Forecasting EF-Scales

Mike Marz

EF3
Mar 11, 2014
209
287
21
32
Minneapolis, Minnesota
I would love to see him present this hypothesis to Dr. Forbes and see Forbes' reaction...

I was reading his hypothesis with some interest, but then I came to this part...

"Also the fact that we have Waterspouts, Landspouts and Gustnadoes all without a thunderstorm, but since they all look and function just like a tornado, tells us that there must be some other force that is responsible for causing a tornado just like a Waterspout, Landspout or Gustnado."

and then I stopped reading...
 
Last edited:

Jeff Duda

Resident meteorological expert
Staff member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2008
3,317
2,062
21
Broomfield, CO
www.meteor.iastate.edu
Either Mr. Hardwig has a friend on the AGU conference comittee who is just as off as he is, or no one's really checking the actual abstract submissions.

This is a major conference that occurs every year. Frankly I just lost some respect for this group (of which I have been a member for years now).
 
Sep 8, 2014
109
49
11
Norman, OK
Either Mr. Hardwig has a friend on the AGU conference comittee who is just as off as he is, or no one's really checking the actual abstract submissions.

This is a major conference that occurs every year. Frankly I just lost some respect for this group (of which I have been a member for years now).
Is it possible to start a petition to pull this presentation? If I was in the same session as him, I would be very offended.
 
May 25, 2012
209
185
11
37
Albuquerque, NM
www.wxlog.com
Before I pile on here, I'm genuinely trying to understand the thinking behind this abstract. Does Ronald have a cynical, May-25-2015-AccuWeather-esque agenda to sell more capability than he really has (and he knows it)? Or is he sincerely yet profoundly misinterpreting and oversimplifying the current literature? Is he familiar with any of the countless events like (off the top of my head) Canadian, Campo, or Jarrell, that had no "High Velocity Overhead Jet Stream"? I really want to understand the rationale.

BTW, what is everyone's favorite "mesoscale accident" tornado? I'd be super interested to see a collection of the strongest synoptic-low-shear tornadoes. I bet Jon Davies has something already.
 
Mar 15, 2004
1,049
53
11
Tucson, Aridzona
www.flickr.com
A classic example of how "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing."
Combined with what can only be called a developmental disability. It's like he literally can't formulate or process what most would consider 'normal' logic.

I'd like to see a competent research scientist run a series of logic and reasoning tests on this guy. Perhaps while they are capturing PET or other brain activity data. I've known people like this, and have always wondered what the heck was going on upstairs...

We should be gracious and thankful that he's not another Chemtrails looney or Flat Earth proponent.
 

calvinkaskey

Guest
Feb 17, 2014
384
30
11
What he is saying is the low level rotation that forms [(from warm air to the south and cold air to the north,) which is wrong but w/e it is there and does occur] gets stretched by jet stream winds (which is simply wind shear above it) by attendant low pressure "field" which somehow becomes vertical [t-storm updraft]. Now, winds blowing over and divergence are two different forces as far as I know. Maybe the warm air could be the updraft and the cold air the downdraft/dryline. Yeah I don't think this guy knows what he is talking about.
 
Aug 4, 2008
203
35
11
Nashville, TN
Seems he has taught himself jet streak dynamics 101 with a little other basic meteorology mixed in...minus his thoeory that tornadogenesis occurs at the 250mb level ends up at the surface (not sure how he would account for low topped crapvection that produces wedges in the southeast), his overall theory is 101 type stuff. How did this ever get through to be presented? Poor Mr. Softwig :-(
 
Jun 17, 2007
173
26
11
SIlver Spring MD
Seems he has taught himself jet streak dynamics 101 with a little other basic meteorology mixed in...minus his theory that tornadogenesis occurs at the 250mb level ends up at the surface (not sure how he would account for low topped crapvection that produces wedges in the southeast), his overall theory is 101 type stuff. How did this ever get through to be presented? Poor Mr. Softwig :-(
What I find odd is that the most common type of waterspout environment is a tropical
atmosphere with no "jet stream" anywhere close. Same principle for landspouts and
gustnadoes. These are all shallow vortices, so how would the jet stream impact them?
Also, notice how "waterspout", "landspout", and "gustnado" are all capitalized. When did
these become proper nouns? Just saying check your spelling and grammar carefully when
you submit a paper to a professional organization!

It is good to have people thinking about why things occur, but the casual weather enthusiast
or researcher are of high probability not going come up with revolutionary theory that explains
a long standing, complicated question that has baffled the experts for decades. It's like when
I hear, "why can't we just harness lightning for all our power needs?" and some people
seriously pursue this as if it is something that hasn't already been researched and tried many
times over? Do people even think about the huge body of knowledge science has
accumulated over time that wouldn't have tried to answer that most obvious questions/
wonders for society's need?

Doesn't the AGU screen papers that are submitted for actual presentation at their
conferences? Just about any meteorologist would see problems with the paper here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Duda