Should the terms waterspout, landspout etc be dropped?

[Martin North]

As a Brit myself I find this thread rather embarrssing. The views here from the UK seem to represent those of the TORRO organisation, which is not affiliated to any university, or credible scientific body (if that's harsh, then I am sorry) . I don't believe all or most serious meteorolgists in the UK call landpsouts or whirlwinds tornadoes as do this TORRO organisation.

This in effect is a form of propaganda, and it gives rise to statements like the claims that the UK experinces more tornadoes per area than anywhere else. Which I believe is nonsense. I live in S Africa and have lived in the UK for quite a while as well. Where I live now there are hundreds of landspouts and whirlwinds here everyday. But nobody is calling them tornadoes, quite rightly.

Mungo

This is not the view of Torro. It is the personal view of some directors/executives and members. If you could see the poll on Torro's forum...you would see the vigour with which this battle is being fought!

Sadly though...I think this method of terming all votices may be forced through...at which stage I shall discontinue my involvement and membership.

However that said...I must defend the organisation and its membership against the personal vendetta you have been running against it for some time...

 

[Bob Hartig]

I'm shocked to see how what at first glance appears to be a simple opinion poll evidently reflects some bitter infighting. That's too bad, because in itself this topic strikes me as interesting and harmless.

For what it's worth, I'll toss out the following thought: it's a matter of taxonomy. In the plant and animal kingdoms, families are broken down into genera and species. I see no difficulty in applying the same approach to tornadoes, particularly since that approach is already used in differentiating clouds--i.e. cumulonimbus calvus, cumulonimbus capillatus, cumulonimbus incus; cumulus humilis, cumulus mediocris, and so forth.

I'm by no means suggesting that we start Latinizing tornadoes (aka cumulonimbus tuba . I'm merely noting that the word "tornado" refers to a genera, of sorts, characterized by a rotating column of air that is in contact with the ground and connects with a cumuliform cloud. Drilling down from there, the terms waterspout and landspout are merely terms for particular "species" of tornadoes formed by different processes.

Seems to me that waterspout and landspout are useful distinctions, every bit as much as are the words steelhead and coho: the latter both refer to salmon, but they're different kinds of salmon. Maybe non-fisherman don't know the difference and don't care, but salmon fisherman do, and they understand the importance of the distinctions. You need both the genera and the species to accurately describe the fish.

Okay, so enough of that metaphor. I know it has its problems, but you get the idea. I'll bow out now and let the next person opine.

 

[Sam Jowett]

Thanks for your considered response Bob... I agree I think. I don't really think there are different "species" of tornado as such, as there are any number of characteristics you could classify them on down that route i.e. shape etc. However as a compromise position, usage of familiar terms within the family of tornado perhaps makes sense. Once you consider whether or not it's hanging from a mesocyclone however, you end up with a species called tornado inside a family called tornado... not very logical! For consistency you'd want 4 categories I guess... true waterspout, tornadic waterspout, true landspout, tornadic landspout. Not practical to use methinks!

Mungos post above also prompted me to think about how we compare our tornado stats. To do that, we'd need consistency in our naming conventions. The problem there lies that in areas of the planet without dopplar (much of the planet apart from the US), there's no way to confirm a meso. So whilst useful to recognise in the tornado stats, we can't do the same unfortunately with the same level of confidence or consistency.

What I guess it comes down to, is we need to educate the public in the UK that waterspouts are just as dangerous as tornadoes...

 

[Martin North]

I'm shocked to see how what at first glance appears to be a simple opinion poll evidently reflects some bitter infighting. That's too bad, because in itself this topic strikes me as interesting and harmless.

For what it's worth, I'll toss out the following thought: it's a matter of taxonomy. In the plant and animal kingdoms, families are broken down into genera and species. I see no difficulty in applying the same approach to tornadoes, particularly since that approach is already used in differentiating clouds--i.e. cumulonimbus calvus, cumulonimbus capillatus, cumulonimbus incus; cumulus humilis, cumulus mediocris, and so forth.

I'm by no means suggesting that we start Latinizing tornadoes (aka cumulonimbus tuba . I'm merely noting that the word "tornado" refers to a genera, of sorts, characterized by a rotating column of air that is in contact with the ground and connects with a cumuliform cloud. Drilling down from there, the terms waterspout and landspout are merely terms for particular "species" of tornadoes formed by different processes.

Seems to me that waterspout and landspout are useful distinctions, every bit as much as are the words steelhead and coho: the latter both refer to salmon, but they're different kinds of salmon. Maybe non-fisherman don't know the difference and don't care, but salmon fisherman do, and they understand the importance of the distinctions. You need both the genera and the species to accurately describe the fish.

Okay, so enough of that metaphor. I know it has its problems, but you get the idea. I'll bow out now and let the next person opine.

I totally agree with Bob here...

 

[Bob Hartig]

Really my point, Sam. I don't think we need a bunch of hifalutin' terminology, but the simple terms that are already being used have their application. The genus/species thing was just my attempt to point out why. Maybe sometimes the word waterspout needs a bit of further clarification, but how hard is that? Unless the Wx community sees a need to develop some full-blown categorization of tornado types--and I doubt that's an issue weighing heavily on anyone's mind--then we'll probably continue to use general terms and expand on them as the occasion calls for. Nomenclature is good only to the point where it muddies up the waters rather than clears them; other aspects of communication are at least as important.

 

[Sam Jowett]

I agree, nomenclature should be simple where possible, which is why I went down the "only use tornado" route. As you say, there's clearly a value to many whether a tornado is over water or not, hence the use of the terms. I can't see it as important enough myself to warrant separate terms, though it's obviously an important observation.

If there's one thing the passion with which this discussion has been fought both here and on the other forums has taught me, it's that whatever my opinion is, it would be a rather petty exercise to try and do away with terms that so many people like. Just wish I could understand peoples attachment to the terms, from a meteorological perspective lol!

I understand stats are compiled with them all as tornadoes anyway, with landspouts/waterspouts etc making up a portion of the tornado total. Anyone know if that's correct?

 

[rdale]

We already have that definition: Waterspout stands for a true, non-supercellular waterspout over water. Tornadic waterspout is a supercellular tornado over water.

Landspout is a non-supercellular landspout. Not sure what a tornadic landspout would be used for, but it's there.

 

[Sam Jowett]

Thanks Rob... guess I should have read up on that one a bit more. Never heard anyone used tornadic landspout before, but I assume it's the land based equivalent of a tornadic waterspout. This is the only common sense way of classifying things if their family is "tornado", though the tornadic landspout just takes on the term tornado I guess. Not confusing at all!

Seems that they're all accepted as tornadoes anyway in this case, just with the sub-species used more generally. Needn't have bothered with this thread in the first place by the looks of it as you guys already have it covered!

 

[Scott Olson]

A non-supercell landspout is the same as a supercell landspout (a misocyclone being stretched by an updraft). Landspout is always refered to as a non-supercell tornado, IMO because it can satisfy the 'violently rotating' which is the most important distinction that was to be made against calling waterspouts a 'tornado over water'.

 

[Paul Knightley]

As a Brit myself I find this thread rather embarrssing. The views here from the UK seem to represent those of the TORRO organisation, which is not affiliated to any university, or credible scientific body (if that's harsh, then I am sorry) . I don't believe all or most serious meteorolgists in the UK call landpsouts or whirlwinds tornadoes as do this TORRO organisation.

This in effect is a form of propaganda, and it gives rise to statements like the claims that the UK experinces more tornadoes per area than anywhere else. Which I believe is nonsense. I live in S Africa and have lived in the UK for quite a while as well. Where I live now there are hundreds of landspouts and whirlwinds here everyday. But nobody is calling them tornadoes, quite rightly.

You do "spout" some odd things at times Mungo! Many meteorologists in the UK haven't even heard of the term landspout, so that is your first mistake.

Secondly, as Martin has said, the views are not TORRO's per se, they are the views of a few forward thinking members/staff, who can see the way forward!

 

[Sam Jowett]

I would not take it that far as to apply it to landspouts. A non-supercell landspout is the same as a supercell landspout (a misocyclone being stretched by an updraft). Landspout is always refered to as a non-supercell tornado, IMO because it can satisfy the 'violently rotating' which is the most important distinction that was to be made against calling waterspouts a 'tornado over water'.

Just to question your logic a little if I may Scott, if a non-supercell landspout is the same as a supercell landspout, isn't a waterspout the same as a tornadic waterspout and a waterspout the same as a non-supercell landspout? Don't they all satisfy the "violently rotating" criteria by virtue of the updraught stretched misocyclone? I get the impression you're not including a true waterspout as being violently rotating?

 

[Scott Olson]

I think the confusion lies in the use of the term 'supercell landspout' which is kind of contradictory. A supercell landspout would just be a landspout occuring in conjuction with a supercell not a tornadic supercell. It can't be both a landspout and a supercell tornado, so supercell can only reference what it is coming from. Sam, I'm not a big fan of tornadic waterspout. As far as landspouts/waterspouts meeting the definition of a tornado, well it really depends on what definition you use and most involve more then just vorticity stretched by an updraft. People started using the term 'tornadic waterspout' to differentiate between the one that poses a risk (to land) and the other that usually doesn't.

 

[Scott Lincoln]

I kinda find it hard to believe that this debate is even going on as long as it is.
I get peeved enough hearing people call tornadoes waterspouts when they move over water, when they are in fact not related.
Very different meteorological factors contribute to these different whirls and that is why they are called different names.

 

[rdale]

The term 'tornadic waterspout' is more accurately described as a 'tornado over water' - I was just making it clear that the delineation is already there.

 

[MatthewCarman]

I know this sounds like a stupid question but are Dust Devils made the same way a tornado is? If so and we decided to call every Dustdevil or whirlwind we see a tornado how are people suposed to know which ones are dangerouse? I believe Waterspouts and Landspouts should stay the way they are. Now if a waterspout becomes strong enough to be a F0-F1 tornado or higher then I would still issue a tornado warning to let people know how bad it is but not call it one unless it is a actuall tornado. Just my thoughts. Have a nice day.

Ps. I have never heard of Torro are they like the Noaa?