Preventing Tornadoes: Myth or Reality?

[SpaceGuy50]

Can we prevent tornadoes from occurring?

 

[DaveC426913]

What are your thoughs on the matter?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While weather experts understand what conditions tend to produce tornadoes, I think there is a good bit not understood about exactly when, where, and why they occur. Until we have a better understanding, it would seem that prevention is a little ahead of the game. Beyond that, there are such tremendous amounts of energy involved that one wonders if intervention could ever be practical. For the foreseeable future, increasingly effective early warning systems are probably the best hope.

 

[Borek]

I think it is possible - you have to find (and kill) correct butterfly in time.

Trick is to find it early enough and here comes this "better understanding" part that Ivan mentioned.

 

[Astronuc]

Can we prevent tornadoes from occurring?

That would essentially require the ability to modify the weather or local climate.

Basically tornadoes form where cool air masses interact with warm air masses with a certain level of moisture. A thundercloud (cumulonimbus) forms and the shear region between falling cold air and rising warm air causes a circular rotation, which can evolve into a tornado.

http://www.physics.ubc.ca/outreach/phys420/p420_04/sean/#Tornadoes
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/edu/safety/tornadoguide.html

The problem is one of determining precisely when and where the conditions for tornado exist - then one of determining the precursors to those conditions.


I've wondered if it would be feasible to fly 2 or more jets (capable of supersonic speed) into the critical region of a tornado and use the shock wave(s) to disrupt the vortex (i.e., the jets would 'break' the sound barrier in the vortex generating region). But there is perhaps a risk to the jets from debris and strong fluid dynamics.

 

[junglebeast]

There is pretty good computer software to detect tornadoes, but they don't have enough radar sensors to gather the necessary data in most places, and even then it could probably only be predicted hours in advance. You need very fine-grained data to detect tornadoes because their formation is a chaotic process highly sensitive to fine scale initial conditions. This also means it would be fairly easy to prevent, since it's sensitive to initial conditions...but the hard part would be being prepared to employ preventative tactics wherever it was forming given only a few hours notice.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This also means it would be fairly easy to prevent, since it's sensitive to initial conditions...

How can we say this with any confidence? That assumes that he initial conditions would be fairly easy to manipulate. Even the idea of disrupting things with something like a shock wave may be little more than a flea on a dog, so to speak.

 

[ChasChandler]

Assuming that tornadoes are a purely thermodynamic phenomenon, and considering the amount of thermodynamic energy getting expended in a supercell thunderstorm, I agree with the "flee on a dog" description.

But the principles of thermodynamics don't even begin to adequately describe tornadoes. The air flowing into a tornado follows the path of greatest resistance, and that ain't exactly one of the standard principles of thermodynamics. So dismissing tornado prevention because the thermodynamic forces are too large, and on too large of a scale, is based on a false assumption.

I've been working on a broad-stroke theory that suggests that tornadoes are produced by a combination of thermodynamic and electromagnetic forces. If this is correct, then it opens up new possibilities. The thermodynamic piece is, and always will be, out-of-reach. But the electromagnetic component is accessible. We can induce lightning strikes to neutralize the electric charges within the storm. If the theory in question is correct, this would reduce the strength of the tornado, perhaps below the threshold necessary for its sustenance.

If you want more detail, there is an online book that I am still (and perhaps forever) working on, to be found here:

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php"

Please freely give up your comments and criticisms of this work. Unless somebody can prove that this definitely could not work, then next Spring, I'll be out in Tornado Alley shooting rockets into supercell thunderstorms. :)

If anybody is interested in the academic support for this line of reasoning, there is an extensive list of references at the URL cited above, but for starters, check this:

Dehel, T. F, Dickinson, M., Lorge, F., and Startzel, F. Jr., 2007: Electric field and Lorentz force contribution to atmospheric vortex phenomena. Journal of Electrostatics, Vol. 65, Issues 10-11, 631-638.

 

[Shawn Gossman]

Instead of researching ways to prevent tornadoes from happening which I doubt will ever happen especially as our Earth goes through its normal climate cycles... I think we need to focus on the more important matter, earlier warning!

If we can slowly increase our warning time every 10 years or so, we will slowly start saving more and more lives.

Good groups such as SKYWARN, V.O.R.T.E.X. and others are working on ways to do this, I just wish more people would get involved!

 

[Blenton]

Couldn't we launch explosives into the tornado with enough power to 'kill' it?

 

[ChasChandler]

I think we need to focus on the more important matter, earlier warning!

Warning and prevention are not necessarily unrelated issues. Both require that we understand the phenomenon. 60 years and a billion dollars have been spent attempting to understand tornadic storms. I think it's time we try something different for a while, especially since what I'm talking about would be ridiculously easy to test. If it worked, it would not only prove that tornado prevention was at least theoretically possible, but it would also teach us a lot about how tornadic storms work. That could lead to better prediction, and earlier, more accurate warnings.

Couldn't we launch explosives into the tornado with enough power to 'kill' it?

This assumes that tornadoes are mechanisms whose internal structures could be wrecked by an explosion. This is not the case. Tornadic storms are fundamentally thermodynamic, where the fluxes are getting modulated by electromagnetic forces. There is no complex internal mechanism. Detonating an explosive would merely add to the thermodynamic force at play, which would probably strengthen the tornado.

 

[mgb_phys]

Couldn't we launch explosives into the tornado with enough power to 'kill' it?

Possibly for that particular tornado, what might be tricky is then stopping the one forming 1m away or 2 seconds later.

If you disrupt the start of one vortex you don't do anything about the driving weather conditions.

 

[russ_watters]

Couldn't we launch explosives into the tornado with enough power to 'kill' it?

Absolutely, and the larger the explosives, the longer in advance and wider of an area you could cover with this "prevention" method. But as Ivan said, you run into issues with practicality: nuking a 10 mile diameter, 50,000 foot tall cumulonimbus cloud could no doubt prevent a tornado perhaps hours before forming, however...

[edit] Though I doubt many would consider the idea to be conscionable, a practical person would probably want to at least consider the idea of nuking a hurricane. Hurricane Katrinia cost an estimated $300 billion and if for the cost of one nuke you could eliminate it offshore, it may be a worthwhile thing to do.

 

[ChasChandler]

Possibly for that particular tornado, what might be tricky is then stopping the one forming 1m away or 2 seconds later. If you disrupt the start of one vortex you don't do anything about the driving weather conditions.

In any open-air thermodynamic system, it is certainly true that all of the energy is going to get released sooner or later, and disrupting one thunderstorm could certainly cause another thunderstorm somewhere else. But the chance of that secondary thunderstorm becoming a supercell is 1 in 1,000. The chance of a supercell spawning a tornado is 1 in 3, so the chance of a secondary tornado is 1 in 3,000. The chance of a tornado being an F2 or above is 1 in 4, so the chance of a secondary tornado that could do some real damage is 1 in 12,000. Since most of the country is open space, the chance of a tornado actually hitting something is roughly 1 in 100. So the chance of secondary damage is 1 in 1.2 million. Then the only question is how successful tornado fighters will be in shooting down the secondary tornado, the same way they shot down the first one. There wouldn't be a secondary problem if they didn't succeed in the first place, so just to ask the question we have to assume that they are capable of succeeding. The worst case scenario would be that the chance of failure would be 1 in 2, nominally speaking. This puts the chance of an unmitigated secondary tornado at 1 in 2.4 million. Allowing 2.4 million primary tornadoes to hit populated areas because once in all of that, a secondary tornado will hit a populated area, wouldn't make much sense.

 

[ChasChandler]

Absolutely, and the larger the explosives, the longer in advance and wider of an area you could cover with this "prevention" method. But as Ivan said, you run into issues with practicality: nuking a 10 mile diameter, 50,000 foot tall cumulonimbus cloud could no doubt prevent a tornado perhaps hours before forming, however...

)))) I just can't resist this -- you left too much up to the imagination there... )))

Nuking tornadoes would definitely work. It might not actually prevent the tornado. But after nuking the whole city, nobody is really going to notice whether or not a tornado came in and stirred up the rubble a bit. So we'll still be able to say, "Look on the bright side -- at least we didn't get hit by a tornado!"

...consider the idea of nuking a hurricane. Hurricane Katrinia cost an estimated $300 billion and if for the cost of one nuke you could eliminate it offshore, it may be a worthwhile thing to do.

Another approach that is currently being researched is to beam microwave energy down from a satellite, to selectively add heat to the storm, to disrupt it, or to steer it away from land, or at least away from major cities on the coast. This is a highly dubious initiative, since there is truly no way to anticipate the side-effects. Nevertheless, you're right that considering what's at stake, stuff like this is at least worth looking into.

 

[shadrach]

Hello all, sorry to revive an old thread.

As sometimes happens while I am ruminating about something else, an observation strikes me in a new light, and raises new questions.

As also sometimes happens to me, this new thought occurred while I was taking a shower.

I have a bit of a slow drain, so a little water backs up. But the drain is fast enough for the water to spiral down it. However, I noticed sometimes it stopped spiraling and backed up. I then realized this happened every time I rinsed some soap off.

I realize water going down a drain doesn't follow the same rules as colliding weather fronts. And even if it did, there are a lot of problems taking a model from the micro to the macro level.

However, I wonder. Could 'seeding' a threatening supercell with an aerosolized surfactant prevent or lessen the severity of tornadoes?

Could it be cost effective to do so?

The surfactant would have to be cheap, non-toxic, and not volatile (yet hopefully biodegradable).

And the delivery system would also need to be cost effective and reliably able to function in a powerful storm. Either an airplane or perhaps a missile. It occurs to me that the technology that the military uses to engineer those horrible fuel-air/cluster bombs might be put to a more humane use.

But that is getting ahead of things. Could the properties of the water molecules in a supercell be changed enough by an aerosolized soap-like substance to prevent (or lessen) a tornado?


Ben Schainker

 

[DaveC426913]

Could the properties of the water molecules in a supercell be changed enough by an aerosolized soap-like substance to prevent (or lessen) a tornado?

Tornadoes are caused by warm ground heating air resulting in a rising air mass. It has nothing to do with water content. Tornadoes do quite nicely in bone-dry areas.

 

[shadrach]

Tornadoes are caused by warm ground heating air resulting in a rising air mass. It has nothing to do with water content. Tornadoes do quite nicely in bone-dry areas.

Perhaps I am wrong, but this is not my understanding of tornadoes. Though not definitive, my brief look at Wikipedia yields this quote:

"For a vortex to be classified as a tornado, it must be in contact with both the ground and the cloud base."

If clouds are necessary for a tornadoes, then water vapor must be present. From what I understand, water's unique properties are needed in the boundaries between the colliding air masses.

Ben Schainker

 

[Astronuc]

There is a research program to better understand the formation of tornados, and why only a few percent of rotational thunderstorms produce tornados.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/vortex2/

 

[Count Iblis]

I've read that research on tornadoes has made an impact by improving building codes and better advice.

I think that in the old days the advice was to open your windows whe a tornado was coming (in order to equalize inside and outside air pressure). In the 1970s after a devastating tornado outbreak that was changed. Opening the windows makes it far more likely that the house will be destroyed.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think that in the old days the advice was to open your windows whe a tornado was coming (in order to equalize inside and outside air pressure). In the 1970s after a devastating tornado outbreak that was changed. Opening the windows makes it far more likely that the house will be destroyed.

Can you provide some further reading? I've not heard that it was a myth that was overturned.

 

[Phrak]

I'm very saddened to hear about designs to prevent tornados. Tornados are natural to our planet and should be protected from extinction. It’s not the tornado’s fault we are encroaching upon their habitat. They were there first.

I feel very strongly about this.

 

[Borg]

I'm very saddened to hear about designs to prevent tornados. Tornados are natural to our planet and should be protected from extinction. It’s not the tornado’s fault we are encroaching upon their habitat. They were there first.

I feel very strongly about this.

Yes, and we should build more mobile homes so they don't starve.

 

[Count Iblis]

Can you provide some further reading? I've not heard that it was a myth that was overturned.

This was mentioned in a recent NGC documentary on the Xenia outbreak. I'll try to find the link to that documentary.

 

[skycastlefish]

I love reading this thread! I have to admit, if I had the power, I would never-ever prevent a tornado. Even if someone promised me the world. I think in the long run it would kill more people to disrupt that system. Imagine if we found a way to prevent lightning --only a matter of time and our behinds would be lit up! What would happen if we defused every effort the winds made to discharge this energy? Would we turn into Jupiter's cousin? A giant blue/white eye?

 

[jceb38111]

We should only setup a perimeter around population centers and quit worrying about everything that might become a tornado; (that is too much ground to cover and protect) instead focus on preemptively disrupting the tornadic forces if they enter into a zone where they create a risk to substantial life and property.

 

[DaveC426913]

We should only setup a perimeter around population centers and quit worrying about everything that might become a tornado; (that is too much ground to cover and protect) instead focus on preemptively disrupting the tornadic forces if they enter into a zone where they create a risk to substantial life and property.

Necropost. But OK.

You have not thought this through.

1] How wide a perimeter? 10 miles? That's 15 minutes notice. 100 miles? That's pretty much the whole country.
2] What do you consider a population center? Below what level of population density are townspeople considered expendable?
3] How does on preemptively disrupt a tornado?

 

[Dotini]

Necropost. But OK.

Very okay! Tornadoes normally cost the US over $1 billion/year and near to 100 lives. Property damage through Tuscaloosa so far this year exceeds $6 billion, but now with Joplin, at least 600 lives have been lost. Current warning systems, while slightly improved over those of the past, lack any real adequacy.

In view of this ugly toll, I think it well justified to reconsider what we know about tornadoes and the methods required to mitigate them.

In posts above ChasChandler has advised that tornadic supercells may be deprived of their energy by initiating lightning discharges with simple wired rockets at ridiculously low cost, if I understand him correctly.

We have seen quite a bit of levity in this necrotic thread from some pretty smart people. Maybe it's about time to get busy and put on the responsible thinking hat? If we are nothing but physical beings originating by chance in a random universe, I can well understand a show of indifference to human suffering and social destruction. But occasionally might we find the right time to put our knowledge and training to a worthwhile purpose?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, one other way of dramatically mitigating damage might be to simply ban trailer parks.

 

[NRG3]

Hi. My first post. Watching about the disasterous Joplin tornado, I thought, can tornados be prevented? So I searched "tornado prevention", and found this pending patent for a "Tornado Prevention Method":

http://www.invention.net/munson692.htm

"The present invention is a method for preventing the formation of tornadoes. By preventing warm moist air from forming a supercell it acts to cool the air preemptively with cool water droplets before it can rise, utilizing a plurality of remotely operated spray stanchions, or fire hydrants equipped with said spray stanchions. Comprising the present invention are a plurality of vertically extending stanchions connected directly to water mains or fire hydrants, outfitted with sprayer ends that are remotely releasable should a weather authority announce tornado formation is likely in an area. The present invention stops the formation of a tornado by presenting a newly formed field of cool moist ambient air as opposed to warm moist ambient air to effectively break the process by which tornadoes are formed..."

Then found this thread, so am posting that link here! Physics-ally interesting?

 

[ChasChandler]

Well put, Steve.

It's ironic that we think that certain things are acts of God, about which we can do nothing, while we spend the rest of our time running around taking care of the things that we know we can change. And yet everything we do was once considered impossible. It is our nature as caring human beings to seek to better understand the world in which we live, and to do what we can. It is not our nature to think that everything is random, and that we are powerless. So we should consider the possibility that tornadoes can be prevented. By anybody's (sane) standards, it's a long shot, but it's still at least worth considering. After all, if we dismissed every possibility because it sounded incredible, a lot of great things in this world never would have come into existence.

jceb38111 is on the right track. No need to worry about forcing tornadoes into extinction... :) Of the 1,000 tornadoes that occur every year in the U.S., only 10 on average hit populated areas. So if a tornado goes out and shucks $50,000 of corn in the middle of nowhere, who cares? But if a tornado is headed for a major population center, you take action (if that's possible).

1] How wide a perimeter? 10 miles? That's 15 minutes notice. 100 miles? That's pretty much the whole country.
2] What do you consider a population center? Below what level of population density are townspeople considered expendable?
3] How does on preemptively disrupt a tornado?

1] The extents of the defensive perimeter and the amount of lead time are two different issues. Advances in tornado theory and in radar technology might result in lead times as long as 45 minutes, including the ability to estimate the strength of the tornado that will form. More accurate warnings, further in advance, will save lives just because people will have more time to take cover. It will also give tornado fighters more time to get into position. So a better understanding of these storms is central to any life-saving strategy. As the storm approaches the city, if it has implemented tornado prevention (if that's possible), when the storm gets within range of the mitigation strategy (whatever that might be), you try to make the tornado go away. The longer the lead time, the more time you have to get the mitigation strategy set up. So you might have 45 minutes of lead time, but you might only engage the storm when it is 10 minutes outside of town.

2] If this was a reasonable argument, why have hospitals, if you can't afford to build one in every small town in the country? Why have police and fire departments, if they can't get to everybody in the same amount of time? I grew up in the country, and I'm well aware of the number of things that city dwellers take for granted that are simply out of reach way out in the country, but we never thought that we were being slighted. It's simple economics. Out in the country, you have to fend for yourself, and that's the price you pay for peace and quiet. :) Nobody wants to sacrifice the few to save the many, but that doesn't mean that we should sacrifice the many so the few don't feel left out -- that's ridiculous. Besides, as concerns tornadoes, people in the country have some advantages. There is more chance that they can see them coming, and if one looks like it's going to be a direct hit, they can jump in the trucks and get away, with open road in all 4 directions. In the city, try to evacuate and you find traffic jams in all 4 directions. So you protect the cities. With the money you save, build new houses for the country folks who got hit. Everybody wins. :)

3] That's the interesting question, and the quick answer is that nobody knows, but my research has led me to the conclusion that one of the necessary conditions for a tornado to form is a large electric charge in the tornadic inflow. If this could be discharged, the vortex would lift up, and that's when the damage on the ground would stop. Discharging the potentials could be done with lightning rockets. It's a long shot, but still worth considering. See http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php" for more info.

"...by preventing warm moist air from forming a supercell it acts to cool the air preemptively with cool water droplets before it can rise..."

Aside from being impractical to implement a system like this on a large enough scale to be effective, it might actually make the supercell stronger. Supercells feed on warm, moist air, where the thermal energy is stored partly in the face-value temperature of the air, and partly in the amount of water vapor (which releases "latent heat" when it condenses). So you spray a fine mist into the air, and what happens? It evaporates, which cools the air (the inverse of the condensation process). That much is correct. So that prevents the supercell? No. It creates cool, moist air that settles down to the ground, where it gets heated by high surface temperatures. So you'd actually be increasing the amount of potential energy, by guaranteeing that there is high-humidity air at the surface to absorb heat that can be released inside the supercell. And if the humidity is already high, as is normally the case when supercells form, it wouldn't do anything at all, because mist isn't going to evaporate if the relative humidity is already high.

I applaud the sentiment though. :)

 

[NRG3]

Guess I won't be making any offer for that patent, now! Thanks. ; )

 

[SW VandeCarr]

You can't prevent all tornados, but you could greatly reduce their number and power. Here's how:

Tornadoes are mostly a North American phenomenon. That's because the major mountain ranges run north-south leaving a vast plain extending from the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico. Colder polar air masses regularly clash with moist tropical air along frontal boundaries creating ideal conditions for tornado development, especially in the spring.

Now all we have to do is build a chain of mountains running east-west along the Canadian-US border, the higher the better. I'd say 6,000 meters (20,000 ft) would probably do the trick.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I had a random thought about this thread earlier. Anyone remember the film Twister where storm chasers send up thousands of ping-pong ball sized probes to study the air flow? At the end they attach tiny rotors to help suck the probes up. I was wondering, if these probes were studded with LEDs powered by the spinning rotor you could release millions into a twister to convert the wind energy into harmless light.

I also realized the severe impracticality of this combined with the fact that the energy in a tornado is probably fantastically huge but I'm pretty sure the idea stands in theory right?

 

[DaveC426913]

if these probes were studded with LEDs powered by the spinning rotor you could release millions into a twister to convert the wind energy into harmless light.

A bit of a flaw in reasoning about how the rotors might extract energy. The LEDs will not work, and are unnecessary.

To power LEDS, the rotors would power a small electic generator. The generator would provide resistance on the rotors. Since the devices are not attached to anything, the rotors would be just as happy to not spin at all, the devices themselves would spin, rotor and all, rather than work against the resistance.

You don't need to convert the energy into any harmless form. Once you extract the energy with any form of resistance at all, (such as flat objects), the tornado won't be able to make use of it.

So what you're really doing is simply tossing inert mass into the tornado, whose inertia alone will extract wind energy.

However, now your tornado becomes a machine gun of 200mph bullets.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Since the devices are not attached to anything, the rotors would be just as happy to not spin at all, the devices themselves would spin, rotor and all, rather than work against the resistance.

Fair enough, this isn't my field but would counter rotating rotors make a difference? I.e one at each pole spinning counter to the other to provide resistance?

You don't need to convert the energy into any harmless form. Once you extract the energy with any form of resistance at all, (such as flat objects), the tornado won't be able to make use of it.

So what you're really doing is simply tossing inert mass into the tornado, whose inertia alone will extract wind energy.

Next plan then millions of kamikaze UAVS

However, now your tornado becomes a machine gun of 200mph bullets.

Next, next plan...bullet proof houses?

 

[Dotini]

http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/tornado-outbreak-tue-classic-ingredients_2011-05-23

A senior meteorologist delivers an explosive forecast for the next two days.

"the potential atmospheric setup is at least on par, if not more explosive than that May 3, 1999 event!"

He is discussing detailed atmospheric conditions indicating to him the potential of an F5 tornado in the vicinities of Wichita, Oklahoma City and Tulsa beginning Tuesday, May 24, 2011.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Seriously, the only potentially available strategy that has any possibility of someday being practical is some form of cloud seeding of likely "super cells" before funnel clouds actually form. Even then there are real questions about what agents to use (dry ice?) both for effectiveness and environmental safety. The logistics would also be very tricky. At present this strategy is not very promising. Clouding seeding and tornado prevention is briefly discussed in this link.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/

 

[Dotini]

See http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php" for more info.

@ Charles Chandler: I noticed in section 34 of your paper, you have remarks and images concerning tornadoes with multiple funnels. I further noticed on this evening's tornado coverage on ABC national news a special segment on tornadoes with multiple funnels. They showed good images and video of as many as 3 or 4 funnels on the ground which were writhing closely about each other in a kind of weird dance. Apparently the Joplin F4 had multiple funnels. Apparently many tornadoes may have multiple funnels, but are obscured from easy view. Do such multiple vortexes feed only a single cyclonic cell, or do they each have their own? Such organization and complexity is really impressive.

Respectfully yours,
Steve

 

[dav2008]

We have to nuke 'em and we have to nuke 'em now!

 

[artist97]

Water. Adding water to a functioning tornado will suck out energy.

How to add it?

 

[Evo]

Water. Adding water to a functioning tornado will suck out energy.

How to add it?

Then how do you explain water spouts?

You do also know that tornadoes form from severe rain storms and hurricanes?

Please do not post without linking to the peer reviewed or scientifically acceptable studies that back you up.

 

[arildno]

Since scientific "truths" are only social conventions, I believe the most effective way to eliminate tornadoes is to differentiate "wrongly", so that the Coriolis force disappears.

Very bad force, that one..

 

[artist97]

Waterspouts are not as dangerous as terrestrial tornadoes.

Water, added to a "dry" tornado, absorbs energy.

Stop being condescending ; particularly when you have not thought through the response.

 

[Borek]

Uh oh.

<takes pop corn and coke>

 

[Evo]

Waterspouts are not as dangerous as terrestrial tornadoes.

Water, added to a "dry" tornado, absorbs energy.

Stop being condescending ; particularly when you have not thought through the response.

Enough nonsense. Post the acceptable scientific sources to back your self up.

Borek, hand me some popcorn.

Some vaild tornado sources.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#Climatology

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/faq/faq_tor.php

 

[DaveC426913]

I have been unable to find a good source (including Evo's links) that says dumping water into a tornado will make it stronger, or that dumping water into it will make it weaker.

While true, tornadoes do form from severe active thunderstorms, I don't know if that is convincing enough to conclude that adding lots of water to one would have an enhancing effect. For example, if the water happened to be cooler (because it is being artificially added, as opposed to being evaporated naturally), it could - at least conceivably - have a diminishing effect.

I'd say the jury is out until someone can quote a good source on it.

 

[artist97]

"Post the acceptable scientific sources to back your self up."

(Groan)

The last refuge of the scoundrel is the desire to request references.

Footnote yourself, m'dear.

 

[DaveC426913]

"Post the acceptable scientific sources to back your self up."

(Groan)

The last refuge of the scoundrel is the desire to request references.

No artist, that's PF policy. This is not a board where you can simply speak your mind without backing it up. She is right to request references.

: and then takes one big step away from artist :

 

[artist97]

Water, when subjected to the low pressure of a tornado, turns into water vapor.

So a hypothetical tornado that passes over a pond sucks up water, expending energy. The water goes through a state change and becomes a gas.

Does this cool water have an effect on the tornado?