Jump to content

Talk:Waterspout/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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.

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)

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)

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)

Terms

A few handy references for terms are:

Evolauxia 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Terms

A few handy references for terms are:

Evolauxia 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Winter waterspout merger into this article

There is an article called Winter waterspout. Althought they are very rare, exept for the season, they physically are produce the same way as any waterspout : strong low level instability. So I don't see the need for a separate article and this article should be integrated as a section into waterspout.

Pierre cb (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The etiology is strong low-level instability and vorticity stretching, yes, the same mechanism for both phenomena. And I support merging winter waterspout into this article. There isn't enough information on winter waterspouts to warrant its own article anyway. Evolauxia (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong support Winter waterspouts are a very rare, poorly documented and poorly understood phenomenon with little or no peer-reviewed research. Not really enough to warrant a separate article. -RunningOnBrains

 Done Pierre cb (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The article is subject to a lot of vandalism for at least two months, mostly from school IP. I haveaskedthe administrators to semi-protect the article until the end of the school year but I have been turned down as it was estimated that there was not enough vandalism. What do you think and any administrator out there could land a hand ?

Pierre cb (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It really seems like it was just a few vandals over the course of a week. There has only been one vandalism edit in two weeks, so unless the vandalism picks up again, I don't see any reason for semi-protection. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 05:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy Edit donation from Severe weather

Waterspouts are generally weaker than most tornadoes, and are rarer in occurrence. Waterspouts frequently form in tropical areas close to the equator, but are extremely rare in areas of high latitude.("waterspout Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about waterspout". Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 2009-12-05.) Most waterspouts have been known to develop during Summer periods, where warm temperatures over bodies of water cause water to evaporate, turning into warm water vapor that later develops into a cumulus cloud. When no winds are present, the updrafts created by the warming temperatures can gather and organize into what is known as a waterspout.("Waterspout Information - NWS Wilmington, NC". Erh.noaa.gov. 2007-01-14. Retrieved 2009-12-05.)

Information trimmed from severe weather during CE, but may be of use in your article. Respectfully Bullock ✉ 20:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That is very considerate of you Bullock. Thanks for the thought. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Experience of waterspouts

Can anyone describe what it is like to be close to a waterspout. Does it roar? Does it whip up the wind and weather nearby? Ergateesuk (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Snow whirlwind / Snowspout

One of the images in this article is labelled 'snow whirlwind'. But this phrase does not otherwise appear in the article. Which of the variants described is this picture an image of? (It doesn't seem to be a 'snowspout'.)

Also, the article states that only six images of snowspouts exist but it does not state whether any of the images in the article are of snowspouts (it seems not).

What distinguishes a 'snow whirlwind' (as pictured) from the small snow twisters skiers encounter in flat, snowy areas in strong wind, or from dust devils, or even vortexes of leaves on windy days? Are these all just the same wind phenomena carrying different particals? Or is a 'snow whirlwind' distinct in some way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.24.81 (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This image as nothing to do here. It is similar to a dust devil. Pierre cb (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference for SWI

Do you have any reference for the Szilagyi Waterspout Index ? Nothing found :/ (or we must pay) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.236.173 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added it. Pierre cb (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by 209.6.248.159

I think a waterspout is considered a separate type of storm from a tornado. Tornados that form over water aren't necessarily waterspouts. Actually they are like land spouts over water hence the name water SPOUTS, Paramedic88 18:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Waterspouts are similar to...

Waterspouts are like land-spouts that is why the name is water-SPOUTS see what I mean? Get this right though water-spouts tend to be slow not fast slow depending on how far out they form they could be 2 slow to get to land, Paramedic88 18:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of terrestrial threat

"Scaffolding has collapsed at a worksite in Perth's south during unusual weather, injuring at least six people.

"The Department of Fire and Emergency Services received a call shortly after 2:00pm when a water spout crossed the coastline in North Coogee and hit the site on Orsino Boulevard."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-06/many-people-injured-as-coogee-structure-collapses/4869108

Djapa Owen (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Citation #4 incorrect for the content

Citation sourced does not relate to the information provided in the content. New citation needed. The material sourced makes the prior assumption that the content is true, but does not demonstrate the validity of the claim. I have added the "citation needed" tag to show this.

I have not removed the previous citation as I am unsure about the proper process for doing so. The citation in question is the current #4:

"Schwiesow, R.L.; Cupp, R.E., Sinclair, P.C., Abbey, R.F. (April 1981). "Waterspout Velocity Measurements by Airborne Doppler Lidar". Journal of Applied Meteorology 20: 341–348."

Epigeios (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Waterspout terminology

Hi. I very much enjoy learning through Wikipedia and I thank all the contributors. For years I have been frustrated by the confusing terms given waterspouts. My understanding of a waterspout is a wind vortex that forms near the water's surface and can work its way up to clouds overhead, not being part of the cloud itself. I find it confusing when mesocyclonic tornadoes are called waterspouts when they hit water. This seems incorrect to me. I have a science/military background. TSB - IL 03 AUG 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.166.2 (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are two news pieces of interest, interesting enough, in fact, to be added as references to the W article (thanks to Austin Bay):
• What Is a Waterspout? (Weather Channel video)
• Waterspout comes ashore in Galveston by Jessica Hamilton (Houston Chronicle, July 17, 2016)</ref>
Asteriks (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Tornado confusion

Ecstatic Electrical has been indef blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 13:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I removed the recent addition of {{confuse|Tornado}}. The article does a rather good job of explaining when waterspouts are tornadoes and when they are not. I doubt anybody looking for tornadoes can accidentally end up her, and if someone does, they can easily find their way to the right article even without the hatnote. Huon (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You would think that this would be the case. However, it’s not. Some people might not even know that a waterspout exists, or some people (to go even further) may not even know that funnel clouds can form over water. Therefore, it’s important to connect this particular funnel cloud type to the common type that most everyone will recognize, namely generic tornados. Although, it could be argued that this is more of an issue when talking about the Landspout article. —Ecstatic Electrical, 17:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
You have brought similar arguments at other pages. I'm not seeing it. Please explain how that hypothetical person who doesn't even know that a waterspout exists, or that funnel clouds can form over water, would be aided by this hatnote (as opposed to an explanation in the body of the article). You may want to read the documentation at Template:Confuse and also WP:LEGITHAT. Huon (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
What if the person doesn’t want to read the article? Also, hatnotes will direct people to the correct article(s) before they have to read an entire lead paragraph to realize that they are confused with something else. —Ecstatic Electrical, 19:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
So the hatnote is meant for a hypothetical person who is looking for tornadoes, doesn't know that waterspouts exist, mysteriously managed to happen upon this page, and apparently doesn't realize from reading the page title that this article is not about tornadoes (or maybe page titles are also something they don't want to read, like articles?). Why not add a hatnote to the cloud article too? Maybe someone is looking for tornadoes but isn't aware that non-tornado clouds exist; that person would be aided by a hatnote? Or to Fuck? Someone might not know dirty words and might have heard someone else react to a tornado with "Oh fuck"; that person would be aided by a hatnote? Sorry, this is just plain nonsense and arguing for argument's sake. Huon (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispersing waterspouts by cannonshot

This article features an illustration of a sailing ship firing cannons of its port to divert or disperse the waterspouts in the foreground. The article makes no mention of the practice however. This was a commonly-held belief among sailors in the 18th and 19th century, but I don't know where it originated from or how it made its way around the ports of the world. I also don't know if it actually worked (probably not).

Bronevskiy's account claims that it is a successful technique, being an eye-witness to "typhoons" being dispelled by broadside volleys in the Adriatic. He was a midshipman aboard the frigate Venus during the 1806 campaign under Admiral Senyavin. 174.92.34.210 (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

To be classified in a "Myths and legends" section! Pierre cb (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Waterspout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: You removed the red link I added. However, it seems to me the person is notable and an article could, and one day will, be written. Per WP:REDLINK, "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic".

Can you clarify, or revert yourself? Ijon (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ijon: "Wade Szilagyi" is only mentionned in the Waterspout article. There is no mention of him in any other article and thus he is does not have the notority necessary for his own article to be ever created. A link should be created only when an article has a reasonnable expectancy to be created in English Wikipedia, or be translated from other language Wikipedia, which is not the case. Leaving a red link in that circumstance is useless and it should be removed as per WP:REDLINK#Avoiding creation of certain types of red links. Pierre cb (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: I think you misinterpret the policy here. Whether or not anything already links or mentions him on Wikipedia has nothing to do with it. The test for removing a red link, as I quoted above from WP:REDLINK is whether you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject. Are you certain Szilagyi is not notable? I think he meets the general notability guideline, and is likely to one day have an article about him. There are reliable sources about his work, and he is a recognized expert in his field. I just don't have the time (and actually enough interest) to write an article right now, but I certainly want to mark his name as needing an article at some point, and encourage others to maybe write it, which is precisely the purpose of red links. I don't see that it is "useless". Unless you insist Szilagyi is definitely not notable and an article can't be written about him, I will return the red link to the article. Ijon (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ijon: As I said, he is not quoted in any other article nor other interwiki, and in litterature he is only quoted in articles for his work on waterspout (https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/search-results/?cx=006604013691433161533%3Acni8ugxqzym&q=Wade+Szilagyi&sa=&cof=FORID%3A11). We are not talking here of a Ted Fujita who was a world recognized expert on tornadoes with a bio as long as your arm! There is no biography, no award, etc... I am a meteorologist in Canada and as far as I know, he is a serious collegue but only known in the Ontario region where is now an administrator. His work can certainly be used as reference in an article about waterspout forecasting and/or climatology, but he is not the only one is that field. I cannot see how an article about him can go beyond that. What makes you think that anybodoby will write an article about a person only known for an obscure graphic? If this is notability why not write articles about anybody that has publish one article in scientific litterature and is just otherwise your average Joe. I did, so you think I should have my own article? Pierre cb (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: Very well, I will defer to your greater familiarity with the field. I don't think only "world recognized experts" need to have articles about them, but I have no particular interest in Szilagyi. I was just surprised at the removal of the redlink. Thanks for explaining your assessment. Ijon (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterspout/Archive_1&oldid=1226092143"