Hurricane characterisitcs

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by kingwinner, Nov 12, 2005.

  1. valich Registered Senior Member

    Prove this. What are your credentials? What is your research? I stuck up for you and have spent probably over tens hours of valuable time in researching this matter. You have been provided with extremely ADEQUATE explanations that leave no gaps. Now, the 30-some emails that I have sent out to tornado and cyclone researchers are coming back with replies that all say you are wrong! Are you saying that you know more than ALL these highly educated, trained, and experienced professionals?

    Stop being such a whimpering idiot and admit that you're hypothesis - not theory - is incorrect. We have and are showing that. You are clearly wrong beyond ANY doubt! If you are a researcher, then as I stated above:

    Post the details of your experiments and the results!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. valich Registered Senior Member

    "A cyclone [or a hurricane as they are called in the Atlantic] is a large, rotating system of clouds, wind and thunderstorm activity. Its primary energy source is the release of the heat of condensation from water vapor condensing at high altitudes, the heat ultimately derived from the sun. Therefore, a tropical cyclone can be thought of as a giant vertical heat engine supported by mechanics driven by physical forces such as the orbital revolution and gravity of the Earth. Continued condensation leads to higher winds, continued evaporation, and continued condensation, feeding back into itself. This gives rise to factors that give the system enough energy to be self-sufficient and cause a positive feedback loop where it can draw more energy as long as the source of heat, warm water, remains. Factors such as a continued lack of equilibrium in air mass distribution would also give supporting energy to the cyclone. The orbital revolution of the Earth causes the system to spin, giving it a cyclone characteristic and affecting the trajectory of the storm.

    The factors to form a tropical cyclone include a pre-existing weather disturbance, warm tropical oceans, moisture, and relatively light winds aloft. If the right conditions persist and allow it to create a feedback loop by maximizing the energy intake possible, for example, such as high winds to increase the rate of evaporation, they can combine to produce the violent winds, incredible waves, torrential rains, and floods associated with this phenomenon.

    Condensation as a driving force is what primarily distinguishes tropical cyclones from other meteorological phenomena, and because this is strongest in a tropical climate, this defines the initial domain of the tropical cyclone. By contrast, mid-latitude cyclones, for example, draw their energy mostly from pre-existing horizontal temperature gradients in the atmosphere. In order to continue to drive its heat engine, a tropical cyclone must remain over warm water, which provides the atmospheric moisture needed. The condensation of this moisture is driven by the high winds and reduced atmospheric pressure in the storm, resulting in a sustaining cycle. As a result, when a tropical cyclone passes over land, its strength diminishes rapidly."
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. valich Registered Senior Member

    Question asked : Are there any indications of electromagnetic fields or magnetohydrodynamics in the formation or sustaining of tornados or cyclones?

    Answer: "None whatsoever in a hurricane. Please read excellent review articles on hurricane electrification issues by Black and Hallett (1999, JAS, 56, 2004-2028)."

    Frank D. Marks, Jr.
    NOAA/AOML Hurricane Research Division
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. valich Registered Senior Member

    The only thing I've ever heard about such things are the crack-pot theories that come out of the blue every time there's a big outbreak, with folks maintaining that electromagnetic vorticies cause tornados. An elementary analysis will show you that even assuming continuous lightning, any possible electromagnetic forcing on a tornado is at least 4 orders of magnitude weaker than the kinetic energy in the wind, & so has no influence at all.

    That tornados may (or may not) have a detectable radio signal is more likely, & this is what is referred to as the "frequency pulse" of the tornado. For this to occur, charged particles would have to "clump" together & be advected as a whole around the storm. I think this is not very likely, but it could occur for a short time, leading to "pulsing" RF noise that arises from the accelleration of non-uniform charge about the tornado vortex.

    Robert A. Black
    Research Meteorologist 4301 Rickenbacker Cswy.
    NOAA/AOML/HRD Miami, FL 33149-1026
    Ph: (305) 361-4314
    FAX: (305) 361-4528 (NEW)
  8. Light Registered Senior Member


    That is good information, Valich. And his comment about the frequency pulse "could occur for a short time" bears out exactly what I was saying earlier. It happens at times but not dependable enough to even try relying on. Back during the period of time when we were being advised to use it, there was NO other means at all of detecting one - especially at night when you couldn't see anything - an no means in place to rapidly distribute warnings even if one had been spotted nearby. So, even as unreliable as it was, it was still just a bit better than having absolutely nothing.

    I certainly would not have relied on it but it could be compared to having a single sentential who might be able to sound the alert if the enemy just happened to come by his solitary location.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    >> especially at night when you couldn't see anything -

    well there goes the heat explanation.

    What have you guys got left ?
  10. Light Registered Senior Member

    What do you mean, URI, "there goes the heat explanation"? Do you mean to say that you are unaware that the surface waters of the Atlantic are still warm at night and driving a hurricane?????

    Or are you also unaware that warm, moist fronts (and heat retention by the Earth) does not still exist at night which drives (in conjunction with a cold front) tornadoes?????

    Of course they do! And it's still plain old heat that produces and drives both types of storms under discussion here.

    Just what do you claim to be thinking when you made that statement??
  11. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    >> Do you mean to say that you are unaware that the surface waters of the Atlantic are still warm at night and driving a hurricane????? >>

    I was referring to Tornadoes... mate

    Hurricane have the ring to sustain them, tornadeos don't.

    and yet tornadoes occur at night.......

    Sorry but conventional hand waving doesn't stir me at all.

    as an aside the sun's surface is seen to create 'tornadeo-like' disturbances
  12. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    >> have spent probably over tens hours of valuable time in researching this matter.

    Sorry Valich

    I thought this was a discussion forum.

    Have you learnt anything from your searches other than I am an idiot ?

    good, have you enjoyed this topic, I have and I have enjoyed your manner, up until ... well, I see you are upset

    But really what is this mechanism, where is the math... surely all these professionals could do more than just hand wave......

    All I have done is apply ESGT to these spin systems, and it all comes out OK
    even to the math and value that contains the integrity of the spin (which should really fly apart)

    The spin creates gravity, as it does throughout the Universe. I even calculated the value for a defined system......

  13. Light Registered Senior Member

    Forget your "aside", we're not discussing the surface of the sun.

    All I can say is that you obviously know less about meteorology than probably the average individual does. Some great "researcher" that makes you! HA!

    The vast majority of tornadoes in the U.S. actually are spawned in the late afternoon and evening when heating effects are at the greatest. And it's been long known that they are produced by colliding masses of warm, moist air with a colder, drier air mass - the exact same things that produce thunderstorms.

    You have now fallen into exactly the same pit as Buddah1. By these last two posts (and several others) you have clearly proven yourself to also be a complete fraud and liar. You are NOT a "serious researcher" - in fact, you aren't even a decent amateur researcher. You have conducted NO experiments, you have NOT provided any credentials as Valich requested - because you have NO credentials of any kind! Your so-called "theory" isn't even a theory at all - it's purely a product of your uneducated mind and is totally bunk!

    Both Valich and I have provided information and links that disputeevery single claim you have ever made.

    And so now you stand here before the world totally exposed for what you really are: a liar, a fraud, a fool and an idiot. Just like Buddah1, your own words expose and condemn you!
  14. URI IMU Registered Senior Member


    >> provided information and links that disputeevery single claim you have ever made.>>

    and they say nothing other than hand waving.....except, lol, yes tornadeos and hurricanes really do occur !!!!! yes really they do.

    The heat at night is just air temperature < 40 C (usually 30 C or a lot less)..... the radiant heat from the Sun during the day > 80 C (could be 90+C in places )

    If you want a heat engine, you better look to day time......

    whatever..... when the abuse starts the discussion ends, and it just shows that y'all are way out of your depth.


    I consider this exploration closed, thanks for all the fish.
  15. Light Registered Senior Member

    Right! Tuck tail and run again (as you did in other threads). You aren't fooing anyone , dummy!
  16. Facial Valued Senior Member

  17. valich Registered Senior Member

    URI: As much as I hate to say it, you are proving yourself to be an excellent example of a pig-headed brick that just refuses to change and learn no matter what facts we find and put forth. Yes, by all means, please remain "hidden" with your "secret science" as it is becoming an obnoxious burden to this forum and interfering with its progress.

    We were talking about the frequency pulses being radio impulses rather than what one person tried to refer to as electromagnetic pulses. And then, just out of no where, your reply was:

    "Where there goes the heat explanation."

    We are talking about two entirely definite aspects of a tornado. I think some people beleived that they were electromagnetic because of the bluish tint ball lightning that sometimes occurs within tornadoes originating from the above or surrounding thunderstorm clouds.

    Radio signal frequency pulses that may (or may not) be emitted by a tornado have absolutely nothing at all to a to do with a tornado's formation and sustaining power, nor does it have anything to do with spin gravity. Cite your sources on spin gravity related to tornados. Spin gravity is something that they are trying to artificially develop in space to produce a gravitational effect to counteract the weightlessness that astronauts endure.

    Then, even before, you post a rebuttal about my pointing out how the Thompson nutcase begins his science fiction tornado article by stating that two electrons moving in parallel attract by referring to the flow of electricity along a wire? Do you even now how electric current is produced and travels along a wire: through repulsion of the electrons in the outer shells of the molecules? That's why copper and other metals, and ionized plasmas, are good conductors of electricity, but water is not. This is why they produces EM, but water does not. This is why plasma produces EM and MHD, but water does not.

    Light: Thank you for stepping in and TRYING to make this man understand a little bit as I was getting just too frustrated with his ignorance. And by ignorance, I am not implying stupidity, I am implying "ignoring" what is posted by professionals (you didn't even read it), ignoring the facts, and totally ignoring all the excellent complete explanations that have been given. To me, I see no gaps in the processes involved in the formation and sustaining forces of tornados and cyclones, and certainly no need to propose EM, MHD, and spin gravity in a medium where these forces do not even exist.

    Here I am, spending countless hours trying to see if there is any evidence whatsoever in what URI is saying, giving him the benefit of a doubt, and when I posted the replies and researched facts by extremely knowledgeable, educated, and of the utmost experienced professionals in the field, it's like he doesn't even read them: it's all just being ignored. Why am I wasting my time with someone who won't even listen?

    Education is lifelong learning and you have to be open to other views, especially when those views are much more tenable than your own. Please do what Light says. Please just:

    "Tuck tail and run again (as you did in other threads). You aren't fooling anyone!"
  18. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Last edited: Nov 30, 2005
  19. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

  20. valich Registered Senior Member

    URI: Thank you for the detailed pictures. They support the most current hypotheses about the formation and sustaining of tornados and hurricanes that we have to date, and this is what we have been posting.

    Again, I ask you to exercise restraint in posting whacky theories or making reference to the Peter Thompson kook without further empirical evidence. Also, please try to avoid the multiple (double, triple, quadruple) double and triple spaced postings as they take up precious forum space that readers then have to wade through to get to meaningful facts. As a scientist or researcher, use single space, concisely worded paragraphs, and cite your sources.

    I have received an email (author requests anonymity) that states, "If a tornado were a spinning vortex of plasma, then the electromagnetic field would drown out the already detected lightning."This supports exactly what Dr. Robert Black of the NOAA has stated in his reply email posted above.

    Also, there is some reference made to "research papers done on behalf of the US Air Force on plasma effects, and these sources clearly attribute many plasma effects to tornoadoes." The source of this statement is highly questionable; however, I am now contacting the US Air Force, Air Force Weather (AFW) to see if they know of any such paper.

    In any case, the comment refers to an "effect" that a tornado may have on plasmas, AND NOT that a tornado consists of a plasma. Or, what is much more likely is that this person is doing the same thing that you are, i.e., incorrectly applying the word "tornado" to "plasma vortexes." These are two completely different types of vortexes with completely different types of formation factors, shapes, attractive forces, and material composition.
  21. valich Registered Senior Member

    The important points in the articles below are:
    1) The rate of lightning activity decreases with a tornado touchdown.
    2) "Most tornadic storms (80% or more) have an increase in total flash rates near the time of the tornado.
    3) "The increase in total flash rates is often dominated by intracloud flashes.”
    4) In one study 6 out of 42 thunderstorms exhibited a polarity reversal during tornado formation or touchdown.
    5) The total number of flashes associated with each storm had no correlation with tornadogenesis.

    "we acquired lightning and Doppler radar data on two tornados. The mesocyclone were measured with an L-band radar. In both storms, there was no clear relationship between tornado occurrence and ground flash rates of the storm as a whole, but the stroke rate of each storm was highest after it stopped producing tornadoes..... Intracloud lightning flash rates reached a peak of almost 14 min−1 approximately 10 min after the peak in cyclonic shear at the 6 km level and at the same time as the peak in cyclonic shear at the 1.5 km level. The peak in intracloud rates also occurred 5–10 min after the peak in the area within 40 and 45 dBZ contours at the 8 km level and at about the same time as the peak in the area within 50 dBZ contours at 8 km and within 40 dBZ at 6 km. However, ground flash rates in the mesocyclone region were usually less than 1 min−1 during periods when intracloud rates were high and were negatively correlated with cyclonic shear at both 1.5 and 6 km. The ground flash rate was the last parameter to peak, approximately 15 min after intracloud lightning and a few minutes after the latest reflectivity area (the area having >55 dBZ at the 1 km level).

    We suggest that intracloud rates were governed, in part, by particle interactions during the growth in reflectivity at 7–9 km and, in part, by some process associated with the evolution of cyclonic shear at low altitudes. Earlier studies of tornado storms indicate that the evolution of updrafts and downdrafts affects the evolution of both reflectivity and low-altitude cyclonic shear and so, as in previous storm studies, updraft evolution will affect intracloud rates. We suggest that the peaks in ground flash rates resulted from increasing the distance between the main positive and negative charge centers, from the sedimentation of negative charge to lower altitudes, or from the generation or advection of positive charge below the main negative charge....1) most tornadic storms (80% or more) have an increase in total flash rates near the time of the tornado, and 2) the increase in total flash rates is often dominated by intracloud flashes.”

    Source: “Lightning Rates Relative to Tornadic Storm Evolution on 22 May 1981,” by Donald R. MacGorman, et al., Journal of Atmospheric Sciences: Vol46,No2, pp221–251.<0221:LRRTTS>2.0.CO;2

    “Cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning patterns were analyzed in 42 violent tornado-producing (F4, F5) supercells that occurred between January 1989 and November 1992. The purpose of this analysis was to identify potential correlations between CG lightning patterns and tornadogenesis. Thirty-one of the storms were characterized by a peak in CG flash rate preceding tornado formation; 20 storms displayed a decrease in CG flash activity coincident with tornado touchdown. Six of the 42 storms exhibited a polarity reversal, from positive to negative, in the sign of the charge lowered to ground. Storms exhibiting a majority of positive flashes were generally associated with long-track tornadoes, F5 damage ratings, or severe weather outbreak conditions. The total number of flashes associated with each storm had no correlation with tornadogenesis (total number of flashes ranged from 16 to 3394).

    Based on this analysis, it appears that using CG lightning flash patterns exclusively to detect tornado formation is not practical. The amplitudes of the flash rate changes are too variable to be used as a prognostic tool. The flash rate trends do, however, suggest a recurring relationship to tornado formation. Therefore when used in conjunction with other operational tools, CG flash rate analysis may provide additional information useful in identifying changes in thunderstorm intensity.”

    Source: “Characteristics of Cloud-to-Ground Lightning Associated with Violent Tornadoes,” by Perez, Antony H., Wicker, Louis J., Orville, Richard E, Weather and Forecasting, Vol.12 Is.3 pp.428-437.
  22. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    >> an "effect" that a tornado may have on plasmas, AND NOT that a tornado consists of a plasma : Valich >>>

    Did I ever refer to tornadoes as "plasmas" in your definition of plasma ? No that would be ludicrous..... I said that electrical conditions (E field) [?ionosphere to ground] interacts with the Earth's B field to produce a vortex that then induces its own gravity (directed towards the centre ). The spin induces a positive feedback on the system. Peter Thompson's article just highlighted a "similar" manifestation of a vortex. In your definition, salt crystals are not a plasma, and neither is water droplets, but the key is that they all hold charge, and moving charges create a magnetic component that will form a spiral vortex. I am sorry if my 'words' imply different meanings to your 'words'. But I am tired of the innuendoes flying a foul.Keep your spin, I have mine, and I can control my spin. condensed enough ?.... lousy to read... as if spaces take up space.
  23. valich Registered Senior Member

    I am not making any accusations: only trying to prevent someone from "jumping" to any erroneous unrelated conclusions through misinterpretations.

Share This Page