The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

Last modified: 2011-03-31 17:38:17 UTC

© 2007~2011 Charles L. Chandler

geophysics@charles-chandler.org

Comments, criticisms, and suggestions may

be posted on the associated bulletin board.

I am an old man now, and when I die and go to heaven there are two matters
on which I hope for enlightenment. One is quantum electrodynamics, and the other
is the turbulent motion of fluids. And about the former I am rather optimistic.
— Sir Horace Lamb (1849~1934)

Contents
1. Preface 21. Inflow Channels 41. Exploding Houses
2. Abstract 22. Rear Flank Downdrafts 42. Polarity Reversals
3. Motivation 23. Cyclic Supercells 43. Lightning Holes
4. Strategies 24. Wall & Tail Clouds 44. RF Emissions
5. Thermodynamics 25. Beaver's Tails 45. St. Elmo's Fire
6. Thermodynamic Supercells? 26. Cloud-base Striations 46. Telluric Currents
7. Charge Separations 27. Funnels & Wedges 47. Blackwell-Udall Storm
8. Electromagnetic Toroids 28. Tornadic Currents 48. Mesocyclones & Tornadoes
9. Effects of EM on Supercells 29. A Complete Theory 49. Balance of Forces
10. Hail & Wind Shear 30. Turbulent Tornadoes 50. Dust Devils
11. Toroids to Mesocyclones 31. Debris Clouds 51. Mammatus Clouds
12. Descending Mesocyclones 32. Dust Sheaths 52. Odds & Ends
13. Curved Hodographs 33. Undulating Tornadoes 53. Prediction
14. Scale Independence 34. Multiple Vortexes 54. Prevention
15. Steering Winds 35. Eccentric Sub-vortexes 55. Conclusion
16. Hail & Centrifugal Forces 36. Internal Downdrafts 56. Alternative Theories
17. Green Thunderstorms 37. Distinctive Sounds 57. Future Research
18. Thermodynamic Tornadoes? 38. Smell of Ozone 58. Call for Volunteers
19. Electromagnetic Tornadoes? 39. Blue & Orange Flashes 59. Acknowledgments
20. A New Hypothesis 40. Tornadic Levitation 60. References

1. Preface
People who have read previous versions of this work might be surprised to see that the contentions herein continue
to evolve. Unlike academic works, which are permanent records of opinions as they were at the time, and to which
scholars become attached for the sake of credibility, this is a dynamic work, continually pursuing a more accurate
description of the topic. Hence this work has changed, as comments and criticisms from readers like you have
created opportunities for improvements, and it will continue to change. This causes confusion, but that's better
than tenacity in the face of legitimate criticisms. Perhaps this will always be a work-in-progress, as it is doubtful
that any of us will live to see something as complex as a tornadic supercell completely described. But if we should
ever have to choose between truth and credibility, we must always choose truth, because credibility isn't worth
much without it. And while this remains a massively speculative work, it is nevertheless arguable that it has
emerged as the most complete theory of supercells and tornadoes ever presented to the public. So the open-minded,
evolutionary method is working, and therefore, it will persist.

Also, please note that in meteorology, the term "thermodynamics" is used in the narrowest of its senses: the

‹ Click on the left edge of any page to bring up an interactive table of contents 1
dynamics of thermal fluxes. It is also assumed that the topic is open-air convective systems. Within this context,
thermodynamics is the study of heat sources and sinks that alter the density of the air, which in the presence of
gravity results in airflows, which can be quantified in fluid dynamic terms. Other disciplines use "thermodynamics"
to refer to general principles of energy and entropy that apply to all forces, including electromagnetism. But in
meteorology, electromagnetism and thermodynamics are studied separately. For example, here is a quote from a
question-and-answer web page maintained by NSSL:

Question: Are there electromagnetic or magnetohydrodynamic explanations for the development of

tornadoes?

Answer: As far as scientists understand, tornadoes are formed and sustained by a purely
thermodynamic process.

The present work takes a very different position, and demonstrates that electromagnetism has to be promoted to
the status of a peer with thermodynamics if we are to achieve a more accurate description of the phenomena. But
the point here is that the reader may find it odd to hear electromagnetism and thermodynamics being discussed as
peers — that's not the correct relationship between these two sets of principles. Yet in meteorology, this is
conventional usage of the terms.

One more thing: depending on how you got here, you might not know that there is a brief introduction to this
work, at:

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes%20Brief.php

That's a great place to start if you're just curious as to how this work attempts to apply EM principles to the study
of tornadoes.

2. Abstract
Supercell thunderstorms, and the tornadoes they spawn, are considered. Consistency with the current research
trends within the disciplines of meteorology and geophysics is neglected in the pursuit of a broader framework that
can directly address the large number of anomalies in the existing theories. Specifically, the common assumption
that electromagnetism is too weak to influence the behavior of a supercell is challenged. The air in a supercell is
moving rapidly, and a portion of that air is recirculating in a continuous loop. Due to the charge separation process
in the storm, this recirculating air is bearing charged particles. The flow of charged particles constitutes a pole-less,
closed-loop electric current. The movement of charged particles generates magnetic fields that then influence the
movement of the particles. The magnetic fields are extremely weak by EM standards, but since electromagnetism is
39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, near-infinitesimal magnetic fields could still be powerful
enough to influence, if not dominate, an open-air thermal system. If electrodynamic forces are modulating the
airflows in supercells, many otherwise inexplicable behaviors become far easier to understand. Most significantly, a
charged double-layer is identified that travels down around the outside, and up through the inside of the storm,
and the properties of this double-layer offer an explanation for tornadoes. The present work agrees that the driving
force in a tornado is the low pressure under the supercell's updraft. But the defining characteristic of a tornado is
that it attaches robustly to the surface of the Earth, and this isn't explicable in fluid dynamic terms (at the given
pressures, densities, viscosities, speeds, angular momenta, skin friction coefficients, etc.). The only possible
conclusion is that some other force must be present, and the only other force present in the atmosphere is
electromagnetism. Previous works considered the possibility that a weak but sustained electric current between the
ground and the cloud could cause a tornado. An electric current can, indeed, cause a discharge vortex, but it
cannot cause a tornado, as there is no way to concentrate the release of energy at the solid boundary, begging the
original question. The present work takes a different approach. If a charged double-layer is traveling down around
the outside of the cloud, then at the bottom of the cloud this double-layer will get rammed down to the ground (as
the RFD and FFD), and then skidded along the ground toward the updraft. Because of its electric charge, it will
induce an opposite charge in the Earth, and then it will be attracted to that opposite charge. If the tornadic inflow
is attracted to the Earth, it becomes easy to understand how the tornado attaches so robustly to the ground. A
vortex is not an entity, but rather, a condition in a medium, and in order to understand the vortex, we have to
neglect the vortex and study the medium instead. So we should not say that the tornado is binding to the ground,
but rather, that the tornadic inflow is binding to the ground. If an electrostatic attraction is added to the fluid
dynamic factors, a tornadic vortex becomes possible. A wide variety of observational and instrumental evidence is
considered, without finding reason to abandon the hypothesis that a charged double-layer is a necessary condition

2
for tornadogenesis.

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the movement of charged particles in a

symmetrical tornadic storm (such as a "pulse" storm). Asymmetrical storms, in
which wind shear is a big factor, will be treated as variations on the same
principles.

3. Motivation
Every year in the U.S., on average, tornadoes destroy $982 million worth of property, 1,2 and kill 89 people. 3 There
is no known way to prevent tornadoes, so there is no way to avoid damage to permanent structures. The only
defensive strategy against tornadoes involves teaching people how to respond in the event of a tornado, and issuing
warnings when tornadoes are approaching.

There are three types of tornado forecasts issued by the U.S. National Weather Service (NWS).

Convective outlooks are issued roughly 24 hours in advance, and discuss the probability of tornadoes on a
regional basis. These typically cover substantial portions of states, or several states, and are not specific
enough to warrant defensive measures on the part of the general public.

Tornado watches are issued several hours in advance, and though more specific than convective outlooks, are
still essentially regional advisories, typically covering over 50,000 km2 . While convective outlooks are
projections of probabilistic factors, tornado watches are based on the actual conditions that develop during
the day. The main intent of tornado watches is to give emergency managers time to prepare for what might
happen.

Tornado warnings are issued when Doppler radar detects mesocyclonic rotation at speeds characteristic of an
actively tornadic supercell. Frequently, storm spotters confirm that the tornado warning was issued just as the
funnel cloud began to descend. In short, a tornado warning means that a tornado is currently forming, and
will be on the ground in a matter of minutes. These are specific enough to warrant defensive measures on the
part of the general public.

In October of 2007, NWS transitioned from county-wide warnings to "storm-based" warnings. The warning zones
are far smaller, and this has resulted in a vast reduction in the number of people getting warned unnecessarily.

3
 Figure 2. Storm-based warnings, courtesy NWS.

But despite the advances that have been made, the science behind tornado warnings is far from mature. The
following statistics are from the NOAA 2009 Budget (pg. xliii), and show the lead time, accuracy, and false alarm
rate of tornado warnings that NWS hopes to achieve.

Table 1. Severe Weather Warnings: Tornadoes (storm-based)

  2008 2009 Description

The lead time for a tornado warning is the difference
between the time the warning was issued and the time the
tornado affected the area for which the warning was
Lead Time (minutes) 11 12 issued. The lead times for all tornado occurrences within
the continental U.S. are averaged to get this statistic for a
given fiscal year. This average includes all warned events
with zero lead times and all unwarned events.
Accuracy is the percentage of time a tornado actually
occurred in an area that was covered by a warning. The
Accuracy (%) 67 69 difference between the accuracy percentage figure and 100
percent represents the percentage of events without a
warning.
The false alarm rate is the percentage of times a tornado
False Alarm Rate (%) 74 72 warning was issued but no tornado occurrence was
verified.

The lead time could be increased, and the number of unwarned events could be reduced, by lowering the threshold
for what is considered to be sufficient mesocyclonic rotation for tornadogenesis. But this would increase the false
alarm rate, and that would lower the credibility of the information being disseminated. All factors considered, the
existing criteria for issuing tornado warnings are striking the right balance. 4

But with only 12 minutes of lead time, people in harm's way do not have very many options. Seeking shelter in a
better-built structure nearby is risky, and evacuating is out of the question. (An unfortunate percentage of people
killed by tornadoes die in their cars as they attempt to outrun the storms, not realizing that poor visibility, downed
trees and power lines, and other motorists can block their way, leaving them totally exposed to the tornado.)

And there is another vital bit of information that is not even present in the tornado warnings, because we simply do

4
not have this information in advance: an estimate of how powerful the tornado will become. Most tornadoes are
weak, and these are responsible for a very small percentage of the tornado-related deaths. If the false alarm rate
included all of the warnings for weak tornadoes that posed little danger to the public, the false alarm rate would be
far higher.

Figure 3. Tornado statistics by F-Scale,

1950~1994, from The Tornado Project.

Improvements in the lead time, and in the reliability of the warnings, including gaining the ability to predict the
strength of the tornado that will form, will have tangible benefits. 5 One study cited lost time due to false alarms as
the biggest expense of tornadoes.4 More reliable warnings would also be taken more seriously, and people would
take the appropriate actions, instead of ignoring the warnings. 4 And the greater the lead time, the more things that
can be done to save lives, and even certain types of property. The following is a rough representation of the kinds of
defensive measures can be taken, given the amount of lead time, and assuming that the warnings are reliable
enough to warrant such measures.

10 minutes — people can go to the lowest level in the building, and get under something sturdy. This is the
extent of the current defensive strategy.

20 minutes — people could run to nearby structures that offer better protection, and people in cars could find
suitable shelter. Parked cars could be moved into garages.

30 minutes — airports could get planes into the air to avoid being destroyed. (See this for photos of Tinker Air
Force Base after getting hit by a tornado on March 20, 1948. A week later another tornado hit the same base,
but meteorologists predicted it, and many planes were moved into hangers, greatly reducing the destruction.)

1 hour — people in rural areas could get into cars and get out of the way of the tornado. Schools and
businesses could be closed, and sports arenas could be evacuated.

2 hours — small population centers could be evacuated.

Obviously, the longer the lead time, the less reliable the forecast, and the more questionable it becomes to consider
large-scale defensive measures. But we should not rule out the possibility that even longer lead times than this
might be possible someday. Furthermore, we should acknowledge that not all decisions are made in exactly the
same way, and require exactly the same degree of certainty. There have been cases in which the convective outlook
was so convincing that schools were closed for the day, and many lives were saved, even though the conditions had
not yet materialized for tornado watches, much less for tornado warnings. Every advance in our understanding of
tornadic storms has led, and will continue to lead, to more saved lives and more property protected.

It is certainly true that the science of tornadoes is advancing — but not fast enough. As our cities and suburbs
continue to grow, the cost of storm-scale catastrophes increases.6 Because of this, aggressive initiatives are being

5
considered for mitigating the risks posed by tornadoes. Included are plans for the implementation of finer-
resolution Doppler radar,7 and/or many more Doppler radar installations, 8,9 assuming that our best opportunities
lie in better real-time reporting of severe weather conditions. There has even been funded research into the
possibility of mitigating the tornado risk by disrupting the storms using microwave energy beamed down from a
satellite,10,11,12,13,14,15 or by triggering lightning strikes. 16,17,18

But these are all brute-force methods, assuming that we already understand the adversary, and that our only
defense is to throw huge sums of money into doing what we do, just on a far bigger scale. Yet the best-spent money
is well-informed money. Seeking advances in our understanding of these storms must be part of the initiative.

Figure 4. Damage from an F4 tornado in La Plata, MD, 2002-04-28, courtesy NOAA.

Figure 5. Damage from an F5 tornado in Bridge Creek, OK, 1999-05-03, courtesy

NOVA.

6
Figure 6. Damage from an F5 tornado in Greensburg, KS, 2007-05-04, courtesy FEMA.

4. Strategies
A study of tornadoes begins with a study of the parent thunderstorms. Current research focuses on the

7
thermodynamic factors. The most thorough attempts at modeling the dynamics of thunderstorms have taken the
following factors into account:

differences in air temperature, pressure, and humidity at various altitudes in the troposphere before the storm
begins,

heat sources and sinks, including the Sun heating the surface of the Earth, as well as heat exchanges due to
the evaporation and condensation of water molecules,

the motion of parcels of air due to changes in density, given the force of gravity, and given the density of
neighboring parcels,

where and when the water molecules will change state within the cloud,

the effect of gravity on liquid and solid water particles, and

the aerodynamic effect that liquid and solid water particles will have on the parcels of air through which they
fall.

That's all of the forces operative at this scale, except electromagnetism. Unfortunately, physics simulations
incorporating just these factors fail to resolve into supercells. And while probabilistic modeling based on
thermodynamics can predict the emergence of supercells far better than chance, researchers are baffled by the cases
in which all of the known factors were present, and yet no supercell formed. This suggests that we're missing
something, and of course, the only thing that we're not taking into account is electromagnetism.

The omission of electromagnetism is not because anybody doubts its presence in thunderstorms. Rather, it is
omitted because no one has demonstrated that it is anything more than a side-effect. The heat generated by
lightning is less than 1% of the total thermal energy in a thunderstorm. This seems to prove that electrification can
be safely neglected in the thermodynamic study of thunderstorms.

But this assumes that the only way that electromagnetism could influence a thermal system would be with heat,
and that might not be correct.

Lightning results from charge separations that build up due to rapid air motion within the storm. If the
electrostatic potential exceeds the resistance of the air, an arc discharge occurs. But at potentials below the
threshold for lightning, the electric force is still there, and even over a distance of several kilometers, electrostatic
potential can exert a force more powerful than gravity on charged particles.19 And the acceleration of charged
particles in the air exerts an aerodynamic force that encourages the rest of the air to travel in the same direction. In
this way, electromagnetism could influence the behavior of the storm, without generating any heat.

How powerful could this effect be?

While the charge separation process is not fully understood, the part of it that has been the best studied is the
electric charges developed in water molecules. At 100% relative humidity, water molecules constitute only 1% of the
air by volume. If the electromagnetic energy in a thunderstorm is only 1% of the total energy, and if that energy can
only act on 1% of the particles in the air, the kinetic energy generated by electromagnetism is nominally no more
than .01% of the total energy in the storm. And considering the fact that accelerating air by accelerating some of
the particles in it is a very lossy energy conversion, we should be surprised if the effect of electromagnetism on the
rest of the air was as much as .001% of the total force. In other words, it might as well not be there.

But these numbers are not correct, and for at least 4 reasons.

First, the total amount of electromagnetic energy that could be influencing airflows in the storm cannot be gauged
by the energy released by lightning. It is the energy that does not get released by lightning that is capable of actually
moving air. In other words, lightning and reentrant electromagnetism are almost mutually exclusive. If the
potential exceeds the resistance of the air, the charge separation is neutralized. At lesser potentials, the airflows are
still being influenced. And while instinctively we might think that lesser potentials will have even less effect on the
storm, the actual amount of electromagnetic force that does not get discharged in lightning is far larger than the
force that does, by definition. If electromagnetism was like water, the resistance of the air would be like a dam, and
lightning would be the amount of water that leaked through the dam. If we want to know the total amount of force
on the dam (i.e., the aerodynamic force on the surrounding air), the amount of water that got through the dam (i.e.,

8
the lightning) is irrelevant, or even inversely related. Either way, it is far less than the total force.

Second, water molecules in the air at 100% humidity might constitute 1% of the volume of that air, but that number
doesn't include liquid and/or solid water particles that might be present. And it is the liquid and solid water
particles that are the most capable of being accelerated by electromagnetic forces, because they are capable of
greater charge densities per volume than water vapor. So the standard number for the percentage of water vapor by
volume is irrelevant — we need to know the charge densities and the surface area of the charged particles in order
to calculate the aerodynamic force.

Third, water molecules are not the only molecules capable of becoming charged in the atmosphere — they are just
the ones that have been studied the most. Nitrogen (N 2 ) and oxygen (O2 , O3 ) are as easily ionized as water
molecules, at roughly 14 eV.20,21 In the gaseous state, nitrogen and oxygen do not typically host net negative
charges, but all matter can become positively charged. So in the positive charge regions of the storm, we can expect
net charges to spread freely into the surrounding nitrogen and oxygen during particle collisions. This will distribute
the net charges throughout a far larger number of far smaller particles, greatly increasing the aerodynamic force in
the process.

Fourth, the estimates have been based on electrostatic force. But what about electrodynamic forces? The air in a
thunderstorm is moving. Moving electric charges generate magnetic fields, and these magnetic fields then influence
the movement of the charged particles. To understand the power of these magnetic fields, we should consider the
speed of the charged particles. While 150 m/s winds inside a supercell do not seem fast by electromagnetic
standards, they are actually extremely fast. The magnetic fields that drive electric motors are generated by
electrons moving along wires, where the speed of the particles is roughly 20 µm/s. ("Electricity" travels along wires
at a substantial percentage of the speed of light, but that's just because of the Domino Effect within the wires. The
electrons actually travel very slowly, and it's the net motion of electrons that generates the magnetic fields.) So the
charged particles in a supercell are traveling over a million times faster than the particles in an electric motor. At
such speeds, powerful magnetic fields will definitely be present, and these fields will definitely influence the motion
of charged particles within them.

Hence the standard dismissal of electromagnetism is based entirely on only those numbers that do not matter
(looking only at the amount of EM energy that is dissipated in lightning, and considering only the water molecules
— not the nitrogen and oxygen molecules, and only those water molecules that do not exert aerodynamic force, and
considering only electrostatics — not electrodynamics). In order to make an accurate assessment of the forces
involved, we need to look at the numbers that do matter, and with respect to electromagnetism, these are all far
higher. More accurate numbers could put electromagnetism within range to alter the dynamics of the storm.

And the numbers do not have to be well within range — they only need to be just barely within range. Only 1 out of
every 1,000 thunderstorms becomes a supercell. So we know before we begin that we're looking for something that
normally is too weak to be a factor. In the rare exception that a supercell forms, powerful and distinctive
electromagnetic properties are observed.22,23,24,25,26 It's possible that this degree of electromagnetic force can
influence an open-air thermal system, while in the other 999 out of 1,000 cases, it is too weak.

Yet showing that electromagnetic forces could be powerful enough to alter the behavior of the storm doesn't justify
the lab and field work necessary just to pursue the possibility. First we need an idea of how electromagnetic
principles might help explain the phenomena. An hypothesis must be proposed, and then we must ask if the
proposed forces have all of the right properties, and none of the wrong properties, to account for the distinctive
characteristics within the problem domain. And we must subject the proposal to a comprehensive set of tests, to
see if there is anything in the problem domain that disqualifies the candidate.

This, in fact, is the task that has not been completed by any hypothesis, electromagnetic or thermodynamic. All of
the existing constructs do not pass the quickest of sanity checks.

For example, an hypothesis developed in the 1950s proposed that a weak but sustained electric current between the
cloud and the ground could generate enough heat to fuel a thermodynamic vortex of tornadic
proportions. 27,28,29,30,31,32 But getting the vortex to attach firmly to the surface would require that the majority of the
heat be present at the surface, and temperatures in excess of 1,000 °C would be required just to create an F1
tornado. Yet such temperatures simply do not exist at the surface inside a tornado. Though they refused to admit it,
the researchers had just one piece to the puzzle — not the whole thing. Then they proceeded to do years of work
without ever considering that they were missing something. This is a great example of how not to do a scientific
inquiry.

9
Other EM hypotheses of tornadic storms have been proposed. 33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45 But none of these works
have demonstrated how electromagnetism might explain the full range of unique properties within the problem
domain. In the territory not covered by these works, there are important questions that need to be answered.

Before we do any more supercomputer simulations, and before we conduct any more field studies, an hypothesis
must be proposed that can actually explain the wide variety of existing data, and without blatantly violating any
laws of physics. This is the objective of the present work. A new candidate is nominated that takes thermodynamics,
electrostatics, and electrodynamics into account. Then, this candidate is tested for comprehensiveness. If a broad
range of observations can be explained with plausible physics, then this candidate will have passed more tests than
any existing hypothesis, and would therefore be worthy of further consideration.

5. Thermodynamics
Since the original source of all of the energy in a thunderstorm is heat, a quick review of the thermodynamic factors
should be considered first.

Thunderstorms are powered by heat stored in warm, moist air in the lower troposphere. If the upper troposphere is
far cooler, there is "convective potential" (i.e., the warm air wants to rise and the cool air wants to fall, so there is
the potential for convective motion).

Usually this convective potential dissipates as fast as it is created, as small thermal updrafts generated by high
surface temperatures rise gracefully, displacing cooler air that then falls. Cumulus humilis clouds might form, but
these are not thunderstorms.

Figure 7. Cumulus humilis clouds, courtesy Bidgee.

If "convective inhibition" is present, an unusually large amount of heat and humidity can build up in the lower
troposphere. This requires the presence of a layer of hot, dry air above the warm, moist air at the surface, such that
the warm air will not have the buoyancy necessary to rise into the upper troposphere. As the Sun continues to heat
the surface of the Earth, air temperatures near the surface increase, above those necessary for thermal updrafts had
the hot air not been there. Now the convective potential can build to extreme limits.

10
So there can be three different layers of air, from top to bottom:

cool, dry air in the upper troposphere,

hot, dry air in the middle, and

warm, moist air in the lower troposphere.

These layers will be stable in this arrangement, assuming that the cooler air on top is far lower in pressure, and
therefore is light enough to exist happily above hotter air, and so long as the middle layer keeps the other two layers
from coming into contact with each other.

But if the warm, moist air at the bottom gets hot enough to break through the hot, dry air above it, and come into
contact with the cool, dry air in the upper troposphere, the results can be explosive. The reason is not so much
because of differences in temperature, but because of differences in humidity. When warm, moist air meets cool air,
the warm air gets cooled, and its water vapor condenses into precipitation. For these water molecules to change
state from gas to liquid (or to solid higher in the cloud), they have to get colder, so they shed their heat into the
surrounding air. This is called the release of "latent heat," and so much heat is released by this process that now the
updraft will be hot enough to rise all of the way to the top of the upper troposphere, 12 km above the surface. 19

The next thing that happens is that a single updraft creates an entire storm. The rising of the initial updraft creates
a low pressure underneath it. This reduction in pressure encourages the condensation of water vapor, which
releases latent heat, making that air positively buoyant as well. When it rises, it draws in more air behind it, which
does the same thing. In this way, the initial updraft triggers a chain reaction that produces a continuous flow of air
from the lower troposphere into the upper troposphere. The result is a cumulonimbus cloud, and this can become a
thunderstorm.

Figure 8. Cumulonimbus cloud in Wagga Wagga, NSW, AU, 2005-11-25, courtesy Bidgee.

11
 Figure 9. Cumulonimbus cloud, courtesy Grant Firl.

Within the first 1 ⁄ 2 hour, a force emerges that might suppress the updraft. As the updraft continues to rise through
the storm, air in the middle of the cloud can get "entrained" into the updraft. Essentially, the rising updraft
generates a Venturi effect that draws in air laterally, and pulls it upward along with the updraft. This typically
happens most where there are bursts in the speed of the updraft, because water molecules are changing state, and
latent heat is being released. When it happens at the bottom of the cloud, where water molecules go from gas to
liquid, the entrainment simply draws in more warm air from the lower troposphere, reinforcing the updraft. But
this also happens in the middle of the cloud, roughly 4 km above the surface, where water molecules are going
from liquid to solid.

The initial impact of mid-level entrainment is to weaken the updraft. The air that is drawn into the updraft is
cooler, and it reduces the buoyancy of the updraft. A weak updraft might not survive this process, but a powerful
updraft will keep going. If it does, then eventually, the air motion in the upper portion of the cloud resolves into a
toroidal flow, with the updraft in the center, and the downdrafts around the outside.

It's significant to note that in fluid dynamics, a toroidal airflow is a very energy-conservative form. Consider, for
example, how far a smoke ring can travel, given just a little bit of momentum to start.46 It has no internal strength,
and therefore can be easily perturbed. But it is a low-friction, self-stabilizing structure that spins freely in the
surrounding air. So if the conditions are right, this form will emerge. In the top half of a thunderstorm, there are
upward, outward, downward, and inward forces to establish and maintain the toroidal form, so we can expect this
to be present.

It should also be noted that once this form emerges, the air being entrained back into the updraft is no longer cold
air, but rather, recirculating warm air. The coldest air in the downdrafts around the outside of the cloud will
continue their descent. The air most likely to be drawn back into the updraft will be warmer air that isn't falling as
fast. This air will insulate the updraft from cold air entrainment. Hence the toroidal form eventually emerges as a
frictionless recirculation of warm air, motivated by the updraft in the center and by the downdrafts around the
outside, and that sheds the coldest air away from the updraft.

12
 Figure 10. Air in the middle of the cloud is entrained back into the updraft,
setting up a toroidal airflow in the upper portion of the cloud.

After about an hour, powerful and sustained downdrafts will make their way to the surface level, where typically
they will put an end to the updraft. At the top of the cloud, precipitation released from the updraft evaporates in
the drier air of the upper troposphere. The evaporation process cools the air, increasing its density, and this makes
it fall. So downdrafts are created, equal in power to the updraft that initiated them. These downdrafts will head
straight for the low pressure under the updraft, filling it with cool air. This cuts off the supply of warm, moist air to
the updraft. When this happens, that updraft is finished.

Past this point, thunderstorm activity might begin in adjacent parcels of air. The downdrafts displace warm air at
the surface, possibly with enough force to elevate it out of the way. If so, this might trigger a new round of
precipitation, and new updrafts will form next to the old one. These new updrafts will follow the same course, and
in this way, a lateral chain reaction can develop across the countryside, with updrafts causing downdrafts that then
cause new updrafts elsewhere. This can result in a cluster of thunderstorms covering thousands of square
kilometers.

Figure 11. Downdrafts undercut the old updraft, and then create new updrafts
elsewhere.

13
6. Thermodynamic Supercells?
The existing thermodynamic model, as described in the previous section, is relatively complete as concerns
"normal" thunderstorms. But it falls well short of explaining supercells. A supercell is a single-updraft storm that
keeps going for several or many hours, somehow outliving its own downdrafts. Explaining how a single cell can
persist for so long, with thermodynamics alone, has proved challenging. There has to be some sort of force that
transforms a random set of low-power updrafts into one organized, high-power mesocyclone. But the physics for
this organizing force has not been demonstrated.

In the absence of an understanding of what actually causes supercells and tornadoes, a numeric model has been
developed, as depicted in Figures 12~14. 47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56 (More sophisticated modeling than this is being
done, 57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65 but the comments below apply equally well.)

Figure 12. Differences in wind speed and direction

result in horizontal rotation in the air.

14
 Figure 13. Horizontal rotation is tilted vertically by an
updraft.

Figure 14. The vertical rotation grows into a

mesocyclone.

While this model has a certain intuitive appeal, it is not physics. Figure 12 represents a plausible initial condition,
as crosswise vortexes in boundary layers are common. But the rest of the model abandons physics in favor of
simple constructs that are purely numeric. Such "math" can cause supercells on computer screens, but cannot
cause supercells in the atmosphere.

First, Figure 13 describes an updraft powerful enough to rise rapidly into the upper troposphere. But this is not just
a simple thermal updraft rising because of high surface temperatures. The only way to get an updraft of the implied
speed and force is for warm, moist air to come into contact with cool air, and for there to be the release of latent
heat. In other words, a powerful updraft is the result of the convective potential between the upper and lower
tropospheres. If a parcel of air crosses the boundary, the potential is released, and the updraft shoots skyward. So it
is one of the givens of the construct that because of the robustness of the updraft, it has already crossed the
boundary from the lower and into the upper troposphere. And yet another one of the givens of the construct is that
the boundary between these two layers of air remains distinct, as the crosswise vortex in the boundary persists.
These two givens are mutually exclusive. Either the boundary has been crossed, and latent heat is being released,
therefore there will be a powerful updraft, or the cap layer is still effective in maintaining the separation between
the upper and lower tropospheres, in which case there will be no updraft. There cannot be a powerful updraft and
an unbreached boundary separating the upper and lower tropospheres.

Second, even if some truly enormous source of heat at the surface (such as the eruption of a volcano) had generated
an updraft capable of rising into the upper troposphere without the release of latent heat, this updraft would not

15
preserve a boundary condition such as a crosswise vortex. When an updraft rises, it does not elevate the air above
it, but rather, it burrows its way through that air. The outside of the updraft is slowed by friction with the
surrounding air, while the inside is less impeded. This sets up a hemi-toroidal motion at the top of the updraft. The
outward splaying at the top of the updraft splits the air into which it is rising. This includes breaching any boundary
condition that it encounters, such as a crosswise vortex.

Figure 15. An updraft burrows through the cap layer, and into the upper
troposphere. It does not push the cap layer upward.

The only way to get a boundary condition to move as it does in the standard model is to have high pressure below
the boundary, and low pressure above it, such that the boundary is simply shifted, without local perturbations. But
the forces necessary to do this are simply not present. The energy in a thunderstorm comes from the convective
potential across the boundary. This fact cannot be overlooked.

Third, Figure 14 represents the eventual outcome of whatever process(es) created the mesocyclone, but leaves it up
to the imagination as to how the boundary vortex morphed into a cyclonic vortex. A boundary vortex requires a
constant input of energy from the outside in order to keep it organized. If it no longer has two different bodies of
air moving in two different directions on each side of it, it will cease to exist. So even if we could supply enough
high pressure below it, and low pressure above it, to tilt it into the vertical position, we would still need to keep a
steady stream of air on both sides, going in different directions, to keep this vortex rotating. And this kind of bi-
directional motion is simply not present in the upper troposphere. At best, one might say that a powerful updraft
rising into a shearing upper troposphere might develop eddies on its leeward side, and these would be vertical-axis,
"streamwise" vortexes. But streamwise vortexes are no different from crosswise vortexes in that both of them
require constant inputs of centripetal force from the outside to stay organized, and this force is supplied by
differences in wind vectors outside the vortexes. So there's no way that a streamwise vortex on the leeward side of
an updraft will continue to rotate after the updraft has dissipated. And as long as the updraft persists, it is by
definition the dominant force. So it will entrain air into itself, robbing air that might have risen into a streamwise
vortex on the leeward side. Hence there is no way for a secondary vortex outside of the updraft to become host to a
new updraft inside the vortex, initiating the transition to a cyclonic vortex.

All of this leads to the conclusion that there is simply nothing that is physically possible about the standard model
of supercells.

16
So just what kind of theory is this, that clearly violates very basic principles of thermodynamics? The answer is that
this is a mathematical model, not a physics model, and there's a big difference. There is a lot of mathematics in
physics, but there doesn't have to be a lot of physics in mathematics. It's always possible, and sometimes quite
useful, to develop mathematical algorithms that mimic the gross characteristics of a phenomenon, even in the
absence of an understanding of the physics that is driving those characteristics. For example, if we are doing a
coarse-grain study that doesn't need fine-grain specificity below a certain level, we use pure math to instantiate the
low-level behaviors that do not concern us. This leaves more processor power available to calculate the higher-level
behaviors that do concern us.

For this very reason, meteorologists have developed mathematical (i.e., non-physical) models that mimic the gross
characteristics of supercells. The granularity of interest is at the level of the cold, warm, and occluded fronts (which
are far larger than the storms themselves) that create the potential energy. The actual form that the energy release
takes within the storm is considered to be an effect rather than a cause. As such, there is no need to model the
storm-scale behaviors with mechanistic physics, and simple mathematical algorithms are the more economical
alternative.

With this approach, meteorologists have made great strides in severe weather forecasting. As an index of how far
we've come, in the 1950s, when meteorologists first started studying tornadoes with modern methods, researchers
could expect to spend about 4 months in the field chasing supercells just to see one tornado. Now the average field
time to see one tornado is about 2 weeks. All of this progress was made by studying the way fronts interact to
produce the energy in the storms.

But the issue is far from resolved. 72% of all tornado warnings are false alarms. Of the 28% that are warned, only
26% (or 7% of the total) will become EF2+ tornadoes, which are responsible for 96% of the tornado-related
fatalities. In other words, if a tornado warning is sounded, there's a 7% chance that somebody in the warning zone
will die. If there are 100,000 people within that zone, each individual has a 0.00007% chance of being that fatality.
At odds like that, people pretty much go about their business, and they just make a point to watch the 11 o'clock
news to see what happened. Hence it's arguable that the current technology is largely ineffective in saving lives.
We've come a long way in the past 60 years, but we cannot say at this time that tornado warnings are actually
anything more than media hype. Most of us would gladly warn 10 million people if we knew for sure that 1 of them
was going to die. But after the second or third time, we would find that nobody is listening, and that we're wasting
our time. If tornado warnings are to save lives, we have to improve the accuracy.

So what makes the difference between a normal thunderstorm and a supercell? It's not just a matter of degree,
because sometimes the available energy achieves extreme limits, and yet the energy is released by many small
updrafts in a convective complex rather than in one big updraft inside a supercell. And which supercells are going
to spawn tornadoes? And why do tornadoes sometimes descend from thunderstorms that are not supercells? These
are questions that do not have answers within the existing framework.

The general thinking in the meteorological community is that tornadic storms are formed and sustained by a purely
thermodynamic process, and that the differences in outcomes are simply the products of fine-grain thermodynamic
forces that do not show up in synoptic modeling. But this is an assumption, not a proof. Unfortunately, this
assumption leads meteorologists to neglect even collecting the data that might indicate the presence of non-
thermodynamic factors.

For example, meteorologists just completed VORTEX2, the most ambitious field study ever conducted on tornadic
storms. The following is an impressive overview of the instrumentation that was deployed.

VORTEX2 will use an unprecedented fleet of cutting edge instruments to literally surround tornadoes
and the supercell thunderstorms that form them. An armada of 10 mobile radars, including the Doppler
On Wheels (DOW) from the Center for Severe Weather Research (CSWR), SMART-Radars from the
University of Oklahoma, the NOXP radar from the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL), radars
from the University of Massachusetts, the Office of Naval Research, and Texas Tech University (TTU), 12
mobile mesonet instrumented vehicles from NSSL and CSWR, 38 deployable instruments including
Sticknets (TTU), Tornado-Pods (CSWR), 4 disdrometers from the University of Colorado (CU), weather
balloon launching vans (NSSL, NCAR and SUNY-Oswego), unmanned aircraft (CU), damage survey
teams (CSWR, Lyndon State College, NCAR), and photogrammetry teams (Lyndon State University,
CSWR and NCAR), and other instruments [will be deployed].

Yet in all of that, there wasn't one single electric field meter or magnetometer. No study of a thunderstorm would

17
be complete without at least one measurement of the degree of electrification. Such data would have been extremely
useful to geophysicists, who are learning to assess the probability of tornadogenesis on the basis of the lightning
signatures of the storms.66 But it has become a matter of principle among meteorologists that tornadic storms are
"purely thermodynamic," and that there is no need for electromagnetic data. Such professional territorialism is not
professional at all, and it creates a situation in which the credibility of the meteorological community rides on the
eventual outcome of future research. History proves that when scientists gamble all-or-nothing, to the point of not
collecting the data that could reveal new opportunities for progress, they are rarely rewarded. In fact, the narrow-
mindedness can corrupt even the data that they do have. The safer bet is to consider all possibilities.

If we take a step back from all of this, and survey our options, the path forward becomes clear. We have a good
general understanding of atmospheric thermodynamics. Yet no physics-constrained computational fluid dynamics
simulation, using just thermodynamic forces in realistic ranges, has ever reproduced a supercell, much less a
tornado. This constitutes direct evidence of the presence of some other force.

That other force can only be electromagnetism.

7. Charge Separations
In any thunderstorm, there is a charge separation between larger precipitation, which is negatively charged, and
smaller bits of precipitation, which are positively charged.67,68,69 Over time, a net negative charge accumulates in the
middle of the cloud, as the heavier precipitation descends toward the ground, while a net positive charge
accumulates at the top of the cloud, where small, positively-charged ice crystals linger, too light to fall at a
measurable rate. 70,71 The electrostatic potential between the ground and the negative charge in the middle of the
cloud is typically in the tens of millions of volts. The potential between the ground and the positive charge at the
top of the cloud can exceed a hundred million volts.72

In a supercell, there is an unusual lack of precipitation falling out of the cloud as the storm develops, 51 and there is
an unusual build-up of negative charge in the middle of the cloud. It's possible that the negatively-charged
precipitation is being held in suspension by an unusually strong positive charge at the top of the cloud. 73 The
source of the positive charge would be earlier thunderstorm activity.74,75 This powerful positive charge could simply
be the result of one storm lasting an unusually long period of time, and its own positive charge simply continuing to
accumulate. It could also be the result of the positively-charged anvil of one thunderstorm overhanging another
thunderstorm.76

Figure 16. Main charge regions develop in the cloud.

18
Once the main negative charge region develops in the middle of the cloud, there is good reason to believe that mid-
level entrainment will pull the negatively-charged precipitation back into the updraft. 77,78

All other factors being the same, the updraft does not have a net charge. It starts out being neutrally charged. When
precipitation first forms inside the updraft, it is neutrally charged as well. Interactions among the ice crystals that
form at higher altitudes result in a negative charge being transferred to whichever particle is heavier. But at that
point, no charge separation has occurred, and the updraft still has no net charge.

But once gravity separates out the heavier precipitation into the main negative charge region, and entrainment
pulls these negatively-charged particles back into the updraft, the updraft will then be bearing a net negative
charge. When the negatively-charged precipitation recirculates through the downdrafts and back into the updraft,
the downdrafts become charged as well.

8. Electromagnetic Toroids
Considering the facts that the updraft and the downdrafts are moving, and that they are bearing net negative
charges, the toroidal airflow in the upper portion of the storm constitutes a toroidal flow of electric current.
Interestingly, the toroid is a classic shape in electromagnetism, and has a very distinctive set of properties. If a
toroidal current is present in the upper portion of supercells, an understanding of electromagnetic toroids is a
necessary component in the complete description of these storms.

Figure 17. Toroidal electric current.

19
To understand the properties of an electromagnetic toroid, we should first consider a few of the basic principles of
electromagnetism. Ampère's law states that any moving electric charge will create an associated magnetic field. This
field will be proportional to the amount of charge and the speed at which the charge is moving, and it will have
circular lines of force around the moving charge, on a plane that is perpendicular to the direction of the movement.

Figure 18. Ampère's Law.

(B = magnetic field, and
I = electric current.)

When more than one charged particle is involved in the flow, the magnetic lines of force combine into a unified
force (known as the superposition principle). Lines of force are not physical entities; they are representations of the
amount and direction of the force. Meteorologists might find it useful to think of this in the same way that they
think of isobars from two different surface lows that are close to each other — the isobars will not intersect — the

20
pressure gradients from both systems will merge into a combined low pressure system.

In this way, all of the charged particles in the updraft will generate magnetic fields that will merge into one unified
magnetic field surrounding the updraft. (Note that in plan view, with negative charges traveling upward, the
magnetic field will be clockwise.)

Figure 19. Lines of force merge instead of intersecting.

Once the air gets to the top of the updraft, it will then expand horizontally, and then start flowing down around the
outside. This air is still carrying charged particles, so it is still generating magnetic fields. When flowing down
around the outside, there is enough space inside the ring of particles that an inner magnetic field can form, in
addition to the field that forms around the outside of the entire structure. Because the direction of flow is reversed
(these particles are going down instead of up), the direction of the magnetic fields will be reversed as well. So the
magnetic field around the outside will be counter-clockwise in plan view, while the inner magnetic field will be
clockwise. Note that in Figure 20, the two clockwise magnetic fields (one generated by the updraft and the other
generated by the downdrafts) are close to each other. Since they are concentric and co-directional, these fields will
augment each other.

Figure 20. Horizontal section of an EM toroid (U = up, D = down).

21
Figure 21. Electromagnetic toroid (only showing electric current and inner
magnetic field).

22
 Figure 22. Electromagnetic toroid (now showing outer magnetic field as well).

There are a number of factors that constrain the shape of the toroid. First, electromagnetic lines of force achieve the
shortest path possible given the factors that are creating them. This means that the lines of force will act like rubber
bands that will resist being stretched. Second, these lines of force repel each other. This results in an even
distribution of force. It is also the reason for the splaying of force around the outside of the toroid. (If it were not
for this factor, the lines of force would achieve a cylinder shape, not a toroid.)

And it is because of the combination of these factors that the inside of the toroid can have a small diameter, while
the outside has a large diameter. At rest, a charged gas tends to expand, because the electrostatic repulsion drives
the charged particles away from each other. But if the gas is moving in one direction, the charged particles will
generate a combined magnetic field. The magnetic lines of force want to achieve the shortest possible length, and so
they exert back-pressure on the moving electric charges, and this consolidates the particles. This is known as the
magnetic pinch effect, and this principle can be observed in the consolidation of electrons that creates lightning, as
well as in the filamentary nature of the discharges from a Tesla coil, both of which are inexplicable without taking
the magnetic pinch effect into account.79,80

The magnetic pinch effect from the outer magnetic field prevents the charged particles from escaping the system.
Hence EM toroids are said to have the property of capacitance — they can store electric charges, overpowering the
electrostatic repulsion that would ordinarily disperse the charges. As long as the particles keep moving, they'll keep
generating magnetic fields, and those fields will keep the particles from flying apart, instantiating the principle of
capacitance. But it is the inner magnetic field that completes the system. The primary source of the inner magnetic
field is the charged particles traveling upward through the center, but this field is reinforced by particles traveling
down around the outside. Hence the inner magnetic field will be powerful enough to offset the increased
electrostatic repulsion in the center of the toroid. Because of this coincidence of factors, a pole-less, closed-loop
electrodynamic system becomes possible, and even though it's a complex shape, at every point all of the forces are

23
in perfect equilibrium.

9. Effects of EM on Supercells
The toroidal airflow in the upper troposphere starts out as a loose confederation of flows in which each segment in
the flow just happens to pick up where the last one left off. The updraft splays out at the top of the cloud, where
downdrafts begin to descend for their own reasons. The downdrafts are slowed in their descent by the negatively-
charged particles suspended in the air, which have been separated from the positive charge at the top of the cloud,
and are now experiencing an upward electrostatic force. The downdrafts are also deflected toward the centerline of
the storm, because there is more positive charge in that direction. In the middle of the cloud, air is accelerated
inward by entrainment. And air entrained back into the updraft completes the loop. But it's a piece-wise loop, not a
continuous structure.

If the air motion is fast enough, and if enough charged particles are present, these four distinct airflow segments
will generate magnetic fields, and such fields will begin to influence the movement of the charged particles, by the
magnetic pinch effect. And since the fields are far larger than the airflows themselves, the fields will overlap. In the
overlapping areas, the net magnetic field won't have sharp corners — they'll be rounded. For example, where the
entrainment meets the updraft, there would be more or less of a 90° turn. But at the corner, there will be two
overlapping magnetic fields — one from the entrainment and one from the updraft. The net field will begin to turn
upward when it comes into the influence of the updraft's field, and the rounded turn will be complete when the
updraft's field is out of the influence of the entrainment's field. In this way, the net field from four perpendicular
airflows becomes continuous and rounded. And this means that the magnetic pinch effect will encourage the
charged particles to fall into a continuous toroidal loop.

Figure 23. Toroidal electrodynamic system becomes organized.

The significance of this, all by itself, is slight. Negatively-charged precipitation achieving a strict toroidal flow will
have little impact on the surrounding air. The air itself will be traveling in a roughly toroidal form. If particles in
that air are following a strict toroidal form, the particles will exert an aerodynamic force that will encourage the air
to follow the same form. This could result in a slight reduction in turbulence, helping the air transition smoothly
through each piece-wise stage in the airflow, and this might result in a slight increase in the air speed. Faster
speeds mean more powerful magnetic fields, and this would further encourage the toroidal form. But again, the

24
overall effect would probably be slight.

Yet there is a way in which moving negative charges could have a far larger impact on the surrounding air.

If the magnetic field surrounding the negative charge stream is capable of putting the particles into an endless loop
of recirculation, then the amount of charge that is recirculating will simply continue to accumulate over time. This
will result in a strong electric field between the negative charges inside the toroidal flow and the positive charges
outside of it. So when positively-charged precipitation mixes with drier air in the anvil of the cloud, and causes
evaporative downdrafts, these downdrafts will still be bearing net positive charges, and therefore, will be attracted
to the negative charges in the center of the storm.

Ordinarily, strong electric fields don't last long in a fluid medium. The electric force is so powerful that it takes a
rare set of circumstances for electrostatic potentials to develop without getting neutralized as fast as they are
created. But in thunderstorms, and especially in supercells, such circumstances exist. Heavier precipitation tends to
pick up a negative charge, while smaller bits of precipitation get positively-charged. The heavier precipitation has a
higher terminal velocity, so it falls faster, while the lighter precipitation is held in suspension in the anvil of the
cloud. Hence a combination of gravity and terminal velocity creates the charge separation in a thunderstorm.

If the charge separation process puts several kilometers of distance between the negative and positive charges, it
will take tens of minutes, or even hours, for the charged particles to work their way past the aerodynamic resistance
in order to recombine. In the meantime, positively-charged downdrafts will be attracted to their negatively-charged
correlates due to the electric force, while buffered from them by the aerodynamic force.

When the negative charges turn the corner and head toward the updraft, we will then expect the positive charges to
follow along. In this way, the toroidal flow of negative charges will become matched by an equal number of positive
charges following the same form. Considering the air speeds in question, the negative and positive charges will
make a full round-trip in the toroidal flow long before they have a chance to recombine. And at the top of the loop,
the charge separation will get refreshed by the effects of gravity and terminal velocity. So we can expect both the
negative and the positive charges to become stronger with time.

As a result, we can expect there to be a persistent charge separation, with recirculating negative charges
surrounded by a "double-layer" of positive charges traveling in the same direction. All of the forward motion will
still be motivated by the thermodynamic forces at play, but the actual direction of both negative and positive
charges will be influenced by the electrodynamic forces present.

Figure 24. Positive double-layer forms around the negative core.

25
The significance of a positive double-layer joining the toroidal airflow is that this will greatly increase the
aerodynamic force of the structure. The negative charges in the storm are concentrated in large particles (such as
hail) that exert little force on the surrounding air. But an equal number of positive charges will be far more effective
in altering airflows. The loss of electrons due to ionization shifts the matter along the solid~liquid~gas~plasma
series of physical states. Hence the charges in the positive double-layer will be found in a larger number of smaller
bits of matter, with more surface area, and therefore, exerting more aerodynamic force.

If, in fact, a substantial volume of air is involved in a toroidal flow in the upper portion of the cloud, and if there is
a powerful force in that flow that preserves the form, we must consider the effect that it will have on the rest of the
storm.

The bottom of the toroidal flow will act as a funnel, consolidating all of the rising air within the storm into a single
updraft. The inside of the structure will then act as a chimney, transforming a turbulent flow into a laminar one,
and guiding the updraft in a straight line to the top of the cloud. A straighter updraft means a shorter updraft, and
this means that more energy will be released in a shorter distance, and in a shorter period of time. More hot air,
following a straighter path, will mean a faster updraft.

In reality, the amount of effect is suspected to be relatively slight — a couple of percents at most on the velocities of
air within the storm. Nevertheless, the proposed interplay of factors constitutes a runaway system. The strength of
a magnetic field is a function of the amount of charge, and the speed at which the charge is moving. So the faster
the updraft, the more powerful the magnetic fields. And the more powerful the magnetic fields, the more influential
they will be in encouraging a strict toroidal form. To the extent that the toroidal airflow consolidates energy from a
wider area, and then straightens the updraft, the updraft will be further accelerated. And anytime a set of factors
combine in such a way that the prime mover is accelerated, the whole system gets accelerated, up to the next
higher set of limits, until all of the energy has been released. A couple of percents of added force doesn't sound like
a lot, but if this force is reentrant, it will create a runaway system. After all, if the effect was much more than a
couple of percents, it would not create a faster updraft — it would create an explosion. So a small but reentrant
force is correct.

Before going any further, the precise nature of the contentions being made here has to be clarified, or sloppy
definitions will lead to errors later. At the speeds in question, the strengths of the magnetic fields will be near
infinitesimal compared to the electric fields. So thinking of this system as a toroidal plasmoid, with inertial, electric,
and magnetic forces as the peers that will define the characteristics of the system, would be ridiculously incorrect.
Rather, there is an existing toroidal flow motivated by thermodynamic factors. The flow happens to contain charged

26
particles, which will generate weak magnetic fields, which will exert a slight degree of back-pressure on the charged
particles, encouraging them to fall into a strict toroidal flow. The particles themselves are actually weakly charged
by EM standards, but there are lot of them, and the magnetic fields are definitely present. Since the electric force
falls off with the square of the distance, but the magnetic force falls off only with the distance, the magnetic force is
more influential at large scales. Hence a large number of weakly charged particles will not experience a strong
electrostatic repulsion, but will generate a magnetic field that will result in some back-pressure. Aerodynamic
pressure then results in more of the surrounding air following the same path. This would have absolutely no
significance whatsoever if it were not for the fact that there is a pre-existing toroidal flow of fluid dynamic origins.
And the significance is not that the electrodynamic structure becomes a peer with the fluid dynamic forces present
— that would still be giving it too much credit. Rather, the proposal is that the EM toroid lowers the Reynolds
number in the toroidal flow, allowing a faster, better-organized laminar flow than would be possible otherwise. And
extremely subtle factors are very definitely capable of dramatic fluctuations in the Reynolds number. Still we expect
negligible effects, until we consider the fact that this constitutes a positive feedback loop. A faster, better-organized
laminar flow will generate more powerful magnetic fields, which will further reduce turbulence, resulting in a faster
flow.

So where is the mathematical support for such contentions? Typically this would be a very reasonable question, but
consider the complexity of the problem. Weak magnetic fields exerting back-pressure on moving electric charges,
encouraging them to fall into a toroidal recirculation, which then generates an aerodynamic force on the
surrounding air, artificially lowering the Reynolds number in a pre-existing toroidal recirculation, the net effect of
which is a couple of percents of positive feedback? If this is, in fact, the true nature of supercells, it's easy to see
why the solution has thus far eluded us. Reliable estimates of Reynolds numbers are derived experimentally, not
theoretically. Not being able to reproduce a supercell in a laboratory, we'd have to attempt a computer simulation
with the turbulence threshold determined heuristically. The aerodynamic forces would have to be calculated
separately for the negative inner core and for the positive double-layer, using guesswork to flesh out incomplete
charge density datasets, and then the fluid dynamic interplay between the two layers would have to be estimated.
Getting the magnetic field just forceful enough to influence the flow, but not dominate it, would take a lot of trial
and error, as the behaviors of forces near their drop-off points are always tough to estimate. And after guessing at
everything, what will an exact solution prove? It will prove merely that this might be correct. But we already knew
that.

We would prefer simulations in which we could expect more stable behaviors, and that would mean working with
moderate forces. But if the factors that produced supercells were within normal ranges, supercells would be the
norm, not the 1 in 1,000 case. So we cannot rule out unexpected behaviors from forces well outside their normal
ranges — we must rule in only those constructs that operate at such extremities — even if simulating them would
be extremely difficult.

It's clear to all of those who understand the problem that a proven solution is beyond the reach of current
technology. So there is little that can be done. But we can still do more than we are doing now. At the very least, we
can begin constraining ourselves to what is physically possible, which the present proposal appears to be. The
existing constructs do not meet this criterion, and the increase in rigor would mean that we're making progress.
And we can make comprehensiveness a hard constraint. Tornadic supercells have many distinctive properties. No
previous proposal has directly addressed the great diversity of phenomena in the problem domain. If we are now
considering a possibility that passes a comprehensive range of tests, there will be far fewer reasons to think that we
don't know what we're doing.

Therefore, the reinforced toroidal form, with a negative inner core and a positive double-layer, is proposed to be
the organizing principle that initiates the transition from a normal thunderstorm to a supercell. Subsequent
sections will establish a possible mechanism for the transition from a toroidal to a mesocyclonic flow, from which
the tornado will ultimately descend.

Note that this runaway system is not creating any energy, and thereby violating the First Law. The energy budget of
a supercell is unmistakably thermodynamic, and any electromagnetic forces present have to be conversions from
thermal potential, or the energy budget isn't going to work out. But the proposal here is not that the total amount
of available energy in the system is being altered. What's being altered is the rate at which work is being
performed. And there is no fixed law there, except that all of the factors have to be taken into account, and if the
circumstances favor the acceleration of the prime mover, the whole system will run faster, until all of the energy
has been expended. And we definitely know that something is altering the rate at which work is being performed.
We just can't get there with thermodynamics.

27
To look at it another way, it's the same amount of energy, but the organized toroidal form is consolidating all of the
energy released in a small convective complex into one single updraft. So we could have random 30 m/s updrafts in
a cluster of thunderstorms covering 10 km2 , or we could have one steady 80 m/s updraft, 2 km wide, in a supercell
— same energy either way. With thermodynamics alone, we just don't have the organizing principle that will affect
this transformation. But with a couple of percents of encouragement from electromagnetism, the rough
thermodynamic form resolves into an organized structure. The consolidation of energy and the reduction in
turbulence then results in faster speeds, and this further encourages the form.

It cannot be understated that this is neither an electromagnetic nor a thermodynamic construct. It is a thorough
integration of electromagnetic and thermodynamic factors in a unified framework, producing behaviors not
possible within either regime all by itself. So it's not an unusually robust open-air thermal system, and it's not a
low-energy plasmoid in a high-friction environment. It's thermal fluxes generating charge separations that then
modulate the thermal fluxes. To understand these systems, we have to see electromagnetism and thermodynamics
as fully intertwined sets of principles.

The study of coupled electromagnetic and thermodynamic forces is a young discipline. Here is a quote from a
recent work that describes the types of problems that are being tackled with such interdisciplinary methods.81

Electro-Magneto-Hydro-Dynamics (EMHD) addresses all phenomena related to the interaction of

electric and magnetic fields with electrically conducting or magnetic fluids. Electric and magnetic flow
control, for example, is a challenging area of mathematical and engineering research with many
applications such as the reduction of drag, flow stabilization to delay transition to turbulence, tailored
stirring of liquids, pumping using traveling EM waves, and many others. The application of electric and
magnetic fields in diverse branches of materials science such as crystal growth, induction melting,
solidification, metal casting, welding, fabrication of nanofibres, fabrication of specialty composites and
functionally graded materials, or ferrofluids is recently of growing interest. Fully coupled EMHD
systems, that is, in situations where the flow-field is influenced by the electric and magnetic fields and
where these fields are in turn influenced by the flow-field, are challenging research subjects with
applications in geo- and astrophysics (dynamo, magneto-rotational-instability, etc.). Numerical
simulations of many important processes (the growth of single crystals, metal casting for aerospace
applications, aluminum electrolysis, etc.) require sophisticated tools for coupled fluid flow ~ heat/mass
transfer ~ electromagnetic fields. In summary, computational EMHD is a vital subject of recent research
with a long list of interdisciplinary applications and scientific problems.

The present work studies tornadic supercells as charged gases, where the gases also contain charged liquid and
solid particles. The gases obey fluid dynamic laws, yet the charges are subject to EM forces, and the particles exert
aerodynamic force on the gases. The larger particles are also subject to gravitational and inertial forces. Heat
sources and sinks alter the density of the gases, which in the presence of gravity results in fluid motion. Such a
crossroads of all other disciplines puts this work squarely within the domain EMHD. This paper will then use
"EMHD" to refer to this particular interaction of forces, and the framework that emerges, when clarity requires that
the regime in question be identified. At some later date, some sort of term will be coined for this particular EMHD
construct, if anyone else begins actively developing a different treatment of the topic using EMHD principles. In the
meantime, please consider it to be expediency and disdain for arbitrary coinages, not presumptuousness, that are
the reasons for calling this the EMHD construct.

Figure 25. Top of supercell that produced an F4 tornado in La Plata, MD, 2002-04-28, courtesy
Steven Maciejewski.

28
Figure 26. Schematic of supercell thunderstorm, courtesy NOAA, redrawn by Vanessa
Ezekowitz.

29
10. Hail & Wind Shear
Now we shall embark on a review of a long list of distinctive characteristics of supercells, challenging EMHD to
clarify the observations. First we should consider one of the most common aspects of a severe thunderstorm: the
production of hail.

Existing theory states that hail forms at the top of the updraft, where precipitation released from the updraft falls
back through the updraft, colliding with other precipitation, creating larger aggregates. 82 While it's unquestionable
that this does happen, it can't be the whole story. The terminal velocity of precipitation when it first forms is lower
than that of dust, which follows the motion of the air first and the force of gravity last. So gravity is not a big factor
during the initial formation of precipitation. Furthermore, to the extent that gravity is a factor, it will act on all of
the particles in the same way. So all by itself, gravity does not create particle collisions. If the particles were of
different sizes, they would have different terminal velocities, and therefore would achieve different speeds, resulting
in particle collisions. But how are we going to get enough collisions to form aggregates of different sizes before
there are aggregates of different sizes?

Further still, the same standard theory also states that wind shear must be present in order for a thunderstorm to
develop to extreme limits. The reason given is that without wind shear, the updraft will be perfectly vertical, and
precipitation released at the top of the updraft will fall back down, through the updraft. When it does, some of the
precipitation will evaporate, cooling the air and creating a downdraft right on top of the updraft, snuffing it out. 49
Aside from the question of how microscopic ice crystals are going to "fall through" an updraft, this begs two more
questions. First, how does precipitation evaporate in an updraft that is already at its dewpoint and the temperature
is still dropping (otherwise it wouldn't be releasing precipitation that can "fall back down")? Second, the more
severe the thunderstorm, the more hail it produces. If wind shear has to be present in severe thunderstorms (to
prevent capping downdrafts), wouldn't they produce less hail? It's clear that some of the tenets within the standard
model are mutually exclusive, and that we're missing something fundamental in our understanding of the
formation of hail.

EMHD provides four factors that could be contributing to this process.

First, we know that the main negative charge region develops in the middle of the cloud. It is reasonable to assume
that the negative charges are being held in suspension by the electrostatic potential between themselves and the

30
positive charges at the top of the cloud. If so, then the electrostatic potential will cause particle collisions, by getting
particles to fall at different speeds, depending on their electric charges. In other words, just as differences in
terminal velocity will cause particle collisions in the updraft, differences in electric charge will cause collisions in
the main negative charge region.

Second, the electric field between the main positive and negative charge regions through which particles are falling
will polarize those particles. This creates a slight electrostatic potential between them. With the main positive
charge above, and the main negative charge below, a falling particle will show more positive charge downward, and
more negative charge upward. A heavier particle falling toward a lighter particle will be similarly polarized, but
with respect to each other, they are showing opposite charges. Hence there will be an attractive force that will
increase the chance of a collision.

Third, the standard model does not place any significance on recirculation of air within the cloud, but the EMHD
model does. In fact, the EMHD model asserts that electrodynamic forces are instantiating the principle of
capacitance, where the charged particles are locked inside magnetic fields, and therefore will recirculate ad
infinitum. This recirculation will afford many more opportunities for particle collisions.

Fourth, it's possible that the magnetic pinch effect not only keeps the charged particles within the recirculation
pattern, but also increases the chance of particle collisions by pushing them closer together. The magnetic pinch
effect at the speeds in question will be far weaker than the electrostatic repulsion of like charges within the charge
stream, but we will nevertheless expect the charges to be closer together than thermodynamics would predict.

While these appear to be more plausible conditions in which hail can form, there is one question that is left open. If
wind shear is not likely to be encouraging the development of severe thunderstorms by preventing evaporation on
top of the updraft, then what is the nature of the well-known relationship between wind shear and severe
thunderstorms?

There are two likely reasons, both having to do with thermodynamic factors at the bottom of the storm, rather than
the top. First, the tilt in the updraft will make the downdraft fall further from the bottom of the updraft, reducing
the chance of undercutting the updraft. A downdraft that hits the ground close to an updraft, but without
undercutting it, will actually accentuate the updraft, because it displaces warm air that then joins the updraft with
force.83 So a tilt in the updraft can help it survive the first wave of descending cold air. Second, without wind shear,
the thunderstorm has a limited supply of warm, moist air in its immediate vicinity with which to work. Once that's
gone, that cell is done. But with wind shear, a storm in the upper troposphere can stay organized while it is fed
with an endless supply of new thermal energy from below. Cold air from the downdraft is swept away, replaced by
warm, moist air that can keep the updraft going.

Figure 27. Wind shear prevents downdrafts from undercutting the updraft.

31
Adding the contentions in this section to those from the previous section, a far more plausible description of the
general nature of supercells becomes possible.

If wind shear is present, the downdraft will not undercut the updraft, and an endless supply of thermal energy
in the lower troposphere can feed the storm in the upper troposphere. Now the storm can last much longer
than an hour.

The longer the storm lasts, the more positive charge accumulates at the top of the cloud, and the more
negative charge is held in suspension in the middle of the storm, where it starts recirculating in the toroidal
airflow. Hail begins to form.

If the recirculating air is bearing a net negative charge, electrodynamic forces will organize and accentuate the
motion, transforming the updraft into a mesocyclone.

The far more powerful updraft will then be able to draw in air from a much wider area, and the single-cell
storm will grow to enormous proportions.

Note that in EMHD, electromagnetism and thermodynamics are peers. Neither dominates, and neither can be
forgotten, in a complete description of the phenomena.

Figure 28. Supercell that dropped hail accumulating to 12 inches on the ground in Chaparral,
NM, 2004-04-03, courtesy Greg Lundeen.

32
11. Toroids to Mesocyclones
So far, the EMHD model has a toroidal recirculation of the air in the top half of the storm that creates a runaway
system. Yet the defining characteristic of a supercell is its rotating updraft — the mesocyclone. 51 (Its name belies
the ancient assumption that hurricanes, supercells, and tornadoes were all manifestations of the same principles,
on 3 different scales, and all were called "cyclones." We now know that these are fundamentally different
phenomena, yet the names persist.) And there are significant differences between toroidal and mesocyclonic
airflows.

There is a growing body of evidence that mesocyclones develop in the upper portion of the cloud, and then extend
downward to eventually include the whole storm. 52,84,85,86,87 Existing models do not take these data into account. An
uplifted crosswise vortex, or a streamwise vortex on the leeward side of an updraft, would have the rotation begin
in the bottom half of the storm, if these were, indeed, realistic models anyway. So the EMHD model, focusing on
the top half of the storm as the origin of organized recirculation, is starting in the right place. But the data tell us
that if a toroidal airflow does develop, it evolves into a mesocyclonic flow, before the mesocyclone descends.

Assuming that there is a powerful recirculation that has already become organized, and assuming that wind shear
is present from the middle to the top in the storm, the transition from a toroidal to a mesocyclonic airflow is
simple. Figure 29 represents the airflows at the bottom of a toroidal recirculation, where the black dots represent
sources of air, which are the downdrafts getting entrained back into the updraft in the center. Mid-level winds are
shown moving from the bottom to the top of the image, and are responsible for deflecting the air downwind (up the
page) as it approaches the updraft in the center. Winds above this level are traveling to the right, shifting the
downdrafts such that the updraft is nearer the left side. Under these conditions, downdrafts on the right, which are
drawn back into the updraft, are offset upward on the page, more than the updrafts on the left. This means that
there will be more angular momentum on the right side than on the left, and this will establish rotation in the
warm recirculation.

33
 Figure 29. Flow lines at bottom of toroidal airflow
(mid-level entrainment), in plan view, with wind
shear. Fluid dynamics applet by William Devenport.

Note that this relies heavily on robust recirculation, one of the central tenets in the EMHD model, and which is not
present in the other models. We can clearly see in the data that mid-level entrainment has to be as powerful as the
updraft and the downdrafts to get well-defined rotation, but the standard models do not identify forces capable of
such powerful entrainment. In fact, the Venturi effect mentioned previously cannot possibly be responsible for well-
defined mid-level entrainment. We should expect friction between the updraft and the surrounding air to result in
some upward acceleration, but only before the updraft becomes organized. A powerful updraft that makes it
through the mid-level will resolve into a hemi-toroidal motion, wherein the outside of the updraft is stopped, while
the inside continues to rise. Hence there is no fluid dynamic reason to expect any measurable entrainment at all.
Knowing that it exists, theorists rationalize it as a Venturi effect, but such is not mechanistic reasoning. The EMHD
model identifies electrostatic and electrodynamic reasons for an organized recirculation, and in that context, mid-
level entrainment makes sense.

Also note that this construct asserts that what is rotating is the recirculating air that forms a sheath around the
updraft. Eventually, the updraft will start rotating as well. But it's not the inflow to the updraft that has the angular
momentum necessary to instantiate a cyclonic inflow. Rather, the updraft begins as a non-rotating convergent
inflow, which simply happens to flow inside a rotating sheath, and eventually starts rotating as well.

We shouldn't expect the mesocyclone to be any worse in funneling updrafts into a single entity. In a cyclonic
entrainment regime, the net effect on lower air rising up into the mesocyclone will be to funnel the air toward the
center, even if there is also a rotating counterpart to the motion. It's even possible that the rotating sheath
accentuates the updraft. Precipitation in the rotating entrainment will be subject to the centrifugal force, and will
move outward to the limits of the EM forces at play. The outward movement will exert a small aerodynamic force
on the surrounding air, carrying it along. This will further decrease the pressure inside the sheath. And that, of
course, will increase the buoyancy of the air there, which is the updraft.

Note that in an EM toroid, there is one magnetic field that wraps around the entire system, and then another, inner
magnetic field that cinches the waist. But if the return air at the bottom is offset and rotation is induced, the sheath

34
around the updraft will resolve into a solenoid. The rotating negative charges will generate a magnetic field with
lines of force traveling downward in the center, while the positive double-layer, which forms the inner sheath, and
which rotates in the same direction, will generate an opposite magnetic field. We should expect this EM structure to
have more force that any proposed so far. The magnetic fields will have no effect on the updraft, since it is
neutrally-charged. Nevertheless, the double-layered sheath constitutes the chimney though which the updraft will
ascend.

It should also be noted in a solenoid, there is no longer a magnetic pinch that can constrict the sheath. Instead, the
repulsion of the far stronger magnetic lines of force will result in a much weaker field density outside of the
solenoid. So while a magnetic pinch might help organize a toroidal flow, it definitely does not organize a solenoidal
flow, and at this point, we can actually expect the sheath to relax into a wider diameter, though the overall speed
will remain the same, as it is still motivated by upward, outward, downward, and inward forces outside of it.

Figure 30. Magnetic lines of force generated by

rotating electric charges. Applet by Paul
Falstad.

12. Descending Mesocyclones

Once a mesocyclonic flow gets established in the top half of the storm, it then extends downward, eventually
dominating the entire storm. As airspeeds increase, the mesocyclone is able to draw air from lower in the storm,
where there is far more energy. (The release of latent heat at the bottom of the storm, where water molecules go
from gas to liquid, is far more powerful than the liquid-to-solid release in the middle of the storm.) Hence we can
expect airspeeds to increase as the size of the mesocyclone grows.

As the mesocyclone extends downward, the structure of the recirculation changes as well. In the top half of the
storm, we can expect enough wind shear to get the downdrafts to be offset from a concentric circle around the
updraft. But if the downdrafts begin at the top of the storm, and fall all of the way to the bottom, there will be
enough wind shear to get them to fall entirely on the leeward side of the updraft. The next four figures illustrate the
proposed metamorphosis, from a toroidal recirculation in the top half of the cloud, to a mature mesocyclone
dominating the entire storm.

Figure 31. Toroidal flow in upper half of storm.

35
Figure 32. Initiation of mesocyclonic flow in upper half of storm.

Figure 33. Mesocyclone extends downward. Note that wind shear carries all of
the downdrafts to the leeward side of the storm, where they merge.

36
 Figure 34. Mesocyclone achieves full height.

Figure 35 shows a 3D representation of the reflectivity within a tornadic storm. (Red means > 50 dBZ; orange
means 43~44 dBZ. Note that this scan leaves out the bottom 1 km or so of the storm, since Doppler radar can't see
below 0.5° above the horizon, because of ground clutter issues. Nevertheless, the base of this storm was about 1 km
above the surface, so we're not missing much, except the rain under the hook echo, and of course, the tornado.) The
reflectivity thins out at the top of the updraft, so we can't see the complete loop, but the updraft is clearly visible,
and we can see the precipitation in the forward flank downdraft feeding directly back into the updraft. The tubular
structure of the recirculation is also clearly visible on the right-hand side of the image.

37
 Figure 35. Volumetric reflectivity of the storm that produced
an F5 tornado in Moore, OK, 1999-05-03, courtesy GRLevelX.

In its mature form, the mesocyclone is quite anomalous by fluid dynamic standards. The classic "hook echo" shape
is created by the dense reflectivity at the bottom of the recirculation. So why doesn't this precipitation simply fall
straight to the ground? And why does it get drawn back into the updraft, moving faster than the warm, moist inflow
to the updraft coming from the flanking line? Such questions do not have fluid dynamic answers.

At the same time, it's hard to believe that electrodynamic forces created this structure, as the magnetic fields would
never have closed into this form without an existing flow field of roughly the same form.

The only possibility is that the structure evolved into this form. The EMHD model establishes plausible conditions
in which positive feedback between electromagnetic and fluid dynamic forces can create an organized system. Then
the system grows into the mature form, eventually becoming something that neither fluid dynamics nor
electromagnetism could create, all other factors being the same. Only in this context can the mature mesocyclone
be understood.

13. Curved Hodographs

A hodograph is a 2D graphic that represents differences in wind directions and speeds through the altitudes.87 If we
draw a vector from the origin of the coordinate system (x = 0, y = 0) in the direction of the wind, and at the
appropriate length, for each elevation, and then connect the ends of the vectors with a polygon, we get a
"hodograph" as depicted in Figure 36. The figure shows that the surface winds were traveling to the WNW; the
winds at 2 kilometers above the surface were to the N; at 4 km to the NE, etc. So in this case, there was a smooth
progression of wind changes through the altitudes.

Figure 36. Curved hodograph,

courtesy NWS Louisville, KY.

38
This pattern of shifting winds is favorable to the development of a mesocyclone. The critical factor appears to be
that the wind direction continues to change in a smooth progression through the altitudes. If the winds reverse
direction, producing a zigzag hodograph, mesocyclones are less likely to develop.

The mechanistic reasons for the significance of this wind pattern have not been identified, but the EMHD model
offers a suggestion. Robust recirculation in the presence of wind shear will induce rotation, as presented in the
previous sections. Since mesocyclones appear to be born in the top half of the cloud, a consistent wind shift from 5
km up to 10 km would be the critical factor there. Then, for the mesocyclone to mature to a full depth of 10 km, the
shearing conditions have to be the same throughout the altitudes, otherwise the rotation will be perturbed, and the
mesocyclone will fall apart. In fact, the central contention in the EMHD model is that the forces that organize the
recirculation are subtle. A weak magnetic force artificially lowers the Reynolds number, enabling a large laminar
structure that would not be possible otherwise. So it's not that the EM forces are dominating the fluid dynamic
forces, but rather, that they are merely modulating the Reynolds number. Only if the fluid dynamic and EM forces
are in unison (as in a curved hodograph) will a mature mesocyclone be possible. A zigzag hodograph indicates that
the fragile positive feedback loop will be perturbed, resulting in the randomization of the airflow, and the
irreversible failure of the mesocyclone.

14. Scale Independence

The principles of thermodynamics are scale-independent. Whatever occurs at one scale will occur at another, and so
long as we scale distances and speeds by the same factor, everything should match up perfectly (unless other factors
come into play that are not scale-independent).

This is a problem for the thermodynamic approach to supercell thunderstorms, in that we have a good
understanding, in purely thermodynamic terms, of a vortex at a different scale — the tropical cyclone — but the
numbers don't match up.

Figure 37. Hurricane Ivan, 2004-09-15, courtesy NASA.

39
Tropical cyclones provide a perfect example of the amount of energy that can be stored in warm, moist air, and the
rate at which that energy can be released. Tropical cyclones form over the ocean, where surface friction is at a
minimum, and the amount of available water vapor is at a maximum. Such storms begin to lose energy as soon as
they come ashore. Maximum sustained wind speeds in a tropical cyclone are 85 m/s. 88 The amount of energy
present in the atmosphere would be capable of wind speeds even higher than that, but the faster the winds, the
lower the pressure of the inflow, and this encourages water vapor to condense before it gets to the updraft in the
center of the system. The release of latent heat forms updrafts, and ultimately thunderstorms, in the feeder bands.
As a result, a lot of the energy in the storm is "wasted" by turbulence in the feeder bands, and this places an upper
limit on how violent the storm can become.

But supercells are obviously a different breed. Despite forming over land, where the surface friction is far greater,
and with less moisture, supercells are capable of wind speeds over 150 m/s — roughly double that of a tropical
cyclone. For some reason, the limits set by turbulence in the feeder bands do not apply to supercells.

The general thinking in the meteorological community is that unlike tropical cyclones, supercells feed on energy
that has built up below a cap layer, and where there is a major difference in temperature and humidity between the
lower and upper tropospheres. Such conditions are short-lived and relatively localized, but represent a more
significant (local) potential than is present anywhere in a tropical cyclone. That much is true. But that still does not
explain the moderate speeds in the flanking line.

The only reasonable explanation for the far greater speeds in a mesocyclone is to assume that these speeds are
instantiated in air that is recirculating, where newly-released energy is contributing to an existing airflow. In other
words, the rate of inflow and the internal rotation do not have to be directly related. The speed in a supercell's
flanking line is analogous to the speed in a tropical cyclone's feeder bands, and the one scales up to the other
appropriately (until the tropical cyclone's feeder bands develop their own updrafts). The actual speeds within the
mesocyclone are way out of proportion to the inflowing speed in the flanking line, proving that these structures are
indirectly related.

15. Steering Winds

40
Predicting the direction and speed of a supercell is obviously of extreme importance, as the general public needs to
be informed of the impending danger. But the movement of a supercell is surprisingly tough to predict accurately.
As a result, storm-based tornado warnings have to allow for a wide margin of error.

A rough rule of thumb is that a supercell will travel in a direction that is 30° to the right of the average mid-level
winds, and at 75% the speed of those winds. 89 More sophisticated algorithms have been developed for predicting
storm motion given the direction and speed of the mid-level winds, 90 but with only marginal improvements in
accuracy.91 The loose relationship between winds and storm motion suggests that we're missing something
fundamental.

Another aspect of supercells lacking a good explanation is the fact that the updraft tends to be perfectly straight,
with a 15° tilt because of wind shear.92 This is anomalous because wind speeds typically increase with altitude, and
therefore we would expect the updraft to curve as it ascends. When the updraft enters the jet stream, at roughly 10
km above the surface, we would expect the curvature to be dramatic. But this is not what typically happens.

Electromagnetism offers an explanation for the straightness of the updraft, and in so doing, enables a new way of
predicting storm motion that might prove to be more reliable. In a mesocyclone, the EM forces resolve into a
solenoid. The repulsion of like charges, and the superimposed magnetic fields, favor a straight updraft, even if
winds at different altitudes are traveling in different directions and speeds. In other words, the double-layered
solenoid configuration is stable to the point of rigidity.

Figure 38. Effects of buoyancy, wind shear, and EM on the shape of the updraft.

This goes on to offer an explanation for the 30° offset in the direction of the storm relative to the mid-level winds.
If we take a second look at the typical wind directions and speeds, 30° to the right of the mid-level winds is
typically the direction of the jet stream. By thermodynamic standards, there's no way that the jet stream could be
influencing the direction of the storm, but by electromagnetic standards, this is easily possible. If the updraft has a
powerful force that is keeping it straight, and if the jet stream is exerting a lateral force on the updraft at the top,
then this will exert a force on the bottom of the updraft, dragging it along wherever the top is being pushed.

Analogously, if a pencil is suspended by one end under water, the pencil's buoyancy will tend to keep it pointed
straight up. If the water is moving at the top of the pencil, the pencil will lean in the direction of the movement.
Because of its buoyancy and because of its rigidity, the pencil will transfer the force to the bottom, and the entire
pencil will move in the direction of the water, even if the water is only acting on the top of the pencil.

Similarly, the updraft in a supercell is buoyant, so it would otherwise tend to be perfectly vertical. If the top of the
updraft is in the jet stream, the updraft will be tilted. Because of the updraft's buoyancy and because of its rigidity,

41
and because the jet stream is so much more powerful than the lower-level winds, the bottom of the storm will tend
to follow the top, rather than the top following the bottom as we would otherwise expect.

This will be true to the extent that the mesocyclone is well-developed in the jet stream. Weaker thunderstorms,
even in the same general vicinity, will tend to follow the lower-level winds. So called "left-moving" supercells (that
travel in a direction that is to the left of what is expected) might then be "left-movers" simply because they are not
as vertically-developed as "right-moving" supercells. In other words, normal thunderstorms, and low-topped
supercells, will tend to be "left-movers." Fully-developed supercells will tend to be "right-movers." In the transition
from a normal thunderstorm to a supercell, the storm will tend to make a right-hand turn compared to its original
course.93 As the storm weakens, it will turn back to the left. All of these are well-known behaviors, though
thermodynamics cannot make the connection, while the EMHD model can.

Figure 39. Strong storm follows the jet stream.

For example, during the tornado in Moore, OK, on May 3, 1999, the upper-level winds were from the southwest,
while the lower-level winds were from the south. The storm tracked in a northeast direction during its most intense
stages, following the upper-level winds. As it dissipated, it turned to the north, no longer controlled by the jet
stream and then moving in the direction of the lower-level winds. This was true during its final dissipation stage, as
well as during a brief dissipation period as it crossed the Canadian River.

Figure 40. Oklahoma City, OK

42
Figure 41. Upper-level winds during F5 tornado in Moore,
OK, courtesy Unisys.

Figure 42. Lower-level winds during F5 tornado in Moore,

OK, courtesy Unisys.

43
 Figure 43. Moore, OK damage path, courtesy Google Maps.
(pink = F1, orange = F2, red = F3, dark red = F4, magenta = F5)

Here is similar information from the rash of tornadoes in Kansas on May 4, 2007 (one of which devastated
Greensburg).

Figure 44. Greensburg, KS

Figure 45. Upper-level winds during F5 tornado in

Greensburg, KS, courtesy Unisys.

44
 Figure 46. Lower-level winds during F5 tornado in
Greensburg, KS, courtesy Unisys.

Figure 47. The first 15 damage paths in south-central Kansas, 2007-05-04,

courtesy Leslie Lemon.

45
If the contentions in this section are correct, then a pre-existing knowledge of the wind speeds and directions,
combined with real-time magnetometer readings to determine the amount of EM force present, and its vertical
extent, would produce better short-term tornado track predictions.

Note that the curl at the end of the Greensburg damage path was due to a surge of cold air at the intersection of the
warm, cold, and occluded fronts that wrapped around the storm so rapidly that it created an eddy. These will
always be impossible to predict far in advance, and even predicting such behaviors minutes in advance would take
an array of thermometers and anemometers within a couple of kilometers of the storm, and a team of scientists to
analyze the data in real time. So unless the storm is the subject of a large field study, we'll never know when these
curls are going to happen.

Figure 48. Warm, cold, and occluded

fronts, courtesy University of
Illinois.

46
16. Hail & Centrifugal Forces
The largest hail produced by supercells can be over 100 mm in diameter. The final aggregate is a one-time
consolidation of smaller hail, where the individual components are rarely more than 25 mm across.

Figure 49. Hail with 60 mm diameter, courtesy NOAA

Photo Library.

Figure 50. Largest hailstone ever recorded, 178 mm in diameter, from

Aurora, NE, 2003-06-22, courtesy NOAA.

47
Doppler radar clearly reveals the presence of hail in the updraft. But it's hard to imagine how even small hail could
have risen within the updraft without being centrifuged out of it. With rotational speeds in the mesocyclone
approaching 150 m/s, the hail would be spun out of the updraft and distributed on the ground in a 360° pattern.
This, of course, is not what happens — hail only falls more or less along the inside edge of the hook echo, with the
larger hail falling nearer to the mesocyclone.

Figure 51. Supercell

precipitation, courtesy
NWS.

The only possible explanation for the lack of centrifugal ejection is that there is another force that is opposing it.
That other force could only be electromagnetism. If the mesocyclone is a sheath of negative charges revolving
around positively-charged recirculation, the electric force will keep charged particles (such as hail) within the
updraft. The only hail that does fall to the ground is not hail being centrifuged out of the updraft, but rather, is
falling out of the hook echo. The EMHD model asserts that if the precipitation is weakly-charged, it can escape the
magnetic field surrounding the recirculation pattern, and fall to the ground. Otherwise, it will make another
complete pass through the storm.

Furthermore, larger hail falls nearer the mesocyclone, while smaller hail falls in the forward flank core. This is

48
anomalous because the larger hail has a higher terminal velocity, and all other factors being the same, we would
expect it to break out of the recirculation pattern earlier than smaller hail. Hence the stratification should be from
larger hail in the forward flank core to smaller hail nearer the mesocyclone. But the larger the aggregate, the more
net charge it can support. And while the terminal velocity and the momentum of the hail increase as straight-line
functions of size, and so does the net charge, the effective force of the magnetic field increases far more rapidly, as
the fundamental force is so much more powerful.

17. Green Thunderstorms

Hail-producing thunderstorms, including supercells, often have a distinctive green color.94,95 (See Figures 52 and
53.)

The standard explanation for this is that light is reflecting up from green vegetation on the ground, and then
getting reflected back to us by the cloud. But this does not explain why this happens even if there isn't much
vegetation in the area,95 nor does it explain such robust reflectivity in the shade of a huge thunderstorm. It also
does not explain why the effect is limited to a small area, between the main rain area and the central updraft.

Figure 52. Blue-green supercell in Hagerman,

NM, 2004-10-05, courtesy Steven Johnson. The
patch of green vegetation responsible for the
cloud's color is clearly visible in the foreground.

Due to the brightness of this color, another common explanation is that this is skylight that is making its way
through voids in the cloud, and then getting scattered when it exits out of the bottom. 96 But Doppler radar reveals
that the main rain area is the densest region in the storm, so we should not expect any sunlight to make it through
this region. Furthermore, the effect is pronounced even in the late afternoon or early evening, when the Sun is low
in the sky and the intensity of the blue light in the atmosphere is waning.

Figure 53. Blue-green supercell with a tornado, wall cloud, and tail cloud, in Big Spring, NE,
2004-06-10, credit Eric Nguyen, courtesy Corbis Corporation.

49
Identifying the microphysical processes responsible for a luminous color is a complex endeavor, but one sure
source of photon emission is the capture of an electron by a positive ion. In order for this to be happening enough
to create visible luminosity, there would have to be a lot of ions picking up free electrons. Studies have shown that
while the precipitation that falls to the ground originates from a region in the cloud that is predominantly negative,
outside of the cloud the precipitation has a predominantly positive charge. 19,97 The only possible conclusion is that
something is stripping the electrons from the falling precipitation, but there's (obviously) nothing in the
thermodynamic model that can do this.

The EMHD model offers two suggestions, and it's possible that both contribute to the net result. First, negatively-
charged precipitation passing through the magnetic field that surrounds the negative charge stream will be subject
to an ExB drift, possibly with enough force to liberate the excess electrons. Here we have to remember that the
forces that permit a water molecule to host an extra electron are subtle. Once liberated, the electron will emit a
photon upon arrival at the first molecule it hits. But there's no way that an ExB drift at these speeds could be
responsible for splitting matched charges, leaving the particle positively-charged. To actually get positively-charged
precipitation, the particles would have to pass through positively-charged air, losing electrons in the process. This,
then, constitutes one of the lines of evidence in support of the contention that there is a positive double-layer
surrounding the negative charge stream.

If this is correct, we just have to look at the emission spectra for nitrogen, oxygen, and water, to determine which
molecules are the most likely sources for this color. Both nitrogen and water have emission lines in the blue~green
band. These bands dominate the actual emissions because a wider variety of atomic events can produce shorter
wavelengths of photons.98

Figure 54. Nitrogen emission spectrum, courtesy Joachim Köppen.

50
 Figure 55. Oxygen emission spectrum, courtesy Joachim Köppen.

Figure 56. Emission spectrum of water vapor, courtesy Nino Čutić.

Please note that contemplating the nature of green thunderstorms is heresy. Consider the following quote from
Scientific American. 99

Research on green thunderstorms is limited and not well funded. As Penn State's Craig Bohren says,
this is "not exactly a hot topic of research. Indeed, being curious about them can be hazardous to one's
career." For example, the small grant from the National Science Foundation for the portable
spectrophotometer Frank Gallagher used was derided by then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's
office, and by Richard Pombo, then a Republican congressman from California, who denounced Bohren
in the Congressional Record.

So if you're reading this because you think that there's money in it for you, stop reading. But if you want to see how
advances in tornado theory could help save lives, please continue.

18. Thermodynamic Tornadoes?

It seems that many distinctive characteristics of supercells become easier to explain when electromagnetism is
taken into account. But by far the most distinctive characteristic of these storms, and the least explicable with

51
thermodynamics alone, is tornadoes.

In rough terms, tornadoes are not hard to understand. The updraft in the thunderstorm creates a low pressure
beneath it, causing a massive inflow. Air responding to a low pressure will tend to converge straight toward the low
pressure from all directions, with the kinetic energy falling off with the square of the distance from the source of the
low pressure. But if external factors offset the inflow, the air will spiral inward. The centrifugal force that emerges
will then oppose the low pressure. This means that the low pressure has to get its air from somewhere else. As the
low pressure and the centrifugal force are in equilibrium, the pressure at the center of the vortex equals the
pressure at the source of the low pressure. In essence, the low pressure has been "piped" through the vortex. At the
end of the "pipe," if the air is not spiraling inward, then we go back to the simple case, where air converges in a
straight line, and the kinetic energy falls off with the square of the distance from the end of the pipe. But if the air
flowing toward the end of the pipe is also spiraling inward, then once again the centrifugal force opposes the low
pressure, and the low pressure has to be satisfied by air from elsewhere. In this way, a low pressure can extend a
great distance away from its source through a vortex, where the only limiting factor is the very slight amount of
friction resulting from the rotation, dissipating the energy as we move away from the source.

The hard part is understanding why tornadoes rotate so robustly at the surface of the Earth, considering the vast
amount of friction encountered at the solid boundary. A vortex 350 m tall, 35 m across, and rotating at 45 m/s, will
only lose about 1,000 watts of power due to friction in the air. But the same vortex will lose about 1,000,000 watts
of power to skin friction at a solid boundary. So it will take 1,000 times more energy to rotate the vortex at the
surface than it takes in the entire 350 meters above the surface. And in a suction vortex, there is no source for such
energy. Energy dissipates away from its source due to friction — it doesn't increase by 3 orders of magnitude when
it hits an opposing force. So nominally speaking, the air speed at the surface should be less than 1 ⁄ 1,000 of the speed
above the surface. If the air speed 350 m above the surface is 45 m/s, the air speed at the surface should be less
than .045 m/s. In other words, the air at the surface should not be moving at all. And with no movement, there will
be no vortex. In actuality, no single force dictates the final answer — all of the forces present will have their effects,
and we have to add it all up to get the eventual result.

The low pressure moves air inward.

An external factor offsets the air, initiating a cyclonic inflow.

Skin friction at the solid boundary greatly reduces the air speed at the surface. If the surface is perfectly
smooth, the effect will be limited to the air directly at the surface, but an uneven surface will create turbulence
that will extend the effect well above the surface.

The reduction in air speed reduces the centrifugal force, and the air flows more directly toward the low
pressure.

Without the opposition of the centrifugal force, the low pressure is relieved at the boundary.

Less low pressure means less centripetal force, resulting in a widened vortex at the boundary, with slow
rotation.

Once the air enters the vortex and begins its ascent toward the source of the low pressure, the pressure will
decrease with altitude.

As the pressure decreases, the centripetal force increases, which reduces the radius of the vortex as the air
gets nearer to the source of the low pressure.

The following images clearly illustrate the behavior of a suction vortex when encountering a solid boundary. Note
the turbulent flow at the surface, which resolves into a wide vortex above the surface, which then tightens into a
narrow vortex in the direction of the flow. (See this for a high-resolution image of a vortex at the same location as
in Figure 57.)

Figure 57. Suction vortex, Figure 58. Suction vortex, courtesy

courtesy Spiegel Online. American Educational Products.

52
       

Figure 59. Suction Figure 60. Suction

vortex, courtesy vortex, courtesy Ned
Holoscience. Kahn.

      

Figure 61. Suction vortex, courtesy Michael Ellestad.

53
Figure 62 represents the airflows in suction vortexes compared to tornadic vortexes. Aside from the fact that they
are both rotating columns of air, they are different in every respect.

Figure 62. Airflow in a suction vortex versus a tornado vortex.

54
There are ways in fluid dynamics of getting a vortex to attach more firmly to a solid boundary. But none of these
ways are relevant to the study of tornadoes.

First, a vortex can be created within a sealed enclosure, where air can only enter from the bottom, and where a
high degree of angular momentum in the inflowing air results in a vortex that eventually latches onto the base of
the apparatus. But if the enclosure was not sealed, the fan would be able to pull air from elsewhere, and this kind of
concentration of energy at the base of the apparatus would not occur. (See Figure 63. Click the figure to watch the
associated movie.)

Figure 63. Tornado model, courtesy Instructables.

55
Second, a powerful updraft beginning at the solid boundary can be created by a fire. The air heated by the fire rises,
and new air flows in to replace it. If the inflow is fast enough, sooner or later a random gust will initiate rotation in
the inflow, and once started, the rotation will be self-perpetuating. But it would take temperatures over 1,000 °C to
create a tornado this way, and there is no evidence of such temperatures in the damage paths of tornadoes. If the
vortex in Figure 64 was a tornado, it would hardly deserve being called an F0, yet this vortex was driven by
temperatures exceeding 900 °C.

Figure 64. Fire vortex.

Third, without a fire on the ground, the only other way to generate a vortex with heat is to boil water. Water vapor
can absorb infrared energy from a heat source, and transfer the heat to the surrounding air via molecular collisions.
This distributes the heat, resulting in an updraft.

Figure 65. Heat-driven vortex, courtesy

The Tornado Project.

56
But without the water vapor, a powerful updraft will not form. The main constituents of air, N 2 and O2 , are
diatomic molecules (composed of a pair of like atoms), which cannot absorb infrared energy. Hence radiant heat
passes through dry air without heating it. For example, in Figure 66, the temperature at the surface of the lava is
roughly 800 °C, and the surface area is larger than that under a small tornado. But the air convection is slight near
such a heat source, because there isn't enough water vapor to distribute the heat throughout the air. So there is no
vortex.

Figure 66. Lava flow on Mt. Etna, courtesy Thomas

Reichart.

So if the vortex isn't inside a sealed enclosure with artificially-enhanced angular momentum, and if there isn't a fire
on the ground, and water isn't being boiled at the surface, we go back to the simple case where there is little to no

57
air motion at the surface, and the vortex only contracts into rapid rotation as it nears the source of the low
pressure, as shown in Figures 57 ~ 61. In other words, fluid dynamics can't explain tornadoes.

Furthermore, and no matter how it might form, if a suction vortex encounters an obstacle, it simply reorganizes
elsewhere, since fluids always follow the path of least resistance. And yet a tornado is not perturbed by obstacles,
even when the obstacle is larger than the tornado itself. Either the tornado maintains its general form while riding
over the obstacle, or the tornado removes the obstacle. Since the amount of friction goes up dramatically when
obstacles are encountered, a vortex that is relatively unperturbed by obstacles is inexplicable in fluid dynamic
terms.

Figure 67. F3 tornado that has just destroyed a house larger than itself in Mulvane, KS, 2004-06-
12, credit Eric Nguyen, courtesy Corbis Corporation.

The study of tornadoes is not an issue of whether or not a vortex could form, given some low pressure aloft and/or a
heat source at the surface. It is a matter of accounting for the amount of energy that gets released at the surface.
Put another way, are we trying to understand what could create any vortex, or are we trying to understand what
creates tornadoes? If we were to answer "yes" to the first question, we'd already be done. Otherwise, we need to
look outside fluid dynamics for an answer, because we are still lacking an understanding of why a tornado can do
things that fluid dynamic vortexes cannot. And the only remaining possibility is that tornadoes are electromagnetic.

19. Electromagnetic Tornadoes?

EM theories of tornadogenesis have been proposed, but they're in as much trouble as the thermodynamic
theories. 100

The most widely-known EM theory maintains that tornadoes are caused by weak but sustained electrostatic
discharges. 27,28,29,30,31,32 This would make tornadoes similar to lightning, but with a fundamental difference. In
lightning, the electrostatic potential builds up to the breakdown voltage of the air, and then an arc discharge occurs.

58
But in a tornado, the contention is that a discharge gets organized below the threshold for lightning, and that once
it gets going, it keeps going, preventing the potential from building up to the threshold for lightning, while enabling
the effects of a sustained discharge to emerge. 101 In other words, lightning starts with the simple movement of
electric charges through the air, responding to an electrostatic potential. This electric current heats the air, which
makes it a better conductor, which allows more current to flow, which further heats the air. With enough electric
current, the air is superheated to the point that it becomes an excellent conductor, and all of the electrostatic
potential is instantaneously released in an arc discharge. But with less current, the discharge never graduates to arc
mode, and we might see a glow discharge, or there might be a "dark" discharge (in which there is a current, but not
sufficient to excite the air to luminosity).

The conditions that (theoretically) would produce such a sustained discharge have never been fully described, but
some have suggested that the reduced pressure inside the mesocyclone makes it a better conductor, and this opens
up a natural conduit for an electric current. In the presence of the Earth's conductivity, excess negative charges in
the cloud start flowing through this channel toward an induced opposite charge in the Earth. The current exiting
the mesocyclone and moving toward the ground heats the air, increasing its conductivity, and allowing the passage
of more current. This channel then naturally grows until it connects with the ground. Hence it would be the
reduced electrical resistance inside the mesocyclone that would set the stage for a weak but sustained dark or glow
discharge. Otherwise, the potentials would simply get discharged in lightning strikes.

If the direction of the flow in response to the low pressure is upward, all of the factors are mutually-enhancing. The
low pressure pulls air upward. An offset in the inflow creates a vortex. The reduced pressure in the vortex opens up
a channel for the flow of an electric current. The current heats the air, increasing its buoyancy, which makes it rise
faster, further reducing the pressure in the inflow. It also allows for the passage of more current. The result is
commonly called a "discharge vortex." And the amount of power involved in this positive feedback loop in non-
trivial. If the current density in the tornado is 200 amps, 24,36,102,103 and if the electrostatic potential is 5
kV/m, 24,104,105 and if the tornado is 300 m tall, the amount of power will be 300 million watts. This will make a
substantial contribution to the thermal energy driving the tornado, and some researchers became convinced that an
adequate description of tornadoes had been achieved.

Critics of this theory have argued that tornadoes cannot possibly be electromagnetic, because there isn't enough
electric field under a supercell for lightning, much less for something as energetic as a tornado. While the electric
field responsible for lightning is well above 10 kV/m, the electric field under a supercell is more like 5 kV/m. 24,104,105
The reduced electrostatic potential results in a distinct reduction in lightning. 106,107,108,109 This is known as the
"lightning hole," and an example is clearly visible in Figure 68, where the hole was 9 km wide (roughly the width of
the supercell itself). So there was almost no lightning under the main body of the supercell, but a ring of lightning
around the edge, and a bit more on the downwind side. And it is within the lightning hole that the tornado
appears. So tornadoes and lightning are mutually exclusive, and therefore, tornadoes and electromagnetism are
mutually exclusive.

Figure 68. Lightning hole in 2 minutes of activity shortly before the

formation of an F1 tornado near Goodland, KS, 2000-06-29, courtesy
New Mexico Tech. (The large pane in the lower left is the plan view.)

59
The discharge vortex theory responds by saying that an inverse causal relationship between tornadoes and lightning
proves that the two are related, and since lightning is electromagnetic, tornadoes have to be electromagnetic as
well (otherwise they wouldn't be mutually exclusive). And the nature of the relationship is that the tornado is
continually draining electric charges from the cloud in a dark or glow discharge, preventing the build-up of the
potential necessary for lightning. And we only need a small percentage of the 300 million watts of resistive heating
to be expended (somehow) at the surface to overcome 1 million watts of skin friction at the solid boundary,
enabling tornadic winds on the ground.

The real problem with the discharge vortex theory is that it can't explain a concentration of energy release at the
surface. There is little resistive heating where the electric current flows into the Earth, due to its high conductivity.
So the bulk of the heat is generated by the flow of electrons through the air itself. And this is true throughout the
height of the tornado. In fact, as the air rises, it continues to be heated, since the current continues to pass through
it. The temperature (and therefore the buoyancy) at the top of a discharge vortex is the greatest. Hence the energy
release is actually concentrated toward the top, not at the solid boundary below. The net effect is that a discharge
vortex behaves precisely as a normal fluid dynamic vortex, while the progressive increase in buoyancy mimics the
effects of a vortex in a higher-viscosity substance.

Other EM theories have been proposed. 33,34,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45 But like the discharge vortex theory, none have
answered the original question: what concentrates the release of energy at the solid boundary?

20. A New Hypothesis

If we return to the EMHD model, and consider how recirculating negative and positive charges will interact with a
solid boundary (i.e., the Earth), a new concept of tornadogenesis emerges.

Assuming that there is a positive double-layer paralleling the motion of negative charges in the storm, and if the

60
recirculation is brought near a solid boundary, the structure will get flattened against that boundary. The
implications of this need to be fully considered.

Figure 69. Toroidal flow gets squashed against the Earth.

The first thing that we might expect would be for an extreme low pressure to develop under the mesocyclone. When
the mesocyclone got established higher in the cloud, it was free to draw in air from below it. But if the mesocyclone
descends, the flow could become "airlocked" by the Earth, and the pressure under the mesocyclone could drop,
encouraging the formation of a suction vortex. But this would not create a tornado. A vortex that is airlocked by
friction at a boundary is still just a normal fluid dynamic vortex, and it will flare out at the base, with the slowest
rotation at the surface, where the friction is the greatest and the energy is the lowest. Yet tornadoes are narrowest
at their bases, and rotate robustly at the surface despite the friction. So there has to be more to it than just a
simple airlocked low pressure.

If we make a more thorough review of the forces involved, we get closer to a complete description of the
phenomena. We have a positive double-layer that is getting rammed down to the ground, and then skidded along
the ground toward the centerline of the mesocyclone. Once the positively-charged air is pressed down to the surface
and accelerated along it, a new electromagnetic force will come into play. The Earth is a large conductor, so its
electron cloud moves around freely. When exposed to an electric charge in the air above it, an opposite charge is
induced at the surface. If positively-charged air is moving along the surface, a negative charge will be induced in
the Earth, and the two will be attracted to each other by the electric force. Since the Earth's surface is solid or
liquid, it will stay where it is, and the positively-charged gas will be pulled toward the Earth.

If there is a force that is attracting the tornadic inflow to the surface, the lines of motion predicted by fluid
dynamics will be altered. In short, the tornadic inflow will refuse to curve upward as it approaches the centerline,
and will instead cling to the surface all of the way to the centerline.

Figure 70. Tornadic inflow sticks to the surface all the way to the centerline.

61
With this, we can now identify the source of the power in a tornado. We have known for a long time that resistive
heating from an electric current inside a tornado cannot create a concentrated energy release at the surface. So
while there might be enough power, it's not in the correct form. We have also known for a long time that there is
plenty of kinetic energy inside the supercell, but we couldn't figure out how this energy gets transmitted from the
mesocyclone down to the surface. The only possible solution is that the inflow gets stuck to the surface by a non-
lossy electric force, putting a kink in the flow that results in an energy release at the surface. And the energy is not
transmitted down through the tornado, which is impossible, but around the outside of the storm and back in along
the surface, which is the only way that is possible.

Subsequent sections will elaborate on the hypothesis that there is a positive double-layer between the cloud and the
ground, and with a comprehensive range of tornadic properties taken into account, develop it into a complete
theory. The most critical question is: why haven't electric field studies already detected the charges central to this
proposal? This issue will be addressed in the next section.

21. Inflow Channels

While typically we would expect a perfectly homogeneous inflow to a vortex, with all of the air converging at the
same rate, Figures 71 and 72 are evidence of discrete channels achieving faster speeds.

Figure 71. Waterspout with banded inflow, courtesy NWS.

Darker water means faster winds.

62
Figure 72. Waterspout with banded inflow off the Florida Keys, 1969-09-10, credit Joseph
Golden, courtesy NOAA. Notice the flares indicating that the prevailing surface winds are not
part of the inflow.

63
These photos prove that the intuitive "airlock" concept of tornadoes, mentioned earlier and prevalent in the
thermodynamic literature, is truly inadequate as a framework for understanding tornadoes. It actually doesn't take
much turbulence to break an airlock, and these photos prove that the airlock is beyond broken — the majority of
the air surrounding the vortex is not even involved in the inflow.

So what factors are responsible for the channeling?

In fluid dynamics, channeling is evidence of differences in viscosity. If all of the air has the same viscosity, it is all
subjected to the same friction. Any air moving faster will experience more friction, so we expect a self-regulated
consistency in the inflowing speed. But if some of the air has a lower viscosity, it will experience less friction, and
therefore it will tunnel through the higher-viscosity air.

So then the question is: what are the conditions necessary for viscosity differences?

We might think that the air is warmer, as fluids are generally less viscous at higher temperatures. Yet gases actually
get more viscous with temperature, though in the relevant range (20~30 °C) the difference is slight.

Figure 73. Kinematic viscosity per temperature of

some common gases and liquids, courtesy The
Engineering Toolbox.

64
Since we can expect the air to be relatively homogenous, there is only one other factor that could affect the
viscosity: its electric charge. Electrostatic repulsion in charged air prevents the particle collisions that instantiate
friction, thereby reducing the viscosity.110

And if the positively-charged inflow is all within a discrete channel, we can now understand why we're not seeing a
huge positive charge under the thunderstorm. If all of the charge is concentrated in a discrete channel, we wouldn't
expect a powerful field everywhere under the cloud — only inside the channel will the field be unusually strong.

So why haven't we detected an unusually powerful electric field in the inflow channel?

First, not every electric field study also includes wind speed instrumentation, in which inflow channels would be
detected, and the correlation between electric fields and wind speeds could be seen.

Second, electric fields under a thunderstorm fluctuate dramatically, as charges shift inside the cloud, and as such
charges are neutralized by lightning. While the tornado is active, the thunderstorm typically issues several lightning
strikes per minute, which means that in the period of time that an inflow channel is passing over an electric field
meter, the electrostatic potential will fluctuate at least a couple of times due to lightning strikes, making it more
difficult to see a correlation.

Third, to the extent that some correlation between inflow channels and electric fields has been observed, it is
typically attributed to triboelectric charging in the particulate matter that is creeping or saltating in the inflow
channel. 24 The particulate matter itself has not been studied — it is merely assumed that any difference in electric
field that was directly proportional to air speed would most likely be due to static electricity, because until now, no
one proposed that the air itself was charged.

What we need is a space charge study that will incontrovertibly identify differences in electric charges in the air
itself, inside and outside the inflow channel. And that study has not been conducted. So absence of evidence in
support cannot be cited as evidence against in this case.

And what we do have is plenty of evidence of a force that is not fluid dynamic, that can only be electromagnetic,
and that behaves exactly as EM principles predict.

By the way, the "banding" of the inflow to a tropical cyclone, such as in Figure 37, is not an electromagnetic
phenomenon. Rather, it is the consequence of the folding of layers of air in a convergence zone. This generates the
lift necessary for thunderstorms, in much the same way as an advancing cold front elevates warm air ahead of it,
triggering thunderstorm activity. Since we have known for a long time that tropical cyclones are purely
thermodynamic, and since we have known for just as long that there are bands of thunderstorms in the inflow, the
"banding" phenomenon is considered to be a natural thermodynamic property. When we see evidence of banding
in the inflow to a tornado, we quickly recognize the form as typical of thermodynamic vortexes. But these are two
totally different phenomena. The thunderstorm bands flowing into a tropical cyclone are not moving faster than the
surrounding air, and the banded inflow to a tornado doesn't create condensation. So while the visible form is

65
similar, the reasons are totally different.

22. Rear Flank Downdrafts

The rear flank downdraft (RFD) is a sustained dry downdraft, outside the cloud, on the upwind side of the
storm. 111,112 Its presence in tornadic storms is so consistent that it is considered to be a causal factor in
tornadogenesis, though "causal" is a loose term in this context, since no one can explain why a downdraft, upwind
of the mesocyclone, would encourage tornadogenesis. This air invariably gets drawn into the
mesocyclone, 47,113,114,115,116 and though there are "cold RFDs" and "warm RFDs," they are generally a couple of
degrees (Celsius) cooler than the surface-level air. So they should reduce the force of the mesocyclone, and that
would tend to discourage tornadogenesis.

Figure 74. Plan view of supercell, courtesy NWS, redrawn by Vanessa Ezekowitz.

Furthermore, thermodynamics can't even explain what causes the RFD itself. If it was a wet downdraft, then it
would be cold, dense air falling because of evaporative cooling, the way normal downdrafts are created. But this
does not appear to be the case. Downdrafts do result from precipitation falling out of the back-sheared anvil, but
because of wind shear, this air shouldn't fall straight to the ground. Rather, it should get blown around the updraft,
and hit the ground between the forward flank downdraft and the mesocyclone. This has led researchers to believe
that the RFD has to originate from a lower altitude in order to hit the ground upwind of the storm. Below the anvil,
the closest that we could come to a wet downdraft, upwind of the storm, would be if shearing dry air mixed with
precipitation-bearing air in the cloud itself, causing the precipitation to evaporate, and creating a downdraft. This is
theoretically possible, but a downdraft falling at 50 m/s, when it began its descent only a couple of kilometers
above the surface, would only be possible if the air had become completely saturated with water vapor, creating far
colder and denser air than has been observed. Actual RFD humidity readings reveal a low water vapor content, and
the temperatures are near those of the surface-level air.111 Such air simply has no right to be a downdraft.

Some of the literature suggests that the RFD is a result of high pressure on the upwind side of the storm, where
shearing mid-level winds collide with the updraft. But the lateral motion at the relevant altitudes will be roughly 20
m/s, while the RFD falls at roughly 50 m/s. Even if the cloud was an impenetrable boundary of that shape, it would
not create deflected speeds faster than the approaching speeds. And clouds are certainly not impenetrable
boundaries in the thermodynamic model. Besides, if shearing mid-level winds collide with an updraft, there will be

66
a high pressure. But there will be two net effects: the updraft will get tilted in the direction of the mid-level winds,
and the mid-level winds will get deflected in the direction of the updraft. In other words, the result will be the
vector product of the two motions. This will not create a downdraft — it will create entrainment into the updraft.

Mechanistically speaking, the RFD is hard to explain, and it has proved difficult to simulate with thermodynamic
modeling.111 This means that other forces are present.

Positively-charged precipitation falling out of the back-sheared anvil will indeed initiate a downdraft, which itself
will be positively-charged. Due to wind shear, we would expect this downdraft to wrap around the storm, and
merge with the forward flank downdraft. But if it is bearing a strong positive charge, it will be attracted to the
negative charge recirculating through the updraft, but also repelled from the massive positive charge in the main
body of the anvil. Hence its EM equilibrium puts it close to the updraft, but favoring the shadow of the positively-
charged anvil created by the updraft. This gives it the force necessary to ignore the shearing mid-level winds, and to
fall straight to the ground. (As outlandish as this might seem, evidence of the jet stream getting forced all of the way
to the ground was collected during a tornado in Leamington, Ontario on June 6, 2010.117 )

Figure 75. Hypothesized origin of the rear flank downdraft.

The ultimate speed of the RFD is obviously not a simple function of evaporative cooling. Rather, it is more
reasonable to assume that the RFD originates as jet-stream air that collided with the back-sheared anvil, picking up
a positive charge, and then flowing downward, partly because of evaporative cooling, and partly because of high
pressure upwind of the cloud top. So 50 m/s winds in the jet stream result in a 50 m/s downdraft. And though the
RFD hits the ground with a lot of force, we should expect little back-pressure aloft, since the low pressure at the
base of the mesocyclone will absorb the force. It also makes sense that the RFD is unusually warm for a downdraft.
Jet-stream air, if forced back to the surface, will actually be warmer than the surface-level air. With a little bit of
evaporation, the RFD will be cooler than that, but still warmer than a downdraft driven purely by evaporation.

We can go on to speculate on the "causal" role that the RFD plays in tornadogenesis.

Recent research has demonstrated a direct relationship between the temperature of the RFD and the probability of
tornadogenesis.111 The general thinking is that a cold RFD will discourage the mesocyclone, thereby reducing the
chance of a tornado, while a warm RFD will allow a mesocyclone to run at full speed. In other words, a warm RFD
does not cause a tornado, but a cold RFD might prevent one. But there might be more to it than that.

If the RFD is positively-charged, because it was positive at the top of the cloud and because it didn't get the chance

67
to mix with negatively-charged precipitation in the lee of the storm, and if a tornado is an artifact of positively-
charged air hugging the surface until it reaches the centerline of the mesocyclone, then the RFD is supplying one of
the critical ingredients for tornadogenesis. And the significance of a warm RFD might not be a matter of how little
it will detract from the thermal energy flowing into the mesocyclone. Rather, the temperature might be an index of
the robustness of the EM forces at play. Only an extremely powerful electric force could keep the downdraft upwind
of the storm. The more powerful the EM forces, the warmer the RFD, but more significantly, the more powerful the
electric charge, and hence the greater the chance of tornadogenesis.

It's also possible that the forward flank downdraft (FFD) is a positive double-layer paralleling the motion of
recirculating negative charges. It is not as warm and dry as the RFD, because it mixes with the abundant
precipitation in the lee of the storm. But thinking of the FFD as a positive double-layer might help explain how
there could be a robust downdraft that is separate and distinct from the main rain area. Wet downdrafts make
sense, but a lot of precipitation falling out of the area next to a robust downdraft that is bearing only light
precipitation does not make sense. The heavy precipitation then has to be coming from a different downdraft that
somehow does not hit the ground, but does release some of its precipitation as it turns the corner and heads into
the mesocyclone. The only construct that gets all of this to make sense is the EMHD model, wherein the densest
precipitation is a recirculating negative charge stream inside the storm, and where there is a positive double-layer
around the outside.

Lastly, we should consider the implications of these contentions for short-term tornado forecasting. If the RFD is a
key ingredient in tornadogenesis, and if the origin of the RFD is actually the jet stream which collided with the
back-sheared anvil, and if it is the virga falling out of the anvil that is driving the RFD, then the jet stream and the
back-sheared anvil deserve closer attention in estimating the probability of tornadogenesis. In these terms, it makes
sense that the more severe the thunderstorm, the greater the chance of a tornado — only an extremely powerful
updraft will be capable of overpowering the jet stream to create the back-sheared anvil. But it will also take
powerful upper-level winds to tilt the storm such that the FFD doesn't undercut the updraft — and those same
winds will then generate an extremely forceful RFD. Such might be the rare combination of extreme-range factors
that set the stage for these catastrophes. The significance here is that the back-sheared anvil is an easy feature to
detect, visually as well as with radar, and from a great distance away. The RFD, being a dry downdraft, is invisible
by both of those methods.

23. Cyclic Supercells

It's fairly common that a storm will spawn a tornado that will last 5~10 minutes, then the tornado will rope out,
and then another will form. The cycle sometimes repeats several times, at roughly 20 minute intervals.47,118,119

Interestingly, given the speeds of the updraft and the FFD, and the vertical distances that they travel, 20 minutes is
roughly the amount of time that it takes air to recirculate all of the way through the storm. This suggests that the
tornado-causing factor has clumped within the storm, and when it is near the ground, it produces a tornado, while
its absence allows the tornado to rope out.

There isn't much in the thermodynamic model that can offer an explanation for this, because air recirculation
doesn't play a central role. The only downdraft air that is getting entrained back into the updraft is the RFD, and
the thermodynamic model does not state that the RFD is air that is recirculating through the storm, but rather, that
the RFD is mid-level air that was forced down (somehow). This means that fluctuations in its temperature and
humidity are not tied to the recirculation period within the storm, and this leaves us without an explanation for the
regularity of the cycle.

The EMHD model does place a great deal of emphasis on recirculation, and this figures significantly in the
explanation of many aspects of the storm. It also explains cyclic storms. If the distribution of charge within the
storm is uneven, then the probability of tornadogenesis will cycle with the recirculation period.

24. Wall & Tail Clouds

A wall cloud is a "ragged curtain" hanging down below a supercell, and it's under the wall cloud that the tornado
forms. The development of a wall cloud is considered to be one of the telltale signs that a tornado is soon to follow.

There are many forms that the wall cloud can assume. Figure 53 shows a fairly common shape, in which the wall
cloud is a collar around the top of the tornado. Figures 76 and 77 show something similar, one with a tornado and

68
one without. (For extensive collections of wall cloud photography, see Sam Barricklow's page, and Roger Edward's
page. See this for a video of the tornado in Figure 53, in which the rotation of the wall cloud is clearly visible.)

In general, the wall cloud is known by its ragged or "frayed cotton-ball" appearance, and where the direction of the
flow is straight up, while the entire structure rotates slowly around the centerline of the mesocyclone. If a tail cloud
is present, it travels from the main rain area toward the centerline, sometimes spiraling inward and sometimes
feeding directly into the wall cloud.

Figure 76. Tornado under wall cloud near Anadarko, OK, 1999-05-03, courtesy NOAA.

Figure 77. Wall and tail clouds on the OK-TX border, 1980-06-16, courtesy NOAA.

69
The video linked to Figure 78 clearly shows the air movement in a rotating wall cloud shortly before the tornado
took shape. Because the observer was on the 6 th floor of an apartment building, and because the wall cloud was less
than 1 km away, this video provides an unusually close view. The tornado went on to do F3 damage.

Figure 78. Wall cloud in Краснозаводск, RU, 2009-

06-03, courtesy English Russia.

Wall and tail clouds tell us a lot about the airflows under the storm. Thermodynamics predicts that air will

70
converge toward the base of the mesocyclone, spiraling inward and upward, and increasing in speed the nearer it
gets to the source of the low pressure. But wall and tail clouds clearly demonstrate that the air travels horizontally
until it achieves the centerline of the mesocyclone, where it turns sharply upward, and that the air enters the
mesocyclone traveling vertically. This is true of the warm, dry air supplied by the RFD, as well as the cool, moist air
coming from the main rain area. This can only be evidence of an electric force that restricts the inflow to the
surface.

25. Beaver's Tails

In rare cases, the tail cloud resolves into a tube of condensation flowing from the main rain area into the
mesocyclone. It's hard to understand how such a well-formed structure could emerge in the turbulence under a
supercell.

Figure 79. Beaver's tail and wall cloud at Corindi Beach, NSW, AU, 2000-11-05,
courtesy Australia Severe Weather.

If we consider the EM forces present, such a phenomenon becomes easier to understand. Highly-charged, lower-
humidity air from the RFD and FFD will stick to the ground, and condensation will not form, because the
electrostatic repulsion between charged water vapor molecules will prevent aggregation. On top of the positive layer
clinging to the ground, we can expect a layer of cool (i.e., dense) air, with a high humidity, and a weaker positive
charge (otherwise it never would have been pushed up and out of the way by the air near the ground). Electrons
from the mesocyclone can neutralize the charge, making condensation possible. Condensed water molecules are a
better conductor than nitrogen, oxygen, or water vapor, so we can expect electrons to follow existing channels of
condensation, rather than simply radiating outward in all directions. Hence it becomes possible for a tube of
condensation to form, leading away from the source of the negative charge (the mesocyclone), and toward the
positive charge in the forward flank downdraft.

The form of the tail cloud is suggestive of an inflow band, yet the actual motion is extremely slight, and does not
differ from the rate of inflow of the surrounding air. So this structure does not represent an extreme low pressure in
a channel, but rather, it is simply evidence of a charge-neutralizing current.

71
26. Cloud-base Striations
Cloud-base striations sometimes appear under the mesocyclone, and are known by their nearly circular form, with
nearly horizontal, semi-continuous features. The form suggests lines of motion, but the actual rotation is slight.

Figure 80. Wall cloud and cloud-base striations in Ravenna, NE, 2002-07-24,
courtesy Gregg Hutchison.

Figure 81. Wall cloud and cloud-base striations in Canton, OH, 2007-08-09,
courtesy Weather Underground.

72
Figure 82. Cloud-base striations in Childress, TX, credit Carsten Peter, courtesy National
Geographic.

73
The standard explanation is that these are simple extensions of the rotation within the mesocyclone. In other
words, the mesocyclone is rotating, so other stuff around it will start rotating too. There is also a rotation in the
surface inflow (even if a tornado has not formed), that might help "spin up" the striations from the inside.

It's important to note that the circular form clearly reveals that this air is not flowing into the mesocyclone —
otherwise we'd see a spiral pattern. And if the air was simply "spun up" by exterior and/or interior rotation, there
would have to be a perfect balance between the low pressure inside (to create a centripetal force) and the
centrifugal force of the rotation. Then, the low pressure, distributed by the opposing centripetal and centrifugal
forces, would encourage condensation.

While such an explanation is possible, the EMHD model suggests another explanation that is equally possible. It
also might be that a combination of factors contributes to this form.

We can expect the presence of a magnetic field around the upward flow of positive charges. This field will be
augmented by a flow of electrons down from the cloud. The electrons will be moving much faster, so we can expect
more magnetic force from these than from the upward-flowing positive ions. This magnetic field will not induce any
rotation in the surrounding air. But since water molecules are diamagnetic, they will get oriented according to the
magnetic field. Interestingly, molecular orientation is a necessary step in the condensation process. Hence it's
possible that the limits of the condensation that make up the cloud-base striations are evidence of the presence of
water vapor that is almost ready to condense, and that gets a little help from a magnetic field.

The condensation process then explains the conversion to a turbulent flow above the striations in Figure 82.
Condensation releases latent heat, which causes an updraft. This updraft has nothing to do with the surface inflow,
or with whatever is going on inside the mesocyclone. It is merely an artifact of condensation within the striations
themselves.

It also makes sense that the cloud-base striations have a flat bottom. By Helmholtz's laws, we know that all
vortexes have to either close on themselves, terminate at a solid boundary, or taper to a point.120 But the sharp
upward turn of the inflow means that all of a sudden, all of the magnetic lines of force resolve into a unified field
surrounding the surface inflow. And this is precisely the point at which the water molecules in the striations begin
condensing.

It's also possible that the shelf clouds that appear encircling the main rain area are a related phenomena, though
the moving charges responsible would be simply the rain itself. (See Scott Blair's shelf cloud page for more
examples.)

Figure 83. Shelf cloud in Enschede, The Netherlands, 2004-07-17, courtesy

John Kerstholt.

74
27. Funnels & Wedges
Having considered the general characteristics of the supercell, and somewhat more specifically the environment
under the storm in which the tornado occurs, now we shall take a close look at the properties of the tornadoes
themselves. But we will not give tornadoes just a passing glance, and be satisfied. Some people seem to think that
any "tall rotating column of air" is a complete description of tornadoes.

Figure 84. "Tornado Machine," courtesy NWS.

75
For our purposes, such will not be sufficient. A complete description of tornadoes must include the identification of
the forces responsible for the specific characteristics and behaviors that have been observed.

The first property to be considered is that tornadoes are narrowest at their bases, and grow wider with altitude.

Figure 85. Tornado in Union City, OK, 1973-05-24, courtesy NOAA Photo Library.

76
Figure 86. Wedge tornado (1 km wide at base) in Jordan, IA, 1976-
06-13, courtesy Iowa State University.

77
In fluid dynamics, a "condensation funnel" is a well-understood phenomenon. The lines of motion in a suction
vortex converge as they approach a low pressure. This is clearly visible in Figures 57 ~ 61, and 84, where smoke
released at the bottom gets drawn into the vortexes and follows the ever-tightening spirals toward the sources of
the low pressure. But the lines of equal pressure diverge in the direction of the flow. (See Figure 62.) At any given
relative humidity, one of these lines will represent the pressure at which water molecules will begin condensing. At
a large enough scale, if there is enough water vapor to create visible condensation, the vortex will appear to expand
in the direction of the flow, even as the lines of motion converge.

On closer scrutiny, the expansion of the tornado in the direction of the flow is not explicable in such terms. If the
pressure drops in the direction of the flow, and the lines of equal pressure expand, the amount of air entering the
vortex will increase with proximity to the source of the low pressure. But for reasons left unexplained by the
standard model, tornadoes only draw in air at the ground level.121 Even where the tornado enters the cloud,
videographic evidence reveals that the air surrounding the tornado is relatively unaffected by it, and does not get
drawn into the tornado. Rather, the surrounding air rotates at a far slower rate as it flows into the mesocyclone,
behaving as if the tornado was not there. So the tornado is not at all just the extreme core of the mesocyclone. By
every line of evidence, it is a distinctly different structure.

Figure 87 is a schematic representation of the pressure gradients under a tornadic supercell, based on what
instrumental and observational evidence is available. Starting from the top, the pressure inside the mesocyclone is
nominally 50 mb lower than the ambient pressure, and is denoted in yellow. Below the mesocyclone, the pressure
fares into the ambient pressure in a (more or less) hemispherical gradient, denoted in green. These aspects of the
storm are well-described in thermodynamic terms. Then there is the tornado. The most extreme low pressure ever
recorded was 100 mb below ambient.122,123 From this extreme, the low pressure extends outward along the ground,
and fares rapidly back to ambient above the ground. Inside the tornado, little is known about the transition from
the extreme low at the surface to equalization with the pressure inside the mesocyclone, but there is no evidence
that this is not a smooth gradient (shown in orange).

Figure 87. Hypothesized pressure gradients.

In this framework, we can easily understand the outward flare in the radius of the tornado at the top. As the
pressure inside the tornado equalizes with the pressure inside the mesocyclone, the centripetal force from inside

78
the tornado relaxes, resulting in a wider radius. Also, as the pressure outside of the tornado decreases approaching
the low pressure of the mesocyclone (in the green region), the centripetal force supplied from the outside is
reduced, which again increases the radius of the tornado.

28. Tornadic Currents

While the pressure gradients described in the previous section are consistent with the available evidence, and
adequately explain the expansion of the tornado in the direction of the flow, there are still many, many things about
tornadoes that do not make sense. So the model is not complete.

The next inexplicable fact to be taken into account is that a tornado is not always visible, and damaging or even
deadly winds can occur when there is no other indication that a tornado is present. 124 (See Figures 88 and 89.)

The lack of condensation at the surface in the presence of an extreme low pressure is, of course, not what we would
expect. There wouldn't be a thunderstorm if it were not for the moist air in the lower troposphere. And if there is a
humidity gradient in the lower troposphere, we would expect the most humid air to be closest to the surface, since
it will be the coolest (and therefore the densest) air in the gradient. Especially in vortexes over the ocean, we would
expect the humidity at the surface to be near 100%. Since tornadoes only draw in air from the surface, and since
the pressure inside a tornado is lower than that inside a tropical cyclone, 122,123,125,126 there should be no way that a
tornado could form without causing condensation at the surface. Yet tornadoes without condensation at the surface
are common, especially over the ocean.

Figure 88. Tornado in Lombok, Indonesia, 2007-12-29, courtesy Fadil Basymeleh.

Figure 89. Waterspout near Oran, Algeria, 2007-10-

79
 30, courtesy Nassimatique.

The standard model explains that such tornadoes are being fed by warm, dry air (such as from the RFD) that will
not yield condensation even in the extreme low pressure at the base of the tornado. 111,112 The EMHD model agrees,
and goes on to say that the air is also positively-charged. The positive charge reduces the chance of condensation,
because the electrons necessary for covalent bonding are not present. Also, the water molecules might be so highly
charged that the electrostatic repulsion between them is further discouraging condensation.

But both models then have an even tougher question to answer. How does condensation form as the air ascends?
Tornadoes only draw in air at the surface, 121 so this is not evidence of a new source of moisture from the outside.
The lowest pressure in a tornado is at the surface, 122,123,125,126 so this is not evidence of a further decrease in
pressure. The fastest wind speeds in the tornado are nearest the surface, 127,128,129,130 so this is not evidence of an
increase in tangential velocity that could cause condensation. If water vapor in the tornadic inflow doesn't
condense in the extreme low pressure at the surface, it's not going to condense, ever.

Only the EMHD model can explain this. If the tornadic inflow is positively-charged, and if something in the upper
portion of the tornado is neutralizing that charge, condensation will become possible that was not possible at the
surface. Neutralizing a positive charge would, of course, take a flow of electrons from the cloud down through the
tornado. There is certainly no absence of negative charge inside the cloud, and there is well-known direct evidence
of an electric current inside tornadoes, which has been estimated at 100~250 amps. 24,36,102,103 The electrons in such
a current will eliminate the electrostatic repulsion between positively-charged water molecules, and make covalent
bonding possible. This will trigger the condensation of the water vapor that could not condense before.

There have been a couple of cases in which condensation occurred only at the surface, but these appear to be
exceptions that prove the rule. First, click Figure 90 to watch the associated video, or click this to watch it on
YouTube. A dust sheath forms on the ground, and the video briefly pans upward to show the rope-like
condensation funnel coming down from the cloud. But the rotation at the surface doesn't last long, and the dust
sheath starts to fall apart. Look closely at the very end of the video — a bunch of condensation forms at the surface.
Ordinarily, more condensation means lower pressure, and this would tend to indicate that the vortex is
strengthening, but this vortex is at the end of its cycle. It's possible that the vortex ran out of charged air, resulting
in more condensation and the dissipation of the vortex.

Figure 90. Condensation forming as

the dust sheath falls apart, courtesy
Jim Reed and Katie Bay.

80
For a second example, click this to watch the video from which Figure 91 was taken. (This is one of the best videos
ever taken of a tornado.) In this case, there was no dust sheath, and at the time of the screen grab, there was
condensation at the surface that lasted for several seconds. The fact that the condensation evaporated as the air
ascended proves that the pressure was increasing, in the direction of the flow. So there was definitely a secondary
low pressure at the surface, more powerful than the low pressure aloft (but smaller in volume). And as with the
previous case, the presence of condensation would tend to indicate that the tornado was strengthening, but this
occurred only in the last couple of seconds before the tornado disbanded altogether.

Figure 91. Tornado in Brooklyn Park, MN, 1986-07-18,

courtesy KARE-11 Television.

So in the EMHD model, tornadoes are not low-pressure condensation funnels at all, but rather, low-pressure
electrically-neutralized condensation funnels. By fluid dynamic standards, we would expect condensation at the
surface, if there is an extreme low pressure. But that expectation would only be legitimate if an extreme low
pressure at the surface made sense in a purely fluid dynamic context, which it does not. Another force had to create
the conditions necessary for a tornado. While that force is present, an absence of condensation in an extreme low
pressure is possible. When that force expires, we revert to just fluid dynamics, and both the brief condensation at
the surface and the immediate failure of tornado make sense.

And now we can begin to explain properties of tornadoes at a degree of specificity never attempted within existing
models.

First, we can take a second look at Figure 89, and notice the peculiar orange color of the vortex. This is an unusual
color for condensation, which is typically white (or gray if it's in the shade). Occasionally the clear slot in the cloud

81
allows the tornado to become sunlit, and we get a better look at the actual color, which is not always white. If a
tornado has a reddish tint, this is typically attributed (correctly) to the presence of ferric oxide in the red clay dust
kicked up by the tornado. But this tornado over the water isn't kicking up any red clay dust. Since nitrogen, oxygen,
and hydrogen have emission lines in the orange~red bands, the most plausible explanation is that positive ions are
getting bombarded by electrons in this region.

Second, tornadoes that have yet to touch down sometimes have filaments of condensation pointing downward. (See
Figure 92.) These are typically considered to be small sub-vortexes. 131 But there is no evidence of any rotation
within these filaments. If we take a close look at the video associated with Figure 78, we can see such filaments in
motion, and a fluid dynamic explanation is unconvincing. As the tornado begins to touch down, a couple of
filaments shoot down to the ground at an extremely rapid rate. An instantaneous drop in pressure that could cause
such condensation, within such a narrowly-defined channel, is hard to believe. But if these filaments are evidence
of electron streams shooting down from the cloud, the speed with which they can move, and the visible effect that
they have, becomes easy to understand. The water vapor in positively-charged air subjected to an extreme low
pressure will condense instantaneously if the necessary electrons become available. And an electron stream can
very definitely stick to a narrowly-defined channel, as such fast-moving charges are subjected to the magnetic pinch
effect. Furthermore, water molecules, especially in the liquid or solid state, are more conductive than nitrogen and
oxygen molecules. So once condensation forms, it provides a higher-conductivity path for the flow of more
electrons.

Figure 92. Filamented tornado near La Grange, WY, 2009-06-05, courtesy Vortex 2.

Also in the video associated with Figure 78, we can see a streamer of condensation emerging from the ground
shortly before the tornado touches down, and again, there is no evidence of rotation, so this is not a streamwise
vortex at the boundary between static air outside the tornado and rotating air inside it. It makes more sense to
consider that electrons emerged from the ground, neutralizing the charge in the positive double-layer, and thereby
making condensation possible, as well as rapid upward motion.

Figure 93. Streamers of condensation emerging from

the surface in Краснозаводск, RU, 2009-06-03,
courtesy English Russia.

82
Third, there have been a variety of reports of tornadoes glowing in the dark, like neon lights. 27,132,133,134 Blue and
orange are the colors that have been reported. Since a corona discharge in the presence of ionized nitrogen and
oxygen produces such colors, the most likely explanation for this luminosity is that an electron stream is
bombarding air molecules inside the tornado.

Figure 94. Two luminous tornadoes in Toledo, OH, 1965-04-11, courtesy James R. Weyer.

Corona discharges in air normally require electrostatic potentials in excess of 100 kV/m. 135 So how does a corona
discharge occur in the 5 kV/m of potential below a supercell? The answer is that the threshold for a corona
discharge is a function of the resistance of the air, and this varies with pressure. Lower-pressure air is a better
conductor, and therefore will support a corona discharge in a weaker electric field. Hence the pressure drop within
a tornado makes corona discharges possible with 5 kV/m of potential.22,32

Fourth, eyewitnesses inside powerful tornadoes (who were lucky enough to survive) have reported seeing "fingers"
or "rings" of continuous lightning at the top of the tornado. 136,137,138 From the outside, there have been reports of

83
continuous ring lightning at the top of the tornado. 25,27,34,139 Reports of tornadic lightning are extremely rare, and
because of this, thermodynamicists have dismissed the possibility of a causal role for electromagnetism in
tornadogenesis.140 Such dismissals are based on the assumption that heat from lightning is the only way that
electromagnetism could influence a thermal system. Actually, the EMHD model considers lightning and reentrant
electromagnetism to be almost mutually exclusive. Regardless, there have been enough credible reports that the
phenomena are to be considered real, and any comprehensive explanation of tornadoes has to demonstrate
plausible conditions.

If there is a flow of electrons down through the tornado, sufficient in some cases to generate a glow discharge, it's
also theoretically possible that the discharge could be robust enough to graduate into a sustained small-scale arc
discharge. This would be fundamentally different from lightning, which is a rapid release of potentials on a large
scale. In contrast, arc discharges at the tornado/mesocyclone interface would be small but continuous, as negative
charges drawn into the mesocyclone interact with a steady stream of positive charges in the tornado.

29. A Complete Theory

The EMHD model has already acknowledged that an electric current causes resistive heating that increases the
buoyancy of the air inside the tornado. Yet there is another significance to tornadic currents that has not been
identified by any other framework, and which is a necessary component in a complete theory.

If the tornadic inflow is bearing an electric charge, we can understand why it clings to the surface of the Earth. But
we still have to explain why the air breaks away from the surface inside the vortex. In fact, if we were considering
such forces, and didn't know that the topic was tornadoes, we wouldn't predict that the vortex would extend all the
way to the surface, and bind tightly to it. Rather, we would conclude that there would be a pool of air at the surface
that wanted to stay there, and that the mesocyclone would get its inflow from somewhere else, because the
electromagnetic and thermodynamic forces were in opposition.

So we are still shy of a convincing explanation of tornadoes, until we fully consider the effects of an electric current
inside the tornado. If an initial reduction in pressure opens up a channel for the flow of electrons down from the
cloud, this current will neutralize the positive charge that is binding the tornadic inflow to the surface. Hence the
tornadic inflow is bound to the surface, until it gets inside the vortex. Then it is released from its electrostatic
attraction to the surface, and can now respond freely to the low pressure aloft. And once inside the vortex, the air is
subjected to hundreds of millions of watts of resistive heating. It had already picked up a couple (or several) million
watts of heat from friction as the air moved along the surface. And the charge neutralization enables condensation
inside the vortex, which releases latent heat. The buoyancy produced by the low pressure, and by all of the heat
sources, then constitutes plenty of force to drag the inflow across the surface of the Earth and into the vortex.

Now we can look back at Figure 87, and in spite of the supporting evidence, proudly announce that such pressure
gradients do not make any sense. Nature hates a vacuum, and low pressure distributes freely. Hence a concentrated
low pressure does not come with a built-in explanation. Given the electrostatic attraction of the inflow to the
surface, we would expect a low pressure at the centerline of the storm, but we would also expect a slow airflow in
response to the low pressure aloft. And we would expect the airflow to be distributed. The concentrated low
pressure, and rapid airflow, constitute direct evidence of other factors. Electrons in the cloud will be attracted to the
positive charge in the air below, and will favor any low-pressure channels that might be present because of the
increased conductivity. The flow of electrons through low-pressure channels will neutralize the positive charges
therein, freeing the air to respond to the low pressure aloft. The upward flow decreases the pressure beneath it,
which increases the conductivity, which encourages the electric current. Because the factors are mutually-
enhancing, the effect will be concentrated rather than distributed.

So there is an electrostatic discharge inside the tornado, but it is not at all the same kind of discharge as researchers
once believed. A tornado is not a simple discharge vortex surrounding an electric current between the cloud and the
ground. Rather, the discharge is between the cloud and the charged air above the ground. The ground is only a
factor because it can support an induced opposite charge and thereby attract the tornadic inflow to it, and because
it introduces friction that further reduces the pressure at the centerline.

Indeed, a big problem with the discharge vortex theory was that it couldn't explain why tornadoes show no
preference for highly conductive features on the ground, such as rivers & streams, railroad tracks, etc. But if the
discharge is between the cloud and the air below it, then variances in the conductivity of the Earth won't make
much difference. Overall, the air is attracted to the Earth by an induced electrostatic attraction, but freed from that

84
attraction by the current inside the low-pressure channel descending from the cloud.

Now we can look back over the history of the study of tornadoes, and more clearly see the brick walls that impeded
the progress of our understanding. Thermal fluxes following fluid dynamic principles are obviously present, and
determining the nature of such forces in tornadic storms took a lot of work. Progress was slow because researchers
were putting together a puzzle with a bunch of pieces missing, and there was no way to see the big picture. Now
that we have so many data on tornadic supercells, there is no mistaking the fact that something is missing. We
know the size and shape of the anomaly, and we know that there is only one candidate. It's not thermodynamics,
and it's not electromagnetism. It can only be an interaction between the two — EMHD — that creates a third
property set not possible within either regime by itself.

30. Turbulent Tornadoes

One of the curious things about tornadoes is that the inflow in laminar, and the base of the tornado is laminar, but
the vortex sometimes converts to a turbulent flow before entering the mesocyclone. This is anomalous because the
source of energy is the low pressure in the mesocyclone, so we would expect a laminar flow all of the way into the
mesocyclone. Turbulent flows only occur when air is decelerating. This is clear evidence that there is an extreme
low pressure at the surface, and that the pressure goes up in the direction of the flow.

Figure 95. Laminar-to-turbulent flow conversion in a tornado in

southeast Colorado, credit Linda Lusk, courtesy NCAR.

Figure 96. Tornado with turbulent flow beginning just above

the surface near Watkins, CO, courtesy NCAR.

85
 Figure 97. Tornado shrouded by turbulence in Great
Bend, KS, 1974-08-30, courtesy Bob Dundas.

Such vortexes are actually fairly easy to create in the laboratory, using an apparatus similar to that depicted in
Figure 98.141,142,143,144,145,146,147 The fan at the top motivates the airflow, analogous to a mesocyclone. At the base of
the apparatus, there is a chamber with a hole in it. Inside the chamber, louvers impart angular momentum into the
air, creating the vortex. A kerosene boiler adds vapor that condenses in the extreme low pressure going through the

86
hole, and this makes the vortex visible. Glass panels (not shown) seal the central chamber, such that all of the air
that is to satisfy the vacuum created by the fan has to pass through the small hole in the lower chamber.

Figure 98. Bottleneck vortex apparatus.

Figures 99 and 100 show the results, using different "swirl ratios" (i.e., the amount of angular momentum imparted
into the flow before it passes through the hole).

Figure 99. Laboratory demonstration of laminar and turbulent vortexes, courtesy C. R. Church.

87
Figure 100. Close-up of vortex breakdown, courtesy
C. R. Church.

88
In the 1st panel of Figure 99, a small amount of angular momentum at the base creates a perfectly straight, laminar
vortex. Note that this vortex should expand in the direction of the flow, as in Figure 87, but it does not, because of a
simple difference. In Figure 87 we see that the mesocyclone is drawing in air from all around, and then there is also
the tornado drawing in air at the surface. As the tornado approaches the mesocyclone, the pressure outside the
tornado drops, thereby reducing the centripetal force, which results in an expanding radius. But this apparatus is
only drawing air from the bottom, so there is only one pressure gradient entirely within the vortex, and none of the
effects of one gradient merging with another.

In the 2nd panel of Figure 99 (and also in Figure 100), with a larger swirl ratio, we see a phenomenon known as
"vortex breakdown." With a high degree of angular momentum imparted into the vortex by the louvers in the base
of the apparatus, the air that emerges is rotating faster than the surrounding air, and is therefore subject to friction
that will slow it down. As it slows down, the laminar flow becomes prone to turbulence. The turbulence then allows
the surrounding air, not subject to any centripetal force (because it is not rotating) to flow downward into the
vortex, seeking the extreme low pressure at the base. A "downdraft" inside the vortex relieves the low pressure, and
thereby reduces the centripetal force. This results in the rapid widening of the vortex just prior to its breakdown.
Note that even in tightly-controlled conditions, this configuration is extremely unstable. So it is no surprise that
tornadoes like this (such as in Figure 95) are rare.

In the 3rd panel, with an even higher swirl ratio, the vortex breakdown occurs at soon as the air exits the hole
(similar to Figure 96). And in the 4 th panel, the turbulence is so robust that it shrouds the vortex (similar to Figure
97).

Hence the conversion from a laminar to a turbulent flow, in the direction of the flow, is very definitely possible, if
there is an even lower pressure (yet smaller in volume) that occurs first. And this, of course, is precisely the
situation in a tornado.

89
The visual similarity between these laboratory vortexes and the tornadoes observed in nature is unmistakable. The
instrumental data (speeds, pressures, etc.) match up nicely as well. And no other laboratory apparatus has produced
vortexes that were closer analogs to tornadoes in so many respects. The only problem is that in a tornado, there is
no air chamber at the bottom. Without it, there is no way (at least in open-air fluid dynamics) to develop an
extreme low pressure at the base of the vortex. And without that, there won't be any deceleration in the direction of
the flow to create turbulence.

To be clear, it is certainly possible for a low pressure to extend a great distance from its source through a vortex, as
the low pressure and the centrifugal force of the vortex are in opposition. When encountering a boundary, there will
be friction that will also oppose the low pressure. But the centrifugal force and the effects of friction will not
combine to further decrease the pressure, as this is not possible. Rather, all of the forces will achieve an equilibrium
with friction slowing down the inflow, thereby reducing the centrifugal force that is opposing the low pressure. 148
The result will be a vortex that will be poorly-defined at the boundary, as in Figures 57 ~ 61. The only way to get an
extreme low pressure, away from the source of the low pressure, is to create a bottleneck where a large volume of
air has to pass through a small opening.

The apparatus in question creates just such a bottleneck with the plywood that seals the lower chamber, restricting
the inflow to horizontal motion until it achieves the centerline. But the researchers failed to demonstrate how such
a restriction could be imposed in nature. There is only one possibility here. Electromagnetism is the only other
force present. Of the two components of electromagnetism, only the electric force could be powerful enough to
accomplish such a feat in the atmosphere. If the tornadic inflow is electrically-charged, and is therefore
experiencing an electrostatic attraction to an induced charge in the Earth, and if the charge is being neutralized by
an electric current inside the vortex, the net effect will be the same as if there was a big piece of plywood with a hole
in it.

More recent attempts at generating tornadic vortexes in the laboratory use a different apparatus.148,149,150 Instead of
the lower chamber with a hole in it, the plenum of the fan feeds down around the outside of the apparatus, as
shown in Figure 101.

Figure 101. "Tornado simulator," redrawn to scale from Gallus et

al. (2004).

Relevant results were achieved with the flow rate at 59 m 3 /s, and with the outer casing brought to within 0.1 m of
the base of the apparatus. This research confirms that a tornadic vortex is not possible unless there is a force
capable of restricting the inflow to the surface. That force could be a piece of plywood, a metal shroud, or an
electric charge. Outside of the laboratory, it can only be an electric charge.

90
Then the question is: how much charge would it take to overpower how much low pressure, in order to keep the
inflow at the surface, establishing such a bottleneck?

First let's consider the force of the electric field that is pulling the air toward the ground. The number of charged
particles in the tornadic inflow has been estimated at one part per billion (2.14 · 1014 charged particles/m 3 ), and the
charge per particle has been estimated at 3.2 · 10-17 C.42 This means a space charge of 0.0068 C/m3 in the tornadic
inflow. In an electric field of 5 kV/m, this yields 27 N/m3 of force.

Next we'll look at the low pressure drawing the air toward the mesocyclone. At 20 °C, air weighs 1.2041 kg/m 3 ,
which means 11.8002 N/m3 of gravitational force. The lowest pressure ever recorded anywhere in a tornadic
system was 100 mb below ambient, which means a 10% reduction in density. 10% of 11.8002 means a loss of
1.18002 N/m3 of gravitational force. Put another way, that's 1.18 N/m3 of buoyancy.

Finally, we can clearly see that if the downward force is 27 N/m3 and the upward force is 1.18 N/m3 , the air will stay
at the surface until the electric charges are neutralized. In fact, we'd only need a tenth of that charge (6.8 · 10-4
C/m3 ).

The question not answered by previous research concerns the source of the one part per billion space charge. The
present contention is that the tornadic inflow comes from the RFD, which originates as an upper-level jet stream
that collides with the back-sheared anvil. So we should start with a study of the jet stream.

The upper-level jet is already positively-charged, as positive charge increases with altitude. (See Figure 102.) The
net resting concentration is roughly 100 times greater, or 1010 ions per cubic meter at 10 km above the ground
(which is the level of the jet stream). 97

Figure 102. Ion production due to cosmic rays, courtesy Lars Wåhlin.

But this leaves us 3 orders of magnitude shy of the 1013 charged particles/m 3 that were the basis for the claim that
an electric force of 2.7 N/m3 will be present when the RFD hits the ground. So we're still missing 99⁄ 100 of the
required charge.

The next source of charge will be virga falling out of the back-sheared anvil. The approaching jet stream is
effectively devoid of water vapor, and picks up a 20% relative humidity from the precipitation that evaporates in it,
which means that once fully evaporated, the water molecules will represent 0.2% of the air by volume, or two parts
per thousand. We only need one part per billion to satisfy the requirement, so if one water molecule in every

91
2,000,000 is charged to its Rayleigh limit, there will be plenty of charge.

It should be noted that the maximum charge density inside thunderstorms inferred from electric field
measurements is typically considered to be ≤ 10-9 C/m3 , 19,151 which is quite low compared to the 6.8 · 10-4 C/m3
derived from microphysics,42 and supported by the preceding estimates. The nature of the discrepancy remains to
be determined. It's obvious that inferring the charge densities from the electric fields rests on assumptions
concerning the spatial extent of the charges. In other words, we have to guess at the volume of air that contains the
charge, and then by the strength of the field, we can tell the charge density. Numbers so developed should not be
considered immutable.

It should also be noted that in the end, we want to know the charge density at the ground level, and in the presence
of the conductivity of the Earth, we can expect a far stronger space charge than anything possible inside the cloud.
Furthermore, the turbulence at the base of the RFD, when drawn into a laminar flow toward the tornado, is an
excellent "particle sorting" environment. So we can expect the electric field to extract the charged particles,
resulting in a far greater charge density than what we'd expect, given just the electric field minus the aerodynamic
resistance in a purely laminar flow.

So which numbers are correct? We know that charge densities within the cloud will be low compared to the space
charge near a good solid conductor, but 4~5 orders of magnitude lower? Can particle sorting make up the
difference? Were the low numbers too low anyway, at least for the RFD? Or is it that the microphysical numbers are
too high? Are they not taking electrostatic repulsion into account? Or is the airflow in the RFD laminar enough to
contain the charge by aerodynamic resistance until it hits the ground, more so than the main charge regions inside
the cloud, which get dispersed?

Unfortunately for the present research, no one so far has seen the justification to attempt the difficulties (and
dangers) of getting space charge data from inside the RFD and/or the tornadic inflow. And we don't have the
computational power to develop a mathematical proof for such a complex problem, with so many unknowns. The
only way to proceed is to see if we can marshal the rest of the anomalies in the problem domain with an
assumption that the electric charge is sufficient to overpower the buoyancy, resulting in a bottleneck vortex. In
other words, we can check this hypothesis against all of the available data, even if we cannot check it against all of
the possible data. The discrepancy here is significant, but it's not impossible that the real numbers could meet in
the middle. Future research will resolve the debate. In the meantime, and hopefully to encourage such future
make/break research, the EMHD model will be tested for consistency against as many other data as possible.

So the EMHD model asserts that if the jet stream gets forced to the surface, and hits the ground 1 km from a
powerful updraft, it will be drawn toward the updraft, but it will cling to the ground because of an induced
electrostatic potential. If a flow of electrons down from the cloud neutralizes the charges at the centerline, an outlet
for the air flowing along the surface is established, enabling a continuous inflow. The difference between the lines of
motion predicted by fluid dynamics and the actual path followed along the surface represents potential energy. This
is the energy that is released at the base of the vortex.

Figure 103. Tornadic potential energy.

92
31. Debris Clouds
A debris cloud is a funnel of dust and dirt that sometimes gets stirred up at the base of the tornado, and is then
accelerated upward and outward from the tornado, outside of the vortex. It moves rapidly at first, and then the
speed decreases until the debris achieves some sort of equilibrium, hovering 100 m or so above the surface, and
rotating slowly around the tornado. The total mass of the debris cloud can reach tens of thousands of tons.152 (See
Figures 67, 76, 104, and 105 for examples.)

Debris clouds clearly demonstrate that tornadoes only draw in air at the surface, in spite of the skin friction,
thereby defying the principles of fluid dynamics. This is yet another proof that something is binding the inflow to
the surface. This can only be evidence of an electrostatic attraction between the inflow and the surface of the Earth.

Figure 104. Tornado that did F5 damage in Elie, Manitoba, 2007-06-22, courtesy Justin Hobson.

93
Figure 105. Tornado that did F4 damage in Manchester, SD, 2003-06-24, courtesy Matt
Grzych.

94
The interesting thing about the debris cloud is that it proves that in addition to the robust inflow to the tornado,
there is also a small but powerful outflow with its source near the mouth of the vortex. So despite the extreme low
pressure, some of the air shoots upward outside the vortex.

The common explanation for the distinctly different airflow in the debris cloud, as compared to the flow into the
tornado, is that particulate matter stirred up by the tornado is being ejected. Due to its mass, it experiences more
centrifugal force than the air, but due to its low terminal velocity, it drags air with it. This has clean air moving
inward, and dusty air moving outward, and the high pressure between them is then the force that sends the dusty
air shooting upward.

While there could be some truth to that, there are probably more powerful forces at work.

First, we should remember that an F1 tornado expends millions of watts of power at the surface, fighting skin
friction, and an F5 tornado expends billions of watts. This energy is all thermalized at the surface, heating the Earth
and the tornadic inflow. We don't see evidence of this heat since it is carried away by the airflow, but it is certainly
there. We should also remember that the inflow is hugging the surface, beginning from far away, and all the more
so as the air nears the vortex wall. This means that the heat generated by friction is not just under the vortex wall —
it is present at the vortex wall, and beyond. So the estimates for how much heat is generated by air moving along
the surface, only taking the rotation of the vortex wall into account, are low.

If we then inject the present hypothesis — that the air is bound to the surface by the electric force, and can only
ascend once released from that force — a new possible explanation for the debris cloud emerges. With positively-
charged air above it, there is an induced negative charge in the Earth. Tornadic inflow that stirs up dirt at the
surface will have its effective charge neutralized by the negatively-charged particulate matter. If this occurs outside
of the vortex wall, the air is already free to ascend. It is still within the scope of the low pressure at the mouth of the
vortex, so that should still be the dominant force. Yet recalling that the air has been heated by friction, we now have

95
a context in which the air might ascend before entering the vortex. If so much heat is generated that the air's
buoyancy is more powerful than the net inward force (low pressure minus the centrifugal force), the air will shoot
upward instead of being drawn into the tornado. Once neutrally-charged and out of the inflow, the air will find an
equilibrium based on its buoyancy minus the weight of the debris.

32. Dust Sheaths

Sometimes tornadoes draw some or all of the debris cloud into a sheath that has a consistent diameter, no matter
how high it extends. (See Figures 106~109. See the video associated with Figure 90 to watch a dust sheath
forming.)

Figure 106. Condensation funnel and dust sheath,

courtesy Arkansas Tech.

Figure 107. Condensation funnel and dust sheath,

courtesy Arkansas Tech.

96
Figure 108. Condensation funnel and dust sheath in southeast Colorado,
credit Linda Lusk, courtesy NCAR.

97
Figure 109. Condensation funnel and dust sheath in Lincoln County, NE,
2004-05-22, courtesy NWS.

98
It has been proposed that dust sheaths are the result of particles of different masses getting centrifuged out of the
vortex at different rates. 121 But this would not create a concentration of particles at a specific radius. No air is being
drawn into the vortex above the surface, so there is no force to selectively impede the centrifugal force. Therefore,
large particles should be ejected rapidly, and small particles slowly, but there shouldn't be any stratification of
particles at any specific radius.

Electromagnetism can very definitely supply such a selective centripetal force, on the basis of the electric charge. As
mentioned in the previous section, we can expect the dust to be negatively-charged, since it had been in contact
with the Earth, which has an induced negative charge. The dust in question began its ascent outside of the vortex
due to the thermal buoyancy of the air in which it has become suspended, and due to the lack of net electric force
because negatively-charged dust has been mixed with positively-charged air. But we have no reason to suspect that
the charge separation in the dusty air will be neutralized quickly. A large, negatively-charged piece of dust will have
to collide with many of the small, positively-charged molecules to completely disperse its net charge. In the
meantime, charged particles persist. In this context, the negatively-charged dust will be attracted most to the
concentration of positive charge within the tornado. The larger particles will experience the most attraction,
because they are capable of the most net charge. Where the electrostatic attraction matches the centrifugal force,
the radius of the rotation around the tornado will stabilize.

Also notice that the condensation funnels coming down from the clouds don't overlap the dust sheaths emerging
from the ground. Both the condensation funnels and the dust sheaths are capable of extending for great distances,
but where one starts is where the other stops. This could be more than coincidence. If the sheath is the result of
negatively-charged dust attracted to positive ions inside the tornado, and if the condensation funnel defines the
point at which the positive charge has been fully neutralized by electrons descending from the cloud, then the two
are mutually exclusive. While the updraft inside the tornado is still positively-charged, it can attract dust into a
sheath, but it cannot condense. When its charge is neutralized, the dust sheath is no longer possible, but
condensation is.

33. Undulating Tornadoes

Tornadoes are famous for the wide variety of forms that they can take, and for how fast they can change. Especially
in the "rope" stage, a tornado can even achieve a horseshoe shape, where the vortex goes up, back down some, then
back up again and into the cloud.

99
 Figure 110. Rope tornado in Laramie County, WY, 1990-05-
24, courtesy Stephen Hodanish.

Figure 111. Rope tornado near Lawrence, NE, 2004-05-24, courtesy NC911.

100
This doesn't seem to be problematic for the thermodynamic regime, as a suction vortex is easily capable of dramatic
undulations. (For an example, see Figure 59.) But if it was actually possible to develop the unsatisfied low pressure
necessary to get a vortex the size of a tornado to bind to the surface just with huge angular momenta in the inflow,
the unbelievable amount of force would keep the vortex perfectly straight, like a tight rubber band.

Paradoxically, tornadoes do develop extreme low pressures in their cores, and even rope tornadoes can do F5
damage.153 And yet this low pressure does not require that the tornado find the shortest distance between the
ground and the cloud. Any force that would lengthen the vortex must further decrease the pressure in the core,
since the far end of the vortex has locked onto a boundary and is fighting friction there. What force could do that?

The only possible explanation is that there is an extreme low pressure, but that there is another force that is even
more powerful, and which is determining the origin of the vortex on the surface, as well as the path that the vortex
takes toward the mesocyclone. That "other force" can only be electromagnetism. Wherever the inflow is least bound
to the surface will determine the origin of the vortex. From there up to the cloud, the flow of charged particles
within the tornado would otherwise favor a straight-line path, but will also be subject to the kink
instability. 154,155,156 The magnetic field around a moving charge will constrain it, and ordinarily, the magnetic
pressure will be uniform all the way around the charge stream. But if something perturbs the stream, the magnetic
force on the inside of the bend gets concentrated, while on the outside it gets diluted. In this condition, the
magnetic pinch effect becomes more of a magnetic push effect, and the bend is exaggerated. The degree of the
instability will be a function of the speed of the charge (which determines the strength of the magnetic field) and
the width of the stream (a narrow stream is more susceptible than a wide one). Hence rope tornadoes will be
especially prone to the kink instability.

As an interesting sidenote, there were a couple of tornado tour groups who witnessed the event in Figure 111.
Randall Oliver made a video of the tornado, and here is his description:157

As the tube snaked down and out horizontally from the original wall cloud, and then made the 90° bend
toward the surface, at the bend there was another wall cloud, while the tornado was still attached to the
original wall cloud about 1 ⁄ 2 mile horizontally to the north. No one that I know has ever seen this
phenomenon before.

Two wall clouds mean two updrafts, an atypical but nevertheless well-known phenomenon. But for a tornado to
start at the ground under one, and then cut across the inflow to that updraft, travel 1 ⁄ 2 mile, and then enter the
cloud in another updraft, is unique. It is also completely outside the principles of fluid dynamics. The low pressure
core of one updraft is not going to cut through the isobars to get into the core of another low pressure. This is clear
(albeit unique) evidence of another force that is not fluid dynamic, and that is robust enough to maintain an
organized structure, in rare cases in spite of fluid dynamic forces.

34. Multiple Vortexes

Occasionally, more than one tornado descends from the same mesocyclone. Sometimes there is one central
tornado, and one or more satellite vortexes. In rare cases, twin tornadoes of relatively equal strength form.158

Figure 112. The 2 nd oldest known photograph of a tornado, showing a central vortex and two
satellites, southwest of Howard, SD, 1884-08-29, credit F. N. Robinson, courtesy NOAA.

101
Figure 113. Twin tornadoes in Dunlap, IN, 1965-04-11, courtesy Paul Huffman.

102
In an extremely turbulent environment, multiple concurrent vortexes are not unusual. But multiple steady-state
vortexes, close to each other, are somewhat more difficult to understand. If nature hates a vacuum, then nature
really hates two of them close together that refuse to merge into a unified low pressure system. This suggests that
there could be a force that is keeping them apart. Fluid dynamics has no such force, since the pressure gradients
around vortexes radiate in all directions, and between two vortexes, the pressure will be twice as low. This will draw
the vortexes together, and they will merge.

The collision of the RFD and FFD under the mesocyclone establishes the likeliest location for the origin of a
tornado on the ground. In such a collision, there does not have to be just one such likely location — there could be
two or more, and this sets up the potential for multiple vortexes. If the inflow to these vortexes is rotating, the
magnetic fields of the different inflow patterns will repel each other. While like charges moving in the same
direction will generate magnetic fields that will pull them together, despite the electrostatic repulsion, like charges
moving in opposite directions will repel each other, by the repulsion of opposing magnetic fields in addition to the
electrostatic repulsion. Hence the air spiraling into the one tornado will repel the air spiraling into the other. Once
the air in each vortex breaks away from the surface and heads skyward, the direction of like charges becomes the
same, and the magnetic fields will then favor the convergence of the vortexes as they approach the mesocyclone.

35. Eccentric Sub-vortexes

A study of the damage paths of extremely powerful tornadoes reveals that the damage is not distributed evenly
within the tornado, but rather, is focused in a far smaller area, sometimes in the center of the tornado, and
sometimes in a path that meanders within the width of the funnel cloud. 159,160 In other words, an F5 tornado might
be over 2 km wide, but the extent of the F5 damage might be less than 500 m wide. (See Figure 43 for an example.)
Figure 114 shows a similar pattern. (Note that in the center of the damage path, there wasn't anything left by which
the wind speeds could be gauged — the engineers could only guess that the winds had to be in the EF 4~6 range to

103
cause such complete destruction.)

Figure 114. Damage path in Greensburg, KS, 2007-05-04, courtesy FEMA.

Doppler radar studies have clearly shown that tornadoes can have eccentric sub-vortexes. 127 (See Figure 115.) Some
researchers believe that the most extreme damage is done by the sub-vortexes. This would explain why a tornado
might totally destroy one house, and spare the house next to it, even though both houses were definitely fully inside
the same funnel cloud.

Figure 115. Inner vortexes, 1999-05-

03, courtesy Joshua Wurman.
(P = reflectivity,
V = velocity.)

104
If the sub-vortexes are more powerful than the outer vortex, then we have a pressure gradient within a pressure
gradient, which doesn't make sense. Yet we have already acknowledged that there are two different gradients under
a supercell. There is a flow field associated with the mesocyclone, and there is a separate flow field associated with
the tornado. And the tornado occurs inside the context of the mesocyclone's flow field. So it's possible that the
outer vortex wall really isn't the tornado at all — that's the mesocyclone, which has descended and which has grown
powerful enough that it latches onto the surface. The F2 winds in this vortex are well within the expected range of
computational fluid dynamics. Then there is the F5 damage within the sub-vortex, which is not. Only with the
factors identified by the EMHD model can such an extreme low pressure develop. So the present construct
considers this configuration to be a tornado within a mesocyclone, where both have latched onto the surface. The
thermodynamic mesocyclone does F2 damage, while the EMHD tornado does F5 damage.

36. Internal Downdrafts

Large "tornadoes with sub-vortexes" (what the previous section called a surface-bound mesocyclone with a tornado
inside it) have been reported to have downdrafts moving at 30 m/s, inside the main vortex wall, but outside of the
sub-vortex.161 Here the standard model goes from unrealistic to inconceivable. If the source of the energy is the low
pressure in the mesocyclone, how are we to get a downdraft inside the tornado? In other words, why would air
from the mesocyclone flow down through the tornado in response to the low pressure in the mesocyclone? Why
didn't it just stay where it was? Are we really to believe that in tornadoes, fluids follow the path of greatest
resistance, and are even capable of getting fancy at it?

Internal downdrafts only become conceivable if we think of the entire structure as a surface-bound mesocyclone
with a tornado inside it. We can expect the pressure outside of the sub-vortex to be equal to the pressure
throughout the mesocyclone. Fluctuations in the air supply outside of the main vortex wall, or in the degree of
surface friction encountered, will modulate the pressure inside the main vortex (i.e., the mesocyclone). This could
result in air exchanges between different aspects of the mesocyclone, even including a quick but unmistakable
downdraft.

105
 Figure 116. Hypothesized airflows resulting in a downdraft inside the main
vortex.

37. Distinctive Sounds

Tornadoes create a variety of distinctive sounds.45,162 The "freight train" sound is commonly reported, which is also
likened to the roar of a jet engine at full throttle. The standard explanation is that the violent turbulence in the air
creates random sonic events that combine into a continuous roar. But this doesn't explain why the roar of an F3
tornado is distinctly different from the howl of a Category Five hurricane, both with the same wind speeds.

The following is a report from directly under a mesocyclone as the funnel cloud was just forming (later to touch
down 20 km away). 163

As the sound of thunder would approach from the distance, the "growl" of thunder would sound like it
was being trapped in the vortex overhead producing a sound very similar to what an old steam train
sounds like when it pulls out of the station — whooomf, whooomf, whooomf... and fade away after
several seconds, until the next roll of thunder came along then another whooomf, whooomf, whooomf...
overhead.

The most plausible explanation for thunder "growling" repetitively, instead of booming just once, is that the
thunder was interacting with the low pressure inside the mesocyclone. Since the speed of sound in air varies with
temperature, and since the low pressure inside the mesocyclone reduces the temperature, sound will travel through
the mesocyclone slower than around it. This will create a "clap" on the other side, which will then reverberate back
through the mesocyclone. If this effect lasts several seconds, and if there are several lightning strikes per second,
and other sonic events due to turbulence in the air and object-object collisions at the surface, the reverberations
will merge into a continuous roar. So it would be the low pressure inside the tornado and/or mesocyclone that
would be responsible for this distinctive roaring sound, not just random sonic events.

Then there is another sound that is reported and that is quite different, and which seems to be associated with just
the funnel cloud, though it is only heard before the funnel cloud touches down. This has been characterized as a
hissing, whistling, whining, humming, or buzzing sound. The following is a description of the sound made by a
funnel cloud in Dodge City, KS, on 1928-06-22. 164

At last the great shaggy end of the funnel hung directly overhead... There was a screaming, hissing
sound coming directly from the end of the funnel... Around the rim of the great vortex (about 50~100 ft.

106
 diameter) small tornadoes were constantly forming and breaking away... It was these that made the
hissing sound.

This higher-frequency sound is thought to be the same as the low frequency sound generated by the mature
tornado, though while the funnel cloud is still in the air, the sound of smaller sub-vortexes is not overpowered by
the roar of the main vortex on the ground. 165 But again, the howl of high winds is well-known, and can be
reproduced in the laboratory easily, while the distinctive hissing or buzzing sound has never been reproduced just
with high winds.

People who have heard this sound, and who also have worked around high-voltage electric equipment, always
equate the sound with that of a sustained discharge through the air. Those who have witnessed St. Elmo's Fire (a
corona discharge) report the same hissing sound. If there is an electric current flowing from the mesocyclone
toward the ground, and if the bottom of the funnel cloud is where negative and positive charges are meeting, it will
certainly produce precisely this kind of sound.

38. Smell of Ozone

There have been many reports of the smell of ozone in the area around a tornado. Since high-voltage electric
equipment (such as arc welding) produces ozone, people have frequently characterized the smell as "electrical," and
this was one of the "clues" that led researchers to believe that lightning at the tornado/mesocyclone interface was a
driving force in tornadoes.

It's actually a bit odd that they did not fully consider the implications of this line of reasoning. Because the air
under a mesocyclone is converging toward it, if the smell of ozone is present and it's coming from the
tornado/mesocyclone interface, it certainly did not travel against the converging winds to get to the people on the
ground. It had to rise through the updraft, and then get pulled all of the way back to the ground (as the FFD) in
order to be smelled at the surface level. Figuring out how this ionized oxygen could get pulled back down to the
surface would have led them to consider 40 years ago the ideas being presented now in this paper. Regardless, the
researchers contended that tornadic lightning had to be present in order to get an updraft powerful enough to
produce a tornado, and when that was proved false, the whole EM paradigm was tossed.

The source of the ozone could, indeed, be tornadic lightning, but it could also be simply a product of the ionization
that is occurring in the charge separation process at the top of the cloud. Either way, to be present at the surface, it
has to be pulled all of the way down to the ground, and then drawn back into the updraft. The EMHD model
identifies mechanisms capable of doing this.

And while the EMHD model does not place any central significance on tornadic lightning, it does rely heavily on
ionization as a necessary condition for tornadogenesis. So the presence of ozone at the surface is not just an artifact
of tornadic lightning, or of the charge separation process. It is an index of the degree of ionization in the air, and
the EMHD model asserts a causal relationship between that and the probability of tornadogenesis.

39. Blue & Orange Flashes

In rare cases, there are flashes of unusual colors outside of the tornado. The most common colors are blue and
orange. NASA scientists stationed in Huntsville gave detailed reports of the other colors associated with the storm
pictured in Figures 117 and 118, while only blue and orange flashes were actually photographed.166

Figure 117. A luminous discharge outside a tornado captured on video

(at 9 frames/sec) in Huntsville, AL, 1974-04-03, courtesy Otha H.
Vaughan.

107
Figure 118. Two photographs of the luminosity (taken
about 31 seconds apart) from a tornado in Huntsville,
AL, 1974-04-03, courtesy W. M. Dobbs.

108
Here's another more recent example, also from Huntsville.

Figure 119. Blue flash as EF2 tornado was forming in

Huntsville, AL, 2010-01-21, courtesy printfac.

Blue and orange flashes were captured by a security camera in Millbury, OH. There were 4 blue and 2 orange
flashes just in a 6-second period. In Figure 120, the right side of the tornado itself is silhouetted by the orange
flash.

Figure 120. Orange and blue

flashes around tornado in
Millbury, OH, 2010-06-05,
courtesy DRACONi Security
Agency.

Even more recently, sustained orange flashes were captured by a security camera in Chattanooga, TN, immediately
after a tornado. The flashes were thought to be fires started by the tornado. But the flashes in the video emanate
from lightpoles, which have no fuel to sustain fires of such intensity. And despite the high wind speeds, the flashes
maintain a (more or less) vertical form, instead of being blown in the direction of the winds as we would expect.
Furthermore, the lights were not damaged by the "fires."

Figure 121. Orange flashes following tornado in Chattanooga, TN, 2010-10-

28, courtesy U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

109
Flashes originating from point-sources on the ground are typically attributed to transformers blowing up when
power lines short-circuit. But this doesn't explain the blue and orange colors. When a transformer blows up, the arc
discharge is bright enough to saturate some or all of the affected frames. Outside of the whited-out areas, there is
little to no corona. If there is a corona, it is violet. (See Figures 122 ~ 123.) Yet the blue and orange coronas under
these tornadic supercells extend hundreds of meters into the atmosphere. The presence of large coronas, and their
color, constitute direct evidence of highly-ionized air, one of the central tenets of the EMHD model. Blue could
either be ionized nitrogen or oxygen. Orange can only be ionized oxygen. (See Figures 54, 55, and 56 for the
emission spectra.)

Figure 122. Sustained sub-station fault with a

surrounding violet corona discharge in Corvallis, OR,
2005-10-30, photo courtesy Stonebridge Engineering.

Figure 123. Lightning. Notice the

small violet corona discharge.
Courtesy Johnny Autery.

110
40. Tornadic Levitation
Tornadoes are suction vortexes, and the general public has come to think of them as giant vacuum cleaner hoses
that can pick up large objects in precisely the same manner as a household vacuum cleaner picks up small
objects. 139,167,168 Figure 124 is taken from a video that is frequently cited as an example of the "suction power" of a
tornado. (Click the link to watch the video on YouTube.)

Figure 124. Cars picked up by tornado in Leighton, AL,

2008-05-08, courtesy S&M Equipment Company.

But it's naïve to think that a typical suction vortex has lines of motion capable of producing such a phenomenon.
For a suction vortex to extend all of the way to a solid boundary, the angular momentum in the inflow has to be so
great that the centrifugal force so generated will oppose the centripetal force from the low pressure, such that the
air cannot reach the extreme low pressure in the core of the vortex. The air then rotates rapidly around the center
as it moves slowly upward, producing helical lines of motion, in which the speed of rotation is far greater than the
vertical velocity. In such conditions, objects will not be lifted straight up — the primary acceleration will be tangent
to the rotation of the vortex. If a car is picked up in such conditions (because of high-pressure air under the car),
once off the ground, the car will be accelerated in the direction of the winds. Yet we can clearly see that these cars
were picked straight up.

This is clear proof that the lines of motion in a tornadic vortex are fundamentally different from those in a

111
standard suction vortex. Inside the vortex, the air shoots straight up, forgetting its angular momentum. This could
only be possible if inside the vortex, new forces are introduced or existing forces are removed, such that a radical
change in behavior is manifested. It's not the introduction of a high pressure that could alter the lines of motion, as
there is no source for such energy at the surface. We can only conclude that some existing force that was preventing
upward motion has been removed. This can only be an electrostatic attraction that is neutralized by the flow of an
electric current.

This upward acceleration goes on to account for the findings of engineers who have calculated that 75 m/s winds in
a tornado do the same degree of damage as 100 m/s straight-line winds. The fluid dynamic models do not have a
strong vertical component in the flow field, because this is not present in a standard suction vortex. Not willing to
break that aspect of fluid dynamics, meteorologists break another instead, in saying that curving winds can do more
damage than straight winds. But this is non-sense. At the scale of the objects being destroyed, the air in a tornado
is moving in a straight line, and the degree of damage per speed of the wind should be predictable. But if there is, in
fact, a powerful vertical acceleration inside the vortex, the difference in the degree of damage makes perfect sense.
The downward pressure of gravity adds strength to the walls of a building. If that pressure is relieved when the
building is subjected to a powerful updraft at the ground level, the walls will fail with less lateral force. This means
that buildings should be engineered to withstand 75 m/s vertical winds instead of 100 m/s straight-line winds.

In a more general sense, it's instructive to note that meteorologists have learned to rate tornadoes on the basis of
the degree of damage, not the speed of the wind. In the early days of tornado research, before a large volume of
tornado videography was available, the degree of damage, measured after the fact, was the only information
available. But this practice persists, even now that tornado videos are abundant, and rarely does anybody bother to
calculate the wind speeds of a tornado from the frame-to-frame motion, which is a straight-forward task if you
know the distance of the tornado from the observer and the zoom factor to which the camera was set. The reason is
that meteorologists know that they're not going to be able to make sense of the results, so this is not useful
information to them. But if we know the degree of damage and the speed of the winds, the discrepancy is a
measure of "other force" present, which is useful within the EMHD framework.

Then there is a different type of levitation that sometimes occurs outside of the vortex. Scientists have not applied
any critical scrutiny to these reports, and the common "explanation" is flatly absurd. A tornado was nearby;
tornadoes are suction vortexes; things were picked up; any questions? Yet outside of the vortex, the lines of motion
are parallel to the ground. So the vertical motion within the vortex would be irrelevant, even if the conventional
framework could explain it. A critical treatment of the topic requires that we explain how objects are picked up just
with horizontal air motion.

At first blush, this doesn't seem like a hard task. Cars will become airborne if subjected to crosswinds above
roughly 60 m/s. (See this video for an example.) Contrary to popular belief, it is not the Bernoulli Effect that lifts
up the cars, wherein a low pressure has developed above the car. Rather, when air broadsides the car, some of it
gets forced under the car, creating a high pressure below it, and this is the force that lifts up the car. Once off the
ground, the car is then rapidly accelerated in the direction of the wind, and hits the ground (for the first time at
least) 5 m or more away. If it bounces, wind can once again get under the car and lift it up, and the process repeats.
So all that is necessary for cars to get levitated is that the windspeed be in excess of 60 m/s, which is in the EF2
range. And there is plenty of evidence of cars being picked up and bounced for some distance in the strong winds of
EF2+ tornadoes.

But there are a number of well-documented cases of vehicles being picked up and behaving in a manner that
cannot be explained in such simple terms. In these cases, the vehicles were picked up after the strongest winds had
passed, and instead of being accelerated in the direction of the winds, they simply hovered for a while.

For example, during the tornado that hit La Plata, MD, on April 28, 2002, a bus with 30 people aboard was lifted
off the ground, kept suspended in air for several seconds, and then set back down on the wheels. High wind speeds
could have picked up the bus, but then the bus would have been accelerated horizontally, and it would have hit the
ground hard and rolled several times, destroying the bus and probably killing many of the passengers.

Here's a similar report, again from Maryland, this time from Steve Tracton, Ph.D. (meteorology):

In 1995, I was in my car one night, patiently waiting the opportunity to turn from a driveway onto a
street in Temple Hills, MD, when seemingly out of nowhere the wind increased to what I perceived as
hurricane strength. Needless to say, I was totally surprised and scared beyond belief when my car rose at
least two feet off the ground. Fortunately, the wind decreased as rapidly as it had increased, and my car

112
 settled back down on the driveway.

Watching any of the videos of cars hitting the ground after being picked up by high wind speeds, do the words
"settled back down" come to mind?

The following is an eyewitness report of a car being picked up by a tornado, and a photo of the results.

The man in the house near us was very lucky. He was in the yard and was hanging on for dear life and
watched his car raise about 5 feet in the air and float for a few feet toward his house. The car then was
gently lowered on his fence and it tilted on its side and was gently lowered to the ground. His house was
not touched and he was next to the car and was not harmed. He was hanging on that corner post that
you see with the brace on it.

Figure 125. Damage from tornado in Номмуна, Заря Свободы, RU, 2009-06-13, courtesy Kyle
and Svet Keeton.

When further questioned on how the car came to rest in this position, the eyewitness elaborated: 169

The car actually floated after the main body of the tornado passed over head and was out of sight. The
winds were still strong but I was watching the car as was the man who owned the car. The wind damage
was done and the car just gently lowered onto the fence. It did not crash to the ground. The fence held
the car side up and the car tipped then gently lowered on its side.

Yes, slight damage but the car was uprighted after the fence removed and driven away. No dents except
slight impressions from rocks and such as it laid on its side...

How could strong winds pick up a car and then gently set it down on a wooden fence — why was the lateral
acceleration so slight? And why did this happen after the tornado had already passed?

Here's another example, again from Russia. It's clear that the truck had been exposed to high winds, since the

113
damage to the truck body would have been caused by flying debris. But it's also clear that the truck was not rolled
by the high winds. So it was picked up and kept upright, and then set on the car. In winds strong enough to pick up
the truck, why didn't the truck get rolled? And how could the lateral acceleration be so slight as to allow the truck
to come to rest teetering on the car like this?

Figure 126. Damage from F3 tornado in Краснозаводск, RU, 2009-06-03, courtesy English
Russia.

There are also confirmed reports of people being picked up by a tornado, and sometimes carried for some distance,
and then set back down gently enough that they were relatively unharmed. (The longest confirmed distance that a
tornado carried a person who survived was 400 m. 170 The person suffered no injuries when hitting the ground.)
High wind speeds could certainly have picked up the people, but then the people would have been rapidly
accelerated to a substantial percentage of the speed of those winds. It's hard to imagine how people could hit the
ground after being airborne for 50 m in winds powerful enough to pick them up, and not be injured in process.
(Hitting the ground at 15 m/s without breaking bones takes skill. In an uncontrolled fall, hitting the ground at 5
m/s can break bones. So how do strong winds pick people up, and then set them back down at less than 15 m/s?)

And then there have been cases where entire houses have been picked up and carried, and then set back down,
damaged but still relatively intact. The anomalous aspect of this is not that an object as big as a house could be
picked up. Houses are mainly empty space, with lots of surface area upon which the winds can exert force. But
houses simply are not built in such a way that they can be picked up, except from underneath, without falling apart.
Without being able to get underneath the house to pick it up, the only other way to generate the necessary uplift
without destroying the house is with a force that can act upon the entire mass at once. There are only two such
forces in nature operative at this scale — gravity and electromagnetism. It's not gravity, because the houses were
picked up. That leaves electromagnetism.

The EMHD model asserts that the tornadic inflow is positively-charged, and the surface of the Earth has an induced
negative charge. This means that particulate matter from the surface that is getting blown in the wind will be
negatively-charged. Objects exposed to the tornadic inflow (such as people, cars, etc.) will be sandblasted with this

114
particulate matter, and will therefore pick up a negative charge. After becoming negatively charged, the objects will
be attracted by the electric force to the positively-charged air around them. Since there is more air above them than
below them, the net force will be upward. And since electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful
than gravity, even an extremely small EM force can be the determining factor. Also, if the strongest positive charge
in the storm is in the RFD, objects will be subjected to the most powerful uplifting force after the tornado passes.

Figure 127 shows a house that was picked up and moved by winds that were rated EF2 (because of the removal of
the roof), but the car in the garage was left untouched. This is anomalous because EF2 winds are capable of blowing
cars off of roads, or even picking them up.171

Figure 127. House relocated by the

tornado in Greensburg, KS, 2007-05-04,
courtesy Tim Marshall.

It's possible that the house lost its roof in the EF2 winds, but it was not the lateral winds that picked up the house
and moved it. Rather, the house was subjected to triboelectric charging as the tornado passed overhead, and then
after the winds subsided, the house was picked up and set back down 20 meters away by the electric force. The car
inside the garage was shielded from triboelectric charging during the strongest winds, so it did not experience the
same uplifting force later.

We should now take an even closer look at the most anomalous cases — the ones in which the objects actually
hovered. The reports are consistent in asserting that the fastest winds had already passed, and the eyewitnesses
guessed the wind speeds at something like 30 m/s when the objects started "floating." Such winds are clearly
insufficient to levitate the objects, and this section presents the more plausible explanation, that the electric force
was at work. Yet even in 30 m/s winds, we still wouldn't expect objects to hover — there should still be a drag force
that would accelerate the objects in the direction of the wind. A car picked up off a driveway and which hovered for
several seconds should have at least landed in the ditch, if not fully on the grass.

If we consider the conditions in which this will happen, we find the answer. The objects were subjected to
triboelectric charging as the tornado passed by. Then they were levitated. This means that they were then between
the RFD and the tornado. There the winds will be traveling from the RFD toward the tornado. If the RFD is the
primary source of positive charge, the lines of electric force would not have been straight up. If we look at Figure
75, and assume that the entire RFD is positively-charged, and then consider the force exerted on a negatively-
charged object halfway between the RFD and the tornado, we see that the net force will be angled upward, toward
the main body of charge in the RFD. (See Figure 128. Note that while electric lines of force intersect a plane
conductor perpendicular to it, the Earth is only an excellent conductor below the water table, and the soil above the
water table could be a good or fair conductor. So the lines of force will not be perpendicular to the surface, but
rather, to the water table, which could be several meters below the surface.) So while the wind will be blowing
toward the tornado, the electric force will be upward and back toward the RFD, the net result of which could be no
net lateral acceleration. It would be a rare case indeed that the forces happened to be perfectly matched. And so it is

115
in fact. Nevertheless, this is the only way that hovering is possible.

Figure 128. Stack of positive charges above a

solid conductor. Applet by Paul Falstad.

41. Exploding Houses

Eyewitnesses to the destruction of houses by tornadoes have testified for years that the houses "explode" upward
and outward. The following is a quote from UCAR on the topic.

Scientists once thought that you should open your windows during a tornado. The thinking behind this
was that the extreme low pressure in a tornado would cause the air in your house to explode. Opening
your windows would let the air expand without damaging your house. As it turns out, houses aren't as
sealed as they thought so the air would have no problem getting out.

That much is true. But the quote goes on to say:

It turns out that the strong winds associated with a tornado can lift the roof off a house. Without the
support of the roof, the walls are blown down and they fall outward. The roof may be dropped back on
the rubble or some place nearby. This gives the impression that the house exploded.

Are we really to believe that the walls will simply "fall outward" because there is nothing tieing them together at the
top? All other factors being the same, a vertical wall experiences no horizontal force. 30 m/s winds will easily blow
down an unbraced wall. And the wall will fall in the direction of the winds. In winds sufficient to tear the roof off a
house (50~60 m/s), it is not physically possible for an unbraced wall to fall down against the wind.

More problematic is the fact that the roofs are, indeed, lifted straight up, and then can sometimes fall straight back
down, or land nearby. The standard explanation for this is a set of forces known collectively as the Bernoulli
Principle. 172 But contrary to the "math" in the just-cited literature, aerodynamic lift is not a function of the size of
the object, but rather, of the shape, and the shape of a gable roof prevents aerodynamic lift. If strong winds are
going to tear the roof off a house, it will not be with low pressure above the roof, but rather, with high pressure
under the eaves, and the roof is pealed back, like the lid of a sardine can.

So what can lift a roof straight up, in the absence of aerodynamic uplift, and in winds slight enough that the roof
isn't even accelerated (much) in the direction of the winds by the drag force, then to fall back down on walls that
were "blown outward"?

If a house has been subjected to triboelectric charging, then something that detaches from the house will be
repelled from the house by electrostatic repulsion. This force will be upward and outward. Additionally, if the house
is negatively-charged, there will be an electrostatic attraction to the space charge coming from the RFD. This force
will be upward. If we add these forces to the force of the lateral winds, the observations make more sense.

116
42. Polarity Reversals
Somewhere in the range of 85%~95% of all cloud-to-ground lightning is "negative," wherein the arc discharge is
between a negative pole in the cloud and a positive pole in the ground. 173 This is easy to understand, since the main
negative charge region is lower in the cloud (and therefore closer to the ground) than the main positive region,
hence an arc discharge can occur with less voltage, so it happens more frequently. Lightning from the main positive
charge region at the top of the cloud down to the ground requires upward of 100 million volts to initiate an arc
discharge, so it is a bit more rare.

This does not mean that all positive strikes have to come from the upper portion of the cloud. Weaker positive
charge regions can develop lower in the cloud, resulting in positive strikes with less voltage. But usually, the lower
positive regions are too weak to initiate lightning, and negative strikes dominate the statistics.

The interesting thing about supercells is that they develop as "normal" thunderstorms, with a negative charge in the
middle of the cloud inducing a positive charge in the Earth. Then typically there is a polarity reversal as the storm
enters the tornadic phase, and the charge aloft becomes positive, with an induced negative charge in the Earth. The
CG lightning issued during this phase is predominantly (or even exclusively) positive. 174,175,176 Shortly after the
tornado ropes out, the polarity reverses again, back to the "normal" configuration.

This is anomalous because we can clearly see the internal structure of the storm on Doppler radar, and there is no
change in storm structure that accompanies these polarity reversals. This might sound trivial, but it is not. While
protons and electrons have exactly the same amount of charge (though opposite in sign), they have very different
physical characteristics. In a thunderstorm, negative charges are found mostly in hail and to a lesser extent in large
raindrops, while positive charges are carried by microscopic ice crystals, supercooled aerosols, and by nitrogen and
oxygen molecules that collide with positively-charged water molecules. Since hail is the best radar reflector in the
storm, with large raindrops being good reflectors, and since these are the primary negative charge carriers, we
should expect the negative charge regions to correspond roughly with what we see on radar.176,177,178 The
significance of this is that a polarity reversal should be accompanied by a visible change in the storm structure on
radar, but it is not.

In the standard model, this is not a solvable problem, because all of the electric charges are assumed to be in the
cloud, carried by water molecules. No existing construct asserts that the air between the cloud and the ground
might be bearing a powerful electric charge. Hence the polarity reversal, without a corresponding change in
Doppler radar, in inexplicable.

The more reasonable interpretation of the data is that if radar is telling us that the main negative charge region is
still there, its charge is still there too. If the perceived electric field at the surface inverts, then a positive double-
layer had to come between us and the negative charges. Hence the combination of the radar and electric field data
constitute one of the proofs that during the tornadic phase, the air below the cloud is bearing a strong positive
charge.

43. Lightning Holes

The "lightning hole" was mentioned earlier, and an example is clearly visible in Figure 68. While the "hole" is not
absolute, and lightning does occur within this region, there is typically a 50~70% reduction in lightning
strikes. 106,107,108,109 As previously stated, the absence of lightning coincides with a sharp reduction in the electric
field. In fact, the field relaxes to zero, and then inverts, showing a positive charge aloft, and an induced negative
charge at the surface (as presented in the previous section). Less lightning in a reduced electric field makes sense,
but the two facts together beg the question of what happened to the negative charge within the cloud.

Previous EM theories have argued that the tornado is continually discharging the potentials, resulting in an overall
reduction in electric field.101 But this asks more questions than it answers. How could the tornado create a
lightning hole 9 km wide, getting the charges to travel more than 4 times the distance to the ground to get into the
discharge channel? The conductivity of the Earth should be the more attractive alternative to such charges, and that
would be assuming that the discharge channel was as conductive as the ground, which it's not. And how could a
tornado discharge so much potential that the field inverts? And if tornadoes are feeding off the same energy that
causes lightning, why is it typical that the lightning activity goes from almost nothing to the highest rate during the
entire life of the storm as the tornado dissipates?

117
 Figure 129. Reduced lightning strike rate before and during the tornadic
phase of a storm in Atlanta, GA, 1975-03-24, courtesy Georgia Tech.

The EMHD model states that the general storm structure does not change during the tornadic phase, and that the
negative charge is there the whole time. Some of this charge passes down through the tornado. But more
significantly, during the tornadic phase a positive double-layer wraps around the storm. During this period, the
perceived electric field, if measured at the surface, will be weak. All of the electric field will be between the positive
double-layer and the negative core, and an electric field meter at the surface will be outside of this field. And it
makes sense that the small field that is present indicates a positive charge aloft. Even if the negative and positive
charges were perfectly matched, the outermost aspect of the positive double-layer is against a conductor (i.e., the
Earth), where it induces an opposite charge, thereby inverting the perceived field at the surface.

But if that's true, then why isn't there any lightning between the negative inner core and the positive double-layer?
There should be more than enough potential for this, but it definitely isn't happening.

If we make a critical investigation into what could be reducing the lightning strike rate, we quickly realize that any
answer will rest implicitly on our understanding of what creates lightning in the first place. Yet such an
understanding does not exist. It's obvious that an arc discharge is the result of an electrostatic potential that
exceeded the resistance of the air. But it's less than obvious why lightning can occur with only 30 kV/m of potential.
In the laboratory, it takes roughly 3,000 kV/m to create an electric arc. 179 So it's not just electrostatic potential that
causes lightning — it's that and something else that can lower the threshold by 2 orders of magnitude.

Current research is focusing on small pockets of charge that somehow develop in the upper portion of the cloud.
The thinking is that the local field near these pockets might achieve the 3,000 kV/m necessary for an arc discharge.
After the initial discharge, a series of return strokes within the cloud elongates the discharge channel, as excess
charges slosh back and forth, involving more and more of the cloud in the process. If the discharge channel gets
close enough to the ground, the potential at the ground will rise instantaneously to 3,000 kV/m, and a CG strike
will occur.

That much makes sense, but it leaves the most interesting questions unanswered. How does the charge density in
these pockets build up to the breakdown voltage of the air — why didn't electrostatic repulsion dissipate the charge?
And how could it build up so fast that it doesn't even initiate a glow discharge first? The charge separation process
in a thunderstorm is capable of building up tens of millions of volts of potential, but it takes tens of minutes to do
this. To get to the potential for an arc discharge, you normally have to surpass the threshold for a glow discharge. If
this happens slowly, the glow discharge will certainly occur, and it will be obvious. But this doesn't happen in
thunderstorms.

It almost goes without saying that some other force must be present, that preserves the charge separation, even
past the potential for a glow discharge. So the question is: what force can keep electric charges separate in a low-
viscosity medium until the potential for an arc discharge is achieved?

Applying EMHD principles to this problem produces interesting results. At the top of the cloud, negatively-charged
precipitation is pouring out of the updraft and then falling through drier air. The evaporation of the precipitation
cools the air, creating downdrafts. A falling parcel of air will assume a tear-drop shape, with a toroidal flow within

118
the parcel. And while the toroid is a very low-friction shape in fluid dynamics, it is also an important shape in
electrodynamics. As the parcel descends, and charged air is recirculated within the tear-drop shape, the
electrodynamic forces will reinforce the fluid dynamic form. This will prevent the parcel from getting perturbed by
random gusts into a more turbulent, higher-friction form. So we can expect this form to be present, and we need to
fully consider its behaviors in these conditions.

First, we would expect the downdraft to become magnetically-pinched. Interestingly, pinching the charged particles
in the parcel will compress the air, and this will increase its density. This, of course, will make it fall faster. And
that, of course, will increase the magnetic pinch effect. At the speeds in question, the magnetic pinch effect will be
slight, at least by comparison to the sorts of contexts in which this effect is normally considered (e.g., plasma
physics). But it may still be quite robust compared to the thermodynamic forces present, which are manifestations
of the force of gravity (which itself is 39 orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism).

Second, as the parcel falls, it will make its way through air that has precipitation suspended in it. While the air
itself will be split apart by the advancing toroidal flow, the precipitation has more mass and a higher terminal
velocity. This means that the precipitation will be more likely to just stay where it is, and penetrate the falling
parcel. Once inside the tear-drop shape, this precipitation might get trapped by the magnetic fields, and then join
the parcel in its descent. In other words, the toroidal flow will scavenge precipitation from the air through which it
falls. Picking up additional precipitation will keep the evaporative cooling process going, further increasing the
density of the air (and thereby the fall rate). Any excess precipitation will simply add more weight to the parcel
(known as "precipitation loading"), which will also increase the fall rate.

Figure 130. Falling parcel scavenges precipitation from

surrounding air.

And all aspects of these factors are mutually-enhancing. The faster the parcel falls, the stronger the magnetic pinch
effect, meaning denser air, and where the faster parcel will scavenge more precipitation, which will increase the
charge, thereby increasing the magnetic pinch effect, etc.

By accumulating more and more precipitation as it falls, the tear-drop parcel has a natural way of building up more
and more charge, and holding onto it. This could be the way pockets of charge develop the potential necessary for
an arc discharge.

If this is the case, we can easily understand why the lightning strike rate drops during the tornadic phase of a

119
supercell. The organized airflow consolidates the updraft and the downdraft into a singular entity with a continuous
laminar flow. This prevents the scavenging that is necessary for local potentials to approach 3,000 kV/m. Hence
the lightning hole might not be a result of less overall electrostatic potential, but simply a result of less extreme
local charge densities. And (as mentioned earlier) the reduced electric field might not be because of less potential,
but because of the introduction of screening layer between the ground and the cloud. Then, when the structure of
the storm starts to fall apart in the dissipation stage, laminar airflows convert to turbulence, the lightning strike
rate jumps way up, and the tornado ropes out.

As an aside, this construct also offers an explanation for another anomalous meteorological phenomenon:
microbursts. With a straight Navier-Stokes simulation, we can get small laminar downdrafts with speeds
approaching 40 m/s. Then we hit the Reynolds number, and the flow is randomized, dropping the speed below 20
m/s. But in microbursts, speeds in excess of 100 m/s have been recorded. Calculating the Reynolds number
requires knowing all of the factors, but there are no known conditions that can result in small downdrafts traveling
this fast. But what if the microburst is an electrodynamically-reinforced toroidal flow, and what if the conditions
did not materialize for a lightning strike (which would have eliminated the structure)? We can easily justify overall
fall rates in the range of 50 m/s, on the basis of the density of a wet downdraft (if we could get past the Reynolds
number). If it's a reinforced toroidal flow, the low-friction form does this. Then, if the outside of the toroid is
stopped with respect to the surrounding air, and the inside is falling twice as fast, the air in the center of the form
will hit the ground at 100 m/s.

This could have significant implications for the airline industry. Getting hit by a microburst while on final approach
is one of a pilot's worst nightmares. Currently the only way to detect microbursts is with a simplified form of
Doppler radar installed in the nose of the jet, that detects vertical shear. But this technology only gives the pilot
10~15 seconds of warning. If the present contentions are correct, the charged microburst took about 10 minutes to
descend from the top of the cloud, building charge on the way. The movement of this charged parcel might be
detectable with a magnetometer, and if so, it might be possible to increase the lead time to several minutes.
Microbursts are rare, so they are tough to study, but magnetometers are cheap, so it still might be feasible to install
them in the control towers at major airports, to begin collecting data, such that if a microburst occurs, we'll have
the data necessary to determine the effectiveness of this proposal.

44. RF Emissions
Tornadic storms produce sustained RF emissions at (relatively) stable frequencies, in the range of 20~140
MHz. 15,180,181 Also, there appears to be some sort of causal relationship between high frequency emissions and
extremely powerful tornadoes.

One source of sustained RF emissions could be small-scale arc discharges at the top of the cloud, where the charge
separation process begins. 182 But discharges at the top of the cloud would have no obvious causal relationship with
the tornado at the bottom of the cloud. Another theory is that the waves are generated by rotating charges in the
tornado. 183 But no explanation is given for how a vortex rotating at less than 60 rpm would generate waves at
20~140 MHz.

Given that the specified relationship is between tornadoes and RF emissions, the most logical place to look for the
source of the emissions is inside the tornado. We know that there is an electric current inside the tornado,
sufficient in rare cases to create glow discharges, and in extremely rare cases, arc discharges at the
tornado/mesocyclone interface, visible from the outside. The fact that the distinctive RF emissions are far more
consistent than the observations of tornadic lightning indicates that the discharges are normally hidden inside the
cloud.

The frequency at which the amplitude of photon emission is modulated is a function of the length of the lightning
channel. Assuming that the speed of the electrons in lightning is 1 ⁄ 10 the speed of light,184 or roughly 30,000,000
m/s, we can develop rough numbers for the length of a lightning strike, given the frequency of the RF emissions.

Table 2. RF Emissions

band frequency length

VLF 30 kHz 1,000 m

120
 AM 520 kHz 57.69 m
AM 1610 kHz 18.63 m
TV 54 MHz 0.56 m

Since most lightning traverses 1~3 km, most of the RF energy is in the VLF band (3~30 kHz), 101,185 with enough
energy present in the AM band (520~1610 kHz) to cause radio static. The RF interference created by tornadoes in
the TV band (54~216 MHz) is of sufficient amplitude, if the tornado is within a couple of kilometers, to overpower
the TV signal, resulting in a screenful of snow. 186 The discharge channels associated with such interference would
be less than 0.56 m long, and it's possible that these correspond to the reports of "lightning fingers" inside the
tornado. 136,137,138

Note that the high-frequency emissions are only detectable with a TV set if the tornado is within a couple of
kilometers. It doesn't take very many watts of power to transmit RF energy that distance.

While the distinctive high-frequency emissions do not precede the tornado, so they cannot be used to predict
tornadoes, they might be useful in verifying tornadoes. 72% of all tornado warnings are false alarms, so not
everybody takes aggressive defensive action when they hear the sirens. But a confirmed tornado on the ground is a
different issue. Unfortunately, there isn't always someone there to make such a confirmation. But radio waves can
be detected from a long distance (with instruments more sensitive than a TV set), so real-time monitoring of these
emissions could lead to more reliable nowcasting.

45. St. Elmo's Fire

St. Elmo's Fire is a corona discharge that produces a faint blue or violet light when it occurs in the presence of
nitrogen. It emanates from pointed objects in an electric field exceeding 100 kV/m. 135 It is most commonly
observed at the end of a thunderstorm, and sailors named it after St. Elmo (their patron saint), believing that he
had once again delivered them from the perils of a storm at sea.

Figure 131. Corona discharge from a tesla coil, courtesy Robert Hunt.

121
Corona discharges in the troposphere are a rare occurrence, and are a bit difficult to explain, since they seem to
require more electrostatic potential than lightning. If the contentions in the "Lightning Holes" section are correct,
corona discharges are definitely possible. 100 kV/m for a corona discharge is well below the 3,000 kV/m necessary
for an arc discharge. But we'll only see corona discharges when charged microbursts are not initiating lightning
strikes. This will most likely occur at the end of a thunderstorm, when electrostatic potentials are still present, but
after the updrafts have stopped feeding precipitation into the upper troposphere where it can cause microbursts.

Interestingly, corona discharges have been observed under supercells while the storms were still quite active. 25 This
again suggests that supercells are doing something to prevent the lightning initiation process, allowing electrostatic
potentials to exceed the normal threshold for lightning.

46. Telluric Currents

In addition to the current flowing down through the tornado, there is also evidence of a current flowing through the
ground. The F4 tornado in Worcester, MA, on 1953-06-09, was detected from 150 km away on the basis of telluric
currents.187 This current appears to coincide with the tornado, so it would not be useful as a predictive mechanism,
but might nevertheless be useful to confirm the presence of a tornado, and possibly even estimate the strength of it,
which would be very valuable information to have in real time.

The direction of the current was not identified, but the EMHD model offers a suggestion. If there is an induced
negative charge in the Earth, and if dust is being picked up by the tornado (by the low pressure and by the
electrostatic attraction to the positively-charged air flowing into the vortex), there will be a net loss of negative
charge in the Earth due to the tornado. This means that more electrons will flow in from the environs, attracted to
the positively-charged air below the storm.

Figure 132. Hypothesized telluric currents under a tornadic thunderstorm.

This agrees with electric field measurements near and inside the F4 tornado that struck Allison, TX, on 1995-06-
08.24 The strength of the electric field was an unimpressive 3 kV/m, but the researchers noted an interesting
correlation between the electric fields and the incidence of lightning around the edge of the storm.

122
 The electric field at the two instruments in the vortex relaxed to zero quickly after the lightning flashes,
whereas the electric field at nearby instruments outside the vortex did not relax quickly after the same
lightning flashes.

Since it was an F4 tornado, it's safe to assume that it was kicking up a lot of dust, meaning that there would have
been a telluric current, with electrons flowing toward the tornado. Assuming that the lightning strikes were
"positive" (in which the strikes were between positive charges in the cloud and negative charges in the ground), the
lightning would have cut off the supply of electrons toward the tornado. The absence of electrons would be the most
apparent under the tornado, where negatively-charged dust was still getting kicked up, depleting the supply. Hence
the induced negative charge in the Earth would have disappeared briefly as a consequence of the lightning strikes.
The electric field outside of the tornado would not have been altered, as the rapid shift in the current would not
have left the Earth without any charge at all.

The theoretical significance of the positive lightning strikes, within the EMHD model, has not been determined.
They neutralize the charge in the positive double-layer, reducing its adherence to the surface due to the induced
electrostatic attraction. So in this sense, the positive strikes will reduce the chance of tornadogenesis, or the power
of the tornado that has already formed. On the other hand, an absence of electrons inside the tornado at the surface
will draw more current through the tornado, increasing the resistive heating, and thereby increasing the buoyancy
inside the tornado. The net effect is not suspected to be significant, and such is consistent with the observation that
tornadoes are possible even if the supercell is not producing any cloud-to-ground lightning at all. 188

47. Blackwell-Udall Storm

On May 25, 1955, a supercell spawned two F5 tornadoes, one that damaged Blackwell, OK, and the other that
destroyed Udall, KS. This storm displayed extremely robust EM properties, and because of this, a number of EM
theories of tornadogenesis emerged. Unfortunately, in the 1950s, so little was known about tornadoes that there
was nothing to constrain the speculation, and the theoretical work yielded little lasting value.

With far more information, and with a theoretical framework that can now explain a wide variety of tornadic
properties, we can dismiss the theories that grew up around the event, and revisit the first-hand observations made
by a trained weather observer on that day, to see if the theory in question can explain even the most extreme of
cases.

Figure 133. Diagram of Blackwell-Udall tornado, 1955-05-25, courtesy Floyd

Montgomery.

123
The following properties in the diagram are explained by the EMHD model:

the expansion of the vortex in the direction of the flow, without drawing in any air above the surface (as
proved by the persistent scud clouds near the top of the tornado, that should have been drawn in rapidly if
there was any upper-level inflow),

the fact that the condensation funnel was baseless (the air had too much positive charge to condense),

the presence of St. Elmo's Fire (there was a strong positive charge above the surface), and

the blue light being emitted at the tornado/mesocyclone interface (the positive charge was getting neutralized
by a flow of electrons down from the cloud).

In addition to what is show in the diagram, other reports include:

an "electrical" smell (ozone, evidence of ionization), and

difficulty breathing (high-pressure air with a strong positive charge).

In other words, the EMHD model explains all of the anomalous aspects of the phenomenon.

It's instructive to note the results of electric field measurements made on the same storm, and the characteristic
interpretation of those results at the time. 105

At the time of the passage of the funnel near [within 5 km of] one observing station, the surface electric
field fluctuations became relatively quite small and the electric field density approximated 0.4 kV/m.
There is little evidence suggesting that the electrical effects near the funnel differ basically from normal
thunderstorm electrification.

Small electric field fluctuations, and extremely low electric field densities, actually differ radically from normal
thunderstorm electrification. And St. Elmo's Fire occurring in an electric field measuring 0.4 kV/m is not physically
possible. (The pressure would have to be so low that there wouldn't be enough molecules present to create the
observed luminescence.) The dismissal of the data was simply the researcher's reaction to that which he could not
explain. The inexplicable lack of electric field would later become known as the "lightning hole," and remains

124
inexplicable to this day outside the context of the EMHD model. And the glow discharge that was observed had to
be the result of a concentration of electric charge near the vortex.

48. Mesocyclones & Tornadoes

Approximately 20% of all tornadoes descend from storms that are not mesocyclonic.189 The present work, like most
others, focuses on the properties of supercell thunderstorms, but the topic of tornadoes is not well-covered until we
consider how they can occur in the absence of a rotating updraft.

The standard model of tornadoes places a great deal of emphasis on the mesocyclone, as the tornado is thought to
be a simple extension of this rotation. This, of course, puts non-mesocyclonic tornadoes completely outside the
scope of the standard model. It also does not account for the fact that some of the most powerful mesocyclones ever
recorded did not spawn tornadoes.190,191 , nor for the fact that sometimes tornadoes form away from the updraft.

The EMHD model identifies other factors that are important in tornadogenesis, and we should consider how those
factors could create a tornado in the absence of any rotation. Furthermore, if we take a close look at the flow fields,
we find that air flowing into the updraft of the thunderstorm is separate and distinct from air flowing into the
tornado. Under a weak updraft, the vacuum is nowhere near powerful enough to induce tornadic wind speeds at
the surface. Hence we should consider the possibility that tornadoes could form even in the absence of an updraft
within the storm. The EMHD model does rely heavily on the presence of charge separations, and these are only
going to occur in the context of a thunderstorm, and a thunderstorm is going to have an updraft. Still, to
completely isolate the factors, we have to consider the behavior of the charge separations all by themselves.

The present contention is that the creation of a bottleneck vortex under a thunderstorm requires that there be
positively-charged air that clings to the ground because of an induced negative charge in the Earth, and that a flow
of electrons down through the vortex and/or up through the ground neutralizes the charge, freeing the air to
ascend. The underlying assumption is that the primary reason for the ascension of the air once freed is that there is
a low pressure aloft.

Yet the EMHD model has identified other reasons for the air within the vortex to ascend. Millions of watts of
frictional heat are generated at the surface even in an F1 tornado, and that's just in the vortex wall. Considering the
fact that the tornadic inflow is hugging the surface from as much as 1 km away, we can expect several or many
million watts of heat to be generated, as the air spirals inward, even in a small tornado. This will give the air some
buoyancy. Then if we add hundreds of millions of watts of resistive heating within the vortex, due to the electric
current flowing down from the cloud, we have plenty of buoyancy to drive a small tornado — even if there is no
updraft in the storm whatsoever.

The critical issue is how to get the electrons down through the resistance of the air, such that the positive charge in
the air clinging to the surface can be neutralized. This is where some rotation is significant, as the reduced pressure
opens up a conduit for the flow of electrons. Once the electrons start flowing, resistive heating will further reduce
the density (and therefore the electrical resistance) of the air, allowing the passage of more electrons. Hence the
presence of a discharge vortex seems to be the bare minimum requirement for the conduit to open up all of the way
to the ground. But vortexes (of a variety of types) occur spontaneously in any turbulent environment. So if we have
a large amount of negative charge in the cloud, and if the air between the cloud and the ground is positively-
charged, any crosswise, streamwise, or suction vortex will allow more electrons to flow, and then the resistive
heating within the vortex is the positive feedback that perpetuates the discharge vortex. If the vortex extends all of
the way to the ground, friction at the surface turns the discharge vortex into a bottleneck discharge vortex — a
tornado. So a lot of charge and a little bit of turbulence should be all that it will take to generate a tornadic vortex.

This suggests that tornadoes should occur all of the time. So what is the rare factor? That would be the presence of
positively-charged air between the cloud and the ground, while there is still a lot of negative charge in the cloud.
This would seem to suggest that there would have to be some sort of organized recirculation pattern within the
storm, to build up the charge separation, without the turbulence necessary for cloud-to-cloud lightning that would
neutralize it.

One such recirculation would be the cylindrical airflow in a squall line.192 Like any thunderstorm, a squall line
manufactures precipitation inside the updraft. At the top of the cloud, gravity and terminal velocity sort out the
particles, with heavier precipitation falling first, and therefore taking the inside track, while the positively-charged
ice crystals are trapped in the air from which they condensed. Once the charges have been separated, it's possible

125
that the electric force establishes a positive double-layer enveloping the negative inner core. This would get
positively-charged air down to the surface, where it could stick to the surface and set the stage for a bottleneck
discharge vortex.

Figure 134. Possible EM structure of a vortex-producing squall line.

Figure 135. Line of waterspouts off the coast of Albania, 1999-08-01, courtesy Roberto Giudici.

126
The tornadoes that sometimes occur behind squall lines are more typically supercellular. Behind the line, warm
inflow to the squall is topped by cool air displaced by the anvil, and this sets up the wind shear and convective
potential that could result in a cumulonimbus cloud that could become mesocyclonic.

In the case of the isolated non-mesocyclonic thunderstorm that produces a tornado (or a waterspout), it's possible
that the recirculation is simply toroidal, without the mesocyclonic twist, as depicted in Figure 1.

To conclude this section, we should nonetheless remember that 80% of all tornadoes, and virtually all of the F2+
tornadoes, do descend from mesocyclones. So there's still a causal relationship worth investigating.

If mesocyclonic rotation is only possible if the downdrafts are recirculating, and if recirculation is an index of the
electrodynamic forces at play, then the rotation is an indicator of the EM organization of the storm. As we see in
Figure 35, the downdraft that is feeding back into the mesocyclone travels several kilometers upwind, and this is
only explicable if it is a magnetically-pinched charge stream. So mesocyclonic rotation is not a cause, but rather, an
effect. If tornadoes are caused by the robustness of the EM forces present, and so are mesocyclones, then there will
be a relationship, but it will be loose.

In cases where extremely robust mesocyclones develop, but they do not produce tornadoes, the EMHD model
contends that there may have been a well-developed negative charge stream inside the storm, but there was not
enough charge in the positive double-layer to support a tornado.

49. Balance of Forces

Having considered a wide variety of phenomena produced by supercell thunderstorms, we must also remember that
all of these properties are caused by a finite number of forces. Therefore, the various forms are products of
differences in the balances of forces present, and it would be useful to attempt to classify the distinctive forms on
the basis of the strengths of the forces. Then the hypothesis in question can be further challenged by comparing the
asserted balance of forces with the in situ data.

[This is a new section, and will be further developed as time permits.]

Table 3. Balance of Forces Responsible for Different Properties

Green Thunderstorm

negatively-charged precipitation loses electrons to the positively-charged air

under the cloud, resulting in photons emissions
should only be possible in an inverted polarity storm, where there is a
positive charge "aloft" (as measured from the ground) with the main
negative charge region above it

Beaver's Tail

inverted temperature/humidity gradient — warm, dry air nearer the ground,

topped by cool, moist air
requires inverted polarity storm
lots of negative charge in mesocyclone flowing through tube

Cloud-base Striations

large amount of charge flowing down from cloud, into air and opposite
charge in ground
high-humidity air
insufficient angular momentum to generate vortex

Funnel or Stovepipe

127
 strong positive charge in air clinging to ground
moderate electron flow down from cloud
moderate inflow to mesocyclone

Vortex Breakdown Above Ground

more extreme energy release at surface resulting in higher swirl ratio

weak inflow to mesocyclone

Vortex Breakdown at Ground

even stronger positive charge in air clinging to ground, resulting in even

higher swirl ratio
weak inflow to mesocyclone

Shrouded in Turbulence

even stronger positive charge in air clinging to ground, resulting in even

higher swirl ratio
weak inflow to mesocyclone

Wedge

extremely strong positive charge in air clinging to ground

massive negative charge in cloud flowing toward ground
extremely robust inflow to mesocyclone

Baseless Vortex

high conductivity in Earth and/or strong positive charge in air

powerful updraft

Condensation Only at Surface

weak positive charge and/or low conductivity in Earth

only occurs in the seconds before the vortex falls apart

128
50. Dust Devils
EMHD methods can even suggest an explanation for dust devils, which are fair-weather vortexes, and which cannot
be explained with existing science. Nobody cares much about dust devils, because it's extremely rare that anybody
ever gets killed by one. Nevertheless, they occur far more frequently than tornadoes, and might provide a way of
isolating some of the factors that produce the vortexes that kill people on a regular basis.

On a cool, sunny day, the Sun heats the surface of the Earth, and the heat radiates into the air. Normally hot air
rises, but in the conditions that form dust devils, an interesting thing occurs — a layer of hot air builds up near the
ground, and which refuses to rise, despite its buoyancy in the presence of the cooler air above. (The temperature
gradient can be so great that it creates a mirage, where light waves are refracted by the difference in density
between the cool and hot air layers.) So how can hot, buoyant air cling to the ground, topped by cooler, denser air
just 1 m above, with no convection distributing the heat? We would normally expect convective cells to become
well-established, long before enough heat builds up to support a mirage, much less a dust devil.

The only possible explanation for hot air not rising is that another force is present, and the only other force present
in the atmosphere is electromagnetism. Since air is not responsive to the magnetic force, the only possibility is that
it's the electric force. We therefore know that an electrostatic attraction pulls the air down to the Earth, and with
more force than the buoyancy that pushes it up. For this to be true, there has to be a charge separation process,
resulting in the air and the Earth being oppositely-charged. Then the question is: what is separating the charges?

It is well known that photons can ionize molecules. So when photons impact the soil, some of the electrons are
excited to an energy level that liberates them from the molecules. Of those, the ones heading upward will then get
captured by air molecules, developing a negative space charge in the air. Then there will be an attractive force
between the negatively-charged air and the positively-charged ground.

Ordinarily, we would think that the conductivity of the Earth should preclude ionization. The only electrons that
will be liberated will be from the topmost molecules, and these should be easily replenished from the vast electron
cloud of the Earth. But if the surface of the Earth is getting ionized, it solves another riddle. Dust devils are most
likely to occur over poorly-conductive soils, such as sand in a desert. In the present context, it's easy to understand
why. Poor conductivity is a necessary condition if there is to be a charge separation due to ionization — otherwise,
missing electrons in the soil will be quickly replaced from the underlying molecules, and any net charge that might
develop in the air will be dispersed by electrostatic repulsion. So a charge separation between the air and the Earth
is possible under these conditions, and this enables the accumulation of enough thermal energy to power a dust
devil.

Considering the fact that the electric force is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity (which is the
fundamental force responsible for cool, dense air falling and for hot air, with less density, rising), we would then
wonder why an updraft would ever become possible at all. The electrostatic potential should prevent the hot air
from rising, until the Sun goes down and the ionization process stops, at which time the opposite charges will
recombine faster than they are getting created.

Yet there is a limit to how strongly ionized the surface of the Earth can become. Incoming EM waves can liberate
weakly-bound electrons from molecules directly exposed to the sunlight, but once a net ionization has developed
across the surface of the Earth, the electric force will prevent the escape of electrons into the air. This limits the
amount of space charge that can develop. Yet the temperature of the air can continue to increase. If the buoyancy of
the hot air overpowers its electrostatic attraction to the ground, a small parcel of air will break away, ascending to
an altitude appropriate for its low density. As the electric force falls off with the square of the distance, the rising
parcel will experience less downward force the higher it goes.

129
The vacuum created at the surface by the first rising parcel will be filled by air sliding along the ground, still bound
by the electric force, yet responding horizontally to the low pressure. Once the lateral inflow achieves the point at
which the first parcel rose, the low pressure aloft, combined with the parcel's buoyancy, overpowers the electric
force, allowing the convergent inflow to rise as well. So the first rising parcel triggers a continuous flow of air along
the ground and then upward at the point of convergence.

Since the hot air layer is so shallow, we might think that the updraft will quickly run out of thermal energy in its
immediate vicinity. If cool air from above is drawn in, the updraft will fail. But charged air has a lower viscosity,
because electrostatic repulsion prevents the particle collisions that instantiate friction. 110 . So the ionized air will
flow more easily than the cool, neutrally-charged air above it. Hence the vacuum near the ground will be filled with
more hot air, even if the hot air has to travel a greater distance than cool air from above. This creates the possibility
of hot air from a broad area flowing along the ground to get into a single, organized updraft.

If the updraft is stationary, its intensity and duration are limited by the distance from which hot air can be drawn,
with its friction still being lower than the friction of drawing in higher-viscosity air from above. If the terrain is flat
and smooth, we can expect the effective inflow to come from further away, as skin friction will result in boundary
vortexes that will be relatively small, and turbulence will not reach the full depth of the hot air layer. Hence the
laminar flow in the hot air layer will present little friction. Rougher surface conditions will reduce the effective
inflow radius of the updraft.

If the updraft can get more hot air from one direction than from another, it will move in that direction, and instead
of the air moving to the updraft, the updraft will move to the air that can rise. This removes the restriction on the
duration of the updraft. Regardless, the intensity of the updraft is still limited by the rate at which it can draw air
from the hot air layer without pulling in cool air from above.

If the converging lines of motion are not perfectly radial, a spiraling inflow pattern will emerge, and the updraft will
become a vortex. The direction of the rotation is random, and it is common for both cyclonic and anti-cyclonic dust
devils to occur in the same area, with the same conditions. It is also possible for the same dust devil to switch
directions and continue on. This is true in both the northern and southern hemispheres of the Earth. Hence there is
no reason to believe that the rotation is being encouraged by the Coriolis effect, or by Lorentz force acceleration,
both of which would prefer one direction over another, and which would be hemisphere-specific.

If the air moves fast enough, it will start to kick up dust at the surface. The dust has the charge of the Earth. When
mixed with the oppositely-charged air, the net charge of the hot air becomes zero, completely freeing the air from
its electrostatic attraction to the Earth. Hence the dusty air will rise far more vigorously than the clear air that
initiated the process. This explains the rapid intensification in the instant that the dust devil becomes visible due to
airborne particulate matter.

The corollary also appears to be true, that while the presence of dust might help free the space charge from its
attraction to the ground, the space charge might be responsible for hoisting far more dust into the atmosphere than
would be predicted simply on the basis of wind speeds and durations. 193,194

The charge separation mechanism (ionization from sunlight), combined with the consolidated convection, accounts
for the huge voltages detected in dust devils. The 10 kV/m potentials that have been measured are typically
attributed to triboelectric charging from particle collisions within the vortex, but this doesn't explain why there
would be any triboelectric charging at all when particles of similar constitution collide, nor why there would be that
many collisions anyway in the laminar inflow to a vortex, nor why other vortexes of similar intensity (such as
gustnadoes) do not develop similar potentials.

It is not likely that the reduced pressure inside the vortex (which will lower the electrical resistance of the air) will
result in any significant "fair weather current" in the presence of the fair weather electric field (100 V/m), as some
have contended. It is also not likely that at the distances and speeds in question, there is any significant increase in
temperature due to skin friction.

As concerns dust devils on Mars, the question is not so much a matter of how a temperature inversion occurred,
with a layer of hot CO 2 under cool CO 2 , and where the total buoyancy, if all consolidated into a vortex, could create
a dust devil. Rather, the first and biggest question is how that much work could be performed at all in an
atmosphere that is so thin. This can be answered with the same mechanism. A charge separation, instantiating an
electric field, could create a space charge in which the atmospheric pressure is far greater than normal. Then, if
surface heating increases the buoyancy beyond that which can be contained by the electric force, an updraft occurs.

130
In these conditions, there is no cooler layer above the hot layer, so the intensity of the dust devil is not limited to
how fast it can draw in hot CO 2 without drawing in cool CO 2 from above as well, extinguishing itself in the process.
Hence dust devils of great size and speed become possible.

Positing the existence of a major charge separation that gets neutralized by the mixing of charged CO 2 with
oppositely-charge dust also explains the flashes that have been observed at the base of Martian dust devils. Heat
from the discharges might also contribute to the buoyancy of the updraft, though there's no reason to suspect that
this is a necessary condition.

Figure 136. Dust devil on Mars, taken by rover Spirit on sol 486,
courtesy NASA.

51. Mammatus Clouds

One aspect of supercells that has never been addressed by any EM theory is the development of mammatus clouds.
While these forms are of little general interest to meteorologists, because they occur late in the cycle of a
thunderstorm (and therefore offer no predictive value), and because they don't pose any risk, they are nevertheless
distinctive phenomena that deserve explanation.

Mammatus clouds are rounded forms that appear under the anvil of a severe thunderstorm as it dissipates. (For
more mammatus photography, see Jorn Olsen's "cloudscapes" page, or this page on the Environmental Graffiti
site.) The lobes tend toward consistency in size, and while sometimes the arrangement is nearly random,
sometimes the lobes occur in linear patterns. The individual lobes last about 10 minutes before evaporating, but a
formation of them can sometimes persist for a couple of hours.195

See the Wikipedia article for a good description of the leading theories on mammatus cloud formation, and for the
reasons why they are considered adequate.

Figure 137. Mammatus clouds, courtesy Cassio Leandro Barbosa.

131
Figure 138. Mammatus clouds, courtesy Cassio Leandro Barbosa.

132
 Figure 139. Mammatus clouds over Kansas, 2008-06-12,
courtesy 3D King.

To understand what causes mammatus clouds, we should first consider the context in which they occur. In the late
stage of a thunderstorm, the updraft has expired, and downdrafts dominate. At this point, the airflow in the anvil
switches direction, from its outward expansion driven by the updraft, to inward contraction toward the void left by
the downdrafts at the top of the cloud.

In this context, we can understand the linear organization of the mammatus clouds. While the updraft was still
forcing air into the anvil, the flow was turbulent, and long, straight cloud features were not possible. But when the
airflow reverses direction, and downdrafts are pulling the anvil back toward the center of the storm, the airflow is
laminar, and in this condition, linear structures can emerge.

The next question is: what is responsible for getting the laminar flow to resolve into distinct bands? The quick
answer is that nobody knows, but the EMHD model suggests a possibility. We know that the anvil is storing an
enormous amount of electric charge. If this charge is moving, it will generate magnetic fields that will then
influence the movement of the charges. If all of it is moving in the same direction, the charges will resolve into
bands. (With enough time, they will resolve into one single band, but the final stage of a thunderstorm doesn't last
long enough for this to happen.) So it's at least theoretically possible that it is the magnetic pinch effect that is
creating the distinct bands of condensation.

The next question is then: what is causing the water vapor to condense? Here, again, the quick answer is that
nobody knows. The reduction in pressure in the anvil also reduces the temperature, and this encourages
condensation. But condensation isn't going to cause a falling parcel of air that would become a mammatus lobe —
condensation causes updrafts, due to the release of latent heat. And though the lobes look like drops of water on a
ceiling that are getting ready to fall, they do not fall, because such is not their nature. Rather, the lobes simply
dissolve after 10~15 minutes.

Here again the EMHD model offers a suggestion. Under the anvil, we can expect the presence of falling parcels of
air, due to evaporative cooling. We also know that these parcels are bearing extremely strong positive charges. The
electric charges might actually be so powerful that they are encouraging evaporation, by robbing the electrons
necessary for covalent bonding, and by creating electrostatic repulsion.

In this context, a new possibility emerges. There will be a powerful electric field between the positively-charged
anvil and an induced negative charge in the Earth. Hence we can expect a flow of electrons upward in this field. As
depicted in Figure 140, the lines of electric force will approach a positively-charged parcel from every direction.
Electrons entering the parcel will make condensation possible that was not possible before, and the form of this
condensation will be spherical. In other words, the lobes are the anodes in an electric field between the ground and
the cloud, and the visible aspect of the lobes reveals the arrival of electrons.

133
 Figure 140. Positive charges (green) over a conductor with an
induced negative charge (red). The white lines represent the
highest field density. Applet by Paul Falstad.

So the possibility is that parcels of air begin to fall because of evaporative cooling. But an electric current flowing
upward from the ground enables condensation in falling parcels, because it neutralizes the charges that were
"artificially" lowering the dewpoint. The condensation process then releases latent heat, which halts the descent of
the parcel. The parcel is then sent back up, leaving the hemispherical form at the bottom to simply dissolve.

In the extreme poverty of data on the conditions within mammatus clouds, there is little to constrain the
speculation, and the contentions in this section are purely conjectural. Nevertheless, the photographic evidence
constitutes a challenge for any theoretical candidate, and it's appropriate to demonstrate that the EMHD model can
at least suggest an explanation that's possible, while the standard model cannot.

52. Odds & Ends

The famous photograph below is cited as an example of the bizarre things that a tornado can do. It is easy to
understand how a projectile moving at 100 m/s could penetrate wood. The hard part is understanding why the
vinyl didn't shatter.

Figure 141. A phonograph record blown into a telephone pole,

courtesy NOAA.

134
It is somewhat more plausible to assume that the record did not get driven into the windward side of the pole, but
rather, into the leeward side. With 100 m/s winds against the pole, it would have been leaning, and this means that
cracks in the wood (clearly visible in the photograph) would have opened up on the leeward side. Airborne debris
could then fall in behind the pole, trapped in the eddy downwind of it, and then be drawn toward the pole. A piece
of debris could then happen to get wedged gently into one of the cracks in the wood. After the winds subsided, the
pole would have straightened up again, closing the cracks, and then gripping the debris tightly.

Some people, including NCDC, believe that tornadoes can drive a piece of straw through the solid wood of a
telephone pole. But no one has ever bothered to preserve the evidence of this, and it has never been duplicated in
any laboratory, so the prevailing opinion is simply that tornadoes can do lots of weird things, and this is just one of
them. It's sad that such off-hand dismissals are so typical of the entire problem domain. There just isn't any
emphasis on physics. And that's what has to change, or the needless loss of life and property due to these "weird
forces" will continue.

While the evidence of tornadic levitation is unmistakable, not all of the accounts are to be believed. Despite the fact
that the following story is from a paper co-authored by the director of the NWS Storm Prediction Center, 196 there
are reasons to suspect that the report is not accurate.

Two other men (Bill and Al) had an adventure near Higgensville, Texas, in April 1947. Bill was visiting
Al when they heard a roar. When Al opened the door to see what was happening, the door was ripped
away. Al was picked up and carried outside over the treetops. Subsequently, Bill went to the door to
"investigate the disappearance of Al," and he, too, found himself being carried through the air. Both
landed uninjured about 200 feet from the house. Al started back to the house and came across Bill, who
had been wrapped in wire. He unwrapped Bill, and they crawled back to the house, as the wind was too
strong for them to walk upright.

The major discrepancy in this story, compared to confirmed accounts of tornadic levitation, is that there is no
mention of the two men being subjected to high wind speeds before being picked up and carried. Only if their
bodies had developed powerful electric charges, from being sandblasted with particulate matter, could they have
been picked up and carried "over the treetops," and then set back down uninjured. The authors of the paper do not
quote the source of the story, and there is no town in Texas named "Higgensville," so more detail could not be
located. Perhaps the event actually happened, but the story, as told, is not credible.

135
While the authors considered that story to be worth re-telling, it's interesting to note their comments on the topic
of electromagnetic theories of tornadoes.

As our knowledge of tornadoes has increased, so has the quality of our observation. Many early accounts
of tornadoes are filled with what today we would consider curious, or even false, observations of
"electric" or "fiery" tornadoes. These strange accounts led many noted researchers to speculate that
tornadoes were inherently electrical phenomena.

Indeed, for many years, the noted meteorologist Bernard Vonnegut was one of the leading advocates of a
link between tornadoes and electricity. For instance, he described a 1965 Ohio tornado as having a
"beautiful electric blue light" and a "ball of orange lightning [that] came from the cone point of the
tornado." A classic description by weather observer Floyd Montgomery of a "luminous" tornado in 1955
appeared in the June 1956 issue of Weatherwise. "As the storm was directly east of me, the fire up near
the top of the funnel looked like a child's Fourth of July pin wheel.... As near as I can explain, I would
say it was the same color as an electric arc welder but much brighter, and it seemed to be turning to the
right like a beacon lamp on a lighthouse."

Even earlier accounts attempted to link tornadoes and electricity using damage assessment. Nineteenth-
century meteorologist Robert Hare, for example, claimed that the "parched and scorched" nature of the
vegetation following a 1835 New Jersey tornado conclusively proved that electricity is fundamental to
tornado formation.

However, with the advent of cameras, video -cameras, lightning-detection equipment, and other
sophisticated meteorological instruments over the last 50 years, we now find that tornadoes do not
demonstrate marked electrical activity. Research into the "electrical nature" of tornadoes has faded
away. The question that must be asked (but unfortunately can't be answered) is, why did all those early
accounts mention "luminous" tornadoes? Did they see something that we don't see today? Or was it self-
fulfilling prophecy — people expected to see fiery tornadoes, and so they did?

The authors were well aware that tornadic luminosity has been photographed (see Figures 94, 117, and 118), as they
quote from one of Vonnegut's papers.132 They were also well aware that supercells generate powerful magnetic
fields 102 and telluric currents. 187 So why did they say that "we now find" no instrumental evidence? And as recently
as 1992, there was a first-hand observation of the inside of an electromagnetically-active tornado. 138 So why did
they imply that such phenomena are no longer observed, discounting even the reports of a trained weather
observer in 1955, and of the NASA scientists in Huntsville in 1974? And why would anybody have ever "expected to
see a fiery tornado"? And finally, two men being carried over the treetops and then set back down uninjured did
not seem strange to the authors, but unusual luminosity from EM discharges in a few record-setting thunderstorms
did?

Not every report from every eyewitness is to be taken at face value, and there are many misnomers, on both sides of
the issue. The only way to sort it all out is to use the broadest possible range of information, favoring instrumental
over observational data, and to pay close attention to the anomalies. Then, a complete theory can be developed.
Offhand dismissals, and misrepresentations of the facts, must not be tolerated, regardless of the authoritativeness
of the source.

In fact, the EM research has not faded away because of a lack of credible evidence. The reality is that the funding
got cut, because after a while it became obvious that the researchers just weren't making any progress. So they were
told to move on, and a numeric model was developed as a theoretical place-holder (see the "Thermodynamic
Supercells?" section). Now, the official position is that the numeric model is an adequate explanation for tornadoes,
and there is just no need for more theoretical work on tornadoes — that would be fixing something that is not
broken.

But here's the problem: the U.S. census counts roughly 10 million people with bachelor of science degrees (which
required credits in thermodynamics), and all 10 million can take one look at the meteorological model of tornadoes,
and conclude two things: 1) whoever developed that theory never studied thermodynamics, and 2) there isn't
anybody in the discipline of meteorology who studied thermodynamics, otherwise somebody would have spoken
up. That's a lot of people not buying the standard model, for good reasons, and that's why people keep considering
alternatives, in spite of the tenacity of the thermodynamic regime. Such is not exactly what we would call an
optimal situation for the meteorological community. Then the only question is whether the existing theory is

136
adequate until we find a better way, or it's adequate and we don't need to consider any other possibilities. The
answer to that question will determine whether the next advance in tornado theory happens with the help of the
meteorological community, or in spite of a lack of help.

In the end, it call comes down to money. Currently, the U.S. spends about $15 million per year on tornado
research. Without considering any new ideas, we can't really expect such research to produce any new value. Hence
it's arguable that we're just spending $15 million per year because the general public wants to know that scientists
are still working on the problem. If we started spending 1 ⁄ 15 of that on alternative theories, it would be $1 million
more than we're spending right now, and we'd at least create the possibility of new value. And we'd silence the
critics who are saying that if tornadoes are not, in fact, purely thermodynamic, meteorologists will be the last ones
to know.

Recent research suggests that there is a correlation between the thermodynamic forces at work in both volcanic
plumes and supercell thunderstorms.197 Satellite imagery of the plume from Mt. Pinatubo was analyzed, revealing a
slight rotation in the anvil. The occasional tornado in the vicinity of a volcano also suggests a similarity between
the two phenomena. And the presence of lightning in and around volcanic plumes is thought to be just another
manifestation of electrostatic potentials that can develop when air is moving rapidly.

Figure 142. Volcano with waterspout at Kilauea, HI, July

2008, courtesy Center for the Study of Volcanoes.

Figure 143. Lightning inside volcanic plume at Kilauea,

HI, July 2008, courtesy Center for the Study of
Volcanoes.

137
So why do volcanic plumes, with updrafts 2~3 times more powerful than supercells, rotate so slowly that the
rotation can only be perceived when viewing photography spanning several hours, while the rotation of
mesocyclones is obvious in an instant? And why do volcanic tornadoes occur away from the volcanoes — why are
they never centered on the volcano itself, which is the point of convergence for the inflowing air? And why are
lightning and tornadoes rarely present around volcanoes, but if one is present, the other is likely? Such questions
do not have answers, but one thing is certain — the thermodynamic regime is not looking for answers. Not
understanding tornadoes, they explain their presence in the vicinity of a volcano by calling attention to similarities
between volcanoes and mesocyclones — they both rotate, and issue lightning strikes. But they're not explaining
anything — they're just explaining away that which they do not understand. Calling them "volcanic mesocyclones"
doesn't bring us any closer to a complete description of volcanoes or mesocyclones.

53. Prediction
If tornadoes are, in fact, partially electromagnetic, then the difficulty that we have been having in accurately
predicting which supercells will produce tornadoes, and which tornadoes will become the most powerful, is
resulting from the fact that we're not looking at all of the factors. The speed of the rotation of the mesocyclone is
definitely a factor.198,199,200,201 But if there also has to be a positive double-layer in order for the storm to become
tornadic, and if we're not looking at that, our predictive capabilities will be rough. If we could measure the strength
of the moving charges in the storm, it might lead to far more accurate tornado warnings.

Measuring electric charges from a distance is not possible, because charged double-layers build up, and there is no
electric field outside of the double-layer. But moving electric charges generate magnetic fields, and these can be
detected from a distance, because there is nothing to shield them. In fact, the magnetic field generated by a tornado
was measured at 1.5 · 10-4 gauss from a distance of 9.6 km away using a magnetometer.102 There is currently no
construct within the mainstream research community that assigns any significance to these data. Nevertheless, and
with or without a construct that can explain it, if there is a strong causal relationship between the strength of the
magnetic field and the incidence of tornadogenesis, we should be looking at these data along with the
thermodynamic factors when assessing the tornadic risks.

Figure 144. Data from an array of magnetometers, combined with

Doppler radar data, might help pinpoint the location of a tornadic
supercell.

138
The typical response to this proposal is that we already have an adequate strategy for the study of tornadoes, and
that there is no need to be looking outside of the existing framework. Approximately $15 million per year are spent
in the U.S. on tornado research (including the efforts of NWS, a variety of educational institutions, and some
private research facilities funded by NSF). This yields slow but steady progress in our understanding of tornadic
storms. All of this research is focused on the thermodynamic context in which these storms occur, and on
unrealistic numeric modeling of the dynamics of the storms. And $15 million seems to be about the right amount of
money to spend, considering that tornadoes only kill 89 people per year.

But all of that is predicated on the assumption that research into the electromagnetic nature of tornadic storms
would be more expensive. Yet this research might actually be far cheaper. High-precision, highly-directional
magnetometers only cost a couple hundred dollars, and since they are hand-held units, they could easily be
deployed experimentally as well as operationally. Scientists could use magnetometers to help locate tornadic storms
to gather more data in the field. Considering the cost of field studies, adding a couple of $500 magnetometers to
increase the number of successful of intercepts would make a lot of sense. And fixed installations could be used to
help develop more accurate tornado warnings, costing a lot less than Doppler radar installations, where the main
operational value is the detection of mesocyclonic rotation for tornado warnings.

54. Prevention
In the U.S. every year, tornadoes on average destroy $982 million worth of property, 1,2 and kill 89 people. 3 This is
not good. And it's just a matter of time before a tornado destroys a major U.S. city. It would be just too shameful if
such a thing was allowed to happen, when it could have been prevented.

There have been suggestions, and even some funded research, concerning ways of preventing tornadoes assuming
that they are purely thermodynamic. One study evaluated the possibility of disrupting the storm using microwave
energy beamed down from a satellite.10,11,12,13,14,15 Unfortunately, there is no way to realistically evaluate the effects
of such a strategy, since no realistic thermodynamic model of supercells exists. (Looking at the effects of an
introduced heat source within a creative mathematics model would be just playing with numbers.) And such a
strategy would be prohibitively expensive to implement just to see how it would work.

The EMHD model suggests that other forces are at work in supercells, and this leads to the consideration of
different strategies for tornado prevention. If a powerful positive charge in the RFD is one of the essential
ingredients in a tornado, and if that charge could be neutralized, the tornado would dissipate. The mesocyclone

139
would continue to run at full speed, but the inflow would not get stuck to the ground, resulting in the release of
energy at the ground that is a tornado. And it's at least theoretically possible that triggering lightning strikes in the
RFD would neutralize enough of the charge to weaken or destroy the tornado.

Several different strategies for triggering lightning have been developed; the results pictured below are from a
rocket with a wire attached to it. 202,203 The straight line reveals the location of the triggering wire. The jagged lines
are subsequent strokes of discharge after the triggering wire was vaporized. Another strategy uses a rocket that
leaves a trail of conducting chemicals in its path. 204 Yet another strategy involves using lasers to heat up the air,
which increases its conductivity.205

Figure 145. Triggered lightning, courtesy University of Florida.

Figure 146. Triggered lightning, courtesy University of Florida.

140
Figure 147. Lightning rockets, courtesy Chris Kridler.

141
 Figure 148. Possible tornado mitigation strategy.

While it's theoretically possible that this would work, and while it would certainly be worth testing just for the
theoretical significance, it wouldn't seem to have any practical value. There can be dozens (or even hundreds) of
tornadoes in one day, and having dozens (or hundreds) of teams in the field to deploy lightning rockets would not
be economically feasible. Throw in the fact that tornadoes are just plain tough to catch, and it's hard to imagine
how "tornado fighting" would ever be cost effective.

But there is a way that tornado fighting could be approached that would be far more practical. Of the 1,000
tornadoes that occur every year, only 10 hit populated areas, and if we focus on protecting just the populated areas,
we have a much smaller problem to solve. And instead of chasing the unpredictable bastards, we should just wait
for the tornadoes to come to us, and only fight them if they threaten populated areas. In other words, considering
the number of tornadoes that occur every year, and their unpredictability, and considering the cost of fielding that
many full-time teams to fight them, a "man-on-man defense" is not the way to go. Rather, we should think about a
"zone defense," since we're only concerned about a very small portion of the field. If every major city had trained
tornado fighters who could respond on short notice to the threat of an approaching supercell, the chance of
successful intercepts goes way up. And instead of maintaining full-time teams, we should simply call out the
tornado fighters when they are needed.

This is not the way we study tornadoes, because the chance of a tornado coming to us is so slight. Any given city
that is 20 km across, including suburbs, is going to get hit by some tornado once every 50 years. This is too
infrequent to be useful for research purposes, so we increase our chance of an intercept by chasing the storms. But
if we stop thinking about research, and start thinking about tornado prevention, the infrequency becomes a
practical advantage. It means that tornado fighters will not have to deploy very often. If a city is to be hit by some
tornado once every 50 years, then once every 15 years, a supercell that could have spawned a tornado will pass
over the city, and perhaps 10 times a year, a thunderstorm that could have become a supercell will pass overhead.
If 10 times a year tornado fighters go out and fire lightning rockets into the RFDs, the city will be protected from
the threat.

Finding people qualified to fire the rockets will not be hard. Rocketry is a hobby, and there are thousands of people
in the U.S. who have the certification necessary to fire rockets of this type, just for the fun of it. The National
Association of Rocketry currently has 108 local chapters throughout the country. So that's 108 cities that have
enough rocketry enthusiasts to form a local club. These people simply need to be trained to intercept
thunderstorms. And certainly anyone who likes firing rockets is going to love firing lightning rockets. So the

142
problem will not be in finding personnel to do this — the problem will be in getting them to wait patiently in line
for their chance.

So let's see what it would cost to do this.

Table 4. Costs per Deployment

Description                                                                              Qty      Price Amount

rockets (1 primary, 1 secondary, and 1 just to be sure) 3 $700 $2,100
labor (assuming 5 people/team, and 1 hour/deployment) 5 $100 $500
Total $2,600

Table 5. Costs per City per Year

Description                                                                              Qty      Price Amount

deployments (rockets + labor, from the table above) 10 $2,600 $26,000
training (assuming 2 new people per year on the team) 2 $12,000 $24,000
Grand Total $50,000

At $50,000 per year, the 50-year cost comes out to $2.5 million. Since the 50-year event typically costs at least $10
million, that's a 4-to-1 return on investment, or an average yearly net savings of $150,000 per city. And that is
practical. And in addition to saving money, we'd also be saving lives.

Since the aspect of the storm that needs to be attacked is the RFD, and which can be approached from the NW
without having to get inside it, the tornado fighters would not have to get in harm's way to deploy the rockets. The
major safety concern would be the risk to aviation in the vicinity.

For research purposes, we can go out in the middle of nowhere, and test the technique on tornado-warned, actively
tornadic supercell thunderstorms. We can rest assured that there are no airplanes in these clouds, since no airplane
can survive the hostile conditions within such storms (50 m/s downdrafts, grapefruit-sized hail, etc.).

But the practical application of this technology would be a different scenario. To protect a city from a tornado, the
tornado fighters would obviously be much closer to a city. This means that they would be close to a major airport.
Additionally, they wouldn't always be firing into actively tornadic supercells. If they deploy 10 times a year, and if a
supercell only passes overhead once every 15 years, then 149 ⁄ 150 of the deployments will be into normal
cumulonimbus clouds. And there very definitely could be airplanes within these clouds.

Therefore, if tornado prevention is to become a practical reality, air traffic controllers will have a significant role to
play. Once a meteorologist identifies a threatening thunderstorm, and calls out the tornado fighters, the local air
traffic controllers will have less than 10 minutes to clear the thunderstorm of airplanes, or to call off the tornado
fighters if they cannot.

It will be easy to get the buy-in of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), since a tornado hitting a major
airport is FAA's worst nightmare. Planes fly nicely in the high wind speeds of a tornadic storm, but without the
expertise of a pilot, they land poorly. So FAA should be as interested as anybody in seeing this initiative succeed.

Figure 149. Tornado near Stapleton International Airport, Denver,

CO, 1988-06-15, credit Richard Filhart, courtesy NCAR.

143
 Figure 150. Planes that have landed
poorly after flying in a tornado, courtesy
Tinker AFB History Office.

And certainly, asking air traffic controllers about the location of planes in the vicinity of an airport will not exactly
be an unusual question. It's just that they have never been asked this specific question before. Being able to answer
this question with absolute certainty might take new hardware, and/or new software, and/or a new protocol. FAA
will have to estimate the cost of its part of this initiative, and that will then be added into the cost-benefit analysis.

55. Conclusion
This has been, and will continue to be, a massively speculative work. The key data to make or break the central
tenets have not been collected, because the hypothesis that suggests their significance has not existed until now.
Regardless, the situation dictates that anyone proceeding into this territory must leave terra firma behind.
Nevertheless, it was demonstrated that the EMHD model is physically possible, and that nothing in a 200 page

144
description of well-known, distinctive characteristics within the problem domain fell outside of its scope. In these
respects, this construct is clearly superior to existing models. It remains to be seen whether future research will fill
in the blanks, or begin to reveal discrepancies. But since the existing frameworks have already hit their limits well
short of completion, the present framework represents our best opportunity for progress.

56. Alternative Theories

Introduction

The actual combinatorial complexity of all of the possible factors in the solution domain is intense, and many
theories have been proposed. While it would have overburdened the main body of this text to iterate through all of
the possibilities, it is nevertheless appropriate to mention several of the better-known theories, and to expose the
differences among these and the EMHD model in specific, rather than generic, terms. (This section will be
expanded in the future, as time permits.)

Bernard Vonnegut et al. — Joule Heating

This was the first modern electromagnetic theory of tornadoes, and it was based largely on the extremely robust EM
properties of the Blackwell/Udall tornado on May 25, 1955. Specifically, there were reports of sustained arc
discharges at the tornado/mesocyclone interface. It was hypothesized that this lightning was creating enough heat
to put the storm into overdrive. 27,28,29,30,31,32

This theory was discussed in the "Electromagnetic Tornadoes?" section and elsewhere.

Rathbun, E. R. — Positive Ions

This theory asserts that a brush stroke of lightning discharge will ionize the air, and the positive ions near the
ground will then be attracted to the negative charges inside the cloud. 33 As the positive ions move toward the cloud,
they will begin to rotate due to the Earth's magnetic field.

This ignores the fact that proton-neutron pairs are 4,000 times heavier than electrons. Hence positive ions do not
move appreciably in any ionized channel — it is the electrons that do the moving. This leaves Rathbun without a
way of explaining the movement of the air, since the movement of electrons does not accelerate the air through
which it passes.

Silberg, P. — Ring Current

Also based on the Blackwell/Udall tornado, Silberg proposed that a "ring current" existed at the
tornado/mesocyclone interface, which generates RF energy capable of heating the air, resulting in a tornado. 34

Thompson and Thompson define the ring current or ring discharge as an electrodeless electrical
discharge where the electrical field within the gas forms closed curves. They describe laboratory
experiments in which the required electrical field is produced by induction with the aid of an enclosing
solenoid through which a time-varying current is passed similar to a solenoid used for induction
heating. 206

Silberg calculated that a current density in a sustained ring discharge equal to the current density in an
instantaneous lightning strike could project enough heat onto the ground to produce a tornado. Yet an
electromotive force up to the task was not identified. Furthermore, the evidence of elevated temperatures on the
ground is extremely sparse.

More problematic is the supposition that a ring current (or any other heat source) could create a tornadic flow field.
To get the lowest pressure and fastest winds at the ground level, the majority of the energy conversion has to occur
at the ground level — and it has to be absent elsewhere.

Berson, F. A., and Power, H.

This theory states that moving electric charges become tornadic because of the influence of the Earth's magnetic

145
field.36

Evgeny Krasilnikov

Comments on this theory are still in preparation.37

Edward Lewis — Ball Lightning and Related Plasmoidal Effects

This theory essentially threw tornadoes into a vat of poorly-understood phenomena that can all be summarized as
inexplicable manifestations of electromagnetism. 139 Lewis never demonstrated the principles responsible for ball
lightning, and his work within this field of focus merely identified many strange things which might all be
attributed to the same underlying cause — whatever that might be. Hence the work was not specific enough to
support specific criticisms.

Wallace Luchuk — JxB Force

This theory suggests that the energy of the tornado comes from the interaction of a storm generated toroidal
electric current field with the Earth's magnetic field (a JxB force). The intensification of the tornado when touching
down is explained by the stimulating effect of the Earth's conductivity. 38

While this is one of the few works that directly addresses the root issues in tornado theory, and seeks to describe
forces in a fully mechanistic way, it leaves way too much on the table. The only part of the tornado that is treated is
the surface/tornado interface, and the only aspect of this that is discussed is the rotation. There is no mention of
the source of the low pressure or of the electric field that are cited as the driving forces in the phenomenon. Most
importantly, no mechanism is provided for constraining the electric current to the narrow base of the tornado.

Hiroshi Kikuchi — Magnetic Reconnection

Kikuchi explores possibilities associated with magnetic reconnection of moving electric charges. 39

Many of Kikuchi's assumptions about the context in which tornadoes occur are false, such as the consideration of
tornadoes as "ascending hot streams of thermohydrodynamic origin."

Other works of Kikuchi are still under investigation.207

Peter Thomson — Charged Sheath Vortex

This theory maintains that charges in motion inside the mesocyclone develop magnetic fields that resolve into a
unified structure, and that once established, this structure forces new air to enter from the bottom only, and to
contribute to the structure as it spirals into the vortex.40

All by itself, this theory is insufficient to explain tornadoes. When encountering friction at the surface, the air speed
will be reduced. This will reduce the magnetic field density, and the vortex will fall apart at the surface. But if other
forces are at work, and then we consider the effects of an organized magnetic force around the tornado, the
magnetic pressure could be forcing the inflowing air down to the ground, increasing the destructiveness of the
tornado. So this theory and the EMHD model are not mutually exclusive.

Mikhail Scherbin — Angular Momentum of Lightning

This theory states that lightning strikes will generate angular rotation in the surrounding air, due to the magnetic
fields that they generate, and that this angular momentum builds up from successive lightning strikes, resulting in
rotation in the air being drawn into a mesocyclone. 41 This rotation then matures into a tornado (somehow).

Even if extremely small-scale rotation could result in large-scale angular momentum, this ignores the fact that the
charge flow in a lightning strike involves many reversals of direction, where the magnetic fields reverse as well. A
net angular momentum left in the air is not likely.

146
Tom Dehel et al. — Lorentz Force Acceleration

This work is similar to the present work in some respects, but fundamentally different in others.42 It asserts that:

The air being drawn into a tornado is electrically-charged. The sign of the charge is not identified. The source
of the electric charge is triboelectric charging by collisions of particles within the flow of air. Another source of
charged particles is the natural ionization of atmospheric molecules such as oxygen. Additional ions are also
created through the action of strong atmospheric electric fields.

An estimate of 2.14 · 1014 charged particles/m 3 is given. The charge per particle is estimated at 3.2 · 10-17 C.
This means a space charge of 0.0068 C/m3 in the tornadic inflow. At an estimated 20 kV/m of electric field
between the ground and the cloud, this yields 136 N/m3 of upward force on the air, while the force of gravity
is only 6.75 N/m3 . Hence the electric force pulling the air up is 20 times stronger than the gravitational force
pulling it down. Therefore, the "updraft" is considered to be (at least partially) a product of the electric force.

The rotation of the tornado is considered to be a product of the Lorentz force, where the air is deflected into a
spiraling inflow pattern because it is a moving electric charge within the magnetic field of the Earth.

Critics have argued that:

The estimate for the number of charged particles, and for the amount of charge in them, is high.

The estimate for the strength of the electric field present under a supercell (20 kV/m) is also high. (Actual
readings are more like 5 kV/m.)

Even if the actual number of particles involved is 2.14 · 1014, that's small in comparison to the total number of
molecules in a cubic meter of air (roughly 1 · 1023). If the electric force is only operating on one billionth of the
molecules, the motion of such particles will not create a noticeable effect on the surrounding air. Hence the
contention that the updraft is a manifestation of the electric force is indefensible, no matter how strong the
electric field. The contention that the inflow is deflected into a spiral by the Lorentz force is indefensible for
the same reason. (The charged particles will be deflected, but this will have little effect on the surrounding
air.)

Even with the over-estimated forces, the Lorentz force contribution is barely sufficient to keep the vortex
rotating above the surface, and is not even capable of "spinning up" the vortex. And this is only considering
the friction in the air above the surface. The friction at the surface is at least 1,000 times greater than all of
the friction encountered in the remainder of the distance between the ground and the cloud. So forces
powerful enough to rotate air at the surface are never considered, leaving tornadoes unexplained.

No explanation is given for tornadoes that rotate anticyclonically. Most tornadoes in the Northern
Hemisphere rotate CCW, and most in the Southern rotate CW. So the prevailing direction is "cyclonic." Since
the direction of the Earth's magnetic field is opposite across the hemispheres, the Lorentz force will act in the
opposite direction, and the proposal works (theoretically) for most tornadoes, but leaves the exceptions on the
table. It's obvious that if we simply reverse the polarity of the charges, the Lorentz force will act in the
opposite direction. But positive and negative charges play very different roles in a thunderstorm, and we can't
just switch the poles and expect the storm to behave in the same way. In fact, ambiguity of polarity has never
been observed, in CCW or CW storms, in the Northern or in the Southern hemispheres. This suggests that at
most, the Lorentz force might contribute to cyclonic tornadoes, and detract from anticyclonic ones, but is not
a significant factor in either.

The present work responds to Dehel et al., and their critics, in saying that the tornadic inflow is definitely charged,
but the important thing is not its electrostatic attraction to the cloud, but rather, to the ground because of an
induced charge in the surface of the Earth. And while Dehel et al. are thinking in terms of charged water molecules,
because these are "typically" the charge carriers in a thunderstorm, the present work assumes that the positive
charges are being manufactured at the top of the cloud, and that on the way down to the ground, there is time for
the charges to become distributed amongst the oxygen and nitrogen molecules. So it could be the larger majority of
molecules in the air that are charged, and if so, the air will act as an integral unit in response to the fluid dynamic
and electromagnetic forces exerted on it. Dehel et al. need to look for particles of a particular size in order to get
the gyroradii that they want, but the present work does not have the same motive, and there are a number of lines
of evidence in support of the contention that the nitrogen and oxygen molecules are getting ionized. So the entire

147
body of tornadic inflow getting attracted to the surface of the Earth is possible within the EMHD model, while in
the work of Dehel et al., if only one billionth of the molecules in the air are charged, they will not be sufficient to
motivate the entire body of air to do anything.

Forest Patton et al. — Descending Mesocyclones

This theory states that a downdraft going through a bi-level charge structure in the middle of the cloud can create a
downward-pointing cone, where the inner wall of the cone is negatively-charged, and the outer wall is positively-
charged.44 Then a combination of latent heat release, centrifugal force, and electric force will draw the cone into a
rapidly-rotating funnel cloud, that could descend to the ground and become a tornado.

Patton et al. do not seem to realize that some of the givens are mutually exclusive. They discuss rotating charges
with centrifugal forces, and then they inject a downdraft into the mix, to create a cone. Then, as cold air in the
downdraft meets warm air in the updraft, precipitation is generated, which is centrifuged out of the cone, drawing
in more cold air from above, and warm air from below. But how were these charges rotating in the first place, and
what keeps them rotating, such that the centrifugal force will perform as expected? In order for this theory to be
credible, the force necessary to create and maintain the rotation has to be identified.

Richard Heene et al. — Magnetic Acceleration

This theory maintains that the rotation of charged particles around the updraft within the mesocyclone generates a
magnetic field along the axis of the mesocyclone, and that below the cloud, this magnetic field projects down to the
Earth, where it can accelerate magnetically-responsive particles at the surface toward the cloud. The acceleration of
charged particles then accelerates the air, and this causes the low pressure within the tornado. 208

It is certainly true that rotating electric charges will generate a magnetic field. (See Figure 30.) But it is naive to
think that this will cause the robust updraft inside a tornado. Outside of the mesocyclone, the magnetic lines of
force will splay, and the field density will diminish rapidly. At the surface, magnetic fields of roughly .2 gauss have
been measured, which is surprisingly high, but is still low in comparison to the Earth's magnetic field, which is
roughly .5 gauss. If a field density of .2 gauss could accelerate particles, why would there be any particles left at the
surface, after the Earth's magnetic field had its wily way with them before the storm arrived? Furthermore, iron is
the only element that is likely to be present and that is highly responsive to the magnetic force. But tornadoes are
possible even where there is little to no iron present (such as in vortexes over the ocean). Above the surface, where
the field will be stronger, there is only air. Nitrogen and oxygen are not responsive to magnetism. Water molecules
are present, and these are diamagnetic, which means that in the presence of a magnetic field, the molecules become
polarized and then can be accelerated by the field. But the effect is extremely weak, and it would take roughly
100,000 gauss to overcome gravity. 209

Electric Universe — Ionosphere-Surface Current

This theory states that the Earth is negatively-charged, and that the atmosphere is a leaky capacitor, where there is
a fair-weather current all of the time flowing from the Earth toward outer space, but that unique conditions can
reduce the resistance within this capacitor, resulting in an enhanced current.210,211 One such condition would be the
reduced pressure within a mesocyclone, which would increase the conductivity of the column of air from 1 km to
over 12 km above the surface. This is only a fraction of the distance to the ionosphere, but it traverses the densest
part of the atmosphere, and this is the source of 2 ⁄ 3 of the resistance between the surface and the ionosphere. Hence
the mesocyclone could be opening up a conduit through which a current could flow.

The problem with this theory is that is does not explain vortexes that descend from non-mesocyclonic
thunderstorms. It also does not take into account the fact that the global current is extremely weak. The "fair
weather field" is something like .1 kV/m, which is vanishingly small compared to the fields in a thunderstorm. So it
is far more likely that storm-generated fields are the only forces that could possibly be influential. It also labors
under the same criticisms directed at the joule heating theory — the airflows in a discharge vortex are
fundamentally different from those in a tornadic vortex.

Dmitriev et al. — Vacuum Domains

Review in progress.212

148
Büker and Tripoli — Analogous Thinking

This work suggests that similarities between formulas in thermodynamics and electromagnetism offer opportunities
to merge the two disciplines on the basis of the similarities. 213

For a clearer idea of what they're talking about, you'll have to read the paper. But just to give a (bad) example, let's
consider merging the Coriolis Effect with the Lorentz force. Air approaching a tropical cyclone appears to be
deflected to the right in the Northern Hemisphere because of the rotation of the Earth. If the air is charged, it will
also be deflected, because it is generating a magnetic field, and in the presence of the Earth's magnetic field, there
will be a ExB drift. Therefore, we can merge the two principles, and know more about both the Coriolis Effect and
the Lorentz force because we picked up a few terms from both sets of equations. Now we can expect all cyclonic
motion to be exhibiting electrodynamic effects, since we know by the Coriolis-Lorentz equations that these are
coupled forces.

Figure 151. Analogies between hydrodynamics and electromagnetism, courtesy

Büker and Tripoli.

Such reasoning is fatally flawed, and is a gross misinterpretation of the nature of EMHD on the part of the authors.
Formulas in different disciplines might be the same, but unless they are the same for the same reasons, terms from
one discipline cannot be substituted directly into formulas from the other.

Ironically, these authors would probably agree with the hypothesis presented in this paper, since the toroidal form
is important in both fluid dynamics and in electromagnetism, and such proves that the formulas can be merged.
But the present work would reject their approval. The central hypothesis is that because of the coincident forms,
there is a positive feedback loop, and this is responsible for the emergence of a new property set. Toroidal flows
don't know to be toroidal so physicists can re-use EM equations on them, and seeing superficial similarities in
formulas does not deepen our appreciation of the underlying physics. It merely opens the door to category errors.

Anonymous — Cymatics

This theory states that tornadoes are caused (at least in part) by self-organizing sound waves. (See this for an
example of the complex patterns that can appear in resonating fluids, or gases with particulate matter in them.)

This is a "anything's possible" theory that needs to be developed into a "this is possible" theory before it can be
evaluated.

It should be noted that research has shown a clear relationship between the frequency of sound waves generated by

149
a tornado and the size of the tornado. 214 The researchers went so far as to say that very low frequency sound waves
might be useful in tornado detection from a great distance. But whether these sound waves are artifacts or
reentrant factors in their own right remains to be demonstrated.

Miscellaneous Probabilistic Theories

There are a wide variety of theories positing the existence of causal relationships between tornadogenesis and
external factors.

Tornadoes are most likely above oil fields, since the oil has a net charge. 215

Tornadoes are most likely above magma chambers, where magma flows are generating electric currents and
magnetic fields.216

Tornadoes are most likely when Sun spot activity is the greatest. 217

Tornadoes are most likely when gravity waves are passing through the air.218

Extreme weather in general is more likely when various alignments of the Sun and the planets are present. 219

Tornadoes follow rivers, roads, railroad tracks, etc. (This has never been quantified.)

Tornadoes are most likely to start and stop at the transitions between positive and negative anomalies in the
Earth's magnetic field. (The Earth's magnetic field is approximately 0.5 gauss, with local fluctuations of +/-
0.004 gauss, due to the magnetic properties of the crust. Click here to see a 7.18 MB image comparing
tornado tracks with magnetic anomalies. The tornado track and magnetic anomaly data are not perfectly
indexed — the projections and central meridians are slightly different. A better image will be posted when it
becomes available.) Attempts to quantify the correlation are in progress.

None of these theories have demonstrated how the forces in question could explain the wide variety of distinctive
properties of supercells and tornadoes.

Conclusion

There is no shortage of epiphanies within the solution domain, but the epiphanies do not pass the quickest of sanity
checks. What is needed is a thoroughly-considered theory that covers the length and breadth of the problem
domain with plausible physics. Such has been, and will continue to be, the objective of the present work.

57. Future Research

There are a wide variety of approaches to further developing these ideas. Which approach would return the most
benefit for the least cost is still under consideration.

Computer Simulation

Generally the first place to start is to attempt a computer simulation of the proposed forces. Interesting
results could be achieved without the complexities of instantiating all of the relevant principles of
physics (including Ampère's law, the magnetic pinch effect, etc.). The "toroid on steroids" effect could be
simulated numerically, as an algorithmic modulation of a thermodynamic simulation. It is not likely that
it would perform as nicely as the existing numeric simulations of supercells, because the initial
implementation would not have the benefit of 20 years worth of tweaks. Nevertheless, it might perform
far better than it had a right to perform. If it did, then successive trials could determine roughly how
forceful the toroidal encouragement would have to be, in order to produce the most realistic outcomes
in the simulations. Then we could ask, as a separate question, if EM would be likely to provide that
degree of encouragement. Then we could consider the possibility of an integrated simulation, taking all
of the factors into account.

Running out a simulation like this, at a workable degree of resolution, would take a supercomputer, and
supercomputer time takes money. Unfortunately, that kind of money isn't available for this kind of

150
 research, so this strategy will have to wait for another time.

Laboratory Demonstration

One of the central contentions concerning tornadoes is that the inflowing air is positively charged, and
that such inflow tends to hug the surface because of an induced electrostatic potential between it and the
Earth. Then, it is released from that bond by an electric current through the low-pressure channel at the
centerline. A simple laboratory apparatus could demonstrate this phenomenon, and the properties of the
vortex so created could be compared to the properties of tornadic vortexes.

Plans for such an apparatus are here.

Field Studies

Magnetometer Studies

Magnetometers directly underneath tornadic storms could generate data that would be useful to
further theoretical development. Under the storm, the direction of the magnetic field should
consistently follow the left-hand rule, and therefore have lines of force in a counter-clockwise
direction on the ground plane around the centerline of the mesocyclone. This field will be the most
pronounced 10 m (or more) above the surface. Within a couple of meters from the surface, if
tornadic inflow is present, the magnetic field of the inflow will affect the perceived field density.
On the right side of a surface inflow band, facing in the direction of the flow, the magnetic field
should be pointed down, and on the left, it should be pointed up.

If the tornadic inflow is positively-charged, it will generate a magnetic field. (The EMHD model
states that this accounts for the banding of the inflow, as seen in Figures 71 and 72.) If so, then
along the bottom of the band, the magnetic field will be intercepted by the conductivity of the
Earth. Positive charges generate magnetic fields by the right-hand rule, so there should be a field
that will try to accelerate magnetically-responsive particles in a clockwise direction, facing in the
direction of the flow. But since the Earth has more mass than the atmosphere, the Earth will stay
where it is, and the magnetic force will act on the atmosphere instead. So the air in the banded
inflow will barrel-roll in a counter-clockwise direction, facing in the direction of the flow. This
would be relatively easy to test. Waterspouts with banded inflow are very common in the waters
off Florida, and a high-speed motorboat could easily get into the banded inflow and deploy flares
that would reveal the lines of motion. (For example, the U.S. Coast Guard could be asked to
conduct this experiment when the opportunity presents itself, since they see waterspouts regularly,
operate high-speed motorboats seaworthy enough for the conditions in and around waterspouts,
and since flares and cameras are standard equipment on USCG vessels.) If such air is, in fact,
barrel-rolling as it approaches the vortex, photographic evidence of such would tell us a lot about
the inflow. The direction of the barrel-rolling would incontrovertibly identify the sign of the
charge, and the rate of the rotation would suggest a rough number for the amount of charge.

If we look carefully at Figure 71, we see a distinct inflow band, until the band gets near the vortex.
Then it disappears, and then there is darkened water at the mouth of the vortex. So why doesn't
the dark water lead straight into the vortex? If the inflow is rotating CCW facing in the direction of
the flow, this would have the bottom of the band traveling away from the vortex. Hence as the
inflow gets very near the base of the vortex, the force that would be causing it to rotate would
come into opposition with the extreme low pressure drawing air into the vortex. So we would
expect the rotation to cease.

Triggered Lightning Studies

The most incontrovertible test would be to see if lightning rockets could be used to downgrade or
eliminate the tornado. If the central contention is that electromagnetism is an integral part of the
structure of a supercell, then why don't we just try taking electromagnetism out of the equation
and see what happens?

In addition to being the best test of the theory, it will also be a test of the practical application.

In order to conduct these tests, a certificate of authorization must be obtained from FAA.

151
 Unfortunately, one of FAA's requirements is that the research be publicly-funded, and of course,
there is no funding for this paradigm. So this will have to wait for the project to pick up more
momentum from the other strategies listed above.

58. Call for Volunteers

While the present proposal seems simple enough, it took a lot of work to extract that simplicity from a far larger
body of literature. Yet the amount of work that remains to be done is staggering. The specificity and accuracy of the
theory needs to be increased, and the theoretical implications of such increases need to be fully considered. If the
theory persists, laboratory and field studies need to be conducted to further challenge it. Insofar as there is no
funding for this line of reasoning, the work can only be done by volunteers. People with skills in fluid dynamics,
thermodynamics, meteorology, electrostatics, electrodynamics, geophysics, plasma physics, computer
programming, and radar can all add value to this project. Anyone wishing to contribute will share in the credit, and
should e-mail the author to coordinate efforts.

Volunteers can also help advance this initiative simply by writing to their elected representatives, and urging them
to fund research such as this. U.S. citizens can also write to the members of the relevant Senate Subcommittee.
(When writing to congresspersons, do not bother to be verbose, as the letter is only going to be read by a
congressional aide. Simply state the issue and which side of it you're on. This will get the letter into one stack or
another. The representative will then be informed of the number of letters in each stack.)

59. Acknowledgments
The author cannot help but acknowledge the tireless efforts of the late Dr. Bernard Vonnegut, who almost single-
handedly carried the EM torch for 40 years, regardless of the unanimous opinion of the meteorological community
that he was wrong. Early in this paper, it was useful to distinguish the present work from Vonnegut's, as typically,
anytime EM theories of tornadoes are presented, meteorologists simply practice their Vonnegut-bashing technique,
and never bother to listen to what's actually being said. So it served the purposes of this initiative to say that this is
definitely not the same as the previous generation's theory. But of the key evidence cited in this paper, more of it
came from Vonnegut than from any other source. Had he not documented the distinctive EM properties of the
tornadic storms in Toledo, OH, 1965-04-11, and in Huntsville, AL, 1974-04-03, and had he not investigated the
EMHD properties of discharge vortexes, it would have been impossible to get all of the evidence sorted out into the
present framework. So the present work's first and greatest debt is owed to this paradigm's earliest and staunchest
supporter — thanks Dr. Vonnegut.

Thanks to Kevin Linzey for listening patiently to many early versions of this theory, and for his clear-headed,
objective analysis of each contention.

Thanks to Alexandra Duffy for editorial review of this paper.

Thanks to Kevin Johnston, Michael Gmirkin, Wallace Luchuk, Thomas Beck, Carl Johnson, Roger Chandler, Jr.,
Tim Erney, Michael Harrington, and Vladislav Stanev for their many criticisms and suggestions.

60. References
1. Storm Prediction Center, 2000: Total cost of damage (most recent) by state, 1950-1996. statemaster.com

2. Changnon, S. A., 2009: Tornado Losses in the United States. Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 10, Issue 4, 145-150.

3. Storm Prediction Center, 2000: Tornadoes and deaths by year and month, 1950-1999. spc.noaa.gov

4. Simmons, K. M., and Sutter, D., 2009: False Alarms, Tornado Warnings, and Tornado Casualties. Weather,
Climate, and Society, 1: 38-53.

5. Simmons, K. M., and Sutter, D., 2008: Tornado Warnings, Lead Times, and Tornado Casualties: An Empirical
Investigation. Weather and Forecasting, 23: 246-258.

6. Brooks, H. E., Doswell, C. A., and Sutter, D., 2008: Low-Level Winds in Tornadoes and Potential Catastrophic
Tornado Impacts in Urban Areas. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89: 87-90.

152
7. OFCM/SDR, 2007: Multifunction Phased Array Radar (MPAR) Symposium Summary Report. Office of the
Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (OFCM), and the U.S. Office of Science
and Technology Policy, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction

8. McLaughlin, D. J., V. Chandrasekar, K. Droegemeier, S. Frasier, J. Kurose, F. Junyent, B. Philips, S. Cruz-Pol,

and J. Colom, 2005: Distributed Collaborative Adaptive Sensing (DCAS) for Improved Detection, Understanding,
and Prediction of Atmospheric Hazards. 9 th Symposium on Integrated Observing and Assimilation Systems for the
Atmosphere, Oceans, and Land Surface (IOAS-AOLS), American Meteorological Society

9. Philips, B., Chandrasekar, V., Brotzge, J., Zink, M., Rodriguez, H., League, C., and Diaz, W., 2010: Performance
of the CASA radar network during the May 13, 2009 Anadarko tornado. 15 th Symposium on Meteorological
Observation and Instrumentation, American Meteorological Society

10. Krasilnikov, E. Y., 1994: Solar power station: Energy source for suppression of destructive tropical cyclonic
hurricanes. 45 th International Astronautical Congress, Jerusalem, Israel, Oct. 9-14

11. Krasilnikov, E. Y., and Smakhtin, A. P., 1995: Microwave power from space for suppression of destructive
tropical hurricanes. 46 th International Astronautical Congress, Oslo, Norway, Oct. 2-6

12. Eastlund, B. J., 1998: Systems considerations of "Weather modification experiments using high power
electromagnetic radiation". Workshop on Space Exploration and Resources Exploitation, Explospace, European
Space Agency

13. Eastlund, B. J., 1999: Mesocyclone Diagnostic Requirements for the Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite
Concept. Proceedings of The Second Conference on the Applications of Remote Sensing and GIS for Disaster
Management

14. Eastlund, B. J., and Jenkins, L. M., 2007: Taming Tornadoes Storm Abatement from Space. Aerospace and
Electronic Systems Magazine, Vol. 22, Issue 6, 16-21.

15. Fiala, P., Sadek, V., and Kriz, T., 2008: Numerical Modeling of Electromagnetic Field a Tornado. Progress In
Electromagnetics Research Symposium, Hangzhou, China, 1193-1197.

16. Rossow, V. J., 1966: Meteorology: A Short Circuit for Tornadoes. Time, Friday, Nov. 25.

17. Teramoto, K., and Ikeya, M., 2000: Experimental Study of Cloud Formation by Intense Electric Fields.
Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 39, Issue 5A, 2876.

18. Ikeya, M., 2004: Earthquakes and Animals: From Folk Legends to Science. World Scientific Publishing
Company, pg. 178 in 295.

19. MacGorman, D. R., and Rust, W. D., 1998: The Electric Nature of Storms. Oxford University Press, pgs. 52, 57,
73, 106, 110, 118, 164, 192 in 422.

20. Okuda, H., and Kelly, A. J., 1996: Electrostatic atomization — Experiment, theory and industrial applications.
Physics of Plasmas, 3: 2195.

21. Hall, R. J., 2008: Ionization energies. wikipedia.org

22. Vonnegut, B., Moore, C. B., and Harris, C. K., 1960: Stabilization of a high-voltage discharge by a vortex.
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 17: 468-471.

23. Anderson, F. J., Freier, G. D., Liu, C. C., and Tam, F. M., 1966: The Electric Field Changes during Tornadoes
Compared with Other Severe Thunderstorms. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 71, 4279.

24. Winn, W. P., Hunyady, S. J., and Aulich, G. D., 2000: Electric field at the ground in a large tornado. Journal of
Geophysical Research, Vol. 105, Issue D15, 20145-20154.

25. Burgess, D., 2006: Storm Electricity Aspects of the Blackwell/Udall Storm of 25 May 1955. srh.noaa.gov

26. Church, C. R., and Barnhart, B. J., 1979: A review of electrical phenomena associated with tornadoes. 11th

153
Conference on Severe Local Storms, American Meteorological Society, 342-377.

27. Vonnegut, B., and Moore, C. B., 1957: Electrical activity associated with the Blackwell-Udall tornado. Journal of
Meteorology, 14: 284-285.

28. Vonnegut, B., 1960: The Electrical Theory of Tornadoes. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 65, 203-212.

29. Colgate, S. A., 1967: Tornadoes: Mechanism and Control. Science, Vol. 157, Issue 3795, 1431-1434.

30. Ryan, R. T., and Vonnegut, B., 1970: Miniature Whirlwinds Produced in the Laboratory by High-Voltage
Electrical Discharges. Science, Vol. 168, Issue 3937, 1349-1351.

31. Sozou, C., 1984: Electrical Discharges and Intense Vortices. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series
A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 392, Issue 1803, 415-426.

32. Jonsson, H. H., and Vonnegut, B., 1993: Miniature vortices produced by electrical corona. Journal of
Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, Issue D3, 5245-7126.

33. Rathbun, E. R., 1960: An Electromagnetic Basis for the Initiation of a Tornado. Journal of the Atmospheric
Sciences, 17: 371-373.

34. Silberg, P., 1966: Dehydration and Burning Produced by the Tornado. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 23:
202-205.

35. Rossow, V. J., 1967: A study of an electrostatic-motor drive for tornado vortices. 8 th Symposium on
Engineering Aspects of Magnetohydrodynamics, Stanford, CA, 60-68.

36. Berson, F. A., and Power, H., 1972: On the geo-electromagnetic aspects of tornado initiation. Pure and Applied
Geophysics, Vol. 101, Number 1, 221-230.

37. Krasilnikov, E. Y., 1997: Electromagnetohydrodynamic nature of tropical cyclones, hurricanes, and tornadoes.
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 102, Issue D12, 13571-13580.

38. Luchuk, W., 1999: The Tornado From An Aerodynamicist's Point of View. cafes.net/wallytul

39. Kikuchi, H., 2005: EHD Approach to Tornadic Thunderstorms and Methods of Their Destruction. American
Geophysical Union, Spring Meeting 2005, abstract #AE11B-01.

40. Thomsom, P., 2005: Charge Sheath Vortex - Plasma Production Modes. peter-thomson.co.uk

41. Scherbin, M. D., 2005: On Possibility of Electromagnetic Nature of Atmospheric Intensive Vortices Generation.
arXiv:physics, 0512239.

42. 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.

43. Kikuchi, H., 2007: Helicity or Vortex Generation in Hydrodynamic (HD), Magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD), and
Electrohydrodynamic (EHD) Regimes. Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium 2007, Beijing, China,
March 26-30

44. Patton, F. S, Bothun, G. D., and Sessions, S. L., 2008: An electric force facilitator in descending vortex
tornadogenesis. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D07106, doi:10.1029/2007JD009027.

45. Schmitter, E. D., 2010: Modeling tornado dynamics and the generation of infrasound, electric and magnetic
fields. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10: 295-298.

46. Beaty, W. J., 2009: Why does smoke "ring"? amasci.com

47. Lemon, L. R., and Doswell, C. A., 1979: Severe Thunderstorm Evolution and Mesocyclone Structure as Related
to Tornadogenesis. Monthly Weather Review, 107: 1184-1197.

48. Davies-Jones, R., 1984: Streamwise Vorticity: The Origin of Updraft Rotation in Supercell Storms. Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, 41: 2991-3006.

154
49. Klemp, J. B., 1987: Dynamics of Tornadic Thunderstorms. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 19.

50. Lilly, D. K., and Jewett, B. F., 1990: Momentum and Kinetic Energy Budgets of Simulated Supercell
Thunderstorms. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 47: 707-726.

51. Doswell, C. A., and Burgess, D. W., 1992: Tornadoes and Tornadic Storms: A Review of Conceptual Models.
American Geophysical Union, 161-172.

52. Davies-Jones, R. P., 1995: Tornadoes. Scientific American, Vol. 273, No. 2.

53. NWS Louisville, 2004: Structure and dynamics of supercell thunderstorms. noaa.gov

54. Shimose, K., and Kawano, T., 2004: Numerical Simulation of Tornadogenesis in a Supercell Storm. Department
of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

55. Hassenzahl, H., 2007: Numerical Investigations of a Tornado Vortex Using Vorticity Confinement. wisc.edu

56. Markowski, P. M., and Richardson, Y. P., 2009: Tornadogenesis: Our current understanding, forecasting
considerations, and questions to guide future research. Atmospheric Research, Vol. 93, Issues 1-3, 3-10.

57. Brooks, H. E., and Wilhelmson, R. B., 1992: Numerical simulation of a low-precipitation supercell
thunderstorm. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Vol. 49, Numbers 1-4.

58. Steinhoff, J., and Underhill, D., 1994: Modification of the euler equations for "vorticity confinement":
Application to the computation of interacting vortex rings. Physics of Fluids, 6(8): 2738-2744.

59. Snyder, C., and Zhang, F., 2003: Assimilation of simulated Doppler radar observations with an ensemble
Kalman filter. Monthly Weather Review, 131, 1663-1677.

60. Dowell, D., Zhang, F., Wicker, L. J., Snyder, C., and Crook, N. A., 2004: Wind and thermodynamic retrievals in
the 17 May 1981 Arcadia, Oklahoma supercell: Ensemble Kalman filter experiments. Monthly Weather Review, 132,
1982-2005.

61. Dowell, D. C., Wicker, L. J., and Stensrud, D. J., 2004: High resolution analyses of the 8 May 2003 Oklahoma
City storm. Part II: EnKF data assimilation and forecast experiments. 22nd Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Hyannis,
Massachusetts, paper 12.5

62. Tong, M., and Xue, M., 2005: Ensemble Kalman filter assimilation of Doppler radar data with a compressible
nonhydrostatic model: OSS experiments. Monthly Weather Review, 133, 1789-1807.

63. Caya, A., Sun, J., and Snyder, C., 2005: A comparison between the 4D-Var and the ensemble Kalman filter
techniques for radar data assimilation. Monthly Weather Review, 133, 3081-3094.

64. Tong, M., and Xue, M., 2007: Simultaneous estimation of microphysical parameters and atmospheric state with
radar data and ensemble square-root Kalman filter. Part I: Sensitivity analysis and parameter identifiability. Part
II: Parameter estimation experiments. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences (submitted)

65. Aksoy, A., Dowell, D. C., and Snyder, C., 2007: A multi-case study of ensemble-based assimilation of radar
observations into cloud resolving WRF using DART. 18 th Conference on Numerical Weather Prediction, American
Meteorological Society

66. Snow, R., Snow, M., and Kufa, N., 2007: Lightning Signature Assessment to Forecast Tornado Formation.
International Journal of Energy and Environment, Vol. 1, Iss. 1, 7-11.

67. MacGorman, D. R., Rust, W. D., Krehbiel, P., Rison, W., Bruning, E., and Wiens, K., 2005: The Electrical
Structure of Two Supercell Storms during STEPS. Monthly Weather Review, 133: 2583-2607.

68. Kuhlman, K. M., Ziegler, C. L., Mansell, E. R., MacGorman, D. R., and Straka, J. M., 2006: Numerically
Simulated Electrification and Lightning of the 29 June 2000 STEPS Supercell Storm. Monthly Weather Review,
134: 2734-2757.

69. Sommer, A. P., and Levin, Z., 2001: Charge transfer in convective thunderclouds induced by molecular interface

155
crossing and free energy reduction. Atmospheric Research, Vol. 58, Issue 2, July 2001, 129-139.

70. Chen, S. H., 2008: Thunderstorms. ucdavis.edu

71. Zhang, Y., Krehbiel, P., Hamlin, T., Harlin, J., Thomas, R., and Rison, W., 2001: Electrical Charge Structure and
Cloud-to-Ground Lightning in Thunderstorms during STEPS. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2001,
abstract #AE12A-0079.

72. Marshall, T. C., and Stolzenburg, M., 2001: Voltages inside and just above thunderstorms. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 106(D5), 4757-4768.

73. Krasilnikov, E. Y., 2002: Prevention of destructive tropical and extratropical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes,
dangerous thunderstorms, and catastrophic floods. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 9: 51-59.

74. Vonnegut, B., 1979: Tropospheric electrification. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Middle Atmosphere
Electrodynamics, N79-25608 16-46, 157-168.

75. Jensenius, J., 2007: Science of Lightning. lightningsafety.noaa.gov

76. Knupp, K. R., Paech, S., and Goodman, S., 2003: Variations in Cloud-to-Ground Lightning Characteristics
among Three Adjacent Tornadic Supercell Storms over the Tennessee Valley Region. Monthly Weather Review,
131: 172-188.

77. Blyth, A. M., Cooper, W. A., and Jensen, J. B., 1988: A Study of the Source of Entrained Air in Montana
Cumuli. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 45: 3944-3964.

78. Stith, J. L., 1992: Observations of Cloud-Top Entrainment in Cumuli. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 49:
1334-1347.

79. Pollock, J. A., and Barraclough, S., 1905: Note on a Hollow Lightning Conductor Crushed by the Discharge.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, 39: 131.

80. Phillips, J. A., 1983: Magnetic Fusion. Los Alamos Science, Winter/Spring.

81. Gerbeth, G., Dulikravich, G. S., and Pericleous, K., 2008: Computational electro-magneto-hydro-dynamics
(EMHD). 8 th World Congress on Computational Mechanics (WCCM8), Venice, Italy

82. NSSL, 2009: Questions and Answers about Hail. nssl.noaa.gov

83. Browning, K. A., 1964: Airflow and Precipitation Trajectories Within Severe Local Storms Which Travel to the
Right of the Winds. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 21, 634-639.

84. Snow, J. T., 1984: The tornado. Scientific American, 250, 4, 56-65.

85. Trapp, R. J., Mitchell, E. D., Tipton, G. A., Effertz, D. W., Watson, A., Andra, D. L., and Magsig, M. A., 1999:
Descending and nondescending tornadic vortex signatures detected by WSR-88Ds. Weather and Forecasting, 14
(5), 625-639.

86. Binau, S., and Baumgardt, D. A., 2005: Storm mode evolution from a quasi-linear convective system to a
discrete tornadic supercell during the historic Wisconsin tornado outbreak of 18 August 2005: a radar perspective.
23rd Conference on Severe Local Storms, American Meteorological Society

87. Doswell, C. A., 1991: A review for forecasters on the application of hodographs to forecasting severe
thunderstorms. National Weather Digest, 16 (1), 2-16.

88. Landsea, C., 2006: Which is the most intense tropical cyclone on record? noaa.gov

89. Maddox, R. A., 1976: An evaluation of tornado proximity wind and stability data. Monthly Weather Review,
104: 133-142.

90. Bunkers, M. J., Klimowski, B. A., Zeitler, J. W., Thompson, R. L., and Weisman, M. L., 2000: Predicting
supercell motion using a new hodograph technique. Weather and Forecasting, 15: 61-79.

156
91. Edwards, R., Thompson, R. L., and Hart, J. A., 2002: Verification of Supercell Motion Forecasting Techniques.
spc.noaa.gov

92. Krehbiel, P. et al, 2000: Tornadic Storm of June 29, 2000. lightning.nmt.edu

93. Edwards, R., 2006: Bat-eating Supercell. spc.noaa.gov

94. NSSL, 2008: Frequently Asked Questions About Hail. nssl.noaa.gov

95. Gallagher, F. W., Beasley, W. H., and Bohren, C. F., 1996: Green Thunderstorms Observed. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, 77: 2889-2897.

96. Gallagher, F. W., and Beasley, W. H., 2003: Evaluation of a one-dimensional cloud model for yellow and green
thunderstorms. Applied Optics, 42, 505-510.

97. Wåhlin, L., 1986: Atmospheric Electrostatics. Research Studies Press LTD., Letchworth, Hertfordshire,
England, pg 28 in 120.

98. Köppen, J., 2007: Spectrum of Nitrogen Gas Discharge. u-strasbg.fr

99. Knight, M., 2007: Fact or Fiction?: If the Sky Is Green, Run for Cover — A Tornado Is Coming. Scientific
American

100. Wilkins, E. M., 1964: The Role of Electrical Phenomena Associated with Tornadoes. Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol. 69, 2435.

101. Greneker, E. F., Wilson, C. S., and Metcalf, J. I., 1976: The Atlanta Tornado of 1975. Monthly Weather Review,
104: 1052-1057.

102. Brook, M., 1967: Electric Currents Accompanying Tornado Activity. Science, Vol. 157, Issue 3795, 1434-1436.

103. Watkins, D. C., Cobine, J. D., and Vonnegut, B. , 1978: Electric discharges inside tornados. Science, 199: 171-
174.

104. Freier, G. D., 1959: The Earth's Electric Field during a Tornado. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 16,
Issue 3, 333-334.

105. Gunn, R., 1956: Electric field intensity at the ground under active thunderstorms and tornadoes. Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, 13: 269-273.

106. Buechler, D. E., Driscoll, K. T., Goodman, S. J., and Christian, H. J., 2000: Lightning activity within a tornadic
thunderstorm observed by the optical transient detector (OTD). Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, Issue 15,
2253-2256.

107. Murphy, M. J., and Demetriades, N. W. S., 2005: An analysis of lightning holes in a DFW supercell storm
using total lightning and radar information. Conference on Meteorological Applications of Lightning Data, 2.3.

108. Steiger, S. M., Orville, R. E., and Carey, L. D., 2007: Total Lightning Signatures of Thunderstorm Intensity
over North Texas. Part I: Supercells. Monthly Weather Review, 135: 3281-3302.

109. Trostel, J. M., and Matthews, J., 2010: Application of an Improved SCIT Algorithm to Investigate Lightning
Characteristics of a Tornado Outbreak in Georgia. 26th Conference on Interactive Information and Processing
Systems (IIPS) for Meteorology, Oceanography, and Hydrology

110. Wood, T. L., Corke, T. C., and Post, M., 2010: Plasma actuators for drag reduction on wings, nacelles and/or
fuselage of vertical take-off and landing aircraft. United States Patent Application, 20100224733.

111. Markowski, P. M., Straka, J. M., and Rasmussen, E. N., 2002: Direct Surface Thermodynamic Observations
within the Rear-Flank Downdrafts of Nontornadic and Tornadic Supercells. Monthly Weather Review, 130: 1692-
1721.

112. Markowski, P. M., 2002: Hook Echoes and Rear-Flank Downdrafts: A Review. Monthly Weather Review, 130,
852-876.

157
113. Brandes, E. A., 1978: Mesocyclone evolution and tornadogenesis: Some observations. Monthly Weather
Review, 106, 995-1011.

114. Rasmussen E. N., Peterson, R. E., Minor, J. E., and Campbell, B. D., 1982: Evolutionary characteristics and
photogrammetric determination of windspeeds within the Tulia outbreak tornadoes 28 May 1980. 12th Conference
on Severe Local Storms, American Meteorological Society, 301-304.

115. Jensen B., Marshall, T. P., Mabey, M. A., and Rasmussen, E. N., 1983: Storm scale structure of the Pampa
storm. 13th Conference on Severe Local Storms, American Meteorological Society, 85-88.

116. Lee, B. D., Finley, C. A., and Samaras, T. M., 2008: Thermodynamic and kinematic analysis near and within
the Tipton, KS tornado on May 29 during TWISTEX 2008. 24th Conference on Severe Local Storms, American
Meteorological Society

117. Hocking, W., 2010: What caused the Leamington tornado? Western professor has a theory. Western
University Press

118. Burgess, D. W., Wood, V. T., and Brown, R. A., 1982: Mesocyclone evolution statistics. 12th Conference on
Severe Local Storms, American Meteorological Society, 422-424.

119. Fischer, A., and Davies, J. M., 2009: Significant Nighttime Tornadoes in the Plains Associated with Relatively
Stable Low-Level Conditions. Electronic Journal of Operational Meteorology, EJ4.

120. Desktop Aeronautics, 2009: General Theory of Aerodynamics. desktopaero.com

121. Snow, J. T., 1984: On the formation of particle sheaths in columnar vortices. Journal of the Atmospheric
Sciences, Vol. 41, Issue 16, 2477-2491.

122. Lee, J. J., Samaras, T., and Young, C., 2004: Pressure measurements at the ground in an F-4 tornado. 22nd
Conference on Severe Local Storms, American Meteorological Society

123. Trivedi, B. P., 2003: Storm Chaser Deploys Probe, Makes History. nationalgeographic.com

124. NSSL, 2009: Tornado Basics. nssl.noaa.gov

125. Anonymous, 2009: List of weather records. wikipedia.org

126. Karstens, C. D., Gallus, W. A. Jr., Samaras, T. M., Lee, B. D., and Finley, C. A., 2010: Near-ground Pressure
and Wind Measurements in Tornadoes. Monthly Weather Review

127. Wurman, J., 2002: The multiple vortex structure of a tornado. Weather and Forecasting, 17: 473-505.

128. Sarkar, P., Haan, F., Gallus, W. Jr., Le, K., and Wurman, J., 2005: Velocity Measurements in a Laboratory
Tornado Simulator and their comparison with Numerical and Full-Scale Data. Technical Memorandum of Public
Works Research Institute, 3983: 197-211.

129. Alexander, C. R., Wurman, J., 2005: The 30 May 1998 Spencer, South Dakota, Storm. Part I: The Structural
Evolution and Environment of the Tornadoes. Monthly Weather Review, 133: 72-96.

130. Wurman, J., Alexander, C. R., 2005: The 30 May 1998 Spencer, South Dakota, Storm. Part II: Comparison of
Observed Damage and Radar-Derived Winds in the Tornadoes. Monthly Weather Review, 133: 97-118.

131. Edwards, R., 1998: Tornado with Subvortex Filaments. stormeyes.org

132. Vonnegut, B., and Weyer, J. R., 1966: Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes. Science, Vol. 153, Issue
3741, 1213-1220.

133. Vaughan, O. H. Jr., and Vonnegut, B., 1976: Luminous Electrical Phenomena Associated with Nocturnal
Tornadoes in Huntsville, Alabama. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 57, Issue 10, 1220-1220.

134. Reynolds, D. J., 1995: Nocturnal Tornado Illuminated by an Electrical Discharge at Farnham, Surrey, 10
January 1994. Journal of Meteorology, UK, 20: 381.

158
135. Beaty, W. J., 2007: What causes the strange glow known as St. Elmo's Fire? Is this phenomenon related to ball
lightning? Scientific American

136. Justice, A. A., 1930: Seeing the Inside of a Tornado. Monthly Weather Review, 58: 205-206.

137. Hall, R. S., 1987: Inside A Texas Tornado. Weatherwise, 40: 73.

138. McGown, D., 1996: Looking Up Into A Tornado Funnel. Time, 147: 8.

139. Lewis, E., 1996: Tornadoes and Ball Lightning. padrak.com

140. Davies-Jones, R. P., and Golden, J. H., 1975: On the Relation of Electrical Activity to Tornadoes. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 80(12), 1614-1616.

141. Ward, N. B., 1972: The exploration of certain features of tornado dynamics using a laboratory model. Journal
of the Atmospheric Sciences, 29: 1194-1204.

142. Church, C. R., Snow, J. T., and Agee, E. M., 1977: Tornado Vortex Simulation at Purdue University. Bulletin of
the American Meteorological Society, 58, 900-908.

143. Rotunno, R., 1977: Numerical simulation of a laboratory vortex. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 34:
1942-1956.

144. Rotunno, R., 1979: A Study in Tornado-Like Vortex Dynamics. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 36, 140-
155.

145. Snow, J. T., 1982: A review of recent advances in tornado vortex dynamics. Reviews of Geophysics, 20(4),
953-964.

146. Church, C. R., and Snow, J. T., 1993: Laboratory models of tornadoes. In "The Tornado: its structure,
dynamics, prediction, and hazards". American Geophysical Union, Monograph 79: 277-295.

147. Ladue, J. , 1993: Vortex formation from a helical inflow tornado vortex simulator. In "The Tornado: its
structure, dynamics, prediction, and hazards". American Geophysical Union, Monograph 79: 307-316.

148. Le Kuai, Fred L. Haan, Jr., William A. Gallus, Jr. and Partha P. Sarkar, 2008: CFD simulations of the flow
field of a laboratory-simulated tornado for parameter sensitivity studies and comparison with field measurements.
Wind and Structures

149. Gallus, W. A. Jr., Sarkar, P., Haan, F., Le, K., Kardell, R., and Wurman, J., 2004: A translating tornado
simulator for engineering tests: comparison of radar, numerical model, and simulator winds. 22nd Conference on
Severe Local Storms, American Meteorological Society

150. Haan, F. L. Jr., Sarkara, P. P., and Gallus, W. A., 2008: Design, construction and performance of a large
tornado simulator for wind engineering applications. Engineering Structures, Vol. 30, Issue 4, 1146-1159.

151. Stolzenburg, M., Marshall, T. C., and Krehbiel, P. R., 2010: Duration and extent of large electric fields in a
thunderstorm anvil cloud after the last lightning. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115: D19202.

152. Lewellen, D. C., Gong, B., and Lewellen, W. S., 2007: Effects of Fine-Scale Debris on Near-Surface Tornado
Dynamics. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

153. Edwards, R., 2009: The online tornado FAQ. spc.noaa.gov

154. Bergerson, W. F., Forest, C. B., Fiksel, G., Hannum, D. A., Kendrick, R., Sarff, J. S., and Stambler, S., 2006:
Onset and Saturation of the Kink Instability in a Current-Carrying Line-Tied Plasma. Physical Review Letters, 96,
015004.

155. Davidson, R. C., and Felice, G. M., 1998: Influence of profile shape on the diocotron instability in a non-
neutral plasma column. Physics of Plasmas, Vol. 5, Number 10: 3497-3512.

156. Anders, A., 2004: Physics of arcing, and implications to sputter deposition. Proceedings of the 5 th ICCG,

159
Saarbruecken

157. Oliver, R., 2010: personal correspondence.

158. Kosiba, K., and Wurman, J., 2010: The three-dimensional axisymmetric wind field structure of the Spencer,
South Dakota (1998) tornado. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

159. Marshall, T., 1999: Damage survey of the Moore, Oklahoma tornado. stormtrack.org

160. Wurman, J., and Kosiba, K. A., 2008: DOW observations of multiple vortex structure in several tornadoes. 24th
Conference on Severe Local Storms, American Meteorological Society

161. Lee, W., and Wurman, J., 2001: Diagnosed Structure of the Mulhall Tornado Using VTD Algorithm. 30th
International Conference on Radar Meteorology

162. Schecter, D. A., Nicholls, M. E., Persing, J., Bedard, A. J., and Pielke, R. A., 2008: Infrasound Emitted by
Tornado-Like Vortices: Basic Theory and a Numerical Comparison to the Acoustic Radiation of a Single-Cell
Thunderstorm. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 65: 685-713.

163. Erney, T., 2009: personal correspondence.

164. Flora, S. D., 1954: Tornadoes of the United States. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 221 pgs.

165. Abdullah, A. J., 1966: The "musical" sound emitted by a tornado. Monthly Weather Review, 94, 213-220.

166. Vaughan, O. H., Jr., and Vonnegut, B. , 1976: Luminous electrical phenomena in Huntsville, Alabama,
tornadoes on April 3, 1974. NASA Technical Reports, TMX-73301.

167. Grazulis, T., 2007: Things that have been "carried" by a tornado. tornadoproject.com

168. Beard, D., 2007: Survivors recount night of tornado. journalenterprise.com

169. Keeton, K., 2010: personal correspondence.

170. The Associated Press, 2006: Missouri teen survives tornado. usatoday.com

171. Schmidlin, T. W., Hammer, B. O., King, P. S., and Miller, L. S., 2003: Wind speeds required to upset vehicles.
Symposium on the F-Scale and Severe-Weather Damage Assessment, American Meteorological Society

172. Heckert, P. A., 2007: Bernoulli's Principle and Storms. suite101.com

173. Orville, R. E., 1994: Cloud-to-ground lightning flash characteristics in the contiguous United States: 1989-
1991. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99(D5), 10,833-10,841.

174. Biggar, D. G., 2000: A case study of a positive strike dominated supercell thunderstorm that produced an F2
tornado after undergoing a significant cloud-to-ground lightning polarity shift. srh.noaa.gov

175. Perez, A. H., Wicker, L. J., and Orville, R. E., 1997: Characteristics of Cloud-to-Ground Lightning Associated
with Violent Tornadoes. Weather and Forecasting, 12: 428-437.

176. Rust, W. D., MacGorman, D. R., Bruning, E. C., Weiss, S. A., Krehbiel, P. R., Thomas, R. J., Rison, W., Hamlin,
T., and Harlin, J., 2005: Inverted-polarity electrical structures in thunderstorms in the Severe Thunderstorm
Electrification and Precipitation Study (STEPS). Atmospheric Research, 76: 247-271.

177. Tessendorf, S. A., Wiens, K. C., Lang, T., and Rutledge, S. A., 2006: STEPS 2000 Research Highlights From
Colorado State University. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2006, abstract #AE43A-05.

178. Tessendorf, S. A., Rutledge, S. A., and Wiens, K. C., 2007: Radar and lightning observations of normal and
inverted polarity multicellular storms from STEPS. Monthly Weather Review, 135: 3682-3706.

179. Rigden, J. S., Schramm, D. N., Stuewer, R. H., McGuire, J., and Tomizuka, C. T. (editors), 2007: MacMillan
Encyclopedia of Physics. Simon & Schuster, 383 pages.

160
180. Kennedy, R. E., and Fredrich, E. R., 1989: Tornado warning system. freepatentsonline.com, 4812825.

181. Jones, H. L., 1955: Research on Tornado Identification. 3rd Quarter Progress Report, Contract No. DA 36-039
SC 64436, Stillwater, Okla. A. and M. College, 8-35.

182. Taylor, W. L., Brandes, E. A., Rust, W. D., and MacGorman, D. R., 1984: Lightning Activity and Severe Storm
Structure. Geophysical Research Letters, 11(5), 545-548.

183. Leeman, J. R., and Schmitter, E. D., 2008: Electric signals generated by tornados. Atmospheric Research, Vol.
92, Issue 2, 277-279.

184. Alcorn, M., 1998: What Is Lightning And How Does Lightning Form. met.tamu.edu

185. Boccippio, D. J., Williams, E. R., Heckman, S. J., Lyons, W. A., Baker, I. T., and Boldi, R., 1995: Sprites, ELF
Transients, and Positive Ground Strokes. Science, 269 (5227): 1088-1091.

186. Taylor, W., 1973: Electromagnetic Radiation from Severe Storms in Oklahoma during April 29-30, 1970.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 78(36), 8761-8777.

187. Falconer, R. E., and Schaefer, V. J., 1954: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 35, 437.

188. Doswell, C. A., 2008: personal correspondence.

189. Trapp, R. J., Stumpf, G. J., and Manross, K. L., 2005: A reassessment of the percentage of tornadic
mesocyclones. Weather and Forecasting, 20, 23-34.

190. Trapp, R. J., 1999: Observations of Nontornadic Low-Level Mesocyclones and Attendant Tornadogenesis
Failure during VORTEX. Monthly Weather Review, 127, 1693-1705.

191. Wakimoto, R. M., Cai, H., and Murphey, H. V., 2004: The Superior, Nebraska, supercell during BAMEX.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 85, 1095-1106.

192. Caruso, J. M., and Davies, J. M, 2005: Tornadoes in Nonmesocyclone Environments with Pre-existing Vertical
Vorticity along Convergence Boundaries. Electronic Journal of Operational Meteorology

193. Sanders, R., 2002: Stalking Arizona dust devils helps scientists understand electrical, atmospheric effects of
dust storms on Mars. berkeley.edu

194. Renno, N. O., Abreu, V. J., Koch, J., Smith, P. H., Hartogensis, O. K., De Bruin, H. A. R., Burose, D., Delory, G.
T., Farrell, W. M., Watts, C. J., Garatuza, J., Parker, M., and Carswell, A., 2004: MATADOR 2002: A pilot field
experiment on convective plumes and dust devils. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, E07001.

195. Schultz, D. M., Kanak, K. M., Straka, J. M., Trapp, R. J., Gordon, B. A., Zrnić, D. S., Bryan, G. H., Durant, A.
J., Garrett, T. J., Klein, P. M., and Lilly, D. K., 2006: The Mysteries of Mammatus Clouds: Observations and
Formation Mechanisms. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 63, 2409-2435.

196. Cerveny, R., and Schaefer, J. T., 2002: Tornado oddities: wild and inexplicable stories reveal the freakish
nature and amazing power of tornadoes. Weatherwise, July.

197. Chakraborty, P., Gioia, G., and Kieffer, S. W., 2009: Volcanic mesocyclones. Nature, 458, 497-500.

198. Doswell, C. A., Weiss, S. J., and Johns, R. H., 1993: Tornado Forecasting: A Review. American Geophysical
Union, 79: 557-571.

199. Moller, A. R., Doswell, C. A., Foster, M. P., and Woodall, G. R., 1994: The Operational Recognition of Supercell
Thunderstorm Environments and Storm Structures. Weather and Forecasting, Vol. 9, Issue 3, 327-347.

200. Bradford, M., 1999: Historical Roots of Modern Tornado Forecasts and Warnings. Weather and Forecasting,
14: 484-491.

201. Holden, J., and Wright, A., 2004: UK tornado climatology and the development of simple prediction tools.
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 130: 1009-1021.

161
202. Uman, M. A., and Rakov, V. A., 2008: University of Florida Lightning Research Group. lightning.ece.ufl.edu

203. Kridler, C., 2002: July 25, 2002, triggered lightning video. skydiary.com

204. Anonymous, 2008: Lightning rocket. wikipedia.org

205. Ball, L. M., 1977: Laser lightning rod system. freepatentsonline.com, 4017767.

206. Thompson, J. J., Thompson, G. P., 1933: Conduction of Electricity Through Gases. Cambridge University
Press

207. Kikuchi, H., 2007: Laboratory Experiments of Helicity or Vortex Generation in an Electric Quadrupole:
Simulation of Tonadoes with and without Lightning. American Geophysical Union Spring Meeting Abstracts,
#SA54A-02.

208. Heene, R., Stevens, R., and Slusser, B., 2008: Electromagnetic Fields Recorded in Mesocyclones. National
Weather Digest, 32:1, 35-44.

209. Anonymous Faculty, 2008: The Real Levitation. hfml.ru.nl

210. Scott, D. E., 2007: Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos. IEEE Transactions
on Plasma Science, Vol. 35, No. 4.

211. Scott, D. E., 2006: The Electric Sky. Portland: Mikamar Publishing

212. Dmitriev, A. N., Dyatlov, V. L., and Tetenov, A. V., 2009: Planetophysical Function of Vacuum Domains.
bibliotecapleyades.net

213. Büker, M. L., and Tripoli, G. J., 2010: Tornadoes, Thomson, and turbulence: an analogous perspective on
tornadogenesis and coherent structure in the atmosphere. 8 th Users Forum on Weather and Climate Impacts,
American Meteorological Society

214. Bedard, A., 1996: Tiny Lab Twisters May Hold Clues To Early Detection Of Tornadoes. scienceblog.com

215. Mori, S., 2008: Subterranean petroleum deposits in correlation to induce tornado formation. cprm.gov.br

216. Vitoria, F., 2009: Tornadoes - Electromagnetic theory. costarricense.cr

217. Everett, M., 1913: Tragic Story of America's Greatest Disaster. Chicago: J. S. Ziegler Company

218. Coleman, T. A., and Knupp, K. R., 2008: The Interactions of Gravity Waves with Mesocyclones: Preliminary
Observations and Theory. Monthly Weather Review, 136: 4206-4219.

219. Holle, R., 2009: Vital Weather Information. aerology.com

162
 A Brief Introduction to
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
Last modified: 2011-02-19 23:32:18 UTC

© 2007~2011 Charles L. Chandler

geophysics@charles-chandler.org

Comments, criticisms, and suggestions may

be posted on the associated bulletin board.

In rough terms, tornadoes are not hard to understand. The updraft in the thunderstorm creates a low pressure
beneath it, causing a massive inflow. Air responding to a low pressure will tend to converge straight toward the
low pressure from all directions, with the kinetic energy falling off with the square of the distance from the source
of the low pressure. But if external factors offset the inflow, the air will spiral inward. The centrifugal force that
emerges will then oppose the low pressure. This means that the low pressure has to get its air from somewhere
else. As the low pressure and the centrifugal force are in equilibrium, the pressure at the center of the vortex
equals the pressure at the source of the low pressure. In essence, the low pressure has been "piped" through the
vortex. At the end of the "pipe," if the air is not spiraling inward, then we go back to the simple case, where air
converges in a straight line, and the kinetic energy falls off with the square of the distance from the end of the
pipe. But if the air flowing toward the end of the pipe is also spiraling inward, then once again the centrifugal
force opposes the low pressure, and the low pressure has to be satisfied by air from elsewhere. In this way, a low
pressure can extend a great distance away from its source through a vortex, where the only limiting factor is the
very slight amount of friction resulting from the rotation, dissipating the energy as we move away from the
source.

The hard part is understanding why tornadoes rotate so robustly at the surface of the Earth, considering the vast
amount of friction encountered at the solid boundary. A vortex 350 m tall, 35 m across, and rotating at 45 m/s,
will only lose about 1,000 watts of power due to friction in the air. But the same vortex will lose about 1,000,000
watts of power to skin friction at a solid boundary. So it will take 1,000 times more energy to rotate the vortex at
the surface than it takes in the entire 350 meters above the surface. And in a free vortex, there is no source for
such energy. Energy dissipates away from its source due to friction — it doesn't increase by 3 orders of
magnitude when it hits an opposing force. So nominally speaking, the air speed at the surface should be less
than 1 ⁄ 1,000 of the speed above the surface. If the air speed 350 m above the surface is 45 m/s, the air speed at the
surface should be less than .045 m/s. In other words, the air at the surface should not be moving at all. And with
no movement, there will be no vortex. In actuality, no single force dictates the final answer — all of the forces
present will have their effects, and we have to add it all up to get the eventual result.

The low pressure moves air inward.

An external factor offsets the air, initiating a cyclonic inflow.

Skin friction at the solid boundary greatly reduces the air speed at the surface. If the surface is perfectly
smooth, the effect will be limited to the air directly at the surface, but an uneven surface will create
turbulence that will extend the effect well above the surface.

The reduction in air speed reduces the centrifugal force, and the air flows more directly toward the low
pressure.

Without the opposition of the centrifugal force, the low pressure is relieved at the boundary.

Less low pressure means less centripetal force, resulting in a widened vortex at the boundary, with slow
rotation.

Once the air enters the vortex and begins its ascent toward the source of the low pressure, the pressure will
 decrease with altitude.

As the pressure decreases, the centripetal force increases, which reduces the radius of the vortex as the air
gets nearer to the source of the low pressure.

The following images clearly illustrate the behavior of a free vortex when encountering a solid boundary. Note the
turbulent flow at the surface, which resolves into a wide vortex above the surface, which then tightens into a
narrow vortex in the direction of the flow. (See this for a high-resolution image of a vortex at the same location as
in Figure 1.)

Figure 1. Suction vortex, courtesy Figure 2. Suction vortex, courtesy

Spiegel Online. American Educational Products.

      

Figure 3. Suction Figure 4. Suction

vortex, courtesy vortex, courtesy Ned
Holoscience. Kahn.

      
 Figure 5. Suction vortex, courtesy Michael Ellestad.

Tornadoes, on the other hand, do the exact opposite. They start out with a small radius at the surface. Then the
radius expands, in the direction of the flow, sometimes to the point that the vortex disintegrates into a turbulent
flow. So the lowest pressure, and the fastest wind speeds, are at the surface, where the friction is the greatest. As
the air approaches the source of the low pressure, and where there is no skin friction, the centripetal force
relaxes, and the air slows down. This doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, when a free vortex encounters an obstacle, it simply reorganizes elsewhere, since fluids always
follow the path of least resistance. And yet a tornado is not perturbed by obstacles, even when the obstacle is
larger than the tornado itself. Either the tornado maintains its general form while riding over the obstacle, or the
tornado removes the obstacle. Since the amount of friction goes up quite dramatically when obstacles are
encountered, a vortex that is relatively unperturbed by obstacles is inexplicable in fluid dynamic terms.

Figure 6. F3 tornado that has just destroyed a house larger than itself in Mulvane, KS, 2004-06-
12, credit Eric Nguyen, courtesy Corbis Corporation.
Figure 7 represents the airflows in free vortexes compared to tornadic vortexes. Aside from the fact that they are
both rotating columns of air, they are different in every respect.

Figure 7. Airflow in a suction vortex versus a tornado vortex.

Clearly, other factors are present in tornadoes, which make them fundamentally different from free vortexes. So
what is the nature of those factors?

To actually get laboratory airflows that match those in tornadoes, other forces have to be introduced. The best
work done to date was with an apparatus similar to that depicted in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Bottleneck vortex apparatus.

Figures 9 and 10 show the results, using different "swirl ratios" (i.e., the amount of angular momentum imparted
into the flow before it passes through the hole).

Figure 9. Laboratory demonstration of laminar and turbulent vortexes, courtesy C. R. Church.

Figure 10. Close-up of vortex breakdown, courtesy C.
R. Church.
In the 1st panel of Figure 9, a small amount of angular momentum at the base creates a perfectly straight, laminar
vortex. In the 2nd panel of Figure 9 (and also in Figure 10), with a larger swirl ratio, we see a phenomenon known
as "vortex breakdown." With a higher degree of angular momentum imparted into the vortex by the louvers in
the base of the apparatus, the air is subjected to more friction as it moves through the stationary air in the central
chamber. The friction reduces the angular velocity in the vortex, and the laminar flow becomes prone to
turbulence. The turbulence then allows the surrounding air, not subject to any centripetal force (because it is not
rotating) to flow downward into the vortex, seeking the extreme low pressure at the base. A "downdraft" inside
the vortex relieves the low pressure, and thereby reduces the centripetal force. This results in the rapid widening
of the vortex just prior to its breakdown. Note that even in tightly-controlled conditions, this configuration is
extremely unstable. In the 3rd panel, with an even higher swirl ratio, the vortex breakdown occurs at soon as the
air exits the hole. And in the 4 th panel, the turbulence is so robust that it shrouds the vortex.

Note the similarity between the vortexes in the 2nd, 3rd , and 4 th panels and the following photographs of real
tornadoes.

Figure 11. Laminar-to-turbulent flow conversion in a tornado in

southeast Colorado, credit Linda Lusk, courtesy NCAR.
Figure 12. Tornado with turbulent flow beginning just above
the surface near Watkins, CO, courtesy NCAR.
 Figure 13. Tornado shrouded by turbulence in Great
Bend, KS, 1974-08-30, courtesy Bob Dundas.

Hence if there is a force that can oppose the low pressure, and create a bottleneck in the flow, an extreme low
pressure develops, away from the source of the low pressure. In the direction of the flow, the air speed relaxes,
and in extreme cases, the laminar flow gives way to turbulence. Without such a bottleneck, only a normal, free
vortex is possible, with little or no rotation at the surface. In the apparatus depicted in Figure 8, the bottleneck is
created by a piece of plywood with a hole in it, which holds the air down until it achieves the centerline, where
suddenly it can respond vigorously to the low pressure. But how could such a bottleneck be created in nature?

There is only one other force operative in the atmosphere, so it's the only candidate: electromagnetism. Then the
question becomes: how does electromagnetism hold the air down until it gets to the vortex, and how is that force
removed such that the air can finally respond vigorously to the low pressure? In other words, if we were to build
something that had the effect of a piece of plywood with a hole in it, using only electromagnetic forces, how
would we do it?

Electromagnetism is composed of two parts: the electric force, and the magnetic force. We can eliminate the
magnetic force as a possibility, because air is only infinitesimally responsive to magnetism. That leaves the
electric force. So how could electric charges attract the air to the surface?

If the air is bearing an electric charge, it will induce an opposite charge in the Earth, and then there will be an
attractive force between them. Since the Earth has more mass than the atmosphere, the Earth will stay where it
is, and the air will be drawn toward the surface.

Then the question is: how much charge would it take to overpower how much low pressure, in order to keep the
inflow at the surface, establishing such a bottleneck?

First let's consider the force of the electric field that is pulling the air toward the ground. The number of charged
particles in the tornadic inflow has been estimated at one part per billion (2.14 · 1014 charged particles/m 3 ), and
the charge per particle has been estimated at 3.2 · 10-17 C. This means a space charge of 0.0068 C/m3 in the
tornadic inflow. In an electric field of 5 kV/m, this yields 27 N/m3 of force.

Next we'll look at the low pressure drawing the air toward the mesocyclone. At 20 °C, air weighs 1.2041 kg/m 3 ,
which means 11.8002 N/m3 of gravitational force. The lowest pressure ever recorded anywhere in a tornadic
system was 100 mb below ambient, which means a 10% reduction in density. 10% of 11.8002 means a loss of
1.18002 N/m3 of gravitational force. Put another way, that's 1.18 N/m3 of buoyancy.

Finally, we can clearly see that if the downward force is 27 N/m3 and the upward force is 1.18 N/m3 , the air will
stay at the surface until the electric charges are neutralized.

If the tornadic inflow is charged, can we determine the sign?

Since the tornadic inflow is clear, we know that it does not contain liquid or solid water particles (i.e., rain, sleet,
or hail) — it's all in the gaseous state. There are three different molecules abundant in the air: N 2 , O2 , and H 2 O.
Of these, only the H 2 O is stable with a net negative charge. At 100% relative humidity, H 2 O represents 1% of the
air by volume. Actually RH readings from tornadic inflow are more like 20%, meaning that the H 2 O is something
like 0.2% of the air by volume. It's hard to believe that a negative charge distributed in 0.2% of the air would
exert a force more powerful than the low pressure and the friction acting on the air. But all matter, including N 2
and O2 , can become positively-charged, as any molecule can have a deficiency of electrons. Hence it is reasonable
to proceed on the assumption that only a positive charge could be distributed throughout enough of the
molecules in the air to exert a powerful body force.

So we have a low pressure under the thunderstorm's updraft, that is drawing in air from all around. We have an
offset in the inflow that is inducing rotation. And we also have a positive charge in the inflow, which is attracting
the inflow to the surface. Hence the air would otherwise curve gracefully upward into the updraft (whether or not
it is also spiraling inward), but because of the electric force, it sticks to the surface. Friction at the surface then
creates the bottleneck, resulting in an extreme low pressure, and high wind speeds at the mouth of the vortex.

So how does the inflow ultimately break away from the surface and ascend within the tornado? Does the low
pressure finally overpower the electric force? In other words, is the electric force a leaky piece of plywood, that
will allow the air to be pulled away if there is a sufficient degree of low pressure? Or does the EM plywood have a
hole in it? The robustness of the inflow strongly suggests that somehow the electrostatic attraction is eliminated
inside the vortex.

Freeing the air from its electrostatic attraction to the Earth would necessitate that the charge be neutralized.
Neutralizing a positive charge would, of course, take electrons. So we need a flow of electrons down from the
cloud and through the tornado, that will neutralize the positive charge, freeing it from its electrostatic attraction
to the Earth. And there is, in fact, just such a flow of electrons. An average tornado has an electric current in the
range of 100 ~ 250 amps, and this has been confirmed by several methods.

Indeed, this electric current led researchers in the 1960s to believe that tornadoes were discharge vortexes. And
while they could prove the existence of the current inside the tornado, they couldn't explain where it went, since
only a small percentage of the current can be detected in the Earth. They also could not explain why these
discharge vortexes show no preference for highly-conductive features on the surface, such as rivers & streams,
railroad tracks, etc., which any electric current would certainly do. This left the researchers with more questions
than answers, and eventually, the entire electromagnetic paradigm was abandoned.

Now we can piece it all together. The current is present inside the tornado, but the electrons are not flowing into
the ground. Rather, the electrons are flowing into the positively-charged air. So we shouldn't expect large telluric
currents, nor any preference for conductive features in the surface. And this current explains the extremely
robust inflow to the tornado, despite the enormous amount of friction at the surface — the electric current is
releasing the inflow from its attraction to the surface. So it's the hole in the plywood.

The only remaining question is: why hasn't this powerful positive charge in the tornadic inflow been detected?

It's possible that it has been detected, but without the present hypothesis in hand, the data would not have been
interpreted as a space charge in the tornadic inflow. The principle instrument for studying electromagnetism in
the atmosphere is the electric field meter, which measures electrostatic potentials. Under a supercell
thunderstorm, the field meters do typically show a positive charge aloft. This is unusual for a thunderstorm,
because the main positive charge region in the cloud is at the top, while the negative charge carriers in the storm
(rain, sleet, and hail) tend to be closer to the Earth. But this has not led researchers to conclude that the tornadic
inflow is charged. The assumption is that all of the charge is inside the cloud, and that a field meter at the surface
will measure the potential between the charges in the cloud and an induced opposite charge in the Earth. If we
were to measure the space charge in the air just above the surface, we would expect to find it opposite in sign to
the induced charge in the Earth, but this does not indicate that the air itself was already bearing an electric
charge. We would call it just an artifact of charge separations in the presence of an electric field. So space charge
studies are not regularly performed.

Still, instinct tells us that if there is a body force acting on the air that is binding the inflow to the surface, and if
that force is electric, a respectable percentage of the molecules would have to be charged. Otherwise, the few that
were charged would have little effect on the rest of the air. And if just a single-digit percentage of the air
molecules are positively-charged, we would expect the electric field to be enormous. Yet the electric field under a
supercell is relatively weak by thunderstorm standards. So we must return to the data, to find what we're
missing.

There is nothing in the data from tornadoes over land that suggests an answer, but photography of waterspouts
does. In Figure 14, we immediately recognize the cyclonic pattern as evidence of inflow to the vortex, which is
what we would expect. But darker water means faster winds, so this is evidence of a discrete channel of air
flowing into the vortex, and this is not what we would expect.

Figure 14. Waterspout with banded inflow off the Florida Keys, 1969-09-10, credit Joseph
Golden, courtesy NOAA. Notice the flares indicating that the prevailing surface winds are not
part of the inflow.
In fluid dynamics, channeling is evidence of differences in viscosity. If all of the air has the same viscosity, it is all
subjected to the same friction. Any air moving faster will experience more friction, so we expect a self-regulated
consistency in the inflowing speed. But if some of the air has a lower viscosity, it will experience less friction, and
therefore it will tunnel through the higher-viscosity air.

So then the question is: what are the conditions necessary for viscosity differences?

We might think that the air is warmer, as fluids are generally less viscous at higher temperatures. Yet gases
actually get more viscous with temperature, though in the relevant range (20~30 °C) the difference is slight.

Figure 15. Kinematic viscosity per temperature of

some common gases and liquids, courtesy The
Engineering Toolbox.
Since we can expect the air to be relatively homogenous, there is only one other factor that could affect the
viscosity: its electric charge. Electrostatic repulsion in charged air prevents the particle collisions that instantiate
friction, thereby reducing the viscosity.1

And this, then, explains why we're not seeing a huge positive charge under the thunderstorm. If all of the charge
is concentrated in a discrete channel, we wouldn't expect a powerful field everywhere under the cloud — only
inside the channel will the field be unusually powerful.

So why haven't we detected an unusually powerful electric field in the banded inflow?

First, not every electric field study also includes airflow instrumentation, in which inflow bands would be
detected, and the correlation between electric fields and airspeeds could be seen.

Second, electric fields under a thunderstorm fluctuate dramatically, as charges shift inside the cloud, and as such
charges are neutralized by lightning. While the tornado is active, the thunderstorm typically issues several
lightning strikes per minute, which means that in the period of time that an inflow band is passing over an
electric field meter, the electrostatic potential will fluctuate at least a couple of times due to lightning strikes,
making it more difficult to see a correlation.

Third, to the extent that some correlation between inflow bands and electric fields has been observed, it is
typically attributed to triboelectric charging in the particulate matter that is creeping or saltating in the inflow
band. The particulate matter itself has not been studied — it is merely assumed that any difference in electric
field that was directly proportional to air speed would most likely be due to static electricity, because until now,
no one proposed that the air itself was charged.

What we need is a space charge study that will incontrovertibly identify differences in electric charges in the air
itself, inside and outside the inflow band. And that study has not been conducted. So absence of evidence in
support cannot be cited as evidence against in this case.

And what we do have is plenty of evidence of a force that is not fluid dynamic, that can only be electromagnetism,
and that behaves exactly as electromagnetic principles predict.

The complete hypothesis, including 138 figures and 205 references, concerning the nature of the parent storm
and many common forms of tornadoes, can be found at:

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

 
 weather.gov 

Site Map News Organization  Search for:   NCEP All NOAA Go

 

Local forecast by
"City, St" or "ZIP"
SPC Probabilistic Outlook Information
City, St   Go
Note: For probability to categorical outlook conversion, please see table in HTML.

The SPC produces probabilistic Convective Outlooks in conjunction with the traditional categorical Convective
Outlooks. These outlooks are issued for all Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3 periods.
NCEP Quarterly
Newsletter
Categorical Convective Outlooks
Home
SPC Products The traditional Convective Outlook is a categorical forecast that specifies the perceived level of threat via the
   All SPC Forecasts descriptive wording: Slight, Moderate, and High Risk. This graphical outlook, however does not display the
   Current Watches forecaster's expectations of the individual severe weather hazards (large hail, damaging winds, and tornadoes).
   Meso. Discussions While the accompanying discussion for the outlook usually describes the forecaster's thoughts about the
   Conv. Outlooks individual hazards, the accompanying categorical graphic does not.
   Fire Wx Forecasts
     RSS Feeds Example Day 1 categorical Convective Outlook
   E-Mail Alerts
Weather Information
   Storm Reports
   NWS Hazards Map
   Watch/Warning Map
   National RADAR
   Product Archive
   Norman, OK WX
   NOAA Weather Radio
Research
   Non-op. Products
   Forecast Tools
   Svr. Tstm. Events
   SPC Publications
   SPC-NSSL HWT
Education & Outreach
   About the SPC
   SPC FAQ
   About Tornadoes
   About Derechos
   WCM Page
   Enh. Fujita Page
   Cool Images
   Our History
   Public Affairs
Misc.
   Staff
   Links
The outlook graphic defines the geographic threat areas. In the example above, a large Slight Risk is forecast
Contact Us
for portions of the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys. The graphic does not indicate the forecaster expectations of the
   SPC Feedback
individual severe weather hazards. This outlook will be discussed later in conjunction with the probabilistic
forecasts for this event.

Probabilistic Convective Outlooks

Forecasting rare events such as tornadoes and the occurrence of large hail and damaging wind gusts is a very
difficult process and one that contains a large amount of uncertainty. In the traditional Convective Outlooks, this
uncertainty is conveyed via the Slight/Moderate/High Risk terminology. A more direct method of expressing the
forecaster's uncertainty is to use probabilities. Probabilities directly express a level of confidence that an event
will or won't occur. While probabilities may seem somewhat difficult to understand at first, once you have a
grasp of how to interpret them, you will quickly gain an appreciation for how much more information they
provide than slight, moderate and high risk by themselves. (A great introduction to why probabilistic forecasting
is so useful may be found in an online essay by Chuck Doswell and Harold Brooks.)

Definition of the probabilities

The probabilities used in the SPC Convective Outlooks are known as subjective probabilities. The forecasters
make their best estimate of the probability of an event occurring. The probability values forecast are not created
automatically by a computer or via statistics, but by the SPC outlook forecaster.

The probabilities that you see on the graphics represent the probability of one or more events occurring
within 25 miles of any point during the outlook period. This definition is used as the probability of severe
weather at an given point is quite small. Also the Convective Outlook is not a small-scale, short-term forecast,
but one that covers the entire U.S. for periods up to 24 hours. There is a large amount of uncertainty in
forecasting severe weather on these scales. How many times have you experienced a tornado in your
neighborhood? For most people, the answer is never. Now think of how many times severe weather has
occurred within 25 miles of your location. It's probably safe to say that you can think of some close by severe
weather events. How large of an area is a circle with a 25 mile radius? Below you'll see the Oklahoma City
metro area where the large blue circle represents such an area.

You should be able to imagine that the probability of having severe weather occur within such an area is much
larger than the probability of having it occur specifically within any one neighborhood. Keep this in mind as we
further discuss the probability values expressed in the outlooks.

So, how do you interpret the forecast values? As an example, a 15% contour on the hail forecast outlines an
area where the probability of 1 or more reports of large (3/4" or greater) hail occurring within 25 miles of any
point during the forecast period is 15%. Larger values imply greater risk. For example, if the probability for large
hail in your area is 30% on a given day and it was 15% the day before, there is a higher threat of large hail for
your area on that day than the day before.

Although 30% is not a very large probability for having 1 or more of these severe weather hazards occur near
you on a given day, it represents roughly a 1 in 3 chance. To better understand this, let's put the probability
values into perspective in terms of climatology.

The climatology of severe weather is very different than the climatology of precipitation. Compare the number of
days that you experience rain at your home to the number of days that you have had large hail at your location,
or even a tornado. The number of times a given location experiences severe weather in a year is much less
frequent than the amount of time it experiences rainfall. Because rainfall occurs so frequently (on average) the
daily climatological values approach 20% on any given day in many locations east of the Rockies (i.e., a 1 in 5
chance, or it rains 1 day out of 5 on average). Suppose you hear a forecast calling for a 40% chance of rain.
You can immediately say that the forecaster believes the chance of rain is twice as high as normal. This does
not mean that rain will definitely occur but does mean that the forecaster believes that there is a higher than
normal risk of precipitation occurring on that day. A climatological knowledge of the event being forecast is
useful, even necessary for interpreting the probabilities being forecast. In the case for probability of precipitation
forecasts, these values typically run from 0% (certainty that it will not rain) to 100% (certainty that it will).

As stated previously, the probabilities of severe weather occurring at any given location are much lower than
those for precipitation. How much lower? The following image shows the probability of 1 or more tornadoes
occurring within 25 miles of a point for the week of April 29 - May 6.

The image shows that the probabilities for this week range from 0 to 1.5%. These are very small values!
Climatological values of rare events such as severe weather are much, much smaller than the climatology of
cloudy days, or the probability of precipitation occurring.

As a part of the probabilistic forecasting program at the SPC, a representative severe weather climatology was
developed by the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) for use by the National Weather Service, the
emergency management community, and the general public. This project is available on the NSSL web site.
You can find a tremendous amount of information there to assist yourself in determining the severe weather
climatology for your area.

Since severe weather occurs relatively infrequently, there is a large amount of uncertainty as to precisely where
it will occur. Accurate yes/no forecasts of whether or not you will experience a tornado in your neighborhood in
the next 24 hours are simply not possible many hours ahead of time. Further, the role of the Convective
Outlook is not to pinpoint the specific location for severe weather. The product is a national-scale forecast that
highlights areas where severe weather is possible over the lower 48 states. Since climatological probabilities of
severe weather are so small, the probabilities that you will see used in the forecasts will generally be much
smaller than you might expect.

The following table shows the range of probabilities used in the various probabilistic outlooks:

Day 1
Tornadoes 2%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 30%, 45%, 60%
Large Hail 5%, 15%, 30%, 45%, 60%
Damaging Wind 5%, 15%, 30%, 45%,60%
Day 2
Any severe weather 5%, 15%, 30%, 45%, 60%
Day 3
Any severe weather 5%, 15%, 30%, 45%

How should you interpret these values? The smallest values represent areas where the most uncertainty exists
and correspondingly where the smallest expected coverage of storm reports exists. The higher the probabilities,
the greater the perceived threat and the greater the expected coverage of that hazard being forecast. The
highest probabilities are generally reserved for more signiifcant severe weather events and are used
infrequently, if at all, during the year.

Another way of thinking of the values is related to climatology. Consider our earlier discussion of tornado
probabilities for the first week of May where the peak values were approximately 1.5%. Let's assume that the
SPC forecaster drew a 30% area which included northwest Texas and southwestern Oklahoma. The ratio of the
forecast to climatology (30%/1.5%) yields a value of approximately 20. The SPC forecaster is stating they
believe the risk of tornadoes in that region is 20 times larger than climatology. By comparing the forecast
probability to climatology, you can better determine the magnitude of the risk on a given day.

Description of the probabilistic outlooks

Day 1

The most specific Convective Outlooks are those issued during the Day 1 period. Accordingly, the SPC
forecasters have the most information available to them to differentiate the threats of the individual severe
weather hazards. During this period, the SPC produces probabilistic outlooks for each primary severe weather
hazard (tornadoes, damaging wind, and large hail) separately. By producing separate forecasts for tornadoes,
damaging wind, and large hail, the user is given substantially more information upon which to make decisions
than in the categorical (slight, moderate, high) outlook. In addition to the probabilities for separate types of
severe weather occurring, areas are shown where there is a 10% or greater chance of significant severe
weather. Significant severe weather is defined as F2 or greater tornadoes, damaging winds with speeds greater
than 65 knots, or large hail 2" or greater in diameter. If the forecaster believes that there is less than a 10%
chance of significant severe weather occurring in the outlook area, then the hatched area will not appear on the
graphics.

Day 2/Day 3

Probabilistic Outlooks are issued for the Day 2/3 period as well. Since many of the specific details of severe
weather forecasting can only be determined hours ahead of time, rather than several days, the severe weather
probabilities for the Day 2 and Day 3 Outlooks represent the probability of any severe weather hazard (large
hail, damaging wind, or tornadoes) occurring (rather than producing individual forecasts for each hazard). Areas
where there is a 10% or greater probability of significant severe weather events (again, defined as 2" or larger
hail, 65 knot or stronger winds, and F2 or stronger tornadoes) are also indicated on the graphics, when
forecast.

Example Day 1 probabilistic Convective Outlook along with the

corresponding Categorical Outlook
Conventional Categorical Outlook

Probabilistic Hail Outlook

 Probabilistic Wind Outlook

Probabilistic Tornado Outlook

These images show the categorical Convective Outlook issued at 1630 UTC on February 16, 2006 as well as
the corresponding probabilistic forecasts valid for the same time period. The conventional categorical outlook
depicts a large Slight Risk area (shown in green) for portions of the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys. The unlabeled
brown line represents regions where general thunderstorms are forecast. An emergency manager, or storm
spotter, or member of the general public, may use this graphic to determine the relative level of threat for their
area. However, forecaster expectations of locations of tornadoes, large hail, and damaging winds are not
provided.

The remaining 3 figures show the forecast probabilities of hail, damaging wind, and tornadoes. Probabilities
shown are 2% (green), 5% (light brown), 10% (dark brown), 15% (blue), and 30%(red). The forecaster for this
event identified different areas for large hail, damaging wind, and tornadoes.
Benefits of the probabilistic Convective Outlooks

We believe the new Probabilistic Convective Outlooks do a better job of expressing uncertainty, as well as
detail, compared to the traditional Convective Outlooks. These outlooks directly express forecaster uncertainty
through the use of probabilities. Further, in the Day 1 period, forecaster expectations of large hail, damaging
winds, and tornadoes are explicitly conveyed through individual forecasts. By producing forecasts of each
hazard individually, users who are sensitive to one particular threat (e.g., car dealers and large hail) can make
more informed decisions.

Even without a complete understanding of what the probabilities mean, you can directly assess from the
graphics:

Geographic areas where the various severe weather hazards are expected. These areas may or may
not overlap with one another.
The perceived levels of threat for the severe weather hazards. The higher the probabilities are, the
increased threat of that hazard occurring. Refer to the discussion above concerning the probabilities
used in the outlooks and especially the range of probabilities used.
Areas where significant severe weather is expected.

Comments/suggestions, please send to spc.feedback@noaa.gov.

Top/Today's Outlooks/Latest Day 2 Outlook/Latest Day 3 Outlook/Forecast Products/Home
Weather Topics:
Watches, Mesoscale Discussions, Outlooks, Fire Weather, All Products, Contact Us

NOAA / National Weather Service Disclaimer Privacy Policy

National Centers for Environmental Prediction Information Quality Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Storm Prediction Center Credits About Us
120 David L. Boren Blvd. Glossary Career Opportunities
Norman, OK 73072 U.S.A.
spc.feedback@noaa.gov
Page last modified: March 30, 2011
 SPC and its Products
Chris Hayes Novy

Southern Illinois University

Roger Edwards, David Imy and Stephen Goss

Storm Prediction Center

Page last modified: March 25, 2010

The Storm Prediction Center (SPC) at Norman, Oklahoma is a part of the National Weather Service
(NWS) charged with monitoring and forecasting severe weather over the 48 continental United
States. It is a division of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). Within SPC,
the Operational Branch prepares several products that can help you prepare for hazardous and severe
weather.

1. What is Severe Weather?

2. Convective Outlooks

1. Day 1 Convective Outlook

2. Day 2 Convective Outlook
3. Day 3 Convective Outlook
4. Day 4-8 Severe Weather Outlook
5. Probabilistic Outlook
6. Plotting the Points
7. Levels of Risk
8. Severe Thunderstorm Discussion
9. Using the Technical Outlooks
10. The Public Severe Weather Outlook (PWO)

3. Mesoscale Discussions (severe thunderstorms)

1. Heavy Rain MCD

2. Winter Weather MCD

4. Severe Weather Watches

5. Watch Description
6. Watch Outline Update (WOU) and Watch County Notification (WCN)
7. Watch Probabilities
8. Watch Status Messages
9. Fire Weather Outlooks
10. Statistics

What is Severe Weather?

If you were to ask ten different people what "severe weather" means you would probably get ten
different answers. The NWS definition states that a "severe" thunderstorm is any storm that produces
one or more of the following elements:

1. A tornado.
2. Damaging winds, or winds measured 50 knots (approx. 58 MPH) or more.
3. Hail 1 inch in diameter or larger.

Other forms of dangerous weather include heavy rain (flash flooding hazard), excessive heat and
cold, tropical cyclones, and winter storms. Although forecasting these other types of dangerous
weather is mainly the responsibility of other branches of NCEP, and of local NWS offices, the SPC
also issues 1-6 hour short-term forecasts, or mesoscale discussions of certain heavy rain, heavy
snow, freezing rain, and blizzard events in portions of states.

Convective Outlooks

The convective outlooks serve as guidance to the local NWS forecast offices and are used by
emergency managers, private sector meteorologists, media, and other weather customers concerned
with public safety. Three separate risk areas (slight, moderate, and high) are used to describe the
expected coverage and intensity for the categorical severe weather threat on days 1-3 along with
severe weather probabilities for the potential threat.

The Day 4-8 Severe Weather Outlook graphic depicts those days where a 30% or higher probability
for severe storms is expected.

Day 1 Convective Outlook

The Day 1 Convective Outlook consists of a narrative and a graphics depicting thunderstorm and
severe thunderstorm threats across the continental United States. The narratives are written in
technical language, intended for sophisticated weather users, and provide the meteorological
reasoning for the risk areas. The text product also provides explicit information regarding the timing,
the most likely severe weather hazard and the severity of the event, when possible. The graphics
include a categorical forecast of the severe risk (slight, moderate, or high) along with a 10% or
greater forecast for thunderstorms. Separate probabilities for severe hail, wind and tornadoes are also
issued.

The Day 1 Convective Outlooks are issued 5 times daily: at 0600 UTC (initial issuance valid 1200
UTC that day until 1200 UTC the following day), 1300 UTC and 1630 UTC (the "morning updates,"
valid until 1200 UTC the next day), 2000 UTC (the "afternoon update," valid until 1200 UTC the
next day), and the 0100 UTC (the "evening update," valid until 1200 UTC the following day).

Please click here to see the probability to categorical outlook conversion tables.

Day 2 Convective Outlook

The Day 2 Convective Outlook is similar to the Day 1 Outlook in terms of a text and graphics. The
biggest difference is instead of forecasting separate probabilities for wind, hail and tornadoes, a
single combined severe weather probability is issued on the Day 2 probability Outlook. Also, the
Day 2 Outlook is issued only twice a day, at 100 am CST/CDT and 1730 UTC. This outlook covers
the period from 1200 UTC the following day to 1200 UTC the day after that. For example, if today
is Monday then the Day 2 Outlook will cover the period 1200 UTC Tuesday to 1200 UTC
Wednesday.

Day 3 Convective Outlook

The Day 3 Convective Outlook text and probabilities are similar to the Day 2 Outlooks. However,
the categorical outlook (slight, moderate and high graphic) does not include a thunder forecast and
the outlook is only issued once a day, at 400 am CST/CDT.

Day 4-8 Severe Weather Outlook

The Day 4-8 graphic consists of one map depicting the severe weather threat during the forecast
period. A single non-probability red line will be drawn on the graphic for each separate area where
there is at least a 30% probability for severe thunderstorms. This is equivalent to a higher end slight
risk threat. A text box is included with the severe weather area listing the day(s) of the potential
severe weather threat.

Plotting the Points

THERE IS A SLGT RISK OF SVR TSTMS TO THE RIGHT OF A LINE

FROM 45 ESE YUM TRM NID P38 CDC BCE U28 EVW LND 4DG LBF OLU
MKT 55 NW CMX ...CONT...40 E TOL FDY LUK 5I3 PSK 25 NE ECG.

Standard aviation identifier location codes are used to delineate the risk areas on the Day 1-3
Convective Outlooks. [A list of many of these identifiers can be found online by clicking here].
When plotted with a line drawn between each point, the outlined area forms a polygon. The points
may either fall exactly on top of the location identifiers (i.e. DAL...SPS...GAG) or may be
referenced from those points (ie. 20 NW FMY...10 E MIA) in which case the point would be xx
number of nautical miles in the given direction from that point. The previous example would read 20
nautical miles northwest of Ft. Myers FL to 10 nautical miles east of Miami. The designator
"...CONT..." is used to indicate that the risk area goes to the U.S. border, then starts again at another
location on the border. For example, part of a risk area might say "MSP INL ...CONT... SSM". This
means the risk area goes from Minneapolis to International Falls then runs along the Canadian border
to Sault Ste. Marie. The points forecast for the each outlook can be found at a link at the bottom of
the Day 1-3 Convective Outlooks.

Levels of Risk

Risk areas come in five varieties and are based on the expected number and intensity of severe
thunderstorm reports over an area:

1. GEN TSTMS (not labelled on the graphic outlook but listed in the discussion) - General (non-
severe) thunderstorms
2. SEE TEXT - A label on the graphic only
3. SLGT - Slight risk, both graphic and text
 4. MDT - Moderate risk, both graphic and text
5. HIGH - High risk, both graphic and text

The SEE TEXT label appears only on the graphic map. Although there is no cateogorical line drawn
for the labeled area, you should read the text of the outlook discussion to be aware of the potential
for a threat to develop, if environmental conditions come together. As a rule, the "SEE TEXT" is
used on Days 1-3 for areas where severe weather may be possible, but enough forecast uncertainty
exists (variability in model guidance, capping, moisture return, or other such factors) to not issue a
risk area. Note that the SPC severe thunderstorms outlooks are not meant to cover every single
possibility of a severe thunderstorm -- otherwise, severe and general thunder outlooks would often
be the same.

A SLGT risk implies that well-organized severe thunderstorms are expected but in relatively small
numbers/coverage, or a small chance of a more significant severe event. Not all severe storm events
will be covered with a SLGT risk, especially during the summer when short-lived, "pulse-type"
severe storms are relatively common during the afternoon.

A MDT risk implies a greater concentration of severe thunderstorms, and in most situations, greater
magnitude of severe weather and greater forecaster confidence compared to a SLGT risk. A MDT
risk is usually reserved for days with substantial severe storm coverage, or an enhanced chance for a
significant severe storm outbreak. Typical MDT risk days include multiple tornadic supercells with
very large hail, or intense squall lines with widespread damaging winds.

The HIGH risk implies that a major severe weather outbreak is expected, with large coverage of
severe weather and the likelihood of extreme severe (i.e., violent tornadoes or very damaging
convective wind events). The HIGH risk category is reserved for the most extreme events with the
least forecast uncertainty, and is only used a few times each year.

The outlook categories are related to the specific tornado, damaging wind, and large hail probability
forecast graphics on Day 1, and the total severe storm probabilities for the Day 2 and Day 3
outlooks.

In addition to the severe risk areas, general thunderstorms (non-severe) are outlined, but with no
label on the graphic map. Within this area, a 10% or greater probability of thunderstorm occurrence
is forecast.

Severe Thunderstorm Discussion

...SEVERE THUNDERSTORM FORECAST DISCUSSION...

...SYNOPSIS...
UPPER FLOW IS LOSING AMPLITUDE OVER U.S. AS STRONGER WLYS SHIFT NWD INTO
SRN CANADA. FORMER HURRICANE JIM...NOW A MARGINAL TROPICAL STORM...IS
WEAKENING AS IT MOVES NNEWD ACROSS FL KEYS/STRAITS. COLD FRONT CONTINUES
TO PUSH E AND S ACROSS N-CENTRAL U.S. WITH MOIST/UNSTABLE AIR MASS AVAILABLE
IN WARM SECTOR. SIGNIFICANT FRONTOLYSIS IS EXPECTED TO BE UNDERWAY OVER
OH VALLEY BY END OF PERIOD.
...WRN GREAT LAKES TO CNTRL PLAINS....
VERY MOIST AND POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE LOW LEVEL AIR MASS CONTINUES
AHEAD OF COLD FRONT NOW LOCATED FROM CENTRAL UPPER MI SWWD INTO
SERN NEB. AS AMBIENT FLOW WEAKENS GRADUALLY THROUGH PERIOD...VERTICAL
SHEAR PROFILES OVER MOST OF THE REGION WILL ONLY MARGINALLY SUPPORT A
SEVERE THREAT...HOWEVER CONVECTIVE INSTABILITY WILL REMAIN FAVORABLE.
FORECAST MLCAPE IN 2500-3500 J/KG RANGE WILL BE COMMON BY MID/LATE
AFTERNOON PERIOD OF PEAK DIABATIC HEATING...WHILE SURFACE DEW POINTS
 WILL STAY IN 70-75 DEG F RANGE. THERE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT CONVERGENCE
ALONG OR JUST AHEAD OF SURFACE FRONT TO INITIATE SEVERE MULTICELL
STORMS...WHICH WILL BE OUTFLOW-DOMINANT GIVEN WEAK STORM-RELATIVE INFLOW
AND LARGE DEW POINT DEPRESSIONS. DAMAGING DOWNDRAFTS WILL BE THE MAIN
THREAT...AND A FEW LARGE HAIL EVENTS ARE POSSIBLE AS WELL. SEVERE
THREAT SHOULD DIMINISH SHORTLY AFTER DUSK...WITH LITTLE ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT EXPECTED ALONG RESIDUAL OUTFLOW BOUNDARIES. MODIFIED
FORECAST SOUNDINGS INDICATE INSTABILITY WILL DISAPPEAR WITH A FEW
DEGREES OF NOCTURNAL DIABATIC COOLING IN THE BOUNDARY LAYER.

Each risk area has its own detailed discussion describing the factors expected to produce severe
weather and the type and timing of severe weather expected.

Using the Technical Outlooks

SPC outlooks are issued daily, in UTC time (subtract 6 hours for CST, 5 for CDT):

1. The Day 1 Outlooks will be issued at 0600 UTC, 1300 UTC, 1630 UTC, 2000 UTC and 0100
UTC year-round.
2. The Day 2 Outlooks will be issued at 0700 (0600 UTC daylight time) and 1730 UTC.

SPC outlooks are designed for more sophisticated weather customers -- although they are widely
available on the Internet -- and are considered "guidance" products. The discussions are technical
and useful in judging one's chances of being included in a watch later in the day. Spotters can be
notified that "today is a day to keep in touch" when there is a risk over your local area. This tends to
increase spotter turnout when a watch is issued. Like all guidance products, the outlooks are not a
guarantee for severe weather. The Outlook must be used in conjunction with other products to get
the full picture. It is a forecast product and is subject to change as additional data is evaluated. For
example, what appeared to be a MDT risk situation at 0600 UTC may be downgraded to a SLGT
risk at 1630 UTC as the 1200 UTC upper air soundings might show the atmosphere had stabilized
more than previously forecast. The opposite can happen also.

It is important not to rigidly associate the type of risk area (SLGT, MDT, HIGH) with the severe
potential for any given thunderstorm in the risk area. That is, just because a SLGT risk is forecast
does not necessarily mean that the thunderstorms within the risk area will be slightly severe.
Sometimes, violent tornadoes occur in SLGT or MDT risk areas as opposed to HIGH. The reason for
this is the synoptic situation producing the violent tornadoes may be confined to a relatively small
area. Another SLGT risk area may cover several states in which only one or two tornadoes may
develop. Some SLGT situations won't involve a threat of tornadoes or supercells, but sustained
multicell storms with a threat for severe hail and wind damage. HIGH risk situations, which are
rarely forecast, signifies that either an outbreak of tornadoes or extreme and widespread severe wind
event is likely.

Remember that almost any thunderstorm can, at some point in its lifetime, produce severe or nearly
severe weather. Any thunderstorm can kill. SPC severe weather outlooks, though, forecast the
development of well-organized severe weather events, most capable of damage and injury from
tornadoes, damaging winds or large hail. They are not meant to cover every isolated, brief or
marginally severe thunderstorm; otherwise the general thunder and SLGT risk lines would nearly
always be the same.

Pulse-type thunderstorms, consisting primarily of solitary brief severe updrafts (often found in
environments with weak vertical wind shear) are not considered to be organized. Convection of this
type, and isolated severe storms with marginal intensities or short durations, will likely not be
included in a risk area. When an unusually dense or large area of marginally severe reports is
anticipated, though, the area of concern will probably be included in a SLGT risk. Examples of
"organized" convection include supercells, squall lines, and multicell thunderstorm complexes.

General thunderstorm outlooks are guidance for local forecasters concerning the possibility of more
than very isolated or brief thunderstorms in or near their areas. General thunderstorm outlooks
forecast thunderstorm coverage of 10% or more of the broad region drawn since almost any
thunderstorm may produce a brief severe weather event, it doesn't necessarily mean there is a
conflict when a severe thunderstorm warning is issued by a local NWS office in an SPC general
thunderstorm outlook.

In short, no two situations are alike, even within the same risk category. This is why a narrative
discussion accompanies the outlook - to specifically describe and provide rationale for what kind of
severe weather is expected and where/when it is most likely within the risk area.

Public Severe Weather Outlooks

The Public Severe Weather Outlooks (PWO) are issued for all high risks issuances for potential
tornado outbreaks or widespread significant wind damage. This plain-language forecast is typically
issued 12-24 hours prior to the event and is used to alert NWS field offices and other weather
customers concerned with public safety of a potentially dangerous situation. A PWO is also issued
for a moderate risk outlook which contains at least a 15% probability of tornadoes or a 45%
probability of damaging wind gusts. The PWO is issued only for Day 1 Outlooks. If the probabilities
support a PWO issuance on the 0600 UTC Day 1 Outlook, a PWO would be issued around 1000
UTC and updated around 1700 UTC. If the probabilities first support a PWO issuance on the 1300
UTC Day 1 Outlook, the PWO would be issued around 1300 UTC and updated around 1700 UTC.
Below is an example of a PWO.

Here is an example of a PWO:

ZCZC MKCPWOMKC ALL

WOUS40 KWNS 050850
KSZ000-NEZ000-051645-
PUBLIC SEVERE WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER NORMAN OK
350 AM CDT SAT MAY 5 2007
...SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS EXPECTED OVER PARTS OF THE CENTRAL PLAINS
THIS AFTERNOON AND TONIGHT...
THE NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER IN NORMAN OK IS FORECASTING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A FEW STRONG TORNADOES OVER PARTS OF THE CENTRAL PLAINS
THIS AFTERNOON AND TONIGHT.
THE AREAS MOST LIKELY TO EXPERIENCE THIS ACTIVITY INCLUDE:
CENTRAL KANSAS
CENTRAL NEBRASKA
SURROUNDING THE MODERATE RISK AREA¿THERE IS A SLIGHT RISK OF SEVERE
THUNDERSTORMS FROM WEST TEXAS NORTHWARD ACROSS MUCH OF THE CENTRAL PLAINS
STATES.
A STRONG MID/UPPER JET MAX IS FORECAST TO ROTATE ACROSS THE CENTRAL
ROCKIES AND INTO THE PLAINS STATES THIS AFTERNOON AND EVENING. MEANWHILE
STRONG SOUTHERLY LOW LEVEL WINDS WILL REMAIN IN PLACE THROUGHOUT THE CENTRAL
UNITED STATES FEEDING VERY MOIST/UNSTABLE AIR NORTHWARD ACROSS PARTS OF
OKLAHOMA KANSAS AND NEBRASKA. NUMEROUS THUNDERSTORMS ARE ONGOING THIS
 MORNING ACROSS THE REGION. THESE STORMS SHOULD MOVE EASTWARD BY LATE MORNING
ALLOWING STRONG HEATING TO OCCUR ALONG THE DRYLINE FROM WEST CENTRAL NEBRASKA
INTO WEST CENTRAL KANSAS.
SUPERCELL THUNDERSTORMS ARE EXPECTED TO DEVELOP ONCE AGAIN THIS AFTERNOON
ALONG THIS AXIS TRACKING NORTH-NORTHEASTWARD DURING THE EVENING. EXTREMELY
UNSTABLE CONDITIONS ARE POSSIBLE ALONG WITH STRONG AND VEERING WINDS WITH
HEIGHT. THESE PARAMETERS INDICATE A RISK OF VERY LARGE AND DAMAGING HAIL AS
WELL AS A FEW STRONG TORNADOES.
THOSE IN THE THREATENED AREA ARE URGED TO REVIEW SEVERE WEATHER SAFETY RULES
AND TO LISTEN TO RADIO TELEVISION AND NOAA WEATHER RADIO FOR POSSIBLE
WATCHES WARNINGS AND STATEMENTS LATER TODAY.
..HART.. 05/05/2007

Mesoscale Discussions

When conditions appear favorable for severe storms development, SPC issues a Mesoscale
Discussion (MCD), normally 1 to 3 hours before issuing a weather watch. SPC also puts out MCDs
for mesoscale aspects of hazardous winter weather events including heavy snow, blizzards and
freezing rain (see below). MCDs are also issued on occasion for heavy rainfall or convective trends.

The MCD basically describes what is currently happening, what is expected in the next few hours,
the meteorological reasoning for the forecast, and when/where SPC plans to issue the watch (if
dealing with severe thunderstorm potential). Severe thunderstorm MCDs provide extra lead time on
the severe weather development and allow you to begin gearing up operations before a watch is
issued.

ZCZC SPCSWOMCD ALL

ACUS11 KWNS 152317
^^SPC MCD 152317
SCZ000-NCZ000-160215-
MESOSCALE DISCUSSION 2065
NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER NORMAN OK
0617 PM CDT TUE OCT 15 2002
AREAS AFFECTED...PAMLICO SOUND/OUTER BANKS OF NORTH
CAROLINA/CAROLINA COASTAL WATERS
CONCERNING...SEVERE THUNDERSTORM POTENTIAL
VALID 152317Z - 160215Z
WATERSPOUTS/STRONG WIND GUSTS WILL REMAIN POSSIBLE THROUGH 0200Z
IN THE COASTAL WATERS OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND NORTH CAROLINA AS
SURFACE LOW NOW ABOUT 80 ESE ILM TRACKS NORTHWARD TOWARD THE
PAMLICO SOUND AREA THIS EVENING. SOME INCREASE IN THREAT OF
TORNADOES WILL RESULT...ESPECIALLY LATER THIS EVENING.
INITIAL MCS BRUSHING THE OUTER BANDS IS JUST NORTHEAST OF MAIN
SURFACE LOW. ENTIRE MCS SHOWS BROAD ROTATION IN RADAR
IMAGERY...AND NUMEROUS EMBEDDED ROTATING STORMS ARE EVIDENT ABOUT
15-50 MILES OFFSHORE. DUE TO LARGE SHIELD OF MODERATE/HEAVY RAIN
ON NORTHERN EDGE OF MCS OVER EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA...
DESTABILIZATION PROCESS OVER LAND WILL BE SLOW DURING THE
EVENING. STILL...A COUPLE OF THE ROTATING CELLS WITH AN OUTSIDE
CHANCE OF A TORNADO WILL BRUSH NEAR THE OUTER BANKS IN THE NEXT
FEW HOURS.
NORTH-SOUTH BAND OF THUNDERSTORMS THAT HAS MOVED OFFSHORE OF THE
FLORIDA ATLANTIC COAST LIKELY MARKS THE LEADING EDGE OF THE
REGION OF UPWARD MOTION THAT WILL CAUSE SIGNIFICANT DEEPENING OF
THE SURFACE LOW AS IT SPREADS TOWARD THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL
WATERS LATER TONIGHT. CELL 75 S CHS HAS SHOWN SOME SUPERCELL
 CHARACTERISTICS AS IT TRACKS ALONG SURFACE FRONT. EXPECT
INCREASING THREAT OF WATERSPOUTS ABOUT 50 MILES OFFSHORE WITH
THIS CONVECTION IN THE NEXT FEW HOURS AS WELL.
..CRAVEN.. 10/15/2002
...PLEASE SEE WWW.SPC.NOAA.GOV FOR GRAPHIC PRODUCT...
31848001 32757916 33707776 34627680 35427636 35987545
35197453 34077533 32887698 31667909
NNNN

Heavy Rain MCD

SPC heavy rain MCDs are typically issued for:

1. 1) Rainfall rates up to 3 inches per hour are expected with slow moving convection (e.g.,
storms moving at 10 knots or less),
2. 2) rainfall amounts of at least 2 inches expected at any one location within one hour,
3. 3) rainfall rates of at least 1 « inches/hour are expected to last at least 3 hours with a total
rainfall of at least 4.5 inches, or
4. 4) the forecast of an end to a heavy rain event.

Heavy Rain MCDs will contain the expected location, rainfall rates, durations and, most importantly,
the reasoning for the forecast heavy rain episode. They're written for somewhat narrower space and
time frames than severe weather MCDs: 0-3 hours, and specific sets of counties where the greatest
rains are expected. The heavy rain MD is intended as forecast guidance to local NWS offices about
the most significant heavy rainfall area; and is not intended to focus on large areas of heavy rain or
to be a QPF product.

If heavy rains have already occurred, a heavy rain MCD usually will not be written, unless:

1. 1) Changing meteorological parameters that indicate an end to heavy rains,

2. 2) A heavy rain episode threatens within an area of severe thunderstorms,
3. 3) Additional storms with heavy rains are expected across the same area where recent heavy
rains have occurred, or
4. 4) Heavy rains are expected to continue while moving into a different area.

Winter Weather MCD

Winter weather MCD's focus on the meteorological processes expected to cause hazardous winter
weather: the where, when, what, and (most importantly) why. The meaning of "hazardous weather"
varies; but discussions on heavy snow are issued for lake effect snowstorms, climatologically
anomalous events or unexpected events. Winter weather MCDs are also issued for forecast snowfall
rates of at least 1" per hour in the lowlands and plains, and 2" per hour for areas higher than 4000
feet. Winter MCDs are also issued for freezing rain events especially when amounts are expected to
greater than 0.05" per three hours, or for blizzard conditions lasting over three hours.

If hazardous winter weather has already occurred, a MCD usually will not be written, except for:

1. 1) Changing meteorological parameters that indicate an end to the event

 2. 2) An episode that may have been overlooked,
3. 3) Further hazardous winter weather across the same area where recent heavy snow, freezing
rain or blizzard conditions have occurred, or
4. 4) When an event is expected to continue and shift into a different area.

Severe Weather Watches

When conditions become favorable for organized severe thunderstorms and tornadoes to develop, the
SPC issues a severe thunderstorm or tornado watch. A tornado can occur in either type of watch, but
tornado watches are issued when conditions are especially favorable for either multiple and or strong
tornadoes. Watches encourage the general public to stay alert for changing weather conditions and
possible warnings. For emergency managers, storm spotters, and the broadcast media, watches
provide valuable lead time to gear up operations and increase staffing. Although the general watch
area is approximated through the issuance of a parallelogram, the actual watch is issued by counties
and collaborated with local NWS offices. Therefore, some counties in the watch may be outside the
parallelogram, while come counties in the parallelogram may not be in the actual watch issuance.
The watch issued by counties provides a more precise area for the severe threat than the
parallelogram.

A typical watch ranges in size from 20,000 to 40,000 square miles, though some are smaller and
others larger, depending on the meteorological situation. In most years, a total of 800 to 1000 severe
thunderstorm and tornado watches will be issued. Watches are numbered sequentially, with the count
reset at the beginning of each year. In the watch header below, the last digit of the number of this
watch is 3 (e.g., SEL3), and the whole watch number is given several lines later. A typical watch
duration is 6 to 7 hours, but it may be canceled, replaced, or reissued as required. A watch is not a
warning, and should not be interpreted as a guarantee that there will be severe weather! When the
SPC feels confident about the possibility of severe weather in a specific area, the watch is usually
issued at least 1 hour prior the onset of severe weather.

SEL3
URGENT - IMMEDIATE BROADCAST REQUESTED
TORNADO WATCH NUMBER 843
NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER NORMAN OK
340 PM EDT TUE AUG 19 2008
THE NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER HAS ISSUED A
TORNADO WATCH FOR PORTIONS OF
EAST-CENTRAL AND NORTHEAST FLORIDA PENINSULA
COASTAL WATERS
EFFECTIVE THIS TUESDAY AFTERNOON AND WEDNESDAY MORNING FROM 340
PM UNTIL 100 AM EDT.
TORNADOES...THUNDERSTORM WIND GUSTS TO 70 MPH...AND DANGEROUS
LIGHTNING ARE POSSIBLE IN THESE AREAS.
THE TORNADO WATCH AREA IS APPROXIMATELY ALONG AND 40 STATUTE
MILES EAST AND WEST OF A LINE FROM 45 MILES NORTH NORTHWEST OF
DAYTONA BEACH FLORIDA TO 45 MILES SOUTH SOUTHEAST OF VERO BEACH
FLORIDA. FOR A COMPLETE DEPICTION OF THE WATCH SEE THE
ASSOCIATED WATCH OUTLINE UPDATE (WOUS64 KWNS WOU3).
REMEMBER...A TORNADO WATCH MEANS CONDITIONS ARE FAVORABLE FOR
TORNADOES AND SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS IN AND CLOSE TO THE WATCH
AREA. PERSONS IN THESE AREAS SHOULD BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR
THREATENING WEATHER CONDITIONS AND LISTEN FOR LATER STATEMENTS
AND POSSIBLE WARNINGS.
 OTHER WATCH INFORMATION...CONTINUE...WW 841...WW 842...
DISCUSSION...A FAVORABLE COLLOCATION OF STRONG LOW-LEVEL SHEAR AND
MODEST INSTABILITY WILL PERSIST THIS EVENING INTO TONIGHT IN
RIGHT-FORWARD QUADRANT OF TROPICAL STORM FAY. AS SUCH...THE THREAT
FOR SUPERCELLS CAPABLE OF A FEW TORNADOES WILL CONTINUE WITHIN
PRIMARY SPIRAL BAND WHICH IS BEING MAINTAINED FROM N OF THE CENTER
SSEWD THROUGH THE ERN SEMI-CIRCLE OF THE TROPICAL SYSTEM.
AVIATION...TORNADOES AND A FEW SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS WITH EXTREME
TURBULENCE AND SURFACE WIND GUSTS TO 60 KNOTS. A FEW CUMULONIMBI
WITH MAXIMUM TOPS TO 500. MEAN STORM MOTION VECTOR 16035.
...MEAD/HART

Watch Description

The watch describes in plain language the state(s) affected, valid times, severe weather potential,
meaning of the watch, replacements (if any), a short weather discussion, and aviation information for
pilots.

In the AVIATION section, the storm top numbers are in hundreds of feet; so "500" is 50,000 feet.
MEAN STORM MOTION VECTOR is the average expected motion of all the storms in the watch:
The first 3 digits are direction the storms will move from on a 360-degree compass; and the last two
digits are the storm's expected forward (ground) speed in knots. So in the watch example above,
storms are forecast to move from the southeast (from 160 degrees) at 35 knots.

When weather conditions are favorable for a potential tornado outbreak with extreme tornadoes, the
SPC will often highlight a tornado watch with the following "enhanced" wording:
...THIS IS A PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS SITUATION...

Also, similar wording will be used in severe thunderstorm watches when extremely destructive and
widespread thunderstorm wind events are anticipated.

Unfortunately, not all severe weather situations are clear cut. For example, severe weather may be
expected IF thunderstorms form, but there may be doubt about whether storms will develop. In such
cases, SPC may wait until storms actually develop before they issue a watch. Sometimes warnings
may precede a watch, especially when weaker severe storms develop before the greater severe threat
has developed. If severe weather develops unexpectedly, but is expected to be short lived (last less
than a couple of hours) or is only very isolated, a watch probably will not be issued. Instead, the
storms would be handled with warnings issued by your local NWS office.

Watch Outline Update (WOU) and Watch County Notification (WCN)

When a watch is issued, the SPC transmits a product called a Watch Outline Update (WOU). This
product contains a listing of all counties in the watch. The local NWS offices will also issue a Watch
County Notification (WCN) message that lists the counties in the watch within their area of
responsibility. Once the watch is issued, the local offices will issue WCN messages to take counties
out of the watch, add counties as needed and even at times, extend the watch expiration time. The
WOU will be updated at least hourly to incorporate the changes made in the WCNs.
Watch Probabilities

Not all watches are created equal, so to provide a better perspective of what is expected severe
weather-wise, a set of watch probabilities is included with each watch issuance. Two probabilities
for each severe hazard (tornadoes, damaging winds and hail) are included along with the probability
of 6 or more severe events. A table illustrating these probabilities is included below.

Tornadoes
Probability of 2 or more tornadoes Mod (40%)

Probability of 1 or more strong (F2-F5) tornadoes Low (20%)

Wind
Probability of 10 or more severe wind events Low (20%)

Probability of 1 or more wind events > 65 knots Low (10%)

Hail
Probability of 10 or more severe hail events Low (<5%)

Probability of 1 or more hailstones > 2 inches Low (<5%)

Combined Severe Hail/Wind

Probability of 6 or more combined severe hail/wind events Mod (50%)

Watch Status Messages

Watch Status Messages will be issued at the bottom of each hour (between 20 and 40 minutes after),
during the lifetime of each severe thunderstorm and/or tornado watch. The first status message
usually will not be issued until the watch has been in effect at least 30 minutes. Each watch status
message uses the distance in statue miles relative to anchor points and to the right of a line for
delineating where the severe weather threat continues. The watch status lines are drawn from one
edge of the watch parallelogram to the other edge. The watch status process also includes deselecting
those counties where the severe weather threat, to the left of the status line, appears to be over.

The watch status messages rarely include a discussion of the meteorology affecting the watch area,
as this information will be contained in a mesoscale discussion (MD). The exception may be with
the final watch status message, where a brief sentence sometimes will be included explaining why
the watch will be re-issued or allowed to expire.

Watch Status example:

WOUS20 KWNS 252240

WWASPC
SPC WW-A 252240
NYZ000-OHZ000-PAZ000-LEZ000-LOZ000-092300-
STATUS REPORT ON WW 737
THE SEVERE WEATHER THREAT CONTINUES TO THE RIGHT OF A LINE FROM 50 SW HUM TO 30
NW BE.
..KERR..11/25/07
 ATTN...WFO...LCH...LIX...
&&
SEVERE WEATHER THREAT CONTINUES FOR THE FOLLOWING AREAS
LAC075-252300-
LA
. LOUISIANA PARISHES INCLUDED ARE
PLAQUEMINES
GMZ550-252300
CW
. ADJACENT COASTAL WATERS INCLUDED ARE
COASTAL WATERS FROM THE SOUTHWEST PASS OF THE MISSISIPPI RIVER
TO LOWER ATCHAFALAYA RIVER LA OUT 20 NM
$$
THE WATCH STATUS MESSAGE IS FOR GUIDANCE PURPOSES ONLY. PLEASE REFER
TO WATCH COUNTY NOTIFICATION STATEMENTS FOR OFFICIAL INFORMATION ON
COUNTIES... INDEPENDENT CITIES AND MARINE ZONES CLEARED FROM SEVERE
THUNDERSTORM AND TORNADO WATCHES.
$$

Fire Weather Outlooks

The purpose of the SPC Fire Weather program is to provide a national fire weather guidance product
for use by the National Weather Service, as well as other federal, state, and local government
agencies. The product is intended to delineate areas of the contiguous U. S. where the pre-existing
fuel conditions, combined with forecast weather conditions during the next 8 days will result in a
significant threat for wildfires.

There are three types of Fire Weather Outlook areas - a Critical Fire Weather Area for Wind and
Relative Humidity, an Extremely Critical Fire Weather Area for Extreme Conditions of Wind and
Relative Humidity, and a Critical Fire Weather Area for Dry Thunderstorms.

The SPC Fire Weather Outlook is comprised of a Day 1 and a Day 2 forecast, in addition to a Day
3-8 forecast. Each forecast period will contain text products along with corresponding graphic
products. The Day 1 Fire Weather Outlook is scheduled for issuance at 4:00 AM CST/CDT and is
updated at 17Z. The Day 2 Fire Weather Outlook is scheduled for issuance at 10Z and is updated at
20Z. The Day 3-8 Fire Weather Outlook is scheduled for issuance at 22Z.

The Day 1 Outlook covers the 24-hour period from 12Z on the morning of product issuance to 12Z
the following morning, with the update covering the 19-hour period from 17Z at issuance to 12Z the
following morning. The Day 2 Outlook covers the following 24-hour period out to 48 hours. The
Day 3-8 Outlook covers the period of 48 to 192 hours from 12Z on the morning of product issuance.

The outlook type depends upon the severity of the forecast weather, antecedent conditions, and
climatology relative to the given geographic region. Critical Fire Weather Areas for Wind and
Relative Humidity are typically issued when strong winds (>20 mph) and low RH are expected to
occur where dried fuels exist. Critical Fire Weather for Dry Thunderstorms are typically issued when
widespread or numerous thunderstorms producing little wetting rain (<0.10 in) are expected to occur
where dried fuels exist. Extremely Critical Fire Weather Areas for Wind and Relative Humidity are
issued when very strong winds and very low RH are expected to occur with very dry fuels.
Extremely Critical areas will be rarely issued, similar to the very low frequency of High Risk
Convective Outlooks.

Statistics from the Storm Prediction Center

The SPC rough log is compiled by an automatic PC logging program running at the Storm Prediction
Center at Norman, OK, and is issued daily. On the Web, you can find it here. It is also available via
the WX-STORM served by LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU. The log is a raw listing of all continental U.S.
severe weather reports that SPC received during the 24 hour period from 6:00 AM CST the previous
day up until 6:00 AM CST on the day of issuance. This is only a preliminary list. Because the
logging process is automated, improperly formatted reports from NWS field offices may not get into
the data base. Also, reports could arrive after the daily log is compiled, and be missed in the list. All
occurrance times are referenced to Central Standard Time -- even if the event occurred in a different
time zone or during Daylight Savings Time.

Reports are lumped under three basic categories: tornado reports, large hail/strong wind reports, and
other severe reports. The "tornado reports" section is self explanatory. The "large hail/strong winds
reports" section contains information on very large hail and major wind damage. The "other severe
reports" section contains miscellaneous reports of marginally severe weather such as hail one inch in
diameter or smaller.

The log is a raw listing of all reports received. The final list of reports is found in the monthly
publication Storm Data, which is compiled by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) several
months later from report lists submitted by local NWS offices. For details about Storm Data, contact
the National Climatic Data Center thru orders@ncdc.noaa.gov.

Again, there is no guarantee as to the accuracy of SPC rough log reports and should be regarded as
strictly preliminary. Again, the rough log is automated and depends on properly formatted local
storm reports (LSRs) sent by local NWS offices. Reports may be reclassified as time goes on, too.
What's initially reported as a tornado today might be called straight-line wind damage a few days
later after a survey. While SPC maintains a detailed database in Norman, they do not issue
corrections to the daily report log. Further, if the report doesn't make it into the log during the 24
hour log period in which the event occurred, the event will not be listed. That is, wind damage
discovered today from a storm that happened two days ago will not be listed in today's report log.

Here's what a typical report log report might look like:

ZCZC MKCSTADTS
WWUS60 KMKC 131200
SPC TORNADO AND SEVERE THUNDERSTORM REPORTS
UNOFFICIAL - FOR OFFICIAL REPORTS, SEE PUBLICATION 'STORM DATA'
FOR 06CST TUE OCT 12 1993 THRU 06CST WED OCT 13 1993
EVENT LOCATION REMARKS (CST)TIME
TORNADO REPORTS..........TORNADO REPORTS..........TORNADO REPORTS.....
80 *TORN 2 SW DUSTER TX (28 WSW SEP) 12/2145
PSBL TORNADO; HOMES DMGD; SVRL PERSONS FTW/LSR 32139865
HOSPITALIZED

.......LRG HAIL/STRONG WIND RPTS.......LRG HAIL/STRONG WIND RPTS......

55 A450 PROFFITT TX (55 WNW MWL) 12/1905
FTW/LSR 33199888
 12 WNDG BRADY TX (49 NNE JCT) 12/1642
SIGNS DOWN.STEEPLE OFF CHURCH; TREES & POWER SJT/LSR 31139933
POLES DOWN.
2 G 56 DRYDEN TX (17 E P07) 12/1420
60-70 MPH WNDS; SPOTTER RPRT MAF/SVS 300510211

.........OTHER SEVERE REPORTS..........OTHER SEVERE REPORTS.........

91 A 75 ADDICKS TX (24 WNW HOU) 12/1215
DIME SIZED HAIL NR LAMAR HIGH SCHOOL HOU/LSR 29789565

How to Read an SPC Report Log

1. Event Number: 80 (the 80th severe event received during this 24 hour period).
2. Event: "*TORN" Tornado.
3. Location: Occurred 2 SW Duster, TX. Referenced to the closest airport, the tornado occurred
28 miles west-southwest of Stephenville, TX.
4. Date/Time: 12/2145 Occurred on the 12th day of the month at 2145 CST.
5. Details: They are calling this a possible tornado. Further investigation may or may not support
this. The event resulted in the hospitalization of several people.
6. Source: FTW/LSR. SPC learned about this from a Local Storm Report (LSR) issued by the
National Weather Service at Ft. Worth, TX (FTW).
7. Coordinates: The report location was at 32.13 degrees north, 92.65 degrees west.

1. Event Number: 55 (the 55th severe event received during this 24 hour period).
2. Event: "A450" Hail 4.50 inches in diameter.
3. Location: Occurred in Proffitt, TX. Referenced to the closest airport, the hail occurred 55 miles
west-northwest of Mineral Wells, TX.
4. Date/Time: 12/1905 Occurred on the 12th day of the month at 1905 CST.
5. Details: No details.
6. Source: FTW/LSR. SPC learned about this from a Local Storm Report (LSR) issued by the
National Weather Service at Ft. Worth, TX (FTW).
7. Coordinates: The hail was reported at 33.19 degrees north, 98.88 degrees west.

Here are some of the more common report abbreviations:

1. *TORN Tornado (always has asterisk to catch your eye).

2. A nnn Hailstones and diameter in inches. 475 would be 4.75 inches.
3. WNDG Wind damage (usually has description of damage).
4. G nnn Wind gust and speed in knots.
5. B 0 Pilot report (report of event occurring while aircraft is aloft).

Hourly Severe Weather Report Log

This is an hourly updated version of the daily report log. It is in the same format, except for some
coding in the header:
 ZCZC MKCSTAHRY
WWUS60 KMKC 131200
SPC TORNADO AND SEVERE THUNDERSTORM REPORTS
UNOFFICIAL - FOR OFFICIAL REPORTS, SEE PUBLICATION 'STORM DATA'
FOR 06CST TUE OCT 12 1993 THRU 22CST WED OCT 13 1993
EVENT LOCATION REMARKS (CST)TIME
TORNADO REPORTS..........TORNADO REPORTS..........TORNADO REPORTS.....
80 *TORN 2 SW DUSTER TX (28 WSW SEP) 12/2145
PSBL TORNADO; HOMES DMGD; SVRL PERSONS FTW/LSR 32139865
HOSPITALIZED

.......LRG HAIL/STRONG WIND RPTS.......LRG HAIL/STRONG WIND RPTS......

55 A450 PROFFITT TX (55 WNW MWL) 12/1905
FTW/LSR 33199888
12 WNDG BRADY TX (49 NNE JCT) 12/1642
SIGNS DOWN.STEEPLE OFF CHURCH; TREES & POWER SJT/LSR 31139933
POLES DOWN.
2 G 56 DRYDEN TX (17 E P07) 12/1420
60-70 MPH WNDS; SPOTTER RPRT MAF/SVS 300510211

.........OTHER SEVERE REPORTS..........OTHER SEVERE REPORTS.........

91 A 75 ADDICKS TX (24 WNW HOU) 12/1215
DIME SIZED HAIL NR LAMAR HIGH SCHOOL HOU/LSR 29789565
15 B200 O45 (ORL)ORLANDO EXEC ARPT FL 12/1655
OV ORL 045008/TM 2255/FL010/TP PARO/TB ORL/UUA 28558133
2 IN DIA HAIL

The hourly log will contain all reports received by SPC from 0600 CST (12Z) through the latest full
hour.

Monthly Tornado Statistics

The monthly tornado statistics are issued by SPC at irregular intervals. Let's look at the product:

ZCZC MKCSTAMTS
TTAA00 KNAW DDHHMM
STORM PREDICTION CENTER (NORMAN OK) ...THROUGH 6 AM CDT 02/15/99
STATISTICS FOR TORNADO TOTALS AND TORNADO RELATED DEATHS
............NUMBER OF TORNADOES............. NUMBER OF KILLER
TORNADO DEATHS TORNADOES
....1999.... ....1998.... 1997 1996 3YR 3YR
PRELIM FINAL PRELIM FINAL FINAL FINAL AVG 99 98 97 96 AVG 99 98 97
JAN 169 - 20 49 50 35 45 19 - 2 1 2 9 - 2
FEB 9 - 56 78 23 14 38 - 41 1 1 14 - 4 1
MAR - - 66 80 102 71 84 - 16 28 6 17 - 4 9
APR - - 196 208 114 177 166 - 55 1 12 23 - 14 1
MAY - - 309 326 225 235 262 - 10 29 1 13 - 5 3
JUN - - 372 400 193 128 240 - 3 - - 1 - 2 -
JUL - - 59 82 188 202 157 - - 4 1 2 - - 4
AUG - - 32 64 84 72 73 - - 1 - 1 - - 1
SEP - - 61 109 32 101 81 - 2 1 - 1 - 2 1
OCT - - 64 66 100 68 78 - 2 - - 1 - 2 -
NOV - - 18 19 25 55 33 - - - 2 1 - - -
DEC - - 1 - 12 15 15 - - - 1 1 - - -
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- --
SUM 178 - 1254 1481 1148 1173 1272 19 129 67 25 77 9 33 22
 MCCARTHY
NNNN

The statistics are broken down by month and contain data for the last four years. An "-" in a column
means the data is missing or not yet available. There is also a column called "3 YR AVG" that gives
the average number of tornadoes per month (based on the 3 years' data). In the 1998 columns under
"NUMBER OF TORNADOES" there were 20 tornadoes initially reported in January under the
PRELIM (preliminary) category. SPC does not include reports of "unconfirmed" or "possible"
tornadoes in the PRELIM numbers.

When the digital Storm Data database arrives from the NWS Office of Meteorology, FINAL
numbers go in that column. Those include removal of any erroneous/duplicate reports or added
reports which were initially missed or misclassified. The FINAL numbers are not whole
tornadoes, but instead county-segments of tornado tracks, which accounts for much of the
increase between PRELIM and FINAL. The NWS uses county-segments because warnings are
verified by county. For example: Tornado A stays in one county. Its whole path stays counted as 1.
Tornado B is a long-tracker which crossed parts of 8 counties. Its FINAL breakdown is 8. Therefore,
in most cases, the FINAL totals will be more than the PRELIM values, because of the county-
segment breakdown.

The DEATHS columns are simply the number of people killed by month for the years 96 through 98
and the average killed (3 years) per month. The KILLERS columns represent killer tornado events
for the current year and the 3-year average. A tornado is counted as a killer if one or more persons
were killed. If 100 people were killed by a single tornado it would be counted as one killer event.
Multiple killer tornadoes on the same day are counted as separate events.

Along the bottom of the report are totals for the columns and a simplified re-cap. For example, there
were 1254 preliminary (PRELIM) reports of tornadoes in 1998, versus 1481 tornado segments
FINAL through Dec 1, 1998.

Killer Tornado Statistics

The killer tornado statistics are issued by SPC at irregular intervals, as new information rolls in for
this year's killer tornado events. Let's look at the product:

ZCZC MKCSTATIJ
TTAA00 KNAW DDHHMM
STORM PREDICTION CENTER (NORMAN OK)
CST
# DATE TIME LOCATION DEATHS A B C D WATCH F
CIRCUMSTANCES
= ====== ==== ===================== ====== = = = = ====== ==
=============
1 JAN 02 0040 BUNA TX 1 1 0 0 0 WT0003 F2 1M
2 JAN 17 1825 JACKSON TN 7 7 0 0 0 WT0012 F4 07?
3 JAN 17 1900 SAULSBURY TN 1 1 0 0 0 WT0012 F1 01?
4 JAN 17 1905 ATWOOD TN 1 1 0 0 0 WT0013 F? 01?
5 JAN 21 1720 CENTER HILL AR 2 2 0 0 0 WT0018 F2 01M 01V
6 JAN 21 1720 PLEASANT PLAINS AR 1 1 0 0 0 WT0018 F2 01M
7 JAN 21 1847 LITTLE ROCK AR 3 3 0 0 0 WT0018 F3 01M 01V
01P
8 JAN 21 1935 BEEBE AR 2 2 0 0 0 WT0018 F3 02H
9 JAN 22 0330 7N CAMDEN TN 1 1 0 0 0 WT0027 F3 01O
-- -- - - -
TOTALS: 19 19 0 0 0
BY STATE: TN 10 AR 08 TX 01
 BY CIRCUMSTANCE: 04M 02H 02V 01O 01P 09?
PRELIMINARY THRU 30 JAN 99.
... EDWARDS ...

The killer tornadoes are listed in the chronological order they happened, by DATE and CST TIME.
LOCATION is self-explanatory. DEATHS is number of deaths in the whole tornado path -- not juct
the given location. The ABCD column letters represent the number of deaths:

1. A = In tornado watch
2. B = In severe thunderstorm watch
3. C = "Close" to the watch (15 minutes or 25 miles)
4. D = No watch in effect

If the tornado was in a watch, the watch type and number is given. For example, WT0012 is
Tornado Watch number 12. If known, the F-scale damage rating of the tornado is listed; if not, a "?"
mark is entered. The deaths are broken down by the following circmstances of the victims, if known:

1. H = House (permanent foundation)

2. M = Mobile home (a.k.a. "manufactured home")
3. O = Outdoors (not inside any vehicle, mobile home or permanent building)
4. P = Permanent structure (school, garage, factory, store, warehouse, truck stop, etc.)
5. V = Vehicle (includes parked RVs)

Information for the killer tornadoes list comes from Local Storm Reports (LSRs) and Public
Information Statements (PNS) issued by local NWS offices, supplemented by news from internal
NWS event memos and Internet media accounts. Since killer tornado information -- especially death
counts, circumstances and F scale, is often not complete until many days later, these numbers are
very preliminary and subject to change as more information arrives.

Top/About the SPC/Home

 weather.gov 

Site Map News Organization  Search for:   NCEP All NOAA Go

 

Local forecast by
"City, St" or "ZIP" NWS/SPC Watch, Warning, Advisory Display
City, St   Go
Note: SPC decodes NWS Zone Forecast Products which may delay display of recently issued NWS
watch-warning information.
(Ten minute update. Click map for larger legacy graphic, click here for 5 min. warning summary.)
NCEP Quarterly
Newsletter

Home
SPC Products
   All SPC Forecasts
   Current Watches
   Meso. Discussions
   Conv. Outlooks
   Fire Wx Forecasts
     RSS Feeds
   E-Mail Alerts
Weather Information
   Storm Reports
   NWS Hazards Map
   Watch/Warning Map
   National RADAR
   Product Archive
   Norman, OK WX
   NOAA Weather Radio
Research
   Non-op. Products
   Forecast Tools
   Svr. Tstm. Events
   SPC Publications
   SPC-NSSL HWT
Education & Outreach Note: SPC decodes NWS Zone Forecast Products which may delay display of recently issued NWS
   About the SPC watch-warning information.
   SPC FAQ Note: SPC plans to replace this WWA page with the National Weather Hazards page in the near future.
   About Tornadoes NWS Warnings and Advisories on this map become active links to IWIN products (below):
   About Derechos A new browser window will open to display these text products.
   WCM Page Convective/Tropical
Flooding Winter Weather Non-Precipitation
   Enh. Fujita Page Weather
   Cool Images
Tornado Watch Flash Flood Watch Blizzard Warning High Wind Warning or
   Our History
Tornado Warning* Flash Flood Warning* Winter Storm Advisory
   Public Affairs
Severe Thunderstorm Coastal/Flood Watch Watch
Misc.
Watch Coastal/Flood Warning Winter Storm
   Staff
Severe Thunderstorm Small Stream Flood Warning
   Links
Warning* Advisory Snow Advisory
Contact Us
Hurricane Watch Freezing Rain
   SPC Feedback
Hurricane Warning Advisory
Tropical Storm Watch Ice Storm Warning
Tropical Storm Warning Winter Weather
Advisory

Weather Topics:
Watches, Mesoscale Discussions, Outlooks, Fire Weather, All Products, Contact Us
NOAA / National Weather Service Disclaimer Privacy Policy
National Centers for Environmental Prediction Information Quality Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Storm Prediction Center Credits About Us
120 David L. Boren Blvd. Glossary Career Opportunities
Norman, OK 73072 U.S.A.
spc.feedback@noaa.gov
Page last modified: May 14, 2008
 FACTOID # 3: If Alaska were its own country, it would be the 26th largest in total
  area, slightly larger than Iran. Interesting geography facts »  

 Home   Statistics   States A-Z   Flags   Maps   FAQ   About 

   

SEARCH ALL FACTS & STATISTICS    Advanced view

Search encyclopedia, statistics and

Geography
Geography (* = Graphable)
forums:  

 
 

  Search » Tornadoes
Tornadoes > Total>cost
Total cost* of
of damage damage * Go »

Geography Statistics > Tornadoes > Total cost of damage

(most recent) by state

VIEW DATA:   Totals    Per capita     Per $ GDP   Definition     Source      Printable version   

    Bar Graph    Pie Chart     Map  

Showing latest available data.

Rank   States  Amount 

# 1   Texas: $1,955,927,552.00 
# 2   Indiana: $1,648,654,336.00 
# 3   Kansas: $1,212,980,480.00 
# 4   Georgia: $1,117,426,176.00 
# 5   Oklahoma: $1,065,659,392.00 
# 6   Minnesota: $1,015,354,624.00 
# 7   Ohio: $965,464,832.00 
# 8   Illinois: $823,819,264.00 
# 9   Missouri: $739,382,784.00 
# 10   Iowa: $709,211,904.00 
# 11   Nebraska: $632,463,872.00 
# 12   Massachusetts: $617,793,280.00 
# 13   Pennsylvania: $615,033,088.00 
# 14   Alabama: $609,664,768.00 
# 15   Louisiana: $593,237,248.00 
WHAT'S NEW # 16   Mississippi: $541,601,536.00 
Updated crime data!
# 17   Arkansas: $516,939,264.00 
Making it super easy »
We have more quizzes » # 18   Florida: $498,256,384.00 
See What's Hot on » # 19   Wisconsin: $410,756,864.00 
The Full Wiki marries »
# 20   Connecticut: $385,388,800.00 
# 21   North Carolina: $365,218,048.00 
TOP STATS
# 22   Michigan: $345,038,592.00 
Richest
Most Murderous # 23   Kentucky: $282,578,688.00 
Most Taxed # 24   South Carolina: $244,613,632.00 
Most Populous
Poorest # 25   Tennessee: $228,306,928.00 
Most Educated # 26   New York: $184,096,880.00 
Most Unemployed
# 27   South Dakota: $169,198,736.00 
Healthiest
Penny pinchers   # 28   Virginia: $124,738,048.00 
Most Trigger Happy # 29   North Dakota: $97,327,760.00 
 Best Place to Live
# 30   Colorado: $67,881,104.00 
Largest
# 31   California: $63,260,032.00 
More Top Stats »
# 32   Arizona: $58,217,376.00 
# 33   New Jersey: $53,084,384.00 
RECENT UPDATES
Transportation > US rapid # 34   Oregon: $50,864,688.00 
transit systems by ridership >
# 35   Maryland: $38,737,744.00 
Route miles
Sports > Arizona Cardinals > # 36   Wyoming: $34,136,448.00 
First-round draft picks > Player
# 37   Montana: $26,006,272.00 
Military > State Defense Forces
> Naval Division # 38   New Mexico: $25,802,048.00 
More Recent Updates » # 39   West Virginia: $21,638,544.00 
# 40   New Hampshire: $9,071,389.00 
# 41   Maine: $7,104,690.00 
# 42   Delaware: $5,628,547.00 
# 43   Hawaii: $5,467,620.00 
   
# 44   Idaho: $4,844,390.00 
# 45   Vermont: $3,512,473.00 
# 46   Washington: $2,107,114.00 
# 47   Rhode Island: $1,979,656.00 
# 48   Nevada: $1,545,829.00 
# 49   Utah: $941,532.00 
# 50   Puerto Rico: $815,160.00 
# 51   Alaska: $543.00 
= 52   Guam: $0.00 
District of
= 52   $0.00 
Columbia:
American
= 52   $0.00 
Samoa:
US Virgin
= 52   $0.00 
Islands:
Total: $19,198,781,343.00  
Weighted
$349,068,751.69  
average:

DEFINITION: Total cost of damage from tornadoes during the period 1950 to 1994, in adjusted US dollars.

SOURCE: Storm Prediction Center (SPC)

SEE ALSO

RELATED LINKS:
Subscribe to our Geography feeds (stats: RSS / Atom, factoids: RSS / Atom)
Save this page to  del.icio.us / furl / your bookmarks

COMMENTARY Post Reply     

armand I think that this site is really reliabel if you are looking for the cost
14th March 2011

Jeff fafa Ray look at the figure below it is from 1950-1994. Bloody Prick
11th March 2011

bob THAT CRAZY COSTING SERVES YOU AMERICAN RIGHT BLOODY AMERICANS!!!!
3rd December 2010

ray On this chart,is all this money spent in one year?If not, what time period?
30th September 2010
 There are 1 more (non-authoritative) comments on this page

Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here

Your name

Your comments

Submit Comment »

Want to know more?

Search encyclopedia, statistics and   Search »
forums:

Press Releases |  Feeds | Contact

© Copyright StateMaster.com 2003-2011. All Rights Reserved. Usage implies agreement with terms, 0408c, e
Sign In View Cart About ASCE About Civil Engineering Contact Us Donate Now MyASCE Shop ASCE

enter search here...  

KNOWLEDGE & LEARNING LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT ISSUES & ADVOCACY MEMBERSHIP & COMMUNITY

ASCE LIBRARY JOURNALS » PROCEEDINGS » CONTRACT DOCUMENTS » MYTOOLS » SUBSCRIBE BOOKSTORE

You are not logged in to this journal. Log In

Natural Hazards Review / Volume 10 / Issue 4 / TECHNICAL PAPERS Previous Article | Next Article

Tornado Losses in the United States LOGIN or SELECT A PURCHASE OPTION:

Add to Cart Permissions Login to Login to
Natural Hazards Rev. 10, 145 (2009); doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2009)10:4(145) (6 pages) (US$30) Read Online Download
Stanley A. Changnon (HTML) PDF
Professor, Illinois State Water Survey, Univ. of Illinois, 2204 Griffith Dr., Champaign, IL 61820. E-mail: schangno@uiuc.edu

(Submitted 10 January 2008; accepted 20 May 2009; published online 15 October 2009)

Abstract References (19) Citing Articles (2) Article Objects (9)   Alerts   Tools   Share  

Insurance data for tornado damages during 1949–2006 revealed 793 tornado events KEYWORDS
that each caused >$1 million in losses. The average annual loss of these tornado
catastrophes is $982 million, an amount that greatly exceeds the existing average of ASCE SUBJECT HEADINGS
$462 million based on estimates from government records. Tornado losses typically Tornadoes, Damage, Assessment, Insurance, Risk management, United
occurred in only one state but when tornadoes occurred with floods or hurricanes, States

the losses occurred in four or five states. Tornado catastrophes and losses were
most frequent in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, and relatively frequent in many
Midwestern states. The temporal distribution of tornado catastrophes revealed large ARTICLE DATA
interannual variability with a few years of major loss and many years with none.
PERMALINK
Tornado-only catastrophes and their losses had flat trends for 1949–2006 but trends
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2009)10:4(145)
were upward for cases of tornadoes with floods and cases when tornadoes occurred
with hurricanes. These result from upward trends in flooding across the nation and
the tornado-hurricane temporal increase results from time-related increases in
 hurricane-prone storm conditions and from coastal society’s growing vulnerability to
PUBLICATION DATA
storm damages.
ISSN:
© 2009 ASCE 1527-6988 (print)  
1527-6996 (online)

Acknowledgments PUBLISHER:
ASCE
The writer thanks Gary Kerney of the Property Claim Service for providing the
unique insurance data and Eileen Deremiah who prepared the graphics.

Article Outline

I. Introduction
II. Data and Analysis
III. Dimensions of Losses
IV. Spatial Distributions
V. Temporal Distributions
VI. Conclusions

Your Recent History

Recently Viewed

Tornado Losses in the United States

ASCE Home | Books and Journals | ASCE Conferences | Civil Engineering Database | Bookstore | Terms of Use | Feedback
Copyright © 1996 - 2011, American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE Copyright ASCE FAQs ASCE Privacy ASCE Questions ASCE Terms & Conditions
 weather.gov 

Site Search for:   NCEP All NOAA  

Go
News Organization 
Map
Annual U.S. Killer Tornado Statistics
Local forecast by Latest U.S. Killer Tornadoes (AWIPS ID:STATIJ)
"City, St" or "ZIP" Annual Summary: 2011 |2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000
City, St   Go
Back to Severe Weather Event Summaries

Latest U.S. Killer Tornado Statistics (AWIPS ID:STATIJ)

NCEP Quarterly ZCZC STATIJ ALL
Newsletter NWUS23 KWNS 172015
2011 PRELIMINARY KILLER TORNADOES
Home NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER NORMAN OK
0315 PM CDT SUN APR 17 2011
SPC Products
   All SPC Forecasts TIME
## DATE CST LOCATION DEATHS A B C D WATCH EF CIRCUMSTANCE
   Current Watches -- ------ ---- ----------- ------ - - - - ----- -- --------
   Meso. Discussions ----
01 FEB 28 1235 FRANKLIN CO. TN 1 1 - - - WT031 EF2 M01
   Conv. Outlooks 02 MAR 05 1000 ACADIA CO. LA 1 1 - - - WT039 EF2 H01
03 APR 05 0037 DODGE CO. GA 1 1 - - - WT098 EF2 M01
   Fire Wx Forecasts 04 APR 14 1830 ATOKA CO. OK 2 2 - - - WT135 EF3 ?02
     RSS Feeds 05 APR 15 1655 MARENGO CO. AL 1 1 - - - WT141 EF? M01
06 APR 15 1855 GREENE CO. MS 1 1 - - - WT146 EF3 M01
   E-Mail Alerts 07 APR 15 1915 WASHINGTON CO. AL 3 3 - - - WT146 EF3 M03
08 APR 15 2155 AUTAUGA CO. AL 3 3 - - - WT146 EF3 M03
Weather Information ___ ___ _ _ _
   Storm Reports TOTALS: 13 13 - - -
   NWS Hazards Map FATALITIES BY STATE:
   Watch/Warning Map AL07 GA01 LA01 MS01 OK02 TN01
   National RADAR FATALITIES BY CIRCUMSTANCE:
M10 H01 ?02
   Product Archive
   Norman, OK WX ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT 16 APRIL TORNADOES WILL BE ADDED AS
NWS SURVEY TEAMS COMPLETE THEIR ASSESSMENTS.
   NOAA Weather Radio
Research A = IN TORNADO WATCH
B = IN SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH
   Non-op. Products C = CLOSE TO THE WATCH /15 MINUTES OR 25 MILES/
D = NO WATCH IN EFFECT
   Forecast Tools H = HOUSE
   Svr. Tstm. Events M = MOBILE HOME
O = OUTDOORS
   SPC Publications P = PERMANENT BUILDING/STRUCTURE
   SPC-NSSL HWT V = VEHICLE
? = UNKNOWN
Education & Outreach WS = SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH /NUMBER/
WT = TORNADO WATCH /NUMBER/
   About the SPC EF = ENHANCED FUJITA SCALE RATING
   SPC FAQ
..CARBIN..04/17/2011
   About Tornadoes
   About Derechos $$
   WCM Page
   Enh. Fujita Page Printable version of Latest Annual U.S. Killer Tornado Statistics (AWIPS ID: STATIJ)
   Cool Images Printable version of 2010 U.S. Killer Tornado Statistics Updated: Jan 12, 2011
   Our History Printable version of 2009 U.S. Killer Tornado Statistics Updated: Jan 12, 2010
   Public Affairs Printable version of 2008 U.S. Killer Tornado Statistics Updated: Jan 26, 2009
Misc.
   Staff U.S. Monthly Tornado Statistics are here.
   Links
Contact Us
2011 Annual Summary
   SPC Feedback
All times are CST.
NOTE: Tornado related fatalities are entered once confirmed by NWS Weather Forecast Offices.

Num Date Time Location Deaths EF Watch

February     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1
01 Feb 28 12:30 PM Franklin Co. TN 1 F2 WT031

March     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1

02 Mar 5 10:00 AM Acadia Co. LA 1 F2 WT039

April     Killer Tornadoes: 6     Fatalities: 11

03 Apr 5 12:37 AM Dodge Co. GA 1 F2 WT098

 
04 Apr 14 06:30 PM Atoka Co. OK 2 F3 WT135

 
05 Apr 15 04:55 PM Marengo Co. AL 1 F? WT141

 
06 Apr 15 06:55 PM Greene Co. MS 1 F3 WT146

 
07 Apr 15 07:15 PM Washington Co. AL 3 F3 WT146

 
08 Apr 15 09:55 PM Autauga Co. AL 3 F3 WT146

Killer F Killer
State Fatalities Fatalities
Tor Scale Tor
AL 3 7 F0 0 0
 OK 1 2 F1 0 0
GA 1 1 F2 3 3
LA 1 1 F3 4 9
TN 1 1 F4 0 0
MS 1 1 F5 0 0
TOTAL 8 13 F? 1 1
TOTAL 8 13

Circumstance Fatalities
Mobile Home 10
Permanent Home 1
TOTAL 11

2010 Annual Summary

All times are CST.

NOTE: Tornado related fatalities are entered once confirmed by NWS Weather Forecast Offices.

Num Date Time Location Deaths EF Watch

March     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1
01 Mar 10 09:05 PM Cleburne Co. AR 1 F2 WT022
Houses badly damaged with some injuries and one elderly man died as a result of his
injuries.

April     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 11

02 Apr 24 11:00 AM Yazoo/Holmes/Choctaw MS 10 F4 WT091
Long-track tornado nearing 100 mile path length produced signicant damage across
central Mississippi.
 
03 Apr 30 06:00 PM Van Buren Co. AR 1 F3 WT114
Tornado tracked from Conway County into Van Buren County, hitting the community of
Scotland. Total track was over 20 miles.

May     Killer Tornadoes: 5     Fatalities: 7

04 May 2 01:14 AM Lafayette Co. MS 1 F2 WT127
Tornado fatality occurred near initial tornado touchdown southwest of Abbeville.
 
05 May 2 01:46 AM Benton Co. MS 2 F3 WT127
Same storm that produced fatality in Lafayette spawned another killer tornado that
moved from Mississippi to Tennessee.
 
05 May 2 02:15 AM Hardeman Co. TN 1 F3 WT127
This tornado tracked for over 25 miles destroying at least 30 homes.
 
06 May 10 04:30 PM Oklahoma Co. OK 2 F3 WT147
This tornado tracked from west of I35 to I40 east of Choctaw. Man was crushed when
RV rolled over due to tornado. Another woman died of her injuries many days later.
 
07 May 10 05:00 PM Cleveland Co. OK 1 F3 WT147
Young woman killed when mobile home destroyed by fast-moving tornado in eastern
Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

June     Killer Tornadoes: 6     Fatalities: 12

08 Jun 5 08:20 PM Livingston Co. IL 1 F2 WT267
An older man died on June 20 from injuries sustained when an EF2 tornado struck a
mobile home park in Dwight, IL.
 
09 Jun 5 09:25 PM Wood/Ottawa Co. OH 7 F4 WT268
This late-night tornado tracked for about 10 miles with extreme damage to structures on
the northwest side of Millbury.
 
10 Jun 17 02:57 PM Otter Tail Co. MN 1 F4 WT333
First killer tornado of the year in Minnesota produced significant damage in Almora and
killed an elderly woman in her home in Almora.
 
11 Jun 17 05:20 PM Polk Co. MN 1 F3 WT333
This tornado produced damage in the town of Mentor where a man was killed by falling
debris at a gas station.
 
12 Jun 17 05:30 PM Freeborn Co. MN 1 F4 WT334
One fatality in a mobile/manufactered home west of Albert Lea.
 
13 Jun 27 05:06 PM St. Clair Co. MI 1 F1 -----
A 75 year old male was killed when an EF1 rated tornado hit his RV at a campground
near Wadhams in St. Clair County.

July     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 2

14 Jul 26 07:15 PM Sheridan Co. MT 2 F3 WT538
The Smith ranch house in open country was destroyed by the EF3 tornado. Two
fatalities and one injury occurred at this location.

August     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1

15 Aug 12 08:30 PM Burke Co. ND 1 F3 -----
Tornado near town of Bowbells tracked east hitting a vehicle about 6 miles east of town
on Hwy 52. Vehicle was thrown over 200 yeards with one injury and one fatality
resulting.

September     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 2

16 Sep 16 03:42 PM Queens Co. NY 1 F1 -----
Two tornadoes as part of a larger macroburst struck the New York City area just after
5pm EDT. A Vehicle was crushed by a falling tree alongside Grand Central Parkway with
the female driver killed.
 
17 Sep 16 06:00 PM Wood Co. WV 1 F3 WS669
57-year old man was killed when his residence was struck by a tornado near Belleville,
WV

December     Killer Tornadoes: 4     Fatalities: 9

18 Dec 31 06:10 AM Washington Co. AR 4 F3 WT765
Early morning tornado tracked about 2 miles southwest of the small Arkansas town of
Cincinnati. Older couple were killed in a mobile home. A 78-year old man was killed in
or outside near a barn. A 95-year old woman killed in a mobile home just northeast of
Cincinnati.
 
19 Dec 31 10:06 AM Phelps Co. MO 2 F3 WT767
Two fatalities occurred north of Rolla when a single wide mobile home was completely
destroyed.
 
20 Dec 31 10:12 AM Dent Co. MO 2 F1 WT767
Extensive damage was reported to 2010numerous mobile homes with two fatalities
resulting 1 mile east of the town of Lecoma. At least one other fatality was confirmed
from this event in Missouri. This fatality was attributed to intense straight-line winds.
 
21 Dec 31 11:50 AM St. Louis MO 1 F3 WT767
70-year old woman died January 10 after injuries sustained when her vehicle was lofted
into a wall along Highway 141 just north of the Highway 30 intersection in Fenton

Killer F Killer
State Fatalities Fatalities
Tor Scale Tor
MS 3 13 F0 0 0
OH 1 7 F1 3 4
AR 3 6 F2 3 3
MO 3 5 F3 12 19
MN 3 3 F4 4 19
OK 2 3 F5 0 0
MT 1 2 F? 0 0
 MI 1 1 TOTAL 22 45
IL 1 1
ND 1 1
NY 1 1
WV 1 1
TN 1 1
TOTAL 22 45

Circumstance Fatalities
Mobile Home 20
Permanent Home 11
Vehicle 7
Business 1
Outside/Open 6
TOTAL 45

2009 Annual Summary

All times are CST.

NOTE: Tornado related fatalities are entered once confirmed by NWS Weather Forecast Offices.

Num Date Time Location Deaths EF Watch

February     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 9
01 Feb 10 07:30 PM Carter Co.Lone Grove OK 8 F4 WT008
Tornado struck mobile home park and moved northwest of Ardmore OK after dark.
 
02 Feb 18 09:40 PM Hancock Co. Sparta GA 1 F3 WT025
Tornado tracked for 8 miles destroying a church and 4 mobile homes in community of
Hickory Grove.
 April     Killer Tornadoes: 3     Fatalities: 6
03 Apr 9 07:05 PM Polk Co. Mena AR 3 F3 WT125
Tornado was on the ground for over 14 miles and moved through the town of Mena,
Arkansas.
 
04 Apr 10 11:45 AM Rutherfrd/Murfreesbo TN 2 F4 WT132
Significant building/structural damage in Murfreesboro. Two fatalities blown out from
inside single family home.
 
05 Apr 19 06:35 PM Marshall Co. AL 1 F1 WS174
Mobile home in Asbury Community completely destroyed with contents blown 40 yards
and frame blown 60 yards.

May     Killer Tornadoes: 3     Fatalities: 5

06 May 8 03:04 PM Madison Co. KY 2 F3 WS268
Tornado reached upper-end EF2 to lower-end EF3 intensity. Two adults killed when their
mobile home was destroyed.
 
07 May 13 04:30 PM Sullivan Co. MO 1 F1 WT293
Tornado moved north of Milan, Missouri destroying a mobile home and killing its
occupant.
 
08 May 13 05:10 PM Adair Co. MO 2 F2 WT293
Tornado touched down about two miles west-northwest of Kirksville, Missouri and moved
eastward through the northern part of the city.

October     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1

09 Oct 9 10:45 AM Washington Co. MS 1 F1 WT762
Tornado tracked for 2 miles with maximum width of 100 yards. Three mobile homes
destroyed and 16 homes damaged. Two injuries.

Killer F Killer
State Fatalities Fatalities
Tor Scale Tor
OK 1 8 F0 0 0
AR 1 3 F1 3 3
MO 2 3 F2 1 2
TN 1 2 F3 3 6
KY 1 2 F4 2 10
AL 1 1 F5 0 0
GA 1 1 F? 0 0
MS 1 1 TOTAL 9 21
TOTAL 9 21

Circumstance Fatalities
Mobile Home 12
Permanent Home 7
 Vehicle 1
Business 1
TOTAL 21

2008 Annual Summary

All times are CST.

NOTE: Tornado related fatalities are entered once confirmed by NWS Weather Forecast Offices.

Num Date Time Location Deaths F Watch

January 2008     Killer Tornadoes: 4     Fatalities: 7
01 Jan 7 06:33 PM GREENE-WEBSTER CO. MO 3 F3 WT001
An 84 year old female was killed when her wood constructed home was destroyed in
Greene County. Six injuries and two fatalities also occurred in rural areas north of
Marshfield in Webster County.
 
02 Jan 8 08:40 AM APPLETON AR 1 F2 WT008
A 61 year-old man was killed and his wife was injured when their double-wide mobile
home was destroyed.
 
03 Jan 29 05:07 PM POSEYVILLE IN 2 F2 WT026
A mobile home was destroyed. Two occupants of the mobile home were killed.
 
04 Jan 29 07:00 PM HENRYVILLE/CLARK CO. IN 1 F1 WS025
Tornado caused tree to crash onto a mobile home killing the occupant.

February 2008     Killer Tornadoes: 12     Fatalities: 59

05 Feb 5 05:00 PM POPE-IZARD CO. AR 13 F4 WT036
Long-lived and violent tornado tracked for over 100 miles across north-central AR
claiming 13 lives and destroying hundreds of homes.
 
06 Feb 5 05:11 PM BAXTER CO. AR 1 F2 WT035
One fatality occurred in a mobile home park.
 
07 Feb 5 05:38 PM SHELBY CO. TN 3 F2 WT037
Three people were killed inside the warehouse.
 
08 Feb 5 06:25 PM FAYETTE-MADISON CO. TN 3 F3 WT037
One man was killed in his truck in Fayette County. Two additional deaths occurred in
separate homes in Madison County.
 
09 Feb 5 07:40 PM HARDIN CO. TN 3 F4 WT037
Two of the deaths occurred in the Cerro Gordo area while the third fatality occurred in
northeast Hardin County. All fatalities occurred in mobile homes.
 
10 Feb 5 07:44 PM MUHLENBERG CO. KY 3 F3 WT037
All fatalities occurred in a mobile home park near Greenville, KY.
 
11 Feb 5 10:04 PM SUMNER-MACON CO. TN 22 F3 WT040
This tornado tracked for over 50 miles from TN into KY. Most of the fatalities (13)
occurred in Williams, just northest of Lafayette in Macon County, TN
 
12 Feb 6 01:40 AM ALLEN CO. KY 4 F3 WT039
Four people were killed in mobile homes in the Tracy Lane area, eleven others were
injured in southeast Allen County.
 
13 Feb 6 03:05 AM LAWRENCE CO. AL 4 F4 WT041
The most significant damage occurred in two main areas. The first occurred just south of
the Pinhook community, the second occurred north of Aldridge Grove. All fatalities
occured in homes.
 
14 Feb 6 05:17 AM JACKSON CO. AL 1 F4 WT041
The most significant damage was noted between the Rosalie and Pisgah communities in
eastern Jackson County. This is where the one fatality occurred.
 
15 Feb 12 01:45 PM TANGIPAHOA PARISH LA 1 F1 WT051
One fatality occurred when a 51 year old woman was thrown into a vehicle in a parking
lot of the hospital.
 
16 Feb 26 03:45 AM JEFFERSON CO. AL 1 F1 WS076
The tornado touched down east of Interstate 20 near Henry Ellen Rd, where trees falling
on a mobile home caused one fatality to an elderly woman.

March 2008     Killer Tornadoes: 3     Fatalities: 4

17 Mar 7 08:45 AM COLUMBIA CO. FL 1 F2 WT104
One female fatality occurred when a tree went through her mobile home.
 
18 Mar 14 07:40 PM FULTON CO. GA 1 F2 -----
The tornado touched down in downtown Atlanta and resulted in one death and 30 non-
life threatening injuries.
 
19 Mar 15 10:25 AM POLK-FLOYD CO. GA 2 F3 WT119
One fatality in a destroyed home in Polk County. Another fatality occurred in a destroyed
home in Floyd County from the same tornado.

May 2008     Killer Tornadoes: 11     Fatalities: 44

20 May 2 07:15 AM CONWAY-VAN BUREN CO. AR 5 F3 WS248
A man and his teen-aged son were killed when their mobile home was destroyed in
Conway County. A 4 year-old girl and her grandparents were killed in Van Buren County
when their house was destroyed.
 
21 May 2 10:40 AM PULASKI CO. AR 1 F2 WT249
One woman was killed when her mobile home was destroyed.
 
22 May 8 09:30 PM GUILFORD CO. NC 1 F2 WT282
Tornado struck a parked tractor trailer and killed 51 year old man in the truck.
 
23 May 10 04:30 PM OTTAWA CO. OK 6 F4 WT293
Tornado moved into town of Picher, OK where it destroyed about 200 homes and killed
six people.
 
23 May 10 04:59 PM NEWTON-BARRY CO. MO 15 F4 WT293
There were 14 fatalities and 200 injuries from just west of Highway 43 to Highway 86 in
Newton County. One man was killed as he was taking shelter in a mobile home in Barry
County.
 
24 May 10 05:10 PM JASPER CO. MO 1 F1 WT293
One fatality (17-year old female) occurred from a large tree falling on a mobile home.
 
25 May 11 04:36 AM LAURENS CO. GA 2 F2 WT302
A double-wide mobile home was destroyed and the occupants, a man and woman in
their early 50s were both killed.
 
26 May 22 11:45 AM WELD CO. CO 1 F3 WT334
One man was killed when he tried to escape the trailer park in his motor home.
 
27 May 23 09:30 PM PRATT CO. KS 2 F3 WT344
The tornado picked up a car and carried it approximately 1700 feet into a wheat field,
killing the male driver and female passenger (who was ejected). The car was nearly
unrecognizable and the fatalities were not discovered until the following day.
 
28 May 25 03:59 PM BUTLER CO. IA 9 F5 WT363
The first EF5 tornado in Iowa since 13 June 1976. Nine deaths and 50 injuries occurred
in Butler County.
 
29 May 25 04:05 PM WASHINGTON CO. MN 1 F3 WT359
A two year old boy died after being blown out of the first floor of his home in Creekview
Preserve near Hugo, MN.

June 2008     Killer Tornadoes: 4     Fatalities: 7

30 Jun 3 07:12 PM RUSH CO. IN 1 F3 WT441
A 67 year old woman in Moscow was injured from a large tree limb that impaled her in
the chest and later passed away due to those injuries on August 17th.
 
31 Jun 11 05:40 PM MONONA CO. IA 4 F3 WT509
This tornado tragically hit a Boy Scout camp north of Little Sioux, IA killing 4 young
scouts.
 
32 Jun 11 09:18 PM DICKINSON CO. KS 1 F3 WT512
One death was reported when a tree was blown onto a woman who had just put here
daughter into the carseat of her vehicle.
 
33 Jun 11 11:02 PM JACKSON CO. KS 1 F2 WT512
A mobile home was destroyed and the occupant sustained fatal injuries.

July 2008     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1

34 Jul 24 09:38 AM ROCKINGHAM CO. NH 1 F2 -----
A woman was killed when the house she was is was hit by the tornado and collapsed.

September 2008     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 2

35 Sep 3 02:00 AM EVANGELINE PARISH LA 2 F2 WT884
Tornado associated with the remains of Hurricane Gustav hit a mobile home. The
mobile home was thrown in a counter-clockwise motion over 200 yards and was
destroyed, resulting in two fatalities and one serious injury.

November 2008     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 2

36 Nov 15 02:10 AM JOHNSTON CO. NC 1 F2 WT933
A double-wide mobile home was flipped and blown approximately 50 feet. A 61 year old
female occupant of this mobile home was killed.
 
37 Nov 15 02:30 AM WILSON CO. NC 1 F3 WT933
One home was completely destroyed when swept off of its foundation. The home rolled
over as many as four times and there was one fatality and two injuries.

Killer F Killer
State Fatalities Fatalities
Tor Scale Tor
TN 4 31 F0 0 0
AR 5 21 F1 4 4
MO 3 19 F2 13 18
IA 2 13 F3 14 53
KY 2 7 F4 6 42
AL 3 6 F5 1 9
 OK 1 6 F? 0 0
GA 3 5 TOTAL 38 126
KS 3 4
IN 3 4
LA 2 3
NC 3 3
FL 1 1
CO 1 1
MN 1 1
NH 1 1
TOTAL 38 126

Circumstance Fatalities
Mobile Home 56
Permanent Home 43
Vehicle 14
Business 10
Outside/Open 3
TOTAL 126

2007 Annual Summary

All times are CST.

NOTE: Tornado related fatalities are entered once confirmed by NWS Weather Forecast Offices.

Num Date Time Location Deaths F Watch

January 2007     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 2
01 Jan 4 03:45 PM Lydia LA 2 F1 WT001
Three mobile homes flipped over trapping seven people. At least five brick homes
received major damage.

February 2007     Killer Tornadoes: 3     Fatalities: 22

02 Feb 2 02:15 AM Lady Lake FL 8 F3 WT015
Mobile homes completely destroyed.
 
03 Feb 2 02:45 AM Paisley/DeLand FL 13 F3 WT015
Complete destruction of mobile homes.
 
04 Feb 13 03:10 AM Gentilly LA 1 F2 WT018
Several homes damaged...trailers and a hotel destroyed.

March 2007     Killer Tornadoes: 10     Fatalities: 27

05 Mar 1 06:33 AM 3 SW Caulfield MO 1 F3 WT042
Damage reported to two gas stations, four mobile homes and two frame homes.
 
06 Mar 1 12:30 PM Millers Ferry AL 1 F4 WT044
Manufactured home destroyed.
 
07 Mar 1 01:05 PM Enterprise AL 9 F4 WT046
High School severely damaged.
 
08 Mar 1 04:35 PM Potterville GA 1 F2 WT046
Heaviest damage southwest of Potterville.
 
09 Mar 1 06:30 PM North Newton GA 6 F2 WT046
Mobile homes damaged.
 
10 Mar 1 08:22 PM Americus GA 2 F2 WT046
Significant damage to homes and hospital.
 
11 Mar 23 07:54 PM 6 SE Clovis NM 2 F2 WT070
Mobile home rolled.
 
12 Mar 28 07:30 PM 2 E Elmwood OK 2 F2 WT082
House and shed totally destroyed.
 
13 Mar 28 08:00 PM Holly CO 2 F3
Large tornado destroyed mobile home.
 
14 Mar 28 09:50 PM 13 SSW Canadian TX 1 F3 WT082
Trailer destroyed.

April 2007     Killer Tornadoes: 3     Fatalities: 9

15 Apr 13 06:10 PM Haltom City TX 1 F1 WT135
Damage to grocery store, several homes and a church steeple.
 
16 Apr 15 06:37 AM 4 E Mulberry SC 1 F3 WT145
Destroyed several mobile homes.
 
17 Apr 24 07:01 PM Eagle Pass TX 7 F3 WT179
An elementary school destroyed and a 2007number of mobile homes damaged.

May 2007     Killer Tornadoes: 4     Fatalities: 14

18 May 4 08:45 PM Greensburg KS 11 F5 WT227
Large tornado, much of torn damaged or destroyed.
 
19 May 4 09:33 PM Hopewell KS 1 F3 WT227
Two houses destroyed...sheriff dies of injuries sustained when patrol car was damaged
by tornado.
 
20 May 4 10:35 PM 2 SSE Macksville KS 1 F3 WT227
Several homes damaged or destroyed.
 
21 May 5 10:30 PM 3 S Bennington KS 1 F2 WT235
Woman killed when camper was damaged by tornado.

August 2007     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1

22 Aug 26 07:45 PM Northwood ND 1 F4 WT653
One male fatality in mobile home. Significant damage to town of Northwood.

October 2007     Killer Tornadoes: 3     Fatalities: 5

23 Oct 17 11:05 PM Paris MO 2 F2 WT714
Mobile home tossed 1/3rd mile into field.
 
24 Oct 18 07:35 PM Kalkaska MI 1 F2 WT724
Considerable property damage.
 
25 Oct 18 08:45 PM Williamston MI 2 F2 WT724
Modular home with two occupants flipped into a pond.

December 2007     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1

26 Dec 15 08:22 PM 2 NE Ashburn GA 1 F1 WT738
Tractor-trailer northbound on I-75 blown off the road and down embankment by EF1.
Driver killed.

Killer F Killer
State Fatalities Fatalities
Tor Scale Tor
FL 2 21 F0 0 0
KS 4 14 F1 3 4
AL 2 10 F2 10 20
GA 4 10 F3 9 35
 TX 3 9 F4 3 11
MO 2 3 F5 1 11
LA 2 3 F? 0 0
MI 2 3 TOTAL 26 81
NM 1 2
OK 1 2
CO 1 2
ND 1 1
SC 1 1
TOTAL 26 81

Circumstance Fatalities
Mobile Home 52
Permanent Home 16
Vehicle 2
Business 10
Outside/Open 1
TOTAL 81

2006 Annual Summary

All times are CST.

NOTE: Tornado related fatalities are entered once confirmed by NWS Weather Forecast Offices.

Num Date Time Location Deaths F Watch

January 2006     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1
01 Jan 13 10:10 AM Belleville AL 1 F1 WT017
15-20 homes damaged. Woman killed in home when chimney collapsed.
 March 2006     Killer Tornadoes: 7     Fatalities: 11
02 Mar 11 09:44 PM Brewer/St. Mary MO 2 F3 WT064
Couple tried to flee their home when pick-up was thrown into a propane tank.
 
03 Mar 12 04:12 PM Green Ridge MO 1 F2 WT074
Tornado reported to pick up mobile home.
 
04 Mar 12 08:07 PM Urich MO 1 F2 WT074
Tornado west of Urich...south of Creighton. House destroyed.
 
05 Mar 12 09:00 PM El Dorado Spgs MO 1 F2 WT077
Numerous homes destroyed and/or damaged.
 
06 Mar 12 09:18 PM Higbee/Renick MO 4 F3 WT077
Tornado destroyed 2 businesses and 19 homes...40 other homes damaged.
 
07 Mar 12 10:15 PM Verona/Marionville MO 1 F3 WT077
SEMA reports 21 homes destroyed and 46 homes damaged.
 
08 Mar 30 08:28 PM Green Ridge/Sedalia MO 1 F1 WT111
Man died of injuires June 15, 2006...home destroyed, 57 others damaged.

April 2006     Killer Tornadoes: 9     Fatalities: 38

09 Apr 2 04:15 PM Fairview Heights IL 1 F2 WT133
Roof collapsed on K&G Fashion Superstore.
 
10 Apr 2 06:00 PM Deering/Braggadocio MO 2 F3 WT132
Tornado began in Randolph County, AR east into Caruthersville MO.
 
11 Apr 2 06:32 PM Newbern TN 16 F3 WT134
Continuation of long track tornado. Numerous homes destroyed.
 
12 Apr 2 07:43 PM Dyer/Bradford TN 6 F3 WT134
Several homes destryoed...cars tossed and railroad cars rolled over.
 
13 Apr 2 05:03 PM Rutherford TN 2 F3 WT134
Separate tornado that moved southeast into north parts of Bradford.
 
14 Apr 7 01:27 PM Gallatin TN 7 F3 WT162
Tornado damaged 2006numerous homes.
 
15 Apr 7 03:56 PM 7 N McMinnville TN 2 F1 WT162
Tornado Along Green Hill in Northern Warren County.
 
16 Apr 7 05:37 PM 8 SW McMinnville TN 1 F1 WT162
Tornado along Hwy 55 just west of Morrison.
 
17 Apr 13 07:54 PM 3 S Nichols IA 1 F1 WS178
49-year-old woman killed in mobile home. Determined F1 damage.

May 2006     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 3

18 May 9 09:37 PM Anna/Westminster TX 3 F3 -
An elderly couple and a teenager killed...extensive damage in and around town.

August 2006     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1

19 Aug 24 05:00 PM Kasota MN 1 F3 WT743
Structural damage in town.

September 2006     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1

20 Sep 16 08:58 PM Rogers MN 1 F2 WT776
50 homes destroyed...200-300 homes damaged.

November 2006     Killer Tornadoes: 3     Fatalities: 10

21 Nov 15 01:50 AM 5 NNE Montpelier LA 1 F2 WT852
House/Mobile home structure destroyed.
 
22 Nov 15 10:45 PM Statesville NC 1 F1 -
Fatality associated with this tornado occurred 12/15/06.
 
23 Nov 16 05:37 AM Riegelwood NC 8 F3 WT863
Several homes demolished.

December 2006     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 2

24 Dec 1 03:15 PM S Halifax PA 1 F1 WS874
Tree fell on automobile.
 
25 Dec 29 02:00 PM 2 W Groesbeck TX 1 F2 WT886
Up to 50 homes damaged.

Killer F Killer
State Fatalities Fatalities
Tor Scale Tor
TN 6 34 F0 0 0
MO 8 13 F1 7 8
NC 2 9 F2 7 7
TX 2 4 F3 11 52
MN 2 2 F4 0 0
AL 1 1 F5 0 0
IA 1 1 F? 0 0
LA 1 1 TOTAL 25 67
IL 1 1
 PA 1 1
TOTAL 25 67

Circumstance Fatalities
Mobile Home 27
Permanent Home 31
Vehicle 7
Business 2
TOTAL 67

2005 Annual Summary

All times are CST.

Num Date Time Location Deaths F Watch

January 2005     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 4
01 Jan 12 11:25 PM Junction City AR 2 F3 WS007
Extensive structural damage...tornado path length of 24 mi...max path width 1/2 mi.
 
02 Jan 13 04:58 PM Crossroads GA 2 F1 -
Three homes destroyed...one a mobile home where fatalities occurred.

March 2005     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1

03 Mar 22 12:32 PM Donalsonville GA 1 F2 WT064
One fatality trapped in trailer home. Multiple injuires also reported.

August 2005     Killer Tornadoes: 3     Fatalities: 4

04 Aug 12 04:51 PM Wright WY 2 F2 WS716
50 mobile homes destroyed.
 
05 Aug 18 05:30 PM Fitchburg WI 1 F3 WT730
80-90 houses were heavily damaged.
 
06 Aug 29 02:25 PM Roopville GA 1 F2 WT759
Tornado associated with Hurricane Katrina...major damage to homes and 8 chicken
coops.

September 2005     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1

07 Sep 24 03:13 PM Isola MS 1 F1 WT813
Tornado associated with remnants of Hurricane Rita...extensive damage to two
subdivisions.

November 2005     Killer Tornadoes: 5     Fatalities: 29

08 Nov 6 01:59 AM Evansville IN 25 F3 WS844
100+ Buildings/Homes destroyed or severely damaged.
 
09 Nov 12 04:48 PM Stratford IA 1 F3 WT858
Numerous homes damaged.
 
10 Nov 15 01:56 PM Benton KY 1 F3 WT865
2 homes damaged.
 
11 Nov 27 06:15 PM Plumerville AR 1 F3 WT876
Cars overturned on I-40. Car travelling westbound on I-40 thrown into eastbound lane
and overturned.
 
12 Nov 27 10:35 PM Briar MO 1 F2 WT879
Two homes destroyed...two homes damaged.

Killer F Killer
State Fatalities Fatalities
Tor Scale Tor
IN 1 25 F0 0 0
GA 3 4 F1 2 3
AR 2 3 F2 4 5
WY 1 2 F3 6 31
MS 1 1 F4 0 0
WI 1 1 F5 0 0
IA 1 1 F? 0 0
KY 1 1 TOTAL 12 39
MO 1 1
TOTAL 12 39

Circumstance Fatalities
Mobile Home 34
Permanent Home 3
 Vehicle 1
Business 1
TOTAL 39

2004 Annual Summary

All times are CST.

Num Date Time Location Deaths F Watch

April 2004     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 8
01 Apr 20 04:53 PM Peru IL 8 F3 WT095
Several buildings damaged extensively.

May 2004     Killer Tornadoes: 5     Fatalities: 7

02 May 22 07:30 PM Hallam NE 1 F4 WT251
Several houses destroyed...major damage reported.
 
03 May 24 10:19 PM Winchester IL 1 F1 WT281
Mobile home destroyed.
 
04 May 29 09:30 PM Weatherby MO 3 F4 WT326
Near State Hwy. 6 and Santa Rosa Rd.
 
05 May 30 02:25 PM Taswell IN 1 F3 WT331
Numerous injuries reported.
 
06 May 30 04:20 PM Berkeley MO 1 F1 WT334
Fifteen inch branch fell onto SUV.
 June 2004     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 2
07 Jun 23 07:35 PM Markesan WI 1 F3 WS515
Tree...house...barn damaged.
 
08 Jun 26 05:05 PM Cameron TX 1 F1 -
Corrugated workshop destroyed.

August 2004     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 3

09 Aug 13 01:55 AM Rocky Point NC 3 F2 -
Trailer Park sustained severe damage associated with remnants of Tropical Storm
Bonnie.

September 2004     Killer Tornadoes: 6     Fatalities: 9

10 Sep 15 02:00 PM Panama City Beach FL 1 F2 WT825
Significant damage to Hamilton's Restaurant.
 
11 Sep 15 02:43 PM Allentown FL 1 F1 WT825
Wood frame house lifted 60 ft. off its foundation.
 
12 Sep 15 04:25 PM Parker FL 1 F? WT825
People trapped underneath rubble of damaged home.
 
13 Sep 15 07:00 PM Blountstown FL 4 F? WT825
Multiple homes destroyed...tornado associated with Hurricane Ivan.
 
14 Sep 16 02:00 PM Carnesville GA 1 F? WT828
Twenty-five homes damaged or destroyed. Fatality occured when tree fell onto a car.
 
15 Sep 27 07:12 PM Ridgeway SC 1 F2 WT844
Tornado associated with Hurricane Jeanne destroyed 5 mobile homes.

October 2004     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 3

16 Oct 18 06:55 PM Cooter MO 3 F2 WT858
Tornado struck southeast part of town at Cottonwood Point.

November 2004     Killer Tornadoes: 4     Fatalities: 4

17 Nov 23 04:20 PM Silsbee TX 1 F1 WT884
Two trees fell onto a mobile home killing an elderly woman.
 
18 Nov 23 08:05 PM Olla LA 1 F3 WT885
Numerous homes heavily damaged.
 
19 Nov 24 02:29 AM Fearns Springs MS 1 F3 WT888
Home completely destroyed.
 
20 Nov 24 07:00 AM Bynum AL 1 WT896
Damage to two mobile homes, one with a tree through it.

Killer F Killer
State Fatalities Fatalities
Tor Scale Tor
IL 2 9 F0 1 1
MO 3 7 F1 5 5
FL 4 7 F2 4 8
NC 1 3 F3 5 12
TX 2 2 F4 2 4
WI 1 1 F5 0 0
IN 1 1 F? 3 6
NE 1 1 TOTAL 20 36
GA 1 1
SC 1 1
LA 1 1
MS 1 1
AL 1 1
TOTAL 20 36

Circumstance Fatalities
Mobile Home 11
Permanent Home 21
Vehicle 2
Business 2
TOTAL 36

2003 Annual Summary

All times are CST.
Num Date Time Location Deaths F Watch
February 2003     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 2
01 Feb 22 03:09 PM Oakdale KY 2 F1 --
At least five mobile homes completely detroyed.

March 2003     Killer Tornadoes: 4     Fatalities: 8

02 Mar 19 11:09 AM Cookeville TN 1 F1 WT56
Mobile home blown over...2003numerous homes damaged.
 
03 Mar 20 04:05 AM Camilla GA 4 F3 WT64
More than 50 homes and mobile homes damaged. Several businesses destroyed.
 
04 Mar 20 04:30 AM Bridgeboro GA 2 F2 WT64
Several homes damaged and destroyed.
 
05 Mar 27 04:46 PM Miami FL 1 F2 WT79
Person killed when tree trunk was torn off onto home.

May 2003     Killer Tornadoes: 15     Fatalities: 41

06 May 4 03:18 PM Bonner Springs KS 2 F4 WT233
Tornado on the ground doing damage at 90th and Parallel
 
07 May 4 04:15 PM Liberal MO 1 F4 WT232
Reported by Law Enforcement.
 
07 May 4 05:15 PM Carl Junction MO 2 F3 WT237
Several homes and businesses destroyed.
 
08 May 4 04:45 PM Melrose KS 3 F3 WT232
Significant damage to modular and wood framed homes.
 
08 May 4 05:35 PM McCune KS 3 F4 WT232
Heavy damage to structure and vehicles...vehicles tossed several hundredd feet.
 
09 May 4 05:00 PM Jerico Springs MO 3 F3 WT237
Damage extensive with 2003numerous buildings destroyed or damaged within the
downtown area.
 
10 May 4 05:58 PM Pierce City MO 5 F3 WT237
140 year old buildings destroyed in downtown area.
 
10 May 4 06:35 PM Billings MO 1 F3 WT237
Destroyed 27 structes and damaged 150 others.
 
10 May 4 06:50 PM Battlefiled MO 1 F3 WT237
Destroyed 150 homes and outbuildings.
 
11 May 4 06:20 PM Louisburg MO 2 F3 WT237
Approximately 48 homes and outbuildings destroyed.
 
11 May 4 06:36 PM Decaturville MO 4 F3 WT237
Well anchored wood fram homes swept off foundation...2003numerous homes
destroyed.
 
12 May 4 10:35 PM Denmark TN 11 F4 WT239
Widespread extensive damage...factory severely damaged.
 
13 May 6 08:32 PM Grand Chain IL 1 F4 WT275
Also hit Hillerman, IL..Dozens homes...garages..barns...outbuildings severly damaged.
 
13 May 6 08:40 PM Hillerman IL 1 F4 WT275
Extensive damage to mobile homes and farm buildings.
 
14 May 11 03:30 AM Bohon KY 1 F2 WT353
mobile homes damaged/destroyed.

June 2003     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 2

15 Jun 22 05:43 PM Deshler NE 1 F2 WT562
Male killed leaving workshop to take shelter. 30 homes damaged or destroyed.
 
16 Jun 23 08:43 PM Coleridge NE 1 F4 WT568
Destroyed a farmstead killing man who took cover inside storage shed.

October 2003     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1

17 Oct 27 02:39 PM Hainesport NJ 1 F0 --
Female struck by large tree limb while in bowling alley parking lot.

Killer F Killer
State Fatalities Fatalities
Tor Scale Tor
MO 8 19 F0 1 1
TN 2 12 F1 2 3
KS 3 8 F2 4 5
GA 2 6 F3 9 25
KY 2 3 F4 7 20
IL 2 2 F5 0 0
NE 2 2 F? 0 0
FL 1 1 TOTAL 23 54
NJ 1 1
TOTAL 23 54

Circumstance Fatalities
Mobile Home 25
Permanent Home 24
Business 1
Outside/Open 3
Other/Unknown 1
TOTAL 54

2002 Annual Summary

All times are CST.

Num Date Time Location Deaths F Watch

April 2002     Killer Tornadoes: 6     Fatalities: 7
01 Apr 21 02:51 PM Wayne City IL 1 F3 WT139
47-yr. old male inside mobile home...15 homes damaged/destroyed with 40 homes
damaged countywide.
 
02 Apr 27 11:40 PM Marble Hill MO 1 F3 WT162
12-yr old thrown 150 yds. from house he was staying for a sleepover. 25 bldgs
damaged/destroyed.
 
03 Apr 28 12:18 AM Dongola IL 1 F3 WT164
Woman tried to get in car to avoid storm.
 
04 Apr 28 03:08 AM Cloverport KY 1 F2 WS163
Several mobile homes destroyed. Several well-constructed homes deemed unlivable.
 
05 Apr 28 04:56 PM Rison MD 1 F4 WT172
At least 6 homes completely wiped off their foundations.
 
06 Apr 28 05:31 PM Bowens MD 2 F2 WT172
Several homes damaged.

May 2002     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 4

07 May 5 05:45 PM Happy TX 2 F2 WT227
Extensive damage reported...several homes destroyed.
 
08 May 9 01:11 AM Centralia IL 2 F1 -
Twelve mobile homes destroyed and 1 home damaged.

October 2002     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 3

09 Oct 24 01:19 PM Corpus Christi TX 1 F2 WS727
Extensive structural damage at Del Mar West Community College.
 
10 Oct 29 02:55 AM Chataignier LA 2 F2 WT 732
Fire Department reported 8 mobile homes destroyed, large house and barn badly
damaged.

November 2002     Killer Tornadoes: 15     Fatalities: 37

11 Nov 5 06:35 PM Abbeville AL 1 F2 WT 736
Heavy damage to businesses, high school and adjacent residential area. At least 15
hospitalized.
 
12 Nov 9 10:26 PM Terry TN 2 F2 WT 741
Five homes destroyed...1 mobile home with major damage.
 
13 Nov 10 01:00 AM Port Royal TN 2 F1 WT 741
Several homes destroyed...a few automobiles totaled.
 
14 Nov 10 02:15 PM Willshire OH 2 F4 WS 744
Numerous structures leveled.
 
15 Nov 10 02:58 PM Continental OH 2 F3 WS 744
Trailer destroyed.
 
16 Nov 10 04:15 PM Tiffin OH 1 F3 WT 747
Homes damaged.
 
17 Nov 10 06:52 PM Fredonia TN 2 F2 WT 750
widespread damage.
 
18 Nov 10 07:10 PM Carbon Hill AL 3 F3 WT 748
Numerous buildings and homes destroyed.
 
19 Nov 10 06:54 PM Sharpesville PA 1 F2 WT 750
Tornado travelled 7 miles on the ground.
 
20 Nov 10 07:31 PM Poplar Springs AL 1 F3 WT 748
School heavily damaged.
 
21 Nov 10 07:45 PM Crawford MS 1 F1 WT 748
Fatality associated with tree falling onto mobile home.
 
22 Nov 10 08:31 PM Wartburg TN 7 F3 WT 746
Numerous buildings destroyed.
 
23 Nov 10 08:34 PM Townley AL 7 F3 WT 748
Numerous mobile homes destroyed.
 
24 Nov 10 09:43 PM Crossville TN 4 F3 WT 749
mobile homes damaged.
 
25 Nov 10 11:20 PM Centre AL 1 F2 WT 754
Damage to mobile homes.

December 2002     Killer Tornadoes: 3     Fatalities: 4

26 Dec 17 11:05 PM Mt. Vernon MO 2 F2 WT 778
Tornado hit Luck Lady trailer park and 3 homes east of trailer park.
 
27 Dec 18 01:53 AM Lamar MO 1 F1 WT 779
At least three frame homes and one mobile home destroyed.
 
27 Dec 18 03:35 PM Hamlet AR 1 F3 WT 785
Number of residences destroyed. 84 yr. old woman thrown from mobile home.

Killer F Killer
State Fatalities Fatalities
Tor Scale Tor
TN 5 17 F0 0 0
AL 5 13 F1 4 6
OH 3 5 F2 11 17
MO 3 4 F3 11 29
IL 3 4 F4 2 3
MD 2 3 F5 0 0
TX 2 3 F? 0 0
LA 1 2 TOTAL 28 55
KY 1 1
PA 1 1
MS 1 1
AR 1 1
TOTAL 28 55

Circumstance Fatalities
Mobile Home 32
Permanent Home 15
Vehicle 4
Business 1
Outside/Open 3
 TOTAL 55

2001 Annual Summary

All times are CST.

Num Date Time Location Deaths F Watch

February 2001     Killer Tornadoes: 3     Fatalities: 8
01 Feb 16 12:09 PM Goodman MS 1 F2 022
Woman saw tornado and abandoned car in nearby ditch..car rolled over onto her.
 
02 Feb 24 04:46 PM Union AR 1 F2 032
2-yr. old boy died from injuries when family's mobile home was destroyed.
 
03 Feb 24 10:00 PM Robbs MS 6 F3 036
Extensive damage reported. 360 homes damaged/destroyed, 30-40 businesses
damaged/destroyed.

March 2001     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 3

04 Mar 12 12:50 PM Red Level AL 2 F1 061
Trailer destroyed.
 
05 Mar 15 03:38 AM Wausau FL 1 F2 067
Ten to Twenty mobile homes destroyed. Two or three frame homes damaged.

April 2001     Killer Tornadoes: 4     Fatalities: 5

06 Apr 10 06:20 PM Fulton MO 1 F1 118
Tornado hit house trailer.
 
07 Apr 11 04:27 AM Coalgate OK 1 F2 128
41 yr old man killed after his double-wides trailer was destroyed.
 
08 Apr 11 03:03 PM Agency IA 2 F2 134
Former community center destroyed...two homes were also destroyed, 9 homes severely
damaged.
 
09 Apr 21 08:15 PM Hoisington KS 1 F4 164
Major damage throughout town.

May 2001     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1

10 May 31 07:10 PM Auburntown TN 1 F2 340
One male blown out of home and killed...Two homes destroyed, one home damaged.

June 2001     Killer Tornadoes: 3     Fatalities: 5

11 Jun 7 05:24 AM Zachary LA 1 F1
Man killed when tree fell onto pickup he was driving.
 
12 Jun 11 01:30 PM Jacksonville FL 1 F0
Man crushed to death as tree fell onto living room.
 
13 Jun 18 07:20 PM Siren/Grantsburg WI 3 F3 445
Tornado caused a lot of damage in the town

September 2001     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 2

14 Sep 24 08:24 PM Hyattsville MD 2 F3 758
Car slammed into building with 2 people inside on Univ. of Maryland campus.

October 2001     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 2

15 Oct 24 02:56 PM Wanatah IN 1 F2 797
House destroyed.
 
16 Oct 24 03:50 PM Crumstown IN 1 F3 797
Man died due to injuries. Circumstances unknown.

November 2001     Killer Tornadoes: 8     Fatalities: 14

17 Nov 23 07:50 PM Hunt AR 1 F2 811
Onw woman killed inside mobile home...several injured inside chicken house.
 
18 Nov 24 01:05 AM Wilmot AR 3 F3 813
Quite a bit of damage...at least two mobile homes overturned.
 
19 Nov 24 03:15 AM Sabino MS 2 F2 814
Three homes were destroyed...a church and a factory was damaged.
 
20 Nov 24 03:30 AM Crenshaw MS 1 F2 814
A cluster of homes and a Baptist church were destroyed. In all 35 homes damaged or
destroyed.
 
21 Nov 24 05:20 AM Madison MS 2 F4 814
More than 100 people injured across Madison County...87 houses destroyed.
 
22 Nov 24 11:00 AM Kennedy AL 2 F3 818
Dozen of homes and businesses destroyed.
 
23 Nov 24 03:00 PM Sand Rock AL 2 F2 820
About 30 homes damaged/destroyed.
 
24 Nov 26 11:30 PM Paris TN 1 F3 831
At least 12 homes destroyed.

Killer F Killer
State Fatalities Fatalities
Tor Scale Tor
MS 5 12 F0 1 1
AL 3 6 F1 3 4
AR 3 5 F2 11 14
WI 1 3 F3 7 18
IA 1 2 F4 2 3
TN 2 2 F5 0 0
FL 2 2 F? 0 0
MD 1 2 TOTAL 24 40
IN 2 2
LA 1 1
MO 1 1
KS 1 1
OK 1 1
TOTAL 24 40

Circumstance Fatalities
Mobile Home 17
Permanent Home 15
Vehicle 3
Business 3
Outside/Open 2
TOTAL 40

2000 Annual Summary

All times are CST.

Num Date Time Location Deaths F Watch

February 2000     Killer Tornadoes: 4     Fatalities: 19
01 Feb 13 11:09 PM Camilla GA 11 F3 0026
Major damage to 2 subdivisions and 4 mobile home parks. Numerous injuries.
 
02 Feb 13 11:50 PM Cairo GA 6 F3 0029
Extensive damage to subdivision. Numerous injuries.
 
03 Feb 13 11:57 PM Meigs/Camilla GA 1 F3 0029
Man died from injuries sustained when tornado hit mobile home.
 
04 Feb 14 12:45 AM Crosland GA 1 F2 0029
Major damage reported.

March 2000     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 2

05 Mar 28 06:22 PM Ft. Worth TX 2 F2 0128
Tornado in downtown Ft. Worth. Deaths outdoors due to fallen wall and fallen trailer.

April 2000     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 2

06 Apr 2 11:34 PM Piedmont AL 1 F2 0149
Six mobile homes were destroyed along with two houses, one of which was under
construction.
 
07 Apr 20 06:15 PM Wartrace TN 1 F1 0189
Reported by Bedford County EMA

May 2000     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 3

08 May 11 07:11 PM Cedar Falls IA 1 F3 0264
Woman died of her injuries
 
09 May 12 04:30 PM Laguna Park TX 2 F3 0276
Preliminary Info...fatality in Walling Bend near Bosque/Hill County Line.

July 2000     Killer Tornadoes: 1     Fatalities: 1

10 Jul 25 06:10 PM Granite Falls MN 1 F4 0619
Elderly man found dead underneath truck

September 2000     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 2

11 Sep 20 05:35 PM Xenia OH 1 F4 0744
Man killed as tree fell onto his car
 
12 Sep 22 10:30 PM Martin SC 1 F1 0751
3 Mobile homes destroyed, major damage to 2 mobile homes

December 2000     Killer Tornadoes: 2     Fatalities: 12

13 Dec 16 11:50 AM Geneva AL 1 F2 0809
50 homes damaged...25 homes with major damage
 
14 Dec 16 12:54 PM Hull AL 11 F4 0808
Numerous homes destroyed in Taylorwood area

Killer F Killer
State Fatalities Fatalities
Tor Scale Tor
GA 4 19 F0 0 0
AL 3 13 F1 2 2
TX 2 4 F2 4 5
TN 1 1 F3 5 21
IA 1 1 F4 3 13
MN 1 1 F5 0 0
OH 1 1 F? 0 0
SC 1 1 TOTAL 14 41
TOTAL 14 41

Circumstance Fatalities
Mobile Home 28
Permanent Home 7
Vehicle 4
Outside/Open 2
TOTAL 41

Top/Forecast Products/Home
Weather Topics:
 Watches, Mesoscale Discussions, Outlooks, Fire Weather, All Products, Contact Us

NOAA / National Weather Service Disclaimer Privacy Policy

National Centers for Environmental Prediction Information Quality Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Storm Prediction Center Credits About Us
120 David L. Boren Blvd. Glossary Career Opportunities
Norman, OK 73072 U.S.A.
spc.feedback@noaa.gov
Page last modified: April 17, 2011

Journals Subscribe
All Journals > Weather, Climate, and Society > October 2009 > False Alarms, Tornado Warnings, and Tornado Casualties
Volume 1 Issue 1
(October 2009)
Next >
Current Issue
Available Issues
Early Online Releases
Author Index
Journal Information
Online ISSN: 1948-8335
Print ISSN:    1948-8327
Frequency:    Quarterly
Special Collections
Staff and Editors
Instructions to Authors
Manuscript Submission
Sign In or Institutional Administrator | Help
For Authors Information Online Help Quick Search FullText
Full Text
Advanced Search
< Previous Article Volume 1, Issue 1 (October 2009) Next Article >
Add to Favorites Email Download to Citation Manager Track Citations Glossary
Permissions
Full-text PDF
Simmons, Kevin M., Daniel Sutter, 2009: False Alarms, Tornado Warnings, and Tornado Casualties. Wea. Climate Soc., 1, 38–53.
doi: 10.1175/2009WCAS1005.1
False Alarms, Tornado Warnings, and Tornado Casualties
Kevin M. Simmons
Department of Economics, Austin College, Sherman, Texas
Daniel Sutter
Department of Economics and Finance, University of Texas-Pan American, Edinburg, Texas
Abstract
This paper extends prior research on the societal value of tornado warnings to the impact of false alarms. Intuition
and theory suggest that false alarms will reduce the response to warnings, yet little evidence of a “false alarm effect”
has been unearthed. This paper exploits differences in the false-alarm ratio across the United States to test for a false-
alarm effect in a regression model of tornado casualties from 1986 to 2004. A statistically significant and large false-
alarm effect is found: tornadoes that occur in an area with a higher false-alarm ratio kill and injure more people,
 everything else being constant. The effect is consistent across false-alarm ratios defined over different geographies
How to Subscribe and time intervals. A one-standard-deviation increase in the false-alarm ratio increases expected fatalities by between
12% and 29% and increases expected injuries by between 14% and 32%. The reduction in the national tornado false-
alarm ratio over the period reduced fatalities by 4%–11% and injuries by 4%–13%. The casualty effects of false
alarms and warning lead times are approximately equal in magnitude, suggesting that the National Weather Service
could not reduce casualties by trading off a higher probability of detection for a higher false-alarm ratio, or vice
versa.

Keywords: Tornadoes, Societal impacts, Extreme events, Severe weather, Forecasting, Nowcasting

Received: November 7, 2008; Accepted: June 17, 2009

Corresponding author address: Daniel Sutter, Department of Economics and Finance, University of Texas-Pan
American, Edinburg, TX 78539-2999. Email: dssutter@utpa.edu

Cited by
David M. Schultz, Eve C. Gruntfest, Mary H. Hayden, Charles C. Benight, Sheldon Drobot, Lindsey R. Barnes.
(2010) Decision Making by Austin, Texas, Residents in Hypothetical Tornado Scenarios. Weather, Climate, and
Society 2:3, 249-254
Online publication date: 1-Jul-2010.
Abstract . Full Text . PDF (587 KB) . Supplemental material 

© 2011 American Meteorological Society Privacy Policy and Disclaimer

 Headquarters: 45 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108-3693
DC Office: 1120 G Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington DC, 20005-3826
amsinfo@ametsoc.org Phone: 617-227-2425 Fax: 617-742-8718
Allen Press, Inc. assists in the online publication of AMS journals

 
 Sign In or Institutional Administrator | Help

Journals Subscribe For Authors Information Online Help Quick Search FullText
Full Text

All Journals > Weather and Forecasting > April 2008 > Tornado Warnings, Lead Times, and Tornado Casualties: An Empirical Inv... Advanced Search

Volume 23 Issue 2
(April 2008)
< Previous Article Volume 23, Issue 2 (April 2008) Next Article >
< Previous Next >
Add to Favorites Email Download to Citation Manager Track Citations Glossary
Permissions

Full-text PDF

Simmons, Kevin M., Daniel Sutter, 2008: Tornado Warnings, Lead Times, and Tornado Casualties: An Empirical Investigation. Wea. Forecasting,
23, 246–258.
doi: 10.1175/2007WAF2006027.1

Tornado Warnings, Lead Times, and Tornado Casualties: An Empirical Investigation

Kevin M. Simmons
Current Issue Austin College, Sherman, Texas
Available Issues
Early Online Releases Daniel Sutter
Author Index
University of Texas—Pan American, Edinburg, Texas
Journal Information
Online ISSN: 1520-0434
Print ISSN:    0882-8156
Frequency:    Bimonthly
Abstract
Special Collections
Conventional wisdom holds that improved tornado warnings will reduce tornado casualties, because longer lead times
Staff and Editors on warnings provide extra opportunities to alert residents who can then take precautions. The relationship between
Instructions to Authors warnings and casualties is examined using a dataset of tornadoes in the contiguous United States between 1986 and
Manuscript Submission 2002. Two questions are examined: Does a warning issued on a tornado reduce the resulting number of fatalities and
 injuries? Do longer lead times reduce casualties? It is found that warnings have had a significant and consistent effect
How to Subscribe on tornado injuries, with a reduction of over 40% at some lead time intervals. The results for fatalities are mixed. An
increase in lead time up to about 15 min reduces fatalities, while lead times longer than 15 min increase fatalities
compared with no warning. The fatality results beyond 15 min, however, depend on five killer tornadoes and
consequently are not robust.

Keywords: Tornadoes, Forecasting

Received: March 29, 2006; Accepted: July 21, 2007

Corresponding author address: Daniel Sutter, Dept. of Economics and Finance, University of Texas—Pan American,
Edinburg, TX 78541-2999. Email: dssutter@utpa.edu

Cited by
Philip L. Chaney, Greg S. Weaver. (2010) The Vulnerability of Mobile Home Residents in Tornado Disasters: The
2008 Super Tuesday Tornado in Macon County, Tennessee. Weather, Climate, and Society 2:3, 190-199
Online publication date: 1-Jul-2010.
Abstract . Full Text . PDF (478 KB) 
Daniel Sutter, Somer Erickson. (2010) The Time Cost of Tornado Warnings and the Savings with Storm-Based
Warnings. Weather, Climate, and Society 2:2, 103-112
Online publication date: 1-Apr-2010.
Abstract . Full Text . PDF (595 KB) 
Daniel Sutter, Kevin M. Simmons. (2010) Tornado fatalities and mobile homes in the United States. Natural Hazards
53:1, 125-137
Online publication date: 1-Apr-2010.
CrossRef
Patrick N. Gatlin, Steven J. Goodman. (2010) A Total Lightning Trending Algorithm to Identify Severe
Thunderstorms. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 27:1, 3-22
Online publication date: 1-Jan-2010.
Abstract . Full Text . PDF (4243 KB) 
Kevin M. Simmons, Daniel Sutter. (2009) False Alarms, Tornado Warnings, and Tornado Casualties. Weather,
Climate, and Society 1:1, 38-53
Online publication date: 1-Oct-2009.
Abstract . Full Text . PDF (970 KB) 
Walker S. Ashley, Andrew J. Krmenec, Rick Schwantes. (2008) Vulnerability due to Nocturnal Tornadoes. Weather
and Forecasting 23:5, 795-807
Online publication date: 1-Oct-2008.
Abstract . Full Text . PDF (1099 KB) 
 

© 2011 American Meteorological Society Privacy Policy and Disclaimer

 Headquarters: 45 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108-3693
DC Office: 1120 G Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington DC, 20005-3826
amsinfo@ametsoc.org Phone: 617-227-2425 Fax: 617-742-8718
Allen Press, Inc. assists in the online publication of AMS journals