Talk:Tornado/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal of Useless args and comments

message: Hey, Raul654 has now protected the tornado entry when there hasn't been an edition in forty-five minutes! Hey, that's at least fifteen minutes faster than the unwarranted page protection of big bang yesterday! - Plautus satire 18:30, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More Useless Page Protection

message: "Despite many years of study, many problems remain in understanding tornadoes. One of the problems that we have been working hardest on is the question of how tornadoes form....the process of tornadogenesis. The Tornadogenesis (COMING SOON!) page is derived mainly from a manuscript Jerry Straka and I wrote a few years ago. It didn't make it into publication, with the chief criticisms being that it contained nothing new and that the things we were describing had already been explained by numerical models. We will probably make a stab at rewriting our thoughts for formal publication in the next year or two, working with Dr. Robert Davies-Jones of NSSL. In the meantime, our thoughts are here."
Why is this problem of tornadogenesis so difficult to solve? Because they're ignoring the lightning, seeing it as an effect, not a cause, of tornadoes. - Plautus satire 18:37, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud and radio emissions that suggest rapid plasma glow discharges (silent "tornado lightning", similar to the plasma filament inside a fluorescent light bulb[1]) on the order of twenty cycles per second. Tornadoes are also associated with plasmoids and point discharges[2], as well as a host of other plasma effects[3]. The word "tornado" comes from the Spanish verb "tornar", meaning "to turn." 
What you are doing is trying to imply that there is plasma inside a tornado without actually saying so. Even your sources for the observation of these effects are suspect. DJ Clayworth 20:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: What you are doing is inferring from observable reality that there is plasma inside tornadoes. You are making inferences drawn from factual observations. The job of the encyclopedia is to get the facts in front of you, and your job is to make the inferences. If you ask me, I did my job making the encyclopedia more accurate and complete, and you did your job by drawing inferences from all the available evidence, which is what science is about. A job well done by all, so it's win-win. We should all celebrate this. - Plautus satire 00:12, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Oh, you mean all those sources I cited are not reliable? Give me a break. Your appeals to authority are really starting to annoy me. Have a nice life. - Plautus satire 20:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Observations need to be peer-reviewed now? What treachery is this? - Plautus satire 21:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Anyway, here's the "something from a University researcher or a peer-reviewed journal article". I hope this will not be greeted with more cries of fowl (plucked by an electric tornado). - Plautus satire 21:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Since this issue and you are both now "settled," tell Raul654 to unprotect the page and reversion to my last edition. - Plautus satire 21:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, and if you read this report carefully, you'll find it's a study of plasma effects, which seeks to pin "weird sightings" on plasma effects because these plasma effects resemble almost precisely and behave in the same weird ways as certain classes of UFO sightings, not all UFO sightings. Thanks for your attention on this issue, your input is just as valid as all the rest. - Plautus satire 00:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're confirming that the cited report has no content directly related to plasma tornados? Martin 00:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What I will confirm is that this tornado plasma hypothesis was just invented on the spot as a straw man. I inserted relevant facts, not speculation or hypothesis. - Plautus satire 07:52, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: No, I can admit when you're wrong, too! ;-) Uncle Ed
Okay, it wasn't an unrelated note, it was a subtle hint to you that it's time to concede, DJ Clayworth. Will you please now concede this issue so that when Raul654 unprotects the page (that he protected 45 minutes after the most recent edition) I will be able to make my contributions in peace? - Plautus satire 21:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: errata

message: Harold Brooks, NOAA research meteorologist, wrote:
: Tornadoes typically occur in situations where the surface air is warm and moist, but not completely saturated. The warm, moist air rises, leading to the development of the parent thunderstorm. 
::The tornado entry previously stated that cold air moving on top of warm air causes tornadoes, and it says so at the time of this edition. - Plautus satire 22:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Warm, moist air

message: Vlad Mazur, research meteorologist, NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Okla., said:
: Plasma is a fully ionized gas consisting of free electrons and positively charged ions which makes plasma electrically conductive. Ionization can be produced by heating to a high temperature, by an electrical discharge, or by light impact. A tornado vortex is a vortex of air. There are no processes involved in the tornado formation that can ionize the air in the vortex thus transferring it into plasma.  
::Apparently this man has never heard of lightning, which is a known producer of copious amounts of plasma. Are we to print the words of any madman with a degree? - Plautus satire 22:33, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to, Martin, but I have a feeling since I'm the only person in the world who believes in plasma, it's pointless. - Plautus satire 22:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  And thus you are enlightened. It is pointless to insert content into Wikipedia if you are the only person who believes it to be true. Rather, insert content that everyone can agree to be true. Martin 23:21, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts only belong if everybody already knows them? In a reference work? Really? - Plautus satire 07:54, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Plasma

message: In the early stages of the severe weather, the timing factor varies over a wide range in a periodic manner. The period of some of these variations can be nearly an hour. Minutes before severe weather (large hail, funnel cloud, tornado, etc.), the variation becomes much smaller. During the severe weather, the large variation returns. The quantity of multiple events also decreases at the time of severe weather. - Published July 1999, ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION AND SEVERE WEATHER
This is one, many more are to follow. Enough is quite enough now, give up this quixotic crusade of yours, this windmill is through tilting at you. - Plautus satire 08:07, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article you cite does not use the word "plasma" anywhere. - Curps 08:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And this red herring, though it just came out of your, is already spoiled. See above. Also see the reversions I made and how they do not conflict in any way with my sources or the extant entry. Thanks for your time, and your patient attempts to learn. - Plautus satire 16:12, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Support (and peer review) for Observable Reality

message: Separate article with a reference is a good solution. Good work guys. DJ Clayworth 15:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A seperate article for associated effects of tornadoes? Why, again? I fail to see the logic here. - Plautus satire 16:05, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Seperate Article for Facts Deemed "Good Solution"

message: I cite the following passage from the tornado entry:
"It is spawned by a supercell thunderstorm (or sometimes as a result of a hurricane) and produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly."
This contradicts the statement in Ed Poor's "lesson" where he states warm, moist air rising is responsible. The entry states cold are moving over the top of warm air causes tornadoes, Ed Poor says it's simple warm air rising. The entry (and known physics) offers no explanation for how this cold air would climb on top of warmer air then proceed to plummet like water down a drain. And where are the experiments that prove this claim? Are there any? - Plautus satire 17:27, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed POV Presented as Fact

message: This is all a misunderstanding.
#I did not assert anything. I actually don't know anything about tornadoes except that they rotate, make noise, and destroy things. I haven't a clue about what causes them. All I did was quote some research meteorologists from the NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory (here in talk -- not in the article).
#NPOV is the Wikipedia policy for dealing with factual disputes. Read it and heed it, or less patient folks than I will kick you out of the project.
#Listen to Lir, at least, if you won't listen to me. :-)
--Uncle Ed 17:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the case, then why did you attempt to teach me a lesson by dressing me down in front of the thread? Further, why did you not read my entries, which were clear-cut cases of factual insertion of credible reports? Why did you allow this discussion to continue as if I had suggested some "crackpot theory"? This was not theory I inserted, but factual observation, observations from which others drew their own conclusions that tornadoes are visible manifestations of nearly transparent (during the day) electrical phenomena. I doubt your sincerity, Ed Poor, but if you apologize for (I hope inadvertantly) deleting my relevant points from this debate that were sandwiched between two off-topic comments, I will deem this to be a good faith gesture and will go a long way to repairing the trust I had in you that you ripped to shreds. - Plautus satire 17:46, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Misunderstanding

message: 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)
thread_title:  Supersonic