Talk:Waterspout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Severe weather, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to severe weather. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Severe weather.

I think a waterspout is considered a separate type of storm from a tornado. Tornados that form over water aren't necessarily waterspouts.

Contents 1 Clarification: Waterspouts are NOT Tornadoes over water 2 Waterspout references 3 Waterspouts are tornadoes over water 4 Cleanup required 5 Content 6 Formation and Climatology sections added 7 Terms 8 Clarification needed

[edit] Clarification: Waterspouts are NOT Tornadoes over water

The Encyclopædia Britannica clarifies the distinction between tornadoes and waterspouts. I quote:

"There is much confusion in classifying waterspouts. For many years, they were called tornadoes over water, a definition still in wide use. However, as tornado researchers have learned more about atmospheric vortices, it has become clear that several mechanisms can give rise to a strong vortex pendant from a cloud...Most waterspouts closely resemble weak tornadoes, some of which are called landspouts because of this similarity. The rotation occurs at low levels in the atmosphere, so the resulting vortex does not extend very far up into the cloud. Indeed, the rotation is not often detectable by radar, another indication that waterspouts are a phenomenon largely confined to the region below cloud base..."

Also of note:

"On the Fujita Scale of tornado intensity, most waterspouts would thus rate as F0. That is, almost all waterspouts have intensities similar that those of weak tornadoes."

It may be concluded that, while waterspouts are largely comparable to very weak tornadoes, they are an anomaly of nature, attributable to the deviation in the mechanism of their formation.

I hope this will serve to allay what might at times have been a very intense and personal debate as to the true definition of the waterspout.

-- X444 22:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that most waterspouts are not generated by a different set of conditions to supercell tornadoes. However, like waterspouts, most UK tornadoes are also due to non-supercell thunderclouds with no mesocyclone present. If you are going to argue this point, then surely you should also argue that most land based vortices in the UK are not tornadoes at all, but merely landspouts.

My argument is that waterspouts and landspouts are both covered under the broader definition of tornadoes and this article should reflect that.

At the end of the day, there has been so much research in this area in recent years that some new definitions are probably in order. We now know that there are many ways such atmospheric vortices are created. Perhaps the term waterspout is actually outdated. --Weirdgeordie 23:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

NOAA (NWS, NSSL, SPC) in the U.S. consider waterspouts (and landspouts) all as falling under the category of tornado. So does the UK metr office, TORRO, and the Royal Meteorological Society. The definition in the Glossary of Meteorology considers them as non-supercell tornadoes. All severe weather researchers I know of and see in journals from the U.S., Canada, the EU, Australia, and Japan consider them to be a type of tornado.

There are various kinds of tornadoes. If the requisite intensely rotating column of air in contact with the surface and a cumuliform cloud is met, the vortex is a tornado. This is the only way to be consistent and correct, and is the most logical way to conceptualize (and categorize) the range of atmospheric vortices. There will likely be more differentiation as more is learned about circulations in thunderstorms and on tornadogenesis (in a nut shell, it's not as simple as most think). Vorticity is ingested and tightened by updrafts in both waterspouts/landspouts and mesocyclonic supercell tornadoes, just on a different scale and different manner. There can be supercell (mesocyclone)-tornadic waterspouts, the term really is obsolete in the way it was used in the past. Not all non-supercellular waterspouts are weak either, some have produced F3 damage, it's not uncommon for them to persist for tens of minutes even an hour, and some can be fairly large. Some landspouts have produced F3 damage. On the Fujita scale, most tornadoes no matter the generative processes are F0. Evolauxia 14:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waterspout references

According to the National Weather Service FAQ on tornadoes at [1], a waterspout is a tornado. Does anyone know of other authoritative references about waterspouts that state otherwise? If so, they need to be listed in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability policy.

I have heard of no source ever claiming that a waterspout is anything other than a tornado over water. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

No authoritative (from the meteorological community) source has claimed anything else for many years.

[edit] Waterspouts are tornadoes over water

Extract from www.torro.org.uk:

"Some tornadoes form out to sea as strong waterspouts (q.v.) which sometimes cross the coast, so a waterspout may become a tornado as the twisting funnel moves from land to sea (and vice-versa). A recent powerful and well-documented example is that of Selsey on the south coast of England on the night of 7 to 8 January 1998. When the waterspout made landfall, it carved a trail of damage a kilometer wide through the town as it damaged hundreds of buildings in less than ten minutes"

Also, and extract from http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/NWSTornado/

"Waterspouts occasionally move inland becoming tornadoes causing damage and injuries."

[edit] Cleanup required

Following today's extensive edits by User:65.77.67.15 - diff, we now need a bit of clean up. The edits mostly look good, but

1. The significant changes to Waterspout vs Tornado definitions need confirmation or sourcing
2. we've lost the original references
3. lead para needs reformatting to conform with the Manual of Sytle
4. self references to Wikipedia need to be removed

[edit] Content

Does the following text really belong in the main article? "For some reason, the flap surrounding this "waterspouts are tornadoes" debate seems to have been caused by the effort by the National Weather Service to reduce confusion; the NWS uses a definition of waterspout that states that waterspouts are indeed tornadoes so that the public doesn't endanger itself attempting to second-guess the issuance of tornado warnings. Unfortunately, this flap has extended to Wikipedia via believers of both philosophies continuing to fight it out via constantly changing the content of this section of the Tornado article and the Waterspout article to reflect their personal beliefs instead supporting reality."''

I'm not sure.

I, myself made the edits about waterspouts vs tornadoes issue being just a matter of definition.

Just for the record, I am not confused by the NWS's definitions, as I am UK based and made my edits based mostly on UK sources (www.torro.org.uk)

I have never seen any of my sources say anything other than waterspouts are merely tornadoes over water. I have clearly stated my sources as above. I would really like User:65.77.67.15 to show me sources that state that I am incorrect.

Extract from www.torro.org.uk:

"Some tornadoes form out to sea as strong waterspouts (q.v.) which sometimes cross the coast, so a waterspout may become a tornado as the twisting funnel moves from land to sea (and vice-versa). A recent powerful and well-documented example is that of Selsey on the south coast of England on the night of 7 to 8 January 1998. When the waterspout made landfall, it carved a trail of damage a kilometer wide through the town as it damaged hundreds of buildings in less than ten minutes"

Also, and extract from http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/NWSTornado/

"Waterspouts occasionally move inland becoming tornadoes causing damage and injuries."

That in part is what I was talking about in 'Needs cleanup' above. If the change in definition isn't supported, it is quite possible that all the recent edits by User:65.77.67.15 should be reverted. At the least, the self-references to Wikipedia should be removed. -- Solipsist 14:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing some futher research and reading. In a nutshell landspouts and most waterspouts are examples of non-supercell tornadoes, however they are still tornadoes.

http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=nonsupercell-tornado1

Here in the UK, we refer to all such votexes that make ground contact over land "tornadoes", and any that make ground contact over water "waterspouts". Most UK tornadoes are not supercell tornadoes, but they are still refered to as tornadoes.

http://www.torro.org.uk/TORRO/severeweather/tornadofaqs.php

I think that first of all my edits should be reverted and then both this article and main tornado article should be edited to state that there is more than one type of tornado (landspout, gustnado, supercell, waterspout) --Weirdgeordie 23:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Weirdgeordie. It's no mere opinion either, he cites good sources, and that conception is in line with the meteorological communities in the U.K. overall (incl. the Metr Office and the Royal Meteorological Society), the E.U., the U.S. (incl. NOAA, NWS, SPC, NSSL; all researchers; American Meteorological Society; National Weather Association), Canada, Australia, and Japan. It's very clear, the articles should reflect this unanimous meteorologists' consensus. Evolauxia 14:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formation and Climatology sections added

After a call for adding a section for waterspout formation into cyclogenesis, I've copied that section over into this article with the appropriate references. I've also separated out sections relating to their climatology into a new section. That should bring this article up to B class. Thegreatdr 12:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terms

A few handy references for terms are:

• AMS Glossary of Meteorology
• NWS Glossary
• A Comprehensive Glossary of Weather Terms for Storm Spotters (NWS)

Evolauxia 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed

The statement "Water is also a great deal heavier than the dirt, dust, and debris commonly ingested by a tornado." is unclear.

In my experience, dust and dirt would sink in a pool of water, and are therefore "heavier" than water.

24.9.137.16 03:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bouyancy and weight are two different things. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)