Talk:Tornado/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

NOTE: much of this text is or is related to discussion and added text by User:Plautus satire, a user banned for adding nonsense to articles and strongly forcing his point of view. This text is mainly kept for historical purposes, as well as talk page conventions.

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)

Per talk page guidlines, comments by others should never be deleted, so I am going to re-introduce them from this page's early history. -Runningonbrains 08:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Associated Electromagnetic and Plasma Effects of Tornadoes

I am currently inserting relevant material into the tornado entry with regards to the known, observed properties of tornadoes and I am citing extensively. Any challenges to this information should be brought to the talk page here to be addressed so we can have a nice audit trail of what is going on with personal commentary sprinkled throughout. Also I have one suggestion, to anyone who might be reversioning this page, it is generally accepted practice to explain repeated reversions (to the same information, away from differing pages that are not all the same) of this nature. - Plautus satire 17:04, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Finding a few references on the web does not give a theory validity if every other researcher disagrees with it. The references you cite are about UFOs (not a good sign!). Even if this theory has any merit, it is clearly a minority view and belongs in its own section, not in the opening paragraphs. DJ Clayworth 17:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's not theory, it's observation. I think perhaps this is where all the misunderstanding here is arising. I am reporting factual observations of tornadoes that conflict with the notions that electromagnetic and plasma effects are irrelevant. Clearly they are relevant, as they are associated with tornadoes. So I am eliminating baseless assumption about tornadoes and clarifying the underlying process, which is clearly electromagnetic. - Plautus satire 17:14, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here is another reference for you: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wtwistqa.htm#plasma DJ Clayworth 17:09, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure USA Today has a fine research department, but I think I would put my faith in people who spend their time chasing tornadoes and observing them critically. - Plautus satire 17:14, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The answers were provided by "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists doing cutting edge tornado research". From the referenced page. DJ Clayworth 17:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The site that publishes reference 3 also has papers proving that Cold Fusion works, that the tides are the result of anti-gravity and that Einstein's equations were wrong. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss those issues. Thanks for your patience and consideration on this issue. - Plautus satire 17:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My point is that the theories I mention are all 'fringe theories' at best, so it is likely that other theories, such as the plasma tornado, are also 'fringe'. DJ Clayworth 17:18, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plasma tornado? Can you elaborate? - Plautus satire 17:18, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This site suggests "tornado" shapes are a natural result of some plasma effects. See: Pickle Jar Plasma Tornado - Plautus satire 17:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What experiments show this "cold air/hot air" model accurately predicts tornadoes? The only "models" I've seen using phsyical processes like these (not electromagnetic effects) use some sort of agitator to set up a swirling vortex, not this "hot air/cold air" idea, so they demonstrate nothing useful. - Plautus satire 17:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Evidence in the entry: "Tornadoes are 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." Note this does not say "cool air overriding warm air causes tornadoes". It says "produced when". Why this wording? Who wrote this and from where did they copy it? Seems the source is reluctant to identify "cold air/hot air" as the "cause". - Plautus satire 17:27, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The fact that the shapes are similar is no indication that one causes the other. I find that spiral galaxies look remarkably like water going down a plughole.... DJ Clayworth 17:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What do you think of the suggestion that you move all this stuff to its own section in Tornado? DJ Clayworth 17:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Its own section called what? "Fringe Plasma Dork"? - Plautus satire 17:37, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That has a nice ring to it. --SheikYerBooty 17:43, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

How about "Tornado Plasma Effects"? Don't forget to include details of who believes this theory. DJ Clayworth 17:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Once again, this is not a theory, this is observational evidence. If your personal theory is violated by this evidence, I think it's time you reevaluate your theory. Also, see below, where I ask if you are able to explain the conflicts between my edition and the previous addition (aside from the obviously relevant factual insertions). Do my facts conflict with what was already on the page? Are they redundant? What is your excuse for harassing me like this? - Plautus satire 17:50, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here's a nice acid test. Can you demonstrate where my demonstrably factual and relevant editions conflict with what was already there? - Plautus satire 17:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can I ask you why you wish to excise or marginalize this information? - Plautus satire 17:40, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide links to NOAA (specifically the severe storms labs) or a university meterology department that describes and discusses these effects?

And perhaps you can stop beating this dead horse in your appeal to authority. Your challenge here is invalid, to put it bluntly. - Plautus satire 17:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It would seem that if you are unable to produce a single authoritative link to support you "observation", there is no reason it should be included. We have a link here to a meteorologist from the NOAA National Severe Storms Lab (the recognized experts) that flatly refutes what you say. There doesn't seem to be much of a reason to consider your info. (bracing for the coming invective)--TomND 17:59, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've provided many links to many sources. Kindly show me the passages you say "flatly refute" what I say. - Plautus satire 18:01, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just gave you exactly such a reference above. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wtwistqa.htm#plasma DJ Clayworth 18:04, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any from legitimate sources (i.e. tornado experts). And here is the quote 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.--TomND 18:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is not a "flat refutal," but it's a pretty bald and bold statement: "There are no processes involved in the tornado formation that can ionize the air in the vortex thus transferring it into plasma."

This contradicts other stated properties of tornadoes, namely that they are produced by thunder (lightning) storms and occasionally by hurricanes (which are also highly electrical in nature, ever hear of St. Elmo's Fire?).
Lightning is a known source of plasma effects as well as electromagnetic effects, which are the same effects we observe in tornadoes.
Your source is contradicting the extant passages that said tornadoes were spawned by thunder (lightning) storms and NOAA, who also says they occur during thunder (lightning) storms. - Plautus satire 18:10, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) (hope the format change helps you understand - Plautus satire 18:18, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC))

I have absolutely no idea what you are saying here. But it doesn't refer at all to the statement from the NOAA meteorolgist. It seems you are just posting words hoping to fake your way out of this statement.--TomND 18:14, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you can't understand me, I can try to use smaller words, or you can read more slowly, or both. ;) - Plautus satire 18:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, you could try to understand that because tornados are spawned during events that also may feature lighting, the one doesn't follow from the other. The statement is clear "There are no processes involved in the tornado formation that can ionize the air in the vortex thus transferring it into plasma." Period. And the fact that there are no meteorlogists that disagree with that statement means your "observations is not reality.--TomND 18:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And the fact that tornadoes occur in the presence of lightning (which always creates plasma) refutes your source who states there is "no known process" that could create plasma in a tornado. There is a common process with which we're all familiar, it's called lightning. Thanks for your patient attempts to learn more about this issue, I hope your studies continue throughout your life, we are never finished learning. - Plautus satire 18:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Lightning occurring at the same time as a tornado is quite different from plasma or electromagnetic effects causing a tornado. Why do you think you know more than the researchers and meteorologists involved in this field?--TomND 18:35, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The source you're so proud of says no known process can make plasma in a tornado. Clearly he is ignoring the copious lightning that is associated with all tornadoes. Why? For the same reason that you do. Because observable reality falsifies your hypothesis. - Plautus satire 18:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Could that be because tornadoes occur during thunder (lighting) storms? As I said previously, just because they occur at the same time, doesn't mean one follows from the other. Face it, your theory has no support.--TomND 18:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What theory? That's exactly what I put in the entry, that tornadoes are concurrent with and associated with these electromagnetic and plasma effects, which clearly they are. That's not theory, it's observable reality. I'm weary of discussing this with you, as the page is now protected even though it had not been changed in forty-five minutes. If you drew conclusions based on the evidence that you don't like, that is not my fault. I did nothing more than insert factual information that conflicted with nothing else on the page. Show me where I created a contradiction on the page. You apparently "accepted" it before, you don't "accept" things you didn't already know about? - Plautus satire 19:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The information is itself 'marginal' because virtually no tornado experts seem to believe it. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Belief is not necessary, observational evidence is enough, and there is more than enough observational evidence dictating quite clearly that there are electromagnetic and plasma effects going on inside tornadoes. Do you not believe in observations? - Plautus satire 18:05, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you telling me you have seen these effects yourself? DJ Clayworth 18:17, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I haven't, except in photographs, and even if I had, wikipedia is not the place for me to post my personal observations, it's a place for me to post factual, verifiable information about real things. - Plautus satire 18:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've had about quite enough of this. Rmhermen, would you care to defend your unexplained reversion of this page? - Plautus satire 17:53, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is this horse about beat dead yet? - Plautus satire 18:21, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How about now? - Plautus satire 18:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let me just clarify to all concerned, nowhere did I insert the notion into the tornado entry that these plasma discharges are responsible for the formation of the tornado. Though this is the obvious conclusion, and you all seem to have drawn the same conclusion, I did not insert it into the entry. Look carefully and you'll see I'm right. What I inserted were factual observations of tornadoes. If you drew from the available data that tornadoes are electrical in nature, that is your inference from the data. Because it conflicts with fables you've memorized does not mean the data should be ignored. - Plautus satire 18:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

More Useless Page Protection

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)

errata

"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."[1]

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)

P.S.: See link above that explains how easily plasma falls into a "tornado" shape in an evacuated pickle jar. - Plautus satire 18:43, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So that everybody gets an idea of what the discussion is about, this is the version of the opening paragraph that Plautus satire inserted.

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)

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)

Seriously, you have produced no reliable source even for the observations you state as fact. DJ Clayworth 20:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

I'd settle for something from a University researcher or a peer-reviewed journal article, or an article from a reputable new source. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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

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) (Note: this is my original source, check the page history for comments about it in the summaries hehehe - Plautus satire 21:20, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC))

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)

Hmm, the external link you cite above appears to be a weighty report entitled "SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS". I'm not seeing a vast amount of content there on plasma tornados. Perhaps you could cite "chapter and verse" for us? Thanks. Martin 22:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

So you're confirming that the cited report has no content directly related to plasma tornados? Martin 00:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

On an unrelated note, am I the only one who can admit when I am wrong? It would seem so. - Plautus satire 21:23, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

Raul654, will you now unprotect this page so that I can make my editions in peace? - Plautus satire 21:35, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If those "editions" include anything to do with "plasma" and "electromagnetics", you haven't proven a thing, given all your postings. You cannot demonstrate any reputable source that agrees with you, no legitimate researcher or meteorolgist. --TomND 21:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Causes

Ron Holle, research meteorologist, NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Okla., said:

Both lightning and tornadoes are caused by strong convection - cumulonimbus clouds - with strong updrafts in deep clouds. [2]

And what causes these strong updrafts? This is where the hypothesis hits the wall of reality. Also, this does not conflict with what I inserted into the page, Ed Poor. Will you please read the editions I made? If you do I am sure you will see that I did not in any way suggest that these electrical discharges and generation of plasma are the cause of tornadoes, I said they accompany tornadoes, and numerous verified observations and photographs prove this. This debate is not about the causes of tornadoes, or at least it was not until others tried to make it so. - Plautus satire 22:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If necessary I will quote every change I made and put them in context so you can see I did not state that these were causes, I said they were observed concurrent and colocated (in other words they are associated with) tornadoes. I am trying very hard to be patient here, but I find it more and more difficult by the minute. I'm beginning to think the only result of this will be my eventual banning for one reason or another. - Plautus satire 22:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ed Poor, I beseech you, please do not let the others change the nature of this incident, it has a trail, it is long and winding but I tried to make it as clear as I could through the summaries, please read the page histories, particularly my "last" editions and the ones around mine, read the summaries especially those of others, please, I am begging you, you are my only hope here. - Plautus satire 22:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Warm, moist air

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. [3]

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)

Plasma

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. [4]

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)

Our article on lightning doesn't explain the link, as far as I can see, though it is mentioned in connection with ball lightning. Perhaps you should edit it appropriately? Martin 22:46, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

Facts only belong if everybody already knows them? In a reference work? Really? - Plautus satire 07:54, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Largesse for a Beggar

Please don't quote all those changes. I can read the edit history if needed.
I'm not debating with you; I'm showing you how to use the talk pages. You asked for mentoring, right?
No one has ever been banned from Wikipedia, who was willing to have a polite conversation with me about how to improve an article. --Uncle Ed 22:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am beginning to think it was a mistake to consider you a disinterested observer. - Plautus satire 22:35, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And if this is your attempt to demonstrate by example, perhaps you could wait until there is an issue you are qualified to discuss, then I can follow you around instead. - Plautus satire 22:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By the way, this is what Ed Poor cut out of this talk page just before he started his rampaging redundancy. I've been banned for less. - Plautus satire 22:47, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:DJ Clayworth? May I make a brief personal observation? I feel you are dull and combative. - Plautus satire 20:10, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:And still you offer no evidence that I have maligned or perverted the information on that page in any way. Quote more of my passages, I'd like everyone to see them. - Plautus satire 20:10, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:By the way, in the future if you disagree with your own conclusions based on the evidence, keep it to yourself. Wikipedia is not a forum for autoargumentum. - Plautus satire

::LOL DJ Clayworth 20:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is this what they call a "hack job"? - Plautus satire 22:47, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. It's called removing personal attacks, so the talk page focuses on the article, not the authors. You get to do it when people trust you, which takes time. Martin 23:23, 25 Feb 2004 (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", 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

This does not solve the problem of factual information being excised without basis from the page. - Plautus satire 07:23, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"relevant, factual information" is your POV. You have a separate page now, by analogy with your laser star hypothesis page, which you can expand well beyond the single paragraph. - Curps 07:32, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(By the way, that one-paragraph entry you created for your tornado plasma hypothesis need serious work, if not outright deletion. That is your orphan, not mine. - Plautus satire 07:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC))

I simply copied the text. Someone familiar with the hypothesis should amplify it. Perhaps Lir can do this if you are unwilling. - Curps 07:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

None of the factual observations I inserted into the tornado entry are arguably non-facts. Your only basis for claiming they are not facts is your own ignorance. Clearly they are facts. - Plautus satire 07:34, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The insertion of relevant, factual data does not require peer review or acceptance by the masses. I cite this article, on John Cusack, chosen at random for me by wikipedia, which states the following:

John began acting in childhood. He attended the Piven Theatre Workshop in Chicago and by the age of 12, John he had done voice-overs for commercials and appeared in some stage productions. His first film was the comedy Class in 1983. In 1988, John founded a theatre group ('The New Criminals') and has directed several productions."

Do most people know and agree upon all this information? - Plautus satire 07:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, the plural of "anecdote", is not "data". Using your criteria, there can be no doubt that UFOs exist and are piloted by aliens.--TomND 12:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is a wonderful straw man. Observable reality does not need peer review or research papers to be valid. Your insistence that UFO's are piloted by aliens is, I feel, absolute rubbish. - Plautus satire 16:14, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How can you possibly say that? I can post "observation" after "observation" of people who say they saw UFOs and aliens on board, or who say they were "abducted" by aliens and taken on board the craft. Why are these "observations" "rubbish", and the ones you post not?--TomND 16:38, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Support (and peer review) for Observable Reality

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[5]

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)

The article you cite does not use the word "plasma" anywhere. - Curps 08:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

References

(What will no doubt be a never-ending, always-growing list.)

[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11]

Dance of the SheikYerBooty

In case you forgot, here's a link 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)

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)

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

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)

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.

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

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)

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)

Sorry if I was too rough on you, pal. But this is an adult project, not junior high. May I suggest growing thicker skin? ;-)

I did not "allow" discussion to continue. I have no authority but can only make suggestions. And I did try to lead discussion toward NPOV consideration of the minority viewpoints. I even inserted the plasma thing into the tornado article once, as an "alternat hypothesis" or some such.

Once again, if I've deleted relevant points from the debate, I apologize.

See you next week. :-) --Uncle Ed 18:15, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

One photo is labeled "dust devil" which is surely isn't. I was tempted to delete, but hate to do so. Three highly similar photos does seem like a bit of overkill. Could the submitter provide more info? Pollinator 03:17, Aug 30, 2004 (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)