Electric Tornadoes - a complete theory at last!

[Solsearcher]

I find it odd that an even more obvious factor contributing to the development of tornadoes has not been mentioned, especially in light of having brought it to the attention of this forum previously.

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) eloquently combines both purely meteorlogical phenomenon with the electromagnetic in such a way that not only tornadic, but all cyclonic activity comes into a more concise and plausible focus.

One of many important questions that remains unexplained in conventional terms, concerns why tornadic activity does not take place until supercell cloud tops reach a minimum of 20,000 ft. You don't suppose it has anything to do with the fairly close proximity of electromagnetic energies resident in the ionosphere, now would it?

How about Elves and Sprites which have been shown to be inextricably intertwined with lightning and which occur deep within the mega-energetic ionosphere!!!

What possible role do you suppose ball lightning might play in the development of tornadoes for which there is a great deal of evidence in support thereof?!?

[Solsearcher]

Lest we forget, the jetstream is a purely magnetohydrodynamic phenomenon closely associated with the high energies of the ionosphere!

How about Nicola Tesla describing the earth as a giant resonating capacitor as well as motor/generator!

Speaking of Tesla, how can we ignore the luminiferous all pervading medium, aka, aether in the formation of tornadoes?!?

[CharlesChandler]

Working with electricity in less-than-solid matter is still new to me...

Mike, thanks for the kind words, and don't feel bad. Plasma physics is a young and exciting science, and finding our way through the wilderness is laborious and time-consuming, though deeply rewarding. I learned everything I know about plasma working on the tornado project, and I still feel like a toddler in a library, wondering why they make the shelves so high... But this is where my investigations led me, so I must persist, despite my ignorance. What I'm finding is that as concerns tornado theory, there are only amateurs, including me...

Speaking of how much of an amateur I am, are there any professional electrical engineers out there, who would be willing to review the plans for a laboratory apparatus that I intend to construct, to test this theory? The plans can be found here:

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornado%20Vortex%20Exp.pdf

If anybody decides to take this on, he/she should post a message saying so. It's a simple enough device that it would probably only take one engineer to evaluate the feasibility, and to spec the electrical schematic.

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) eloquently combines both purely meteorological phenomenon with the electromagnetic in such a way that not only tornadic, but all cyclonic activity comes into a more concise and plausible focus.

MHD is certainly a related discipline, but MHD "proper" is a bit different from what I'm doing. It originated as the study of charges in motion at a large scale, where it made more sense to think of them as fluids rather than as point charges, and to bring in the formulas from fluid dynamics to make rough calculations that would be impossible with a straight Maxwellian approach. An extension of MHD has been into applications where the moving charges, behaving like fluids, can actually start to create hydrodynamic forces on the substance in question. This is only relevant if friction is present, such that there will be pressure gradients, and then you actually have to look carefully at the hydrodynamics in order to get an exact solution.

There have been a few attempts at explaining supercell thunderstorms with MHD, but without success. At the airspeeds in question, the magnetic fields will definitely be present, but their influence on the thermodynamic forces will be subtle. So these works have been dismissed, and rightfully so.

Still not satisfied that supercells and tornadoes are beyond the comprehension of mortal humans, I then considered the possibility that there could be sympathetic interactions between thermodynamic and electromagnetic forces that could create a third property set that was distinctly different from what could be expected by either thermodynamic or electromagnetic standards. So thermodynamic fluxes are generating electromagnetic forces that are playing back into the fluxes that created them, thereby setting up a mutually-enhancing set of forces that then behaves in a totally different way.

Technically speaking, this is still within a loose definition of MHD, but I refer to it as EMTD (electro-magneto-thermo-dynamics), to distinguish it from the original works, which were merely using fluid dynamic formulas to help solve purely electromagnetic problems.

To my knowledge, I'm the only one explicitly talking about sympathetic interactions between thermodynamics and electromagnetism. The related works never considered the problem as being fully non-linear, and I think that this is why they were not able to work it all of the way through. Supercells simply do not act like pure plasmoids, nor do they act like a thermodynamic system that is somehow being enhanced. On close scrutiny, they act like no other electromagnetic or thermodynamic phenomenon.

If this is the case, it is easy to understand why we haven't figured this stuff out yet. There is no direct correlate, and no complete existing framework that can simply be applied to the problem. It's an extension into new territory. Here (again) we are all amateurs...

[Osmosis]

Sounding rockets could be used to get magnetometers into storm cells. The task of measuring the fields in the Van Allen belts was much easier-no rain or wind, other than "Solar Wind".

[solrey]

When I saw a possible connection between tornado's and crustal magnetic anomalies I noticed that tornado's tend to form and dissipate along the edges, or margins, while moving across the local crustal magnetic fields. Since then I've been looking for information to confirm this idea.
I think I've found it, right here in this TPOD of Martian Auroras.

Indications of thousands of aurora events turned up in a review of space probe data. Reviewers constructed a map of occurrences and found that they clustered around the margins of magnetic patches on the surface. The patches are thought to be crustal rocks that have preserved magnetic fields acquired from an ancient global field that has decayed. Why they occur almost entirely in the southern hemisphere is not understood.

It’s likely that crustal rocks from Earth could be electrically deposited on Mars and heated. If they cooled below the Curie point before the current and its accompanying magnetic field completely decayed, they would retain the magnetism. Since Mars has no global magnetic field in which the spots would appear merely as local deflections, they stand out as foci for aurora events.

Perhaps the Earth's local crustal magnetic field's act as foci for ionosphere to ground discharge vortices...tornado's.

If anyone runs across information/data about the ionosphere above tornadic storms, I'd appreciate a "heads up".
I've been looking, alas, to no avail.

I wonder if dust devils on Mars have a similar preference for staying between the margins of crustal magnetic fields. The dust storms, which we know are composed of hundreds, or thousands, of individual vortices, generally develop and grow in Mars summertime southern hemisphere. Why do they not develop in the northern hemisphere's summertime? Could it be the differences in the crustal magnetic fields? The southern hemisphere has well defined crustal magnetic fields, whereas the northern hemisphere doesn't really have any at all.

[Krackonis]

Many people have believed for a long time that tornadoes are electromagnetic. The question is: HOW?

{snip} in thinking that these phenomena were thermodynamic OR electromagnetic. Scientific research sometimes favors the isolation of individual factors, but Mother Nature doesn't work like that, and explaining the behaviors of a complex, non-linear system such as a thunderstorm requires that we take everything into account before we begin. This approach made it possible to see interactions among forces that have not been previously identified.

The theory is being presented in an online book, and can be found here:

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

The text-only version is about 80 pages, including 15 pages of references. So while it's a small book, it's still more than just an article. And while it shouldn't have been necessary to chew up so much space to expose a simple theory, it was necessary to show how that theory could explain the full range of behaviors of supercell thunderstorms and tornadoes. So if you're interested in meteorology and electromagnetism, wait for the next cold, rainy weekend, and curl up with a good revolutionary theory of tornadoes. Just make sure to jot down your comments, questions, and criticisms. Eventually, this work will go to press, and it will be easier to make improvements before that happens, rather than after.

Quick comments and criticisms can be posted back to this thread. If anybody cares to do a review, positive or negative, I'll be happy to append it to the work. Just send it to me in a PM, and be sure to mention your real name. (I'm not going to append any reviews by anybody with a name like "Dark Lord" or "Game Boy". )

Best regards to all,
Charles

I found the whole 'book' to be a fascinating read. I am very impressed. I have only one criticism you might want to consider. if your theory is generally homogeneous we need to understand why Tornadoes and Thunderstorms form in a particular section of the earth where the Plasma Torus of the earth is closest to the planet (The Van Allen Radiation Belts). This is a similar location on the sun where sunspots and prominences form.

Basically, it forms in two lines across the planet. Now, of course, not all do, but most do. Is that something you were thinking of touching on?

[smartart]

Might the current tendency for massive 'dumps' of water from clouds, also be electrically mediated? Might the 'surprising' rate of ice melt be resistive heating? Might the ENTIRE electrical state of the solar system be the underlying driver to a whole lot of stuff from climate change to extinctions?

[CharlesChandler]

I found the whole 'book' to be a fascinating read. I am very impressed. I have only one criticism you might want to consider. if your theory is generally homogeneous we need to understand why Tornadoes and Thunderstorms form in a particular section of the earth where the Plasma Torus of the earth is closest to the planet (The Van Allen Radiation Belts). This is a similar location on the sun where sunspots and prominences form.

First, thanks for the comments! I'm still mulling over the possibility that currents and charges in the upper atmosphere play a role in supercells and tornadoes.

Second, I spent a little while giving some good consideration to the variety of comments concerning electrostatic discharges within the tornado, and I came to an interesting conclusion.

I had been saying, "Yes, there is evidence of electrostatic discharges inside tornadoes. It has been photographed...

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Data/1965/04/11/Toledo,%20OH%20(tornadoes).jpg

...so there's no question that it exists. Furthermore, there have been a variety of reports of ring, ball, and/or "finger" lightning inside the tornado, especially at the tornado/mesocyclone interface. But what does this discharge DO? An electrostatic discharge simply wouldn't act like a tornado. So it is nothing more than an artifact."

After further consideration, I think that I was wrong about that. To understand how, let's start from my original position.

I have been saying that there is a huge inflow to the supercell thunderstorm, but because the air flowing into the supercell is positively-charged, it induces an opposite charge in the surface of the Earth, and then is attracted to that opposite charge. This makes the inflow cling to the surface. So instead of curving gracefully up into the cloud, it skids along the ground until it achieves the effective centerline of the storm, and then it shoots skyward. Friction at the surface results in a reduction in pressure at the centerline, making the effect all that much more dramatic. A little bit of offset in the direction of the converging air results in rotation that resolves into a vortex. The decrease in pressure inside the tornado then lowers the resistance of the air, making it possible for an electric current to flow through the tornado, and this is what produces the glow discharge that has been photographed, and the other observed effects. But these are just artifacts. The driving forces are the low pressure inside the mesocyclone, and the electric charge in the inflowing air.

Ummm, think again. I'm saying that the inflowing air is clinging to the surface, and only breaks away from the surface and shoots skyward when it achieves the centerline of the storm... and that any electrostatic discharge inside the vortex does nothing? What if the electrostatic discharge is electrons flowing down from the abundant supply of negative charge within the storm, and what if these electrons are neutralizing the electric charge in the positively-charged air flowing into the tornado? In other words, the inflow is positively-charged, and so it clings to the ground, except inside the vortex, where it gets neutralized, and therefore can respond freely to the low pressure aloft?

So we can retell the story like this:

There is a low pressure inside the cloud, that is drawing in air. The inflow is positively-charged, so instead of curving gracefully up into the cloud, it clings to the ground as it approaches the centerline of the storm. The friction that it encounters slows it down, which means that it cannot satisfy the low pressure in the centerline of the storm as fast as it would otherwise. So the pressure at the centerline drops even more. The decrease in pressure opens up a low-resistance conduit for the flow of electrons down from the cloud, attracted to the positive charge in the air. The electrons favor the lowest pressure, since it has the highest conductivity. So there is a narrow channel of electrons flowing down. This electron stream neutralizes the positive charge in the air that is binding it to the surface, which frees it up to shoot skyward. The narrowly-defined area in which the air can head up into the cloud tightens the radius of the inflow into a vortex with powerful rotation at the surface.

This story does a bit more than just give the electrostatic discharge within the tornado a more central position in the theory. It enables the explanation of fine-grain detail that has never been explained before. Consider the following photograph:

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Data/2007/10/30/Oran,%20Algeria%20(waterspout).jpg

Notice that the base of the tornado is invisible, and only halfway up does condensation form. This is tough to explain, since the pressure inside a tornado is lower than the pressure inside a hurricane, and since we know that this is humid air, since this tornado is over the ocean. And yet the low pressure isn't causing condensation at the surface. The only reasonable explanation is that the air flowing into the tornado is positively-charged, so even though it is humid, and it experiences an extreme drop in pressure, nevertheless it lacks the electrons necessary for the covalent bonding that goes on in the condensation process. But if that's the case, then why does it start condensing halfway up?

This is a question that I couldn't answer before, but now I can. If there is positively-charged air flowing up through the tornado, and electrons flowing down from the cloud, the electrons will make condensation possible. The fact that the tornado is invisible at its base means that there weren't enough electrons to satisfy all of the positive charge.

Look again at the photograph, and notice the distinctive orange color. This is unusual for condensation, which is usually white (or gray if it's in the shade). But this condensation is definitely orange. Well, orange is one of the colors emitted by ionized nitrogen when it picks up electrons. So we can say with a fair degree of certainty that this is ionized nitrogen that is getting bombarded with electrons.

Another aspect of tornadoes that is tough to explain is that if the condensation doesn't reach all of the way to the ground, the bottom of the condensation often has a "ragged" or "filamented" appearance. This photograph is a good example:

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Data/2009/06/05/La%20Grange,%20WY%20(tornado).jpg

The conventional explanation is that the filaments are sub-vortexes, but there is no evidence of any rotation in these things, and it's hard to understand how they are so well-defined. If these are electron streams that are causing condensation by providing the necessary ingredient for covalent bonding, then we would definitely expect these electrons streams to be narrowly-defined, as electrons prefer narrow channels.

To see these filaments in motion, check out this video:

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Data/2009/06/03/Krasnozavodsk,%20RU%20(tornado).html

Notice at the end that a couple of filaments shoot down to near the ground at an extremely rapid rate. If these are sub-vortexes, it's very difficult to understand how such an instantaneous drop in pressure could have occurred within such a thin shaft. But again, if these are electron streams, then the narrowly-defined channel, and the speed at which it can progress, are easy to understand.

Anyway, I just want to say thanks to the people who urged me to focus more on the electrostatic discharge within the tornado, as this is turning out to be a significant improvement in the comprehensiveness and specificity of the theory in question.

[mharratsc]

I am as proud as punch to have contributed in any way at all, Charles!

I'm not a scientist, the only thing I research are malfunctions in a network all day. Having the opportunity to even add as small a something as "Hey, did you ever notice...?" gives me a sense of having contributed to Mankind somehow.

Ya know- between work like yours, and some of the stuff coming from NOAA regarding solar weather- Electric Universe may yet make it into the mainstream news in my lifetime!


Mike H.

[solrey]

Howdy Charles. Still stuck on electrostatics, I see.

Some suggested reading:

On the Electromagnetic Basis of Tornadoes
(Penned by our own MGmirkin, btw)

Electric Field and Lorentz Force Contribution to Atmospheric Vortex Phenomena

The physics that initiate and sustain tornados and dust devils is still under investigation. Forces that operate throughout a wide range of scales and could contribute to atmospheric vortex phenomena are the Lorentz force and the force of electric fields. The Lorentz force results in a circular motion of charged particles in a magnetic field. An electric field will pull or repel a charged particle in the direction of the field. This paper will demonstrate that the Lorentz force and the force of electric fields, acting on charged particles that exist in atmospheric vortex phenomena, plausibly contribute to the set of physics that will explain tornados and other atmospheric vortex phenomena.

On the Geo-Electromagnetic Aspect of Tornado Initiation

The reasoning that joule heating in multiple-stroke lightning flashes associated with an active tornado constitutes the major energy source for its drive is questioned. An electrical discharge is proposed as a mechanism for the formation of the initial vortex sink, a high specific-energy source being supplied by Joule heating in a leader-stroke coronal discharge of several hundred amperes and milliseconds duration. Magnetic pinch effects are invoked as a means of preventing large lateral heat losses from the ionised column and a resulting degradation of the energy source. Applying the equation for magneto-hydrostatic balance, it is shown that magnetic pinch exerted on the column by the current-induced magnetic field alone is insufficient to achieve balance and thus prevent energy losses. Qualitative arguments are used to demonstrate that the pinch effect can be enhanced through the interaction with the external, geomagnetic field. Observational evidence is presented to support the hypothesis of geomagnetic control for tornado initiation on a global scale. It is seen in large differences of tornado frequency between regions on the surface of the Earth featured by comparable pre-requisite thunderstorm frequency but significant differences in geomagnetic intensity which qualitatively agree with the predicted effect.

Remember the correlation I noticed between tornado distribution and the crustal magnetic anomalies?

The physics that initiate and sustain tornados and dust devils is still under investigation.

IMHO, it's still under investigation because thermodynamics and electrostatics aren't the only forces at work, yet while most everyone is stuck on those two phenomena, they still don't have a complete grasp on the physics. That's why I keep saying the entire circuit between the ground, clouds and ionosphere needs to be investigated and MHD needs to be included to get a complete picture of tornado formation.
Otherwise, it's just re-inventing the wheel.

[CharlesChandler]

Hey Mike,

I know what you mean. As a programmer, I spend 2/3 of my time researching what an idiot I am, debugging hastily-written code. Science is such a joy by comparison!!!

Hey Solrey,

I haven't forgotten about the magnetic anomaly thing -- I'm just busy working through the ramifications of putting electrostatic discharges in a more central position in the work that I'm doing. Now it's not just an "oh by the way" thing that helps explain some phenomena, but a "gotta have this in order to explain a lot of stuff" thing. So it's requiring that I re-order and re-word several sections. This takes time. Eventually, I'll get around to tracking down the numeric data for the magnetic anomalies, and getting those data properly projected and indexed onto a map of the tornado tracks. I'm as convinced as you are that there is a relationship there. I'm thinking that if I can get the anomalies in GIS format, I can then do an automated numeric analysis of how frequently the tornadoes start and start nearer the boundaries than to the medial axis between the boundaries. If we get a number that's well beyond chance, we'll have publishable material.

But considering how many magnetic anomaly lines there are, even if we see a definite causal relationship, it's hard to believe that we'll ever get better predictive capability out of that deal. If a tornado is getting ready to form, and the storm passes a switch in the direction of the magnetic anomalies, this might trigger the tornado. But it didn't "cause" the tornado; it just caused where specifically the tornado would start and stop. Any given storm track is going to be crossing magnetic anomaly lines many times, so we're not going to predict tornadoes this way.

The value here is that it might indicate that there is a force that we're not taking into account. If we can figure out what that force is, and how it works, then a better understanding might lead to better prediction, or even prevention. So the central question is not "if" but "how." And this is where I'm stumped. The Earth's magnetic field is roughly .5 gauss. The storm's own magnetic field is something like .25 gauss. The anomalies in the Earth's magnetic field are +/- .004 gauss. How do +/- .004 gauss fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field trigger different behaviors in the storm? In other words, when the Earth's magnetic field bottoms out at .496 gauss, the tornado starts. When it maxes out at .504 gauss, the tornado stops. How does that work? That's the question that we have to answer in order to get tangible value out of this line of reasoning. Presently, I don't have a clue. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't certify that a relationship exists. It just means that I don't know what we're going to do with that, except publish it.

Cheers!

[mharratsc]

Ok, let me throw out some questions:

1. What is similar between the dust devils of Mars & midwest, vs a tornado, vs a waterspout? What is different? (given: water content, fluidity of medium.)

2. What process or condition is different in an area that causes a tornado to form rather than an 'electrical storm' (i.e.- heavy lightning)?

Do these questions have any bearing on the above?

*Remember- I have no background in Meteorology or plasma physics! Since we were already on the this subject, I thought I would toss these out there and see if you guys could edumacate me!

Mike H.

[CharlesChandler]

Hey Mike,

1. What is similar between the dust devils of Mars & midwest, vs a tornado, vs a waterspout? What is different? (given: water content, fluidity of medium.)

I don't know much about dust devils, but I'll pitch in what I do know, to get it started. Others have studied them more intensively, so hopefully they'll join in with what they know.

Dust devils, on Earth and on Mars, are "fair-weather" phenomena (i.e., not associated with thunderstorms). The standard explanation is that the Sun heats the surface of the planet, making it hotter than the air, and creating the potential for air near the surface to rise. What makes this convective potential resolve into an organized rotating structure is not understood. On Earth they are the most common in the summer, but can also occur in winter. They generate sferics and detectable magnetic fields. The charging mechanism is suspected to be static electricity, as dust particles collide in the movement of the air along the ground. I can't recall the stats on which way dust devils tend to rotate, but I can remember reading that they can start spinning one way and then switch direction. I also recall reading of a particular place in Australia where trucks consistently kick up a pair of vortexes that graduate into dust devils (a.k.a., "willy-willies" in Australia), where the two counter-rotate. Wind speeds inside a dust devil are rarely above 50 mph, so they're the equivalent of an F0 tornado. That's about all I know about dust devils.

"Tornado", "waterspout", and "landspout" are ambiguous terms, but the following are the definitions that are coming into broader usage. All of these are definitely foul-weather phenomena, directly associated with thunderstorm or squall-line activity. Tornadoes are vortexes associated with supercell thunderstorms, while waterspouts and landspouts are vortexes associated with thunderstorms or squall-lines that do not have rapidly-rotating updrafts inside the storms. The only difference between a waterspout and a landspout is whether it occurs over water or land. Waterspouts and landspouts have maximum wind speeds equivalent to F1 tornadoes, so they rarely do any major damage. Tornadoes, of course, are capable of catastrophic destruction.

Since tornadoes and -spouts occur in foul weather, where the clouds obscure the Sun, the source of the energy is certainly not surface heating. The actual mechanisms of foul-weather vortexes are under debate. (My work considers these to be related, but not identical, and considers the behaviors of these vortexes to be a product of a combination of electromagnetic and thermodynamic forces.) There is no consensus that the surface temperatures, pressures, or humidities that cause tornadoes are fundamentally different from those that cause -spouts. So the difference is just in how powerful and well-organized the parent thunderstorm is.

The bottom line is that dust devils on Earth and on Mars are suspected to be related, if not identical phenomena, though the atmospheric pressure on Mars is much less. Foul-weather vortexes on Earth are fundamentally different.

2. What process or condition is different in an area that causes a tornado to form rather than an 'electrical storm' (i.e.- heavy lightning)?

Well, the storms that spawn tornadoes are electrical storms. Supercell thunderstorms have been measured issuing up to 30 lightning strikes per second. (The peak non-supercellular lightning strike rate is 1 per second.) So supercells are typically very active electromagnetically. The interesting thing is that during the tornadic phase of the storm, the lightning strike rate goes way down, and it stays low until the tornado ropes out, and then it jumps back up again. Also, during the tornadic phase, the polarity of the lightning strikes inverts, from predominantly "negative" strikes (from a negative charge in the cloud down to an induced positive charge in the Earth) to predominantly or exclusively "positive" strikes. The reasons for these peculiar behaviors are complex and contentious, and there is no consensus on why tornadoes and lightning appear to be mutually exclusive. But there is some consensus (and I would agree) that the difference between thunderstorm, supercell thunderstorm, and tornadic supercell thunderstorm is best described as simply a matter of degree. There are certain places in the world where the conditions are conducive to powerful thunderstorms. Warm moist air topped by hot dry air, with cool dry air on top of that, creates an explosive mixture, thermodynamically speaking. The US midwest, southern England, northeast India, south Australia, and eastern Argentina all have the topology necessary for these conditions to be present on a frequent basis. So these are the tornadic hot-spots, so to say. But tornadoes can occur anywhere if those conditions emerge. So it's not that tornadoes prefer a specific latitude or hemisphere -- it's that meteorological conditions that can produce a severe thunderstorm can produce a tornado wherever.

Do these questions have any bearing on the above?

Still studying...

BTW, I completed the re-org of the sections of my "paper" due to a reconsideration of the significance of an electrostatic discharge inside the tornado. I'm thoroughly pleased with how many phenomena can be explained with such a straight-forward construct. The major re-write was in this section:

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes%20Full.php#id_28

I gotta break off from this for a few days, then I'll go back and try to spiff up the writing a bit. So you've got a few days before you need to drop another bomb on it...

Cheers!

[mharratsc]

Thanks for the replies, Charles

A couple of things you stated in your explanation jogged my memory, and I'd like to share these with you and maybe you can tell me how they fit into the grand scheme of things.

1. Regarding Dust Devils: My folks and I took a trip out from Texas to the Carlsbad Caverns and the Grand Canyon in my youth. As we travelled along one of the highways in the Dust Bowl out there, we saw a couple dozen cars all stopped on the side of the highway, and they were all looking and pointing out into a big dirt field that had a scrap yard of old cars in it.
There was a huge dust devil twirling away in it without a cloud in the sky. The temperature was probably in the mid-70's. The dust devil had to be (visibly from particulates) at least 200 ft high or so. We all were watching it just spin around in the field for a bit, when it slowly meandered over towards the pile of scrap car bodies, and casually picked one up about 30 ft high and tossed it about 100 feet away from where it was.
It did this to a couple more cars, and came back out towards us into the dirt field again. About this time, people got really nervous and started driving off (my family and I included).
Are 'fair weather vortices' noted for that kind of power?

2. Regarding Waterspouts: So a 'waterspout' is only considered a 'fair weather phenomenon'? So a tornado over water is still considered a proper tornado? I ask because I once saw a 3000 ft high tornado blowing around in Mobile Bay, Alabama. It caused one hell of a lot of property damage to boats in the bay. I know it was 3000 ft because we were in a high holding pattern over Pensacola Regional waiting for a jumbo to land. From that altitude you could see Mobile Bay reflected the light like a big mirror, and the tornado stood out as clear as day. There was a solid grey cloud cover over the land, but clear blue sky started right at the beach and went on out as far as you could see into the Gulf of Mexico. It was easy to make out the tornado against that backdrop.
We even had to do some search-and-rescue spotter flights to assist the SAR squadron there out of Pensacola, because there were so many boats that had gotten tossed up into the trees along the banks of the Mississippi, and the shores around the bay.
The aftermath looked more like a hurricane had gone through than a tornado!

So as to the above- how does that fit into the overall model of tornado behavior that we're trying to build here? I can understand maybe the hydro-tornado behaving like a normal tornado and being as strong as one, but... what about that clear blue sky dust devil I saw flinging car bodies around? Will the new model explain that?

Lastly- you described how lightning storms aren't different than tornadic supercells, but rather that supercells and tornados are a more intense stage of them. Ok, that makes sense to me.
One thing that you pointed out however really really jives with the EU model of a tornado- you stated:

The interesting thing is that during the tornadic phase of the storm, the lightning strike rate goes way down, and it stays low until the tornado ropes out, and then it jumps back up again.

So if you would consider the various layers of the atmosphere as double layers of plasma of differing charge, and the storm as an instability in a particular layer where charge equalization is occurring between the Earth's surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere (which is also the adjacent double layer), then you can consider lightning as paths of charge equalization as the charge builds to a degree that overcomes the magnetic field separating the layers of charge.
Could you then consider a tornado as an instability brought on by such an immediate charge differential, that it creates a sustained charge transfer, that takes the form of a charged sheath vortex capable of generating a magnetic field of enough strength to overcome the magnetic field of the double layer and allowing for a much higher transfer of charge across one (or even more?) double layers of the atmosphere?

I do hope you forgive me, Charles- I know you have a lot of classical knowledge of the thermodynamic properties of storm and tornado evolution, and thus all the EU stuff we bring up gets worked into the nooks and crannies of that standard model.
My problem is- I don't have that classical education, and I see everything from an electrical perspective with the thermo/hydro/geo-whatever descriptions worked into that!

I guess the question is- is it possible to consider that maybe the vortices we see on the Sun, Martian deserts, the deserts of Earth, the Earth's oceans, and the thunderstorms across Earth's continents are all first and foremost electrical discharges... and that the only real difference between any of them is the amount of energy being transferred, and the medium through which it conducts?

I know that you feel the key to understanding and predicting when and where a tornado will strike is looking at all the dynamic properties present during a tornado... and I'm sure you're right! However, I think also that there is a key element- electricity, that needs to be given proper focus, and once it is properly understood all the other elements will click into place quickly from there.

I've never done this before, but- given the information you've shared on this subject (specifically about the behavior of lightning before and after tornado formation) I'm actually going to make a prediction:

The effective means of determining whether a tornado will form or not from a supercell is going to be deduced by analyzing the values of electrical charge differential between the Earth and the topmost layer of a storm, and that- by analysis -a charge condition threshhold can be deduced that will accurately predict when and even where in the storm a tornado might form!

Of course- the technology probably isn't yet available to determine if I'm right, or that I could ever convince anyone to even look...

I truly believe that from Particle Physics to Astrophysics, and everything in between, it is becoming more and more evident that electricity is the primary driving force in our Universe.

How can we truly understand anything if we don't acknowledge that primacy in our observations of the Universe around us? :\

Mike H.

[solrey]

There's a huge elephant in this room. Take a look:

The interesting thing is that during the tornadic phase of the storm, the lightning strike rate goes way down, and it stays low until the tornado ropes out, and then it jumps back up again.

MikeH is on the right track here.

Ever start a car with the lights on, especially when the battery is low? The lights dim when the current is routed through the load of the starter. Similar situation with tornadoes.
They have discovered that ionospheric discharge is common in midwestern thunderstorms, btw.
There is charge transfer/voltage potential happening between the ionosphere and the storm which discharges to ground in arc mode. When the thermodynamics are sufficient to trigger a charge sheath vortex, within a "friendly" goemagnetic environment, the charge transfer/voltage is "shunted" through the charge sheath vortex, where most of the current is converted into kinetic energy in the form of wind, instead of heat and EM radiation in an arc discharge.