise, it's just an interesting note about something which may be published about in the future, which in my opinion, could be included in the article talk page as a "head's up", but that's it. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a section titled "Electromagnetic, lightning, and other effects" and does cover what I am explaining. There are a few other details that could be added but I think it is good. Most notably the decrease of lightning during a tornado which could clearly indicate the release of some accumulated electrical potential within the thunderstorm as the condensation funnel reaches the ground.

In certain cases of stronger storms, I also believe the luminosity reports could also be contributed to by the electrical discharges that I spoke of.

There is research supporting this theory such as that of Reference 43 by John R Leeman and E.D. Schmitter.

Despite all of the findings on this research, there is yet no project to gather data. Hopefully this will speed it up: T.E.D.D. --F.J. Schrank 16:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Tornados as a cultural phenomenon

What is this, then, nature's vacuum cleaner?

It still has not been conclusively proven that tornadoes exist. Shouldn't there be a section about the possibility that it is just a cultural belief, like fan death in South Korea or something? Nick (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? Tornadoes definitely exist, unlike ball lightning and such. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Where do you live, Ncurses? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how seriously I should take this; what do you mean by "conclusively proven"?-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 15:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If tornadoes don't exist, then what is that in the picture at right. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy Edit donation from Severe weather

Although tornadoes have been observed on every continent except Antarctica, 75% of them occur in the United States. The remaining tornadoes occur within regions at mid-latitude where warm and cool air fronts collide. These regions include: southern Canada, south-central and eastern Asia, the Philippines, east-central South America, Southern Africa, northwestern and southeast Europe, western and southeastern Australia, and New Zealand.

The first explanation states that for tornadoes to begin to develop, two conditions must be first satisfied. One, an invisible horizontal spinning effect must be first formed upon the Earth's surface. This is usually formed by sudden changes occurred in winds direction, known as wind shear. Second, a thundercloud, or occasionally a cumulus cloud, must be present. During a thunderstorm, the updrafts presented are occasionally powerful enough to lift the horizontal spinning row of air upwards, turning it into a vertical air column. This vertical air column then becomes the basic structure for the tornado. Tornadoes that forms in this way are often classified as weak tornadoes that generally last for less than 1–10 minutes.

The second method of formation occurs during the occurrence of a supercell thunderstorm. This type of tornado forms by the updrafts present in the supercell thunderstorm. When winds occurring during this phenomenon increase and intensify, the force released can cause the updrafts to rotate. This rotating updraft is known as a mesocyclone. For a tornado to form in this manner, a downdraft called the rear-flank downdraft enters the center of the tornado from the back. Cold air, being denser than warm air is able to penetrate through the updraft. The combination of the updraft and downdraft completes the development of a tornado. Tornadoes that form in this method are often classified as violent and are capable of lasting for more than one hour.

This information was removed during CE and may be more appropriate to your article. Respectfully Bullock ✉ 20:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Forecast section is missing

I just noticed that a forecasting section is missing with this article while expanding the cold-core low article. FYI. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Myths and Misconceptions: Exploding Houses

The first paragraph under "Myths and misconceptions" states: "While there is a large drop in atmospheric pressure inside a strong tornado, it is unlikely that the pressure drop would be enough to cause the house to explode." Consider this: the roof of a house in Southern Kansas (a place that commonly sees tornadoes) should be designed to withstand a snow load of approximately 30 lbs/sq-ft. That is approximately .21 lbs/sq-in. The section of the entry describing "Electromagnetic, lightning, and other effects" mentions a recorded pressure drop inside an F4 funnel of 100 mbar (approximately 1.45 psi). That means that, if the roof could sustain as much uplift as it could snow load, it would need to be designed with a factor of safety of approximately 7 to keep from disintegrating. That seems questionable to me, especially since a house is designed primarily for a downward load. Coastal homes in hurricane-prone areas must be designed with tie straps so the roofs will stay on in areas where the winds are not expected to exceed 120 mph (http://web.dcp.ufl.edu/stroh/FloridaBuildingCode.pdf). The Manchester tornado had wind-speeds estimated to be as high as 260 mph.

Second, go to www.youtube.com and view the National Geographic clip on tornadoes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43VoMesUd2Q). Pay particular attention to the segment between 0:50 and 0:60. Notice that the house begins to fragment, lifts vertically off it's foundation, and disintegrates. For that to happen, the outside pressure would have had to drop rapidly enough the the internal pressure blew the house off its foundation before it could reach equilibrium with the outside air pressure.

For these reasons, the statement in the main article regarding exploding houses should be removed. (Imarocktscientst (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

No, it should not be removed based on your original research, per Wikipedia policy. Secondly, if you read the tornado myths article linked from that section, you'll see the explanation of why it was believed that houses could explode in a tornado; the short version is that houses have enough natural air leaks to allow pressure to equalize sufficiently to avoid exploding, and even if they didn't, the hole that the pickup truck would leave when it goes through the wall will solve that issue nicely. The house in that clip was not lifted by internal pressure blowing it off its foundation; it was lifted by wind getting in under it and lifting it off the foundation. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Consolidation of Physics of Storm Systems

I attempted to add the following text into this article yesterday.

Ground observations of Tornado formation can show some of the mechanics. As supercell intensity rises, horizontal rotation can occur near the ground as cool air falls through the core and warm air rises due to temperature as well as upper level pressure changes. This is pure physics in action. As horizontal rotation occurs, hot/cold air boundries can meet and cause warm air to be pulled into the "tube" formed by this rotating mass. The warm air will follow through the mass based on any pressure changes between the front and back of the storm, outflow pressure changes and other physical characteristics of the storms construction. This warm air can create a lifting effect that can raise one end of the horizontal mass and lead it into the more intense flows in side of the storm. This can stand up that rotating mass and lead to tornadic behaviors which will intensify as the storm encounters warmer inflows.

Larger cold air masses moving into warmer areas will create the most pronounced behaviors related to hot air rise vs cold air sink. The rotating mass will spin up faster as the warm air or higher pressure air creates a pulling force that will string out the rotating core, narrowing it, and due to conservation of momentum, much like a spinning dancer pulling in their arms.

I think it is important to condense the concepts of recognizable storm system development to educate the public at large on how to recognize severe storm development from a distance. Rotation can originate from a number of sources, but invisible horizontal rotation can quickly stand up and spin up as a large cold air mass storm system moves into a warm area.

Tornado formation is not an unknown. The physics of it are very well defined. The problem is that it is not predictable from visible observation without knowledge of the mechanics that can affect it and the ability to see and know what will happen next.

The reason why Oklahoma is a tornado mega center is because of how large cold air masses and large warm air masses meet here. The areas of tornado formation are pretty much known for the most common cases, but there are unique circumstances every time, which make it impossible to say for sure what will happen.

I'd like to see this page modified to have more observable characteristics discussed. There are plenty of great scientific links on this page which while important, are not something the public can consume. There should be discussion here which is very much about observation and reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggwon (talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the material because A) you posted it, unsourced, at the end of an unrelated section, and B) just about all this information is included either elsewhere in this article, in Tornadogenesis, or in Tornado climatology. rdfox 76 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bernoulli's principle

The article says: ... the intense low pressure causing the high wind speeds (as described by Bernoulli's principle)...

In fact, Bernoulli's principle addresses low pressure due to velocity, not velocity due to low pressure.

The low pressure of a tornado is the result of its spin, not Bernoulli's principle.

As air approaches the vortex, drawn by the low pressure, it is diverted by the rotating air of the vortex. So, if the rotation is counter clockwise, as is virtually always the case in the Northern hemisphere, air moving straight toward the vortex will be diverted to the right, then wrapping around the vortex. because of the angular momentum it obtains by no longer moving straight toward the vortex, it will resist moving toward the center. The closer it is pulled, the higher its angular velocity, and the harder it resists moving toward the vortex. This is the cause of the low pressure.

Unlike tropical storms, tornadic vortices do not form around a low pressure zone. Rather, significant updraft draws in neighboring air. This is on a scale large enough for the Coriolis effect to play a bit of a role — and it doesn't take much. So then, the approaching air takes on a twist, giving rise to a lowering of the central pressure due to centripetal force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianWren (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the wording was incorrect. However, according to the reference provided, the local minimum in pressure due to high kinetic energy in the wall of the tornado is the main reason for the formation of a condensation funnel (Bernoulli's principle: faster wind=lower pressure for a given air parcel).-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mamatus, 17 July 2011

Average annual tornado reports in the United States.

Mamatus (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on his contributions i think he wants that image added to the article to replace the Tornado Alley.gif image.Jason Rees (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wedge Tornado Page?

Just thought that I'd float this balloon to see what other people think about this. We have a multi-vortex tornado page, shouldn't we also have a page on wedge tornadoes, i.e. tornadoes that are taller than they are wide? Many of the most violent tornadoes were wedge tornadoes, and they are a scientifically recognized classification of tornadoes(like multi-vortex tornadoes). Wikimedia has many pictures of them that we could use. Your thoughts please. Betarays (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Link to Fujita scale?

There are several refferences to F5 or F4 storms within the article, but I can't find any place the directly links to the Fujita Scale. Would it not be apropriate to include a section titled "Classification" and provide a link to the full article regarding the F Scale? FrankCarroll (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)