Sam Jowett
Hi folks... possible baptism of fire here I suspect, but I promise I'm not trying to cause trouble. We've been having an interesting discussion on UKww regarding the relevance of using the terms waterspout, landspout etc when they're technically all tornadoes, so I was curious what you think. Please discuss it a bit first before voting... you might change you opinion...
To my mind, a tornado is any vortex induced by convection stretching boundary layer vorticity, including those on convergence zones, whether over land or water, under a meso or not. They are all produced by the same process, even if a meso will usually provide greater consistency and longevity, by virtue of the strength of the updraught and the fact it generates its own vorticity with the RFD.
Other problems with using terms like waterspout, seem to be when they come ashore. This is 1 meteorological event, but might be classified separately as both 1 waterspout and 1 tornado/landspout.
There also seems to be the misconception in the UK that waterspouts are weaker than tornadoes and filled with water. As many of our tornadoes are produced in autumn along cold fronts, the instability provided by the warm sea seems to mean waterspouts coming ashore are, on average, stronger than tornadoes generated inland. I'd guess this is less often the case in the US considering your geography. Education surrounding tornadoes is likely better in the US too, so misconceptions about waterspouts being filled with water are probably less common too.
The point still stands though, that a tornado is a tornado. Whilst there is a need to describe whether it is over water or land and the meteorological conditions surrounding the event, this can be done more accurately and clearly using 1 term I feel.
Reasons for continuing to use waterspout/landspout in the discussions I've had, seem to be centred around the sentimentality of simply being comfortable with the terms and enjoying having a variety of terms. Is this reason enough though if the multitude of terms creates confusion amongst the public? 1 meteorological phenomena only requires 1 term as far as I can see...
Would value your thoughts... will be interesting to see if the opinion here is any different to the UK
To my mind, a tornado is any vortex induced by convection stretching boundary layer vorticity, including those on convergence zones, whether over land or water, under a meso or not. They are all produced by the same process, even if a meso will usually provide greater consistency and longevity, by virtue of the strength of the updraught and the fact it generates its own vorticity with the RFD.
Other problems with using terms like waterspout, seem to be when they come ashore. This is 1 meteorological event, but might be classified separately as both 1 waterspout and 1 tornado/landspout.
There also seems to be the misconception in the UK that waterspouts are weaker than tornadoes and filled with water. As many of our tornadoes are produced in autumn along cold fronts, the instability provided by the warm sea seems to mean waterspouts coming ashore are, on average, stronger than tornadoes generated inland. I'd guess this is less often the case in the US considering your geography. Education surrounding tornadoes is likely better in the US too, so misconceptions about waterspouts being filled with water are probably less common too.
The point still stands though, that a tornado is a tornado. Whilst there is a need to describe whether it is over water or land and the meteorological conditions surrounding the event, this can be done more accurately and clearly using 1 term I feel.
Reasons for continuing to use waterspout/landspout in the discussions I've had, seem to be centred around the sentimentality of simply being comfortable with the terms and enjoying having a variety of terms. Is this reason enough though if the multitude of terms creates confusion amongst the public? 1 meteorological phenomena only requires 1 term as far as I can see...
Would value your thoughts... will be interesting to see if the opinion here is any different to the UK