Talk:Tornado/Archive 2

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)
replies: text: Right...don't forget that the speed of sound in a body of air must be calculated relative to the (average) velocity of the air itself, not necessarily with respect to the ground.  For example, if the speed of sound is 600mph, and the air is moving uniformly westward at 200mph with respect to the ground, then a west-moving sound wave will travel at 800mph with respect to the ground. -- Beland 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But there are differences between laminar flow and impulse flow. Hard Raspy Sci 05:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supersonic 

message: 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.
:Fixed. -- Beland 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Tornado Characteristics 

message: English words of Spanish origin says that it comes from tronada. --Error 02:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: Some of the editors here must be very good or something, anonymous users can remove large scale amounts of text and no one notices? -- Natalinasmpf 17:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Nat, we were at the Tornado editors vacation barbeque.  Weren't you invited?  We proposed a whole lot of toasts and vow not to edit for an undisclosed amount of time. - Hard Raspy Sci 05:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  large scale removal of text 

message: It is now clearly documented in the scientific literature, such as in the works cited above by Hebrooks87, that the Netherlands actually has the most tornadoes per unit area. The Netherlands currently reports 20 tornadoes per year (estimated total with unreported events is 35) with an area of 41,526 km2 and the U.K. reports 33 and estimates 50 with an area of 244,820 km2 (see Table 1 for an example). The U.K. is approximately 6x the area of the Netherlands yet only has 1.65x the number of tornadoes, there are more tornadoes per km2 in the Netherlands by circa factor 4. That is only including tornadoes over land, Netherlands reports 60 (est. 100) waterspouts per year to the U.K.'s 15 (est. 30).
I haven't yet changed it in the article as I anticipate resistance, but the data is very clear. The U.K. and Europe data the old claim is made on is old. The Netherlands does also have several strong tornadoes per decade. Data for Europe should further improve dramatically in coming years. Evolauxia 17:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, countries other than US do not (yet) have similar "tornado culture", quite understandably but it has tended to lead to underreporting of tornadoes in many countries and to myth that "tornadoes only happen in USA". The movie "Twister" actually had great impact to interest towards tornadoes, at least in Finland, and now they are actually getting over-reported and quite often damage done by downbursts or some other similar phenomena are classed as "trombi (tornado) damage" by media...--Mikoyan21 19:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "tornado culture" will probably never develop to that of the Great Plains, Midwest, and Southeastern United States, however, there are great strides being made (in progress in early stages) in research, prediction efforts, and spotting networks, so a better climatology and hopefully awareness should be coming.  As for overreporting now and downbursts, that is interesting.  I assume that is only the media and general populace attributing downbursts as tornadoes.  I know that the scienitific climatology efforts try to include only verified tornadic events as tornadoes. FWIW, Finland reports approximately 5 tornades per year on average, with the estimated total including missed events being 10 (that's over land, with 5 and 10 again over water). Evolauxia 12:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.K. as most tornadoes per area 

message: This is vandalism. 205.188.116.65 01:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't.  It's just not a apropriate subject to address in this article at the momment since there is no way to modify weather currently. Lengis 05:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism.  The user removed a large amount of good text without citing a reason, then inserted false, unreferenced information in its place.  This is the definition of vandalism. -Runningonbrains 05:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stopping a Twister 

message: This section needs a major copyedit, in order to omit redundant information, add important information, add references, and improve overall organization.  I will be working on this over the next few days, I ask anyone who wants to contribute to work on this section. Runningonbrains 14:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just about completed this section...I'd like someone to expand the Prediction and Detection and Climatology sections, and possibly split the Climatology category into sub-categories (for example, Frequency of occurence, geography, trends, etc.)Runningonbrains 05:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics 

message: Is there any correlation between the typical Tornado shapes(cone, stovepipe, elephant trunk, wedge etc.) and tornado intensity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.140.23 (talk • contribs) 
:This is a difficult question to answer.  I am not aware of any official studies done on this subject, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.  Typically, multi-vortex tornadoes, regardless of shape, tend to be stronger than single-vortex tornadoes.  From what I have heard, wedge tornadoes are most often multi-vortex in nature, and most often violent.  However, all other shapes have the capability to be violent.  While a rope tornado is often in its dissipating stage and therefore weaker, some tornadoes actually widen as they weaken, or do not change in size but simply lift up into the ground, or even vanish in seconds.
:As a general statement, the wider the tornado, the stronger it is...however, this rule is by no means law--it is meant to be broken.  Regardless, civilians should never attempt to determine the strength of a tornado in making a decision whether or not to take shelter:  even an F0 tornado can kill. Runningonbrains 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Tornadoes 

message: Just out of curiousity, would an average tornado (say F2/F3) going through a CBD of a largish city flatten skyscrapers, or would they remain standing, albeit with major damage? I've tried to do some research, but I can't find any instances of tornadoes actually going through the CBD of any city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.47.177 (talk • contribs) 
:actually, there have been several instances of tornadoes directly impacting skyscrapers, with two especially noticable cases.  The Fort Worth tornado of March 2000 was a high-end f-2 when it impacted the skyscrapers seen in the photos seen on that page.  However, in 1970 the Great Plains Life Building in Lubbock TX, a 20-foot tall skyscraper, was hit by an F5 tornado.  The steel structure of the building was deformed, but repairs were made, and the building still stands today.  It is unlikely that any tornado on this planet could even partially destroy a skyscraper.  However, if such a storm were to occur during the middle of a work day in a modern city, undoubtedly hundreds, or even thousands would be killed by extreme amounts of deadly flying debris.  -Runningonbrains 02:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tornado damage with respect to skyscapers 

message: IMHO, the image in the lead section of this article isn't very spectacular.  I was thinking something more along the lines of
Or even better, one of these:
Image:Dszpics1.jpg|A classic tornado, complete with translucent dust cloud. 
Image:Stoughton Tornado.jpg|The Stoughton Tornado, as above.
Image:Cordell Oklahoam Tornado.jpg|The famous picture that is everywhere. 
Image:Union City Oklahoma Tornado (mature).jpg|Short and sweet, nothing to distract the reader from the tornado itself.
Image:Seymour Texas Tornado.jpg|Very ominous and poignant, but possibly too vague.
Image:Roanoke tornado.jpg|A spectacular tornado, but trucks in foreground could be distracting.
Image:Tornado1 - NOAA.jpg|Awesome photo, but grainy, messy scan.
My vote is with the first one in the gallery.  Anyone else have an opinion?  Runningonbrains 07:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section image