Possibility Of A Cryocyclone

[7DSUSYstrings]

 

 

Tornadoes are fascinating, still there's so much we don't know even though much has been learned in the last 20 years.

 

 

 

 

The question that I've been pondering arises from so many images of the cyclones that seem to have a point of convergence. It's as though the funnel nearly disappears to a thread, perhaps an imaginable "stream filament" (Bernouli, Milne-Thomson), then diverges to the business end along the ground.

 

 

 

There is a toroid flow of air surrounding part of the funnel above this "convergence zone" and usually there is a lightning storm that accompanies the cyclone, often preceded by hail. All that suggests an electromagnetic field surrounding the cyclone.

 

 

 

One question I've had for a while is, with all that known, is it possible that a needed condition is a stray magnetic line of force, similar to a seed of impurity is needed for bubble nucleation. The question that followed that, for me anyway, about 4 years back, is whether, if the cyclone was to converge in the upper atmosphere, magnetic connection or not, wouldn't that tend to drop the temperature to sub-zero around that region? If that happened, wouldn't it tend to also freeze, if not super-freeze, the moisture as the funnel descends?

 

It was odd because about a year ago I checked out the video "The Day After Tomorrow" and saw that as something spawned from another mind some years prior to my notion about the same thing. Not that it's the subject; I think it's also fascinating how more than one mind can be thinking in the same channel void of either knowing the other even exists.

[Turtle]

several points to make.

 

meteorologists make specific distinctions for the terms you have intermingled. while a tornado is spawned from a cyclone, not all cyclones spawn tornados.

 

cyclone

1. Meteorology

a. An atmospheric system characterized by the rapid inward circulation of air masses about a low-pressure center, usually accompanied by stormy, often destructive weather. Cyclones circulate counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.

b. A violent tropical storm, especially one originating in the southwestern Pacific Ocean or Indian Ocean.

(note: not all cyclones circlulate as the definition says. examples of the contrary have been observed and photographed)

 

so, to a meterologist, tornados and hurricanes (called tropical cyclones) are examples of cyclonic storm activity. note also that in some parts of the world a huricane is called a typhoon.

 

further, again to meteorologists, a tornado is a funnel cloud that touches the ground. as you mention the thin ribbon tornados per your picture, this is not always the case. some tornados have very broad bottoms on the ground and do not exhibit the narrow ribbon you bring up.

 

as to lightning, it always accompanies a thunderstorm, as indeed it causes the thunder, and tornados are always associated with thunderstorms. note that a tornado is a funnel cloud that contacts the surface and some types of funnel clouds are not tornados even if they contact the surface; see dust devils and waterspouts. i am unaware of any studies of the earth's magnetic field influencing thunderstorms, which is not to say there are none. (google is your friend.) i do know of a fairly new phenomenon associated with lightning that is being investigated called sprites. these discharges go up rather than down. if you continue to visit spaceweather.com you are likely to see articles and photographs on the subject.

this photo is from the wiki article i just linked to.

 

so, the exact conditions for tornadoes to form is not known, -that's right, we don't know, but given the considerable damage & loss of life that they can bring, the subject is under considerable study. :lightning:

Edited April 20, 2012 by Turtle

[7DSUSYstrings]

Turtle, You may have a wealth of knowledge, but your pedantic, pseudo-human method has proven that you deceived me into calling you "friend" while from your other face you insult me. Some are not as stable as I am, so might become so exasperated by your posts as to go packin' and postal on a college campus. I've left the door open to possibly resolve this via PM, but as of now I have no intention of clicking "view anyway" having chosen to ignore you. I'm only posting this to politely suggest you refrain from posting in threads I start to not waste our time.

 

HAND,

 

Dr. C.

[Pincho Paxton]

I've been thinking along similar lines, also about lightening. I have not come up with any answers however. All I have is some very Pseudo-scientific ideas.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Turtle]

Turtle, You may have a wealth of knowledge, but your pedantic, pseudo-human method has proven that you deceived me into calling you "friend" while from your other face you insult me. Some are not as stable as I am, so might become so exasperated by your posts as to go packin' and postal on a college campus. I've left the door open to possibly resolve this via PM, but as of now I have no intention of clicking "view anyway" having chosen to ignore you. I'm only posting this to politely suggest you refrain from posting in threads I start to not waste our time.

 

HAND,

 

Dr. C.

 

 

I've been thinking along similar lines, also about lightening. I have not come up with any answers however. All I have is some very Pseudo-scientific ideas.

 

this is a science forum & not a pseudoscience forum. i will respond anytime and to anyone as i please and see fit within our rules. you both would do well to review those rules; in particular our requirement to provide supporting references for your ideas.

 

Science Forums Rules

...

How should I behave?

Be yourself. But please respect these ground rules:

 

■ In general' date=' back up your claims by using links or references.

 

■ If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum.

 

■ If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.

 

■ Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion.

 

■ Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned.

...[/quote']

 

alas, putting me on ignore does not keep everyone else from reading my responses. :doh:

[7DSUSYstrings]

I've been thinking along similar lines, also about lightening. I have not come up with any answers however. All I have is some very Pseudo-scientific ideas.

 

pseudo as in false or pseudo as in temporary? Often an idea is incomplete, still it can fall into the category of philosophical logic, as Peano might describe it; a syllogism that eventually leads to number crunching. Logic often results as an intersection of data, whether by fleeting coincidence or by a coincidental process.

 

One factor relating to the launch post's proposition of intermittant chaos in the planet's magnetic and geomagnetic fields, is the history of tornadoes as a written record. Prior to 1643 one heard of an occasional whirlwind, but Gov. Wilhelm, if I recall correctly, of Massachusetts, appears to be the first record (1643) of a violent windstorm, thought to be describing a tornado.

 

Next time I log in I'll dig up that reference.

 

Thanx for posting, Pincho. It's good to see when, if nothing else, a like mind is around. We might be onto something, or both be off in left field, but it's worth discussing. Maybe we'll get some recognized opposing input. :)

[Pincho Paxton]

pseudo as in false or pseudo as in temporary? Often an idea is incomplete, still it can fall into the category of philosophical logic, as Peano might describe it; a syllogism that eventually leads to number crunching. Logic often results as an intersection of data, whether by fleeting coincidence or by a coincidental process.

 

One factor relating to the launch post's proposition of intermittant chaos in the planet's magnetic and geomagnetic fields, is the history of tornadoes as a written record. Prior to 1643 one heard of an occasional whirlwind, but Gov. Wilhelm, if I recall correctly, of Massachusetts, appears to be the first record (1643) of a violent windstorm, thought to be describing a tornado.

 

Next time I log in I'll dig up that reference.

 

Thanx for posting, Pincho. It's good to see when, if nothing else, a like mind is around. We might be onto something, or both be off in left field, but it's worth discussing. Maybe we'll get some recognized opposing input. :)

 

Pseudo as in joining the dots together. There are gaps in my knowledge. The same with lightening, I always get lightening traveling towards the ground. I haven't looked into why it is supposed to travel upwards. Logically, the forks point down, so it moves down. So I'm totally in the pseudo area.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[7DSUSYstrings]

Yes. It seems odd, but one need take into consideration that the earth has basically a negative charge and electrons flow from negative to positive. like in an electronic circuit, ground is negative, thus the common.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-hand_rule

 

If, as I suggest, the force begins as a deviant line of magnetic force, compared to a stream filament, the right hand rule would apply to any field surrounding it. Like static electricity building up around a Van der Graff generator, so would the field collectively build up and culminate at the spherical vertex. It would logically follow that once the electrical energy in the clouds disemminates into chemical reactions, the clouds produce a positive imbalance, thus, as in your post in another forum about greater energy flowing toward the lesser, the lightning ascends to re-establish the balance.

 

Does that connect any dots?

[Pincho Paxton]

Yes. It seems odd, but one need take into consideration that the earth has basically a negative charge and electrons flow from negative to positive. like in an electronic circuit, ground is negative, thus the common.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-hand_rule

 

If, as I suggest, the force begins as a deviant line of magnetic force, compared to a stream filament, the right hand rule would apply to any field surrounding it. Like static electricity building up around a Van der Graff generator, so would the field collectively build up and culminate at the spherical vertex. It would logically follow that once the electrical energy in the clouds disemminates into chemical reactions, the clouds produce a positive imbalance, thus, as in your post in another forum about greater energy flowing toward the lesser, the lightning ascends to re-establish the balance.

 

Does that connect any dots?

 

It connects the dots, yes, but I get something else that I must look into. Not what is expected.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[7DSUSYstrings]

Life is full of surprises :)

[7DSUSYstrings]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070831200008AAZNRjN

 

There! I promised this, but was sidetracked a bit... :rolleyes:

 

Yes. 1643 seems to be the first written recording of a tornado. I also found an article telling of a wood carving that may have been one dating back to 1050. Prior to that we go back to Ezekiel. It would seem that if they were abundant prior to the 1700's there would be numerous records of disasters caused by them.

Edited April 21, 2012 by 7DSUSYstrings

[Turtle]

Turtle, You may have a wealth of knowledge, but your pedantic, pseudo-human method has proven that you deceived me into calling you "friend" while from your other face you insult me. Some are not as stable as I am, so might become so exasperated by your posts as to go packin' and postal on a college campus.

snip...

 

Dr. C.

 

these few lines so illustrate the misbegotten "reasoning" that you and your ilk use to come up with your ideas that i am going to give them the attention they deserve.

 

indeed i do have a wealth of knowledge. now isn't that the goal of science? to increase our knowledge? isn't that what you purport to be doing when you propose your ideas? those are rhetorical questions of course; clearly those are goals of science. yet, by your reasoning my wealth of knowledge is some kind of poison. where is the logical reasoning in that? clearly again rhetorical as there is no logical reasoning in it. what's more, while i do gain knowledge from books and other writings i gain an equal amount of knowlege from my own observations, research in the field, and thinking above and beyond what i read. the evidence of that is liberally sprinkled throughout these hallowed boards and denying it is simple spitting into a strong wind.

 

while you promoters of pseudo-science rant and whine and decry orthodoxy and claim you are "thinking outside the box" and that such thinking is antithetical to orthodoxy, you could not possibly be more mistaken. were it not for the scientific orthodoxy you so despise you would have nothing whatsoever to think on. oh no doubt you will bring up wegener or einstein or some other thinker who was considered wrong or otherwise unfit by the current orthodoxy, but the difference in them and in you is that they went on to use the scientific method to give evidence for their ideas. y'all never have and by all indications can't and won't. isn't it ironic that you so dislike real science and scientists while at the same time desperately try to be of it & them?

 

finally, as to your reference to going postal with firearms. not only is this indicative of your instability, it's the kind of thing that will get you the attention of law enforcement authorities.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Turtle

[CraigD]

1643 seems to be the first written recording of a tornado.

The wikipedia article List of European tornadoes and tornado outbreaks while incomplete and incompletely cited, lists 8 European tornados prior to 1643, several of them well-documented and involving great property damage and loss of life.

 

It would seem that if they were abundant prior to the 1700's there would be numerous records of disasters caused by them.

I can think of several factors that explain why there are not more than these few records (including some others at List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks and lists for other regions) of deadly and devastating tornado prior to the 19th century.

• Especially in places that people with sturdily built buildings, especially ones without glass or with shutterable windows, most tornados aren’t very dangerous or damaging. Unlike hurricanes, tornados aren’t accompanied by heavy, flooding-causing rain, so sufficiently heavily constructed buildings can weather them without incident.
  
• Most tornados occur in the North American Midwest. Prior to the 19th century, few people lived there, so most tornados were unobserved, and there were hardly any people to be killed or injured by them, or property to be destroyed or damaged.
  
• Documents about weather, even severe storms, were not as systematically created and collected prior to the 19th century as after, so some old written records of tornados have likely been lost, or at least not yet found.
  
• Absent such systematic documentation and modern weather science, tornados weren’t recognized as distinct weather phenomena. Most people, ancient and modern, have seen small whirlwinds, and strong wind and rain storms, so without a scientific distinction between whirlwinds and storm, tornados were likely to be described simply as strong storms. Even in the past 20 years, it’s sometimes difficult to distinguish between strong windstorms and tornados, and many people have ridden out moderately severe tornados without knowing they were, technically, classifiable as tornados.
   
  This is further complicated by the term “tornado”, coming from Spanish via Latin, where it means simply “thunderstorm”. So, prior to its English language use, and the explicit equating of “tornados” with the more technical weather term cyclone, or the more descriptive twister, what we now refer to with the English word “tornado” wouldn’t have been referred to by this word.
  

This is not to say that the frequency and severity of tornados has not been significantly different in different centuries and decades, due to changes in climate and local weather. However, it seems unlikely to me that they were nearly non-existent before the 1700s. Rather, I think they were just much less witnessed, recognized, reported and recorded.

[7DSUSYstrings]

The wikipedia article List of European tornadoes and tornado outbreaks while incomplete and incompletely cited, lists 8 European tornados prior to 1643, several of them well-documented and involving great property damage and loss of life.

 

 

I can think of several factors that explain why there are not more than these few records (including some others at List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks and lists for other regions) of deadly and devastating tornado prior to the 19th century.

• Especially in places that people with sturdily built buildings, especially ones without glass or with shutterable windows, most tornados aren’t very dangerous or damaging. Unlike hurricanes, tornados aren’t accompanied by heavy, flooding-causing rain, so sufficiently heavily constructed buildings can weather them without incident.
  
• Most tornados occur in the North American Midwest. Prior to the 19th century, few people lived there, so most tornados were unobserved, and there were hardly any people to be killed or injured by them, or property to be destroyed or damaged.
  
• Documents about weather, even severe storms, were not as systematically created and collected prior to the 19th century as after, so some old written records of tornados have likely been lost, or at least not yet found.
  
• Absent such systematic documentation and modern weather science, tornados weren’t recognized as distinct weather phenomena. Most people, ancient and modern, have seen small whirlwinds, and strong wind and rain storms, so without a scientific distinction between whirlwinds and storm, tornados were likely to be described simply as strong storms. Even in the past 20 years, it’s sometimes difficult to distinguish between strong windstorms and tornados, and many people have ridden out moderately severe tornados without knowing they were, technically, classifiable as tornados.
   
  This is further complicated by the term “tornado”, coming from Spanish via Latin, where it means simply “thunderstorm”. So, prior to its English language use, and the explicit equating of “tornados” with the more technical weather term cyclone, or the more descriptive twister, what we now refer to with the English word “tornado” wouldn’t have been referred to by this word.

This is not to say that the frequency and severity of tornados has not been significantly different in different centuries and decades, due to changes in climate and local weather. However, it seems unlikely to me that they were nearly non-existent before the 1700s. Rather, I think they were just much less witnessed, recognized, reported and recorded.

 

 

Thanx for bringing that in, Craig. I did a more generalized search that gave the reference I cited. I may have mentioned another one I'd found describing a wood carving of a "whirlwind" from 1050. One problem we may encounter in the future is the recent discredit being aimed at wiki. Wiki's a good source, but now I feel as though I should looking at Brittanica more.

 

Somehow, I don't think that changes the comparison all that much. As you point out, the terminology changed. Wilhelm apparently had no word for what he witnessed. The earlier wood carving, though, would be tougher to misconstrue.

 

You have pointed out a different avenue to search. This raises another question, though, about inconsistencies in the magnetic fields not associated with a magnetic reversal. Worse yet, if these stray lines of force are an ongoing process, how would we be able to know if we are reading a symptom or the norm?

[7DSUSYstrings]

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/

 

This is an expanded process, as it would seem, of an internal solar process I suggested to NASA's BPP (formerly in Lewis Research Center; the acronym was U.P.S.I.D.A.I.S.I.U.M.; didn't get that grant... probably because of that acronym...:( ) so akin to an idea coming full circle. (no pun in that intended)

 

If we place our finger on a plasma globe or tube, it reacts with a glow near our finger. The chaotic plasma's collective nature is affected. If the FTE happens every 8 minutes, this would likely affect the earth's field coincidentally. This might have something to do with the lowered number of tornados recorded prior to the 1600's, or even 1000's.

[hardy5]

Interesting