Nexrad used to create tornados

[chrisbray]

The proof is all in these youtube video clearly.....watch and be amazed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jwFG0DSxhY

All this time I thought it was the atmosphere and weather patterns creating these storms, I didn't know we just had to point radar at the sky and poof, tornados are formed!

 

[Skip Talbot]

The more you share these videos, the stronger their creators become, even if it's in ridicule.

 

[Stan Rose]

I disagree, Skip. I understand your sentiment, and if Chris were a news agency playing this to the public to get some cheap ratings, without any critical comment, Id agree. But this is not a 'troll' per se--it's just your typical internet conspiracy from someone who is either naive, paranoid, mentally unstable, or all of the above. Since we are familiar with the science behind the subject, I think it's our duty to be aware of the nutty theories that are out there, so that we are prepared to debunk it. It might seem silly to us, but it aint going to be silly to many who arent familiar with meteorology or science in general. In this case, I think (we) ignoring it is more likely to make the conspiracy theorist (troll) get stronger.

 

[Stan Rose]

Here's a big part of the problem:

http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/19mar_grits/

This article was used as the basis for the conspiracy video. It contains numerous incorrect statements, starting with the sensationalized and incorrect headline "gravity waves cause tornadoes" If a government (nasa) article can make ridiculouos claims, what can we expect from the public?

 

[rdale]

Stan, what's wrong with the article?

 

[Stan Rose]

​

The headline, for starters! Also, several other statements, such as:

If a gravity wave hits a rotating thunderstorm, it can sometimes spin that storm up into a tornado.

That is factually incorrect, or misleading at best.

 

[Rob H]

​

The headline, for starters! Also, several other statements, such as:

If a gravity wave hits a rotating thunderstorm, it can sometimes spin that storm up into a tornado.

That is factually incorrect, or misleading at best.

Isn't that exactly what the Parkersburg assessment theorized though?

For reference: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/dmx/ParkersburgSvcAssmntfinal.pdf

edit:

Visible satellite imagery also indicated a gravity wave that
initiated in south-central Nebraska earlier in the day. The initial storms developed just after this
feature moved through. Storms at the southern end of the cluster quickly moved to the
instability gradient at northeast periphery of the instability axis. The rapid northeast expansion
of convection also appears to be linked with the gravity wave.

Gravity wave interactions may have contributed to the rapid intensification of the
Parkersburg supercell.

The tornado developed just after the second wave (Fig. 27, dashed yellow line) passed. A nearly stationary fine line (Fig. 27, red solid line)
likely indicates the position of the primary north-to-south oriented warm front. Coleman, et al.
(2008) reviewed a number of cases in which gravity waves intersected with supercell
thunderstorms, and presented evidence that a gravity wave can act to strengthen a
mesocyclone in two ways: 1) wind convergence ahead of wave ridges causes enhanced
stretching of vertical vorticity and 2) enhancement of streamwise horizontal vorticity in the
storm inflow, which is then tilted into the vertical. Given the rapid mesocyclone intensification
and tornado development shortly after the passage of both gravity waves, these processes may
very well have acted to enhance the intensity of the Parkersburg supercell.

 

[Stan Rose]

How does:
Gravity wave interactions may have contributed to the rapid intensification of the
Parkersburg supercell.
equate to:
Gravity waves cause tornadoes?????

That's a huge leap, to put it mildly!

As for: these processes may
very well have acted to enhance the intensity of the Parkersburg supercell.

That is one case, and the link between a gravity wave and tornado is tenuous. We dont even fully understand why some mesos form tornadoes and others dont, so to make the conclusion
"the gravity wave caused it" is just absurd. Correlation certainly doesn't mean causation.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's interesting research, and there may be something to it. But the conclusions being drawn (by you--not the researchers!) are wayyyy beyond what the research suggests.

 

[Rob H]

You're not seeing the forest for the trees. A headline that passes your rigorous examination would like read like "One researcher, who is not representative of the meteorological community at large, theorizes that gravity waves might contribute to tornadogenesis". No one is going to click on that article because it isn't succinct and because it doesn't state a fact. So yes, there is a bit of hyperbole, but this isn't an AMS journal article. It's arguably for the layperson that is interested in cool scientific things.

I completely agree with you in a semantic sense, but analyzing the precise definition of words like "may" is a boring endeavor and tends to cause people to walk away from conversations

The conspiracy crowd has plenty of ammunition besides one NASA headline. What about the NWS forecaster from DVN that lectures about infinite energy or some such nonsense? That seems much more damaging.

Watch video >

 

[Stan Rose]

Don't bring in the strawman, lol. We'll just have to agree to disagree--IMO, words are important; if an article is meant for the 'uninformed' public all the more reason to be extra careful not to mislead.
Gravity waves do not cause tornadoes. Period. You don't even have to mention "gravity waves" (which incidentally, many confuse with 'gravitational waves'--i wonder if that was one source of the CT's confusion...) in the headline--just say "New Theory on Tornadic Storms" or something like that. It's really quite simple to avoid factually incorrect statements.

 

[Dan Robinson]

The problem I have with conspiracy theorists of any subject matter is that they apply far more scrutiny toward the official story than they do the alternate theories. There's a preexisting prejudice toward any official or generally-accepted account, which in itself isn't that big of a deal (it's OK and justified to be initially skeptical of anything). The problem is when the alternate theories are given a "free pass" and readily accepted without being put through the rigors of fact-checking, peer review and scrutiny themselves, at least nowhere near the level that gets directed at the official story. So many of the weather modification related conspiracies require an almost complete avoidance of any scrutiny or applied critical thinking to remain believable.

 

[mkavulich]

Ugh. That video is just...ugh. How does someone with such a technical background become so detached from reality? I can't even tell what he's trying to say in most of the video, it's just pseudo-scientific gibberish, taking buzzwords from different sources and jumbling them together.

 

[mikedeason]

Poppycock! Everyone knows that tornadoes are caused by the clashing of the air masses!

 

[Jeff Duda]

I think this is an issue with semantics. Also, statements like "gravity waves cause tornadoes" are of the blanket-type, and oversimplify the situation. That's where the message in science gets lost when translating to the public. Yeah, we can't expect the public to sit there and read, "a gravity wave may have indadvertently, or indirectly lead to the intensification of the mesocyclone of a supercell that produced the Parkersburg tornado." But that's what the science truly is. That's why I hate reading headlines on pretty much all news media articles that have anything to do with weather because they all commit this atrocity, and it leads the layperson astray from the true science that's being done. If you want to see a good example of this and you're part of the AMS or NWA, the weekly news mailings are chock full of this. I can't believe the AMS approves these emails that go out every Tuesday.

 

[Stan Rose]

I think this is an issue with semantics. Also, statements like "gravity waves cause tornadoes" are of the blanket-type, and oversimplify the situation. That's where the message in science gets lost when translating to the public. Yeah, we can't expect the public to sit there and read, "a gravity wave may have indadvertently, or indirectly lead to the intensification of the mesocyclone of a supercell that produced the Parkersburg tornado." But that's what the science truly is. That's why I hate reading headlines on pretty much all news media articles that have anything to do with weather because they all commit this atrocity, and it leads the layperson astray from the true science that's being done. If you want to see a good example of this and you're part of the AMS or NWA, the weekly news mailings are chock full of this. I can't believe the AMS approves these emails that go out every Tuesday.

Exactly, Jeff. To be clear, I wasn't implying we have a hand in creating conspiracy theorists. The WxWars dude would be out there spouting nonsense regardless of what NASA or NOAA have to say. But he gains credibility to the public when he can say "Gravity waves cause tornadoes--even Nasa says so!" He doesn't even have to explain how NexRad produce gravity waves since most folks without a good science background aren't going to know one wave from another.