Should the terms waterspout, landspout etc be dropped?

  • Hi folks... possible baptism of fire here I suspect, but I promise I'm not trying to cause trouble. ;) We've been having an interesting discussion on UKww (http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=6820&start=1) regarding the relevance of using the terms waterspout, landspout etc when they're technically all tornadoes, so I was curious what you think. Please discuss it a bit first before voting... you might change you opinion... ;)

    To my mind, a tornado is any vortex induced by convection stretching boundary layer vorticity, including those on convergence zones, whether over land or water, under a meso or not. They are all produced by the same process, even if a meso will usually provide greater consistency and longevity, by virtue of the strength of the updraught and the fact it generates its own vorticity with the RFD.

    Other problems with using terms like waterspout, seem to be when they come ashore. This is 1 meteorological event, but might be classified separately as both 1 waterspout and 1 tornado/landspout.

    There also seems to be the misconception in the UK that waterspouts are weaker than tornadoes and filled with water. As many of our tornadoes are produced in autumn along cold fronts, the instability provided by the warm sea seems to mean waterspouts coming ashore are, on average, stronger than tornadoes generated inland. I'd guess this is less often the case in the US considering your geography. Education surrounding tornadoes is likely better in the US too, so misconceptions about waterspouts being filled with water are probably less common too.

    The point still stands though, that a tornado is a tornado. Whilst there is a need to describe whether it is over water or land and the meteorological conditions surrounding the event, this can be done more accurately and clearly using 1 term I feel.

    Reasons for continuing to use waterspout/landspout in the discussions I've had, seem to be centred around the sentimentality of simply being comfortable with the terms and enjoying having a variety of terms. Is this reason enough though if the multitude of terms creates confusion amongst the public? 1 meteorological phenomena only requires 1 term as far as I can see... :eek:

    Would value your thoughts... will be interesting to see if the opinion here is any different to the UK :)


  • I am a nice chap, just because you don't agree with me etc...;)

    By the way Landspout is a term coined by Howie Bluestein in the 1970's. The word whirlwind has been in common English usage for 300 hundred years. Why not call landspouts, whirlwinds, which is what I suspect the word really refers too. Not sexy enough maybe:cool:


  • Tornadoes rarely survive more than 10 minutes in the UK anyway to be honest Rob, so a few minutes is probably as long as they survive, yes. This isn't because the tornado is different in any particular way though, it's because the parent environment can't sustain the updraught and vorticity for as long as a supercell would. The more finely balanced the environment producing the tornado, the more delicate to changes that tornado is going to be.

    When do waterspouts form over the Great Lakes? I'd guess during the fall when the water can provide the instability? If so, it's surely the fact that the boundary layer instability is much less once the updraught comes ashore... much like when they come over the UK coast. So once again, the change in the environment and not a different kind of tornado.

    I assume you must have land breeze/lake breeze effects providing short lived vorticity to passing updraughts as well... again only going to be short lived because of the change in the environment.

    The main difference with meso produced tornadoes, is that the storm creates the vorticity, so as long as the instability is sustained and the environment conducive to a mesocyclone, the storm can generate the vorticity necessary to sustain a tornado. This is the only reason supercell tornadoes tend to be more long lived and stronger... the storm carries the right environment with it.

    Sounds like we agree on the meteorology, just not how the events should be labelled: i.e. tornadoes, waterspouts, landspouts are all produced in the same way, but the environment producing them may be very different. Shouldn't that environment be classified separately, rather than included in the tornado terminology?

    Agreed JF... there's a great variety of conditions that can produce tornadoes, some can sustain them and produce strong events better than others. This must continue to be clearly recognised and I wouldn't want to divert attention away from that.


  • Get a grip Sam! ;)

    When are you going to drop this meatless bone...

    You no more shot me down here than anywhere else. This arguement is on three boards now and you are losing across all three.

    Time for you, I suggest, to be elegant in defeat and drop the subject... :p

    "Losing" doesn't mean a thing Martin! It's the quality of the responses you should be looking at.

    Right, let's boil this down to a few points:

    Tornadoes are rotating columns of air, pendant from cumliform clouds and in contact with the surface. They appear to develop when vertical vorticity is stretched by a passing updraught. The vorticity can be created in many ways; e.g.

    through tilting of streamwise vorticity (which itself may be generated by a storm-scale feature, perhaps the forward-flank downdraught/gust front of a supercell, downdraught/gust-front of a multi/singlecell storm, sea breeze boundary, in fact, any mesoscale baroclinic feature)

    through interactions between several storms, perhaps intersecting boundaries.

    through features present in the pre-storm environement, such as a horizontal convective roll.

    vortex shedding from islands/headlands

    convergence zones

    and quite possibly, many other situations!


    Now - my point is that a passing updraught can ingest this vorticity, and the result can be a tornado. This is not dependant on the updraught rotating (i.e. a mesocyclone), and not dependant on whether the storm is over land or so.

    Now of course I understand that tornadoes developing beneath low-level mesocyclones are usually intrisically more intense than those which are not, but this is probably due to the fact that such updraughts are themselves more violent and long-lived than non-rotating updraughts.
    So classifying tornadoes but any other name seems pointless to me. Of couse, waterspout is entrenched in history and I'm aware that it's probably not going anywhere - however, that doesn't mean it's right.

    And as for 'landspouts' - well, many tornadoes in the USA (and defininately the UK, and likely elsewhere) are probably not associated with supercells, so does that mean that they should be classified as landspouts? No - classify them for what they are - tornadoes.
    That's my take on things anyway, and I'm sure people will disagree!


  • a gustnado can be damaging, it still needs to be tornado warned if sighted.

    I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this statement.


  • A tornado occurred only last night just N of the coastal town of Aberystwyth in Wales. Not sure if this began over water or not, but sounds like F1 damage so far, roofs removed, chimnies down etc.

    This touched down a couple of miles inland in the end, possible as a result of vortex shedding by hills in the boundary layer and the updraught stretching the vorticity. Unlikely to be a meso because it was only on the ground for just over a mile, but achieved up to around F2 damage. Plenty of media coverage of this one over this side of the pond! ...In case anyone's interested... ;)


  • I agree, nomenclature should be simple where possible, which is why I went down the "only use tornado" route. As you say, there's clearly a value to many whether a tornado is over water or not, hence the use of the terms. I can't see it as important enough myself to warrant separate terms, though it's obviously an important observation.

    If there's one thing the passion with which this discussion has been fought both here and on the other forums has taught me, it's that whatever my opinion is, it would be a rather petty exercise to try and do away with terms that so many people like. Just wish I could understand peoples attachment to the terms, from a meteorological perspective lol!

    I understand stats are compiled with them all as tornadoes anyway, with landspouts/waterspouts etc making up a portion of the tornado total. Anyone know if that's correct?


  • Using the term landspout isn't necessarily implying that it isn't a tornado, instead it's just a simple term to describe the processes that led to formation. In research (it's primary use) it's almost always described as a landspout tornado or nonmesocyclone tornado. It's just a term Bluestein coined for describing the processes behind the tornadogenesis. The problem with waterspout has more to do with the definition of 'tornado' (violently rotating column of air) (pendant from cumulonimbus cloud). I'll certainly agree that tornadic waterspout is sort of a misnomer but changing it to 'tornado over water, mesocyclonic' just seems like semantics to me and doesn't accomplish anything. In the case of gustnadoes, unless we are talking about some freak event, I don't think they should be tor warned.

    Interesting points Scott... it seems you have a clearer usage of the terms than we do in the UK. Here landspout tends to be used entirely separately from the word tornado, which created confusion amongst the media and public. This is why changing the terminology is more like semantics for you I guess. Clearly labelled sub-genre is much clearer than the situation we currently have. Mind you, I'd still go with "tornado-waterspout" rather than waterspout alone! ;)


  • I'm shocked to see how what at first glance appears to be a simple opinion poll evidently reflects some bitter infighting. That's too bad, because in itself this topic strikes me as interesting and harmless.

    For what it's worth, I'll toss out the following thought: it's a matter of taxonomy. In the plant and animal kingdoms, families are broken down into genera and species. I see no difficulty in applying the same approach to tornadoes, particularly since that approach is already used in differentiating clouds--i.e. cumulonimbus calvus, cumulonimbus capillatus, cumulonimbus incus; cumulus humilis, cumulus mediocris, and so forth.

    I'm by no means suggesting that we start Latinizing tornadoes (aka cumulonimbus tuba :-). I'm merely noting that the word "tornado" refers to a genera, of sorts, characterized by a rotating column of air that is in contact with the ground and connects with a cumuliform cloud. Drilling down from there, the terms waterspout and landspout are merely terms for particular "species" of tornadoes formed by different processes.

    Seems to me that waterspout and landspout are useful distinctions, every bit as much as are the words steelhead and coho: the latter both refer to salmon, but they're different kinds of salmon. Maybe non-fisherman don't know the difference and don't care, but salmon fisherman do, and they understand the importance of the distinctions. You need both the genera and the species to accurately describe the fish.

    Okay, so enough of that metaphor. I know it has its problems, but you get the idea. I'll bow out now and let the next person opine.

    I totally agree with Bob here... :)


  • I think the confusion lies in the use of the term 'supercell landspout' which is kind of contradictory. A supercell landspout would just be a landspout occuring in conjuction with a supercell not a tornadic supercell. It can't be both a landspout and a supercell tornado, so supercell can only reference what it is coming from. Sam, I'm not a big fan of tornadic waterspout. As far as landspouts/waterspouts meeting the definition of a tornado, well it really depends on what definition you use and most involve more then just vorticity stretched by an updraft. People started using the term 'tornadic waterspout' to differentiate between the one that poses a risk (to land) and the other that usually doesn't.


  • Don't waterspoud and landspouts almost have the same generation process, the main difference being that the updraugh comes from water's heat on one case and from heaten ground on the other?


    I would stick with the idea to keep term tornado when they occur but there still is a MAJOR difference when it comes on forecasting them!


    Si I would say that they all are tornadoes, but experimented chasers/forecasters/any 'ers related to weather should keep telling the difference between them.


  • My view is that a tornado is a tornado, whether it forms over water, over land, beneath a towering cumulus, beneath a supercell updraught, etc. They are formed by the stretching of vertical vorticity, and the generic name should not need to differentiate between environments. It's confusing to the public, and rather pointless IMO.

    Gustnadoes, thought, are definately not tornadoes, as they are merely swirls along a gustfront, without vertical stretching from above.


  • It seems a bit late to change things. People who are out boating will know to watch out for waterspouts, but if they hear about the possibility of tornadoes they might not think it applies to them. Also, if someone is out and sees a landspout, gustnado or tornado, it will probably be called in as a tornado but the NWS will have the last say when verifying.


  • "A waterspout carries no threat to anyone other than a stray boater on the lake and a shed near shore. That's it. Never any worse. So why confused the public? You can't have a tornado on the ground without a warning, but you won't find anyone saying we need to go wall-to-wall because a waterspout is going to spend 30 seconds on shore."

    That may be the case with the Great Lakes waterspouts, but I don't think it holds the world over. One of the most damaging tornadoes in recent years in the UK (F2 or so) started its life offshore and spread a few miles inland I believe. Either way, it caused quite a bit of damage in the coastal town there.

    My point being that they can be destructive if the environment brings them ashore and remains conducive enough to sustain them.

    We're talking from different perspectives I suppose, as you have a much greater variety of vortices there, in terms of strength and size. In the UK environment, a tornado produced by a meso is often similar strength to that produced by a convergence line. This means that the variety of terms can be more clearly differentiated in the US than the UK. This is why it's not good to have apathy towards waterspouts in the UK, when on average they're stronger than tornadoes that form over the land!

    Wouldn't be reasonable to expect the US to change their terms to satisfy the UK I guess ;), but global consistency I think is worthwhile. I can see your perspective regarding large disparity between environments, but can you see mine with regards all vortices being produced by the same process?


  • are Dust Devils made the same way a tornado is? If so and we decided to call every Dustdevil or whirlwind we see a tornado how are people suposed to know which ones are dangerouse?

    Absolutely not. Dust devils usually come on cloud-free days, and clouds are the most basic of ingredients necessary for a tornado to be attached to.

    People do not need a dust devil warning.


  • I see your perspective - but again, nobody outside this forum cares. The public doesn't. Meteorologists don't. We have waterspouts, and we have tornadoes over water. Simple, explains all about the environment, and is accepted.


  • Why don't you try and refute my points Martin?... I suspect because there's no logical argument that can. Whatever the sway of opinion, it doesn't negate the other argument... take global warming scepticism for instance! :P

    I'd like to continue this discussion in a constructive manner if that's ok?

    The naming system used in the US is actually more thorough than the UK, as tornadoes are categorised according to both whether they are over land or water, and whether they're produced by a meso updraught or not. The UK only goes half way really, categorising according to whether over land or water. Landspout is rarely used in the UK in my experience.

    Both conventions mislead the public in terms of them all being tornadoes though. It's technically their strength and diametre that determines their impact and these can be measured more clearly on a scale than varying naming conventions.

    I wonder how the public would perceive the threat of an F3 landspout or waterspout, compared to an F3 tornado?


  • It doesn't matter what we call it, it's still gonna happen and people still won't pay attention. You have to remember, outside of these weather boards and the meteorlogical community in general - nobody cares.


  • Just to ask about gustnadoes... aren't they just short lived eddy whirlwinds on a gust front? Best covered by severe wind warnings I think...


  • I'm shocked to see how what at first glance appears to be a simple opinion poll evidently reflects some bitter infighting. That's too bad, because in itself this topic strikes me as interesting and harmless.

    For what it's worth, I'll toss out the following thought: it's a matter of taxonomy. In the plant and animal kingdoms, families are broken down into genera and species. I see no difficulty in applying the same approach to tornadoes, particularly since that approach is already used in differentiating clouds--i.e. cumulonimbus calvus, cumulonimbus capillatus, cumulonimbus incus; cumulus humilis, cumulus mediocris, and so forth.

    I'm by no means suggesting that we start Latinizing tornadoes (aka cumulonimbus tuba :-). I'm merely noting that the word "tornado" refers to a genera, of sorts, characterized by a rotating column of air that is in contact with the ground and connects with a cumuliform cloud. Drilling down from there, the terms waterspout and landspout are merely terms for particular "species" of tornadoes formed by different processes.

    Seems to me that waterspout and landspout are useful distinctions, every bit as much as are the words steelhead and coho: the latter both refer to salmon, but they're different kinds of salmon. Maybe non-fisherman don't know the difference and don't care, but salmon fisherman do, and they understand the importance of the distinctions. You need both the genera and the species to accurately describe the fish.

    Okay, so enough of that metaphor. I know it has its problems, but you get the idea. I'll bow out now and let the next person opine.


  • The term 'tornadic waterspout' is more accurately described as a 'tornado over water' - I was just making it clear that the delineation is already there.


  • Hmmm, I disagree Rob... waterspouts regularly come ashore and survive in the UK, so long as the vorticity and updraught survive.

    The key, I guess, is that in Florida for instance, waterspouts don't come ashore much, because the alignment of the convergence zone remains offshore and this is what provides the vorticity for the updraught to stretch. Would you agree?

    In the UK, the limiting factor tends to be that, the water provides the instability for the updraught in the cooler part of the year, so when a Cu/Cb comes ashore, the updraught quite quickly decays and obviously can't sustain a tornado.

    If this is the case then whether a waterspout comes ashore is entirely related to the micro/mesoclimatology/geography of a region. Therefore, doesn't that prove that waterspouts and tornadoes are the same?

    Martin, I expected opinion in the US to be firmly in favour of waterspout/landspout as you well know. It is well used and familiar terminology here... though that doesn't make it right! ;) As for the car analogy, I'm surprised you're repeating it here after I shot you down in flames on UKww... I'll quote from there rather than re-writing it here! :P

    "If the cars are all built in the same way Martin, they have to all have the same name do they not? The factory they were built in is irrelevant. Build them in different ways and you have different names eg tornadoes and devils!"

    I'd accept that if the cars look different you might want to add some additional description though... ;)


  • We already have that definition: Waterspout stands for a true, non-supercellular waterspout over water. Tornadic waterspout is a supercellular tornado over water.

    Landspout is a non-supercellular landspout. Not sure what a tornadic landspout would be used for, but it's there.


  • A tornado will form whenever there is vorticity and upward motion - now just because this happens frequenltly in the Florida Keys region over water does not mean that the resulting updraught is not a tornado. I think people are getting confused here - all that has been proposed is that tornado is the generic term for such vorticies.


  • In the case of gustnadoes, unless we are talking about some freak event, I don't think they should be tor warned.

    Hey Scott! Nice to see you.

    please explain your reasoning behind this.

    If a gustnado is sighted, I have heard many spotter/chaser reports calling in a gustnado (or simply a rotating debris whirl on the ground) and shortly therafter a TOR warning is issued. I also know Gustnado winds can approach 80 MPH which, in a Trailer park, can be devestating. If a Gustnado hits a trailer park, is it not possible for deaths to occur? And would it not be the fault of the NWS for failing to issue a TOR warn if such a scenario (albeit rare indeed) was to occur? No other warning covers this sort of event and at the wrong place at the wrong time - anything is possible.


  • Sam, you are correct. I erred in my previous thinking as pointed out by Jeff and Scott. I am glad you are posting and bring up topics of interest and discussion. Glad you are on board!


  • Using the term landspout isn't necessarily implying that it isn't a tornado, instead it's just a simple term to describe the processes that led to formation. In research (it's primary use) it's almost always described as a landspout tornado or nonmesocyclone tornado. It's just a term Bluestein coined for describing the processes behind the tornadogenesis. The problem with waterspout has more to do with the definition of 'tornado' (violently rotating column of air) (pendant from cumulonimbus cloud). I'll certainly agree that tornadic waterspout is sort of a misnomer but changing it to 'tornado over water, mesocyclonic' just seems like semantics to me and doesn't accomplish anything. In the case of gustnadoes, unless we are talking about some freak event, I don't think they should be tor warned.


  • I would still like to have them as separate terms. I've seen from TV that waterspout looks totally different than a tornado... Though I have seen none of them with my own eye. But I agree about the warnings, they should be tornado warned. Unfortunately this would just be "a chance of twisters" on EMHI's warning page around here anyway so it would work out in countries like USA but not in Estonia.


  • I never really liked the term landspout and never thought they should be intially reported to the public as anything but a tornado. There seems to be a surfacing attitude that a tornado warning that is relayed to the public in landspout language somehow diminishes the danger to the point that some do not fully appreciate the threat to life and property. Warn it as a tornado, document it as a non-mesocyclone tornado.


  • True, or Fair Weather waterspout, is formed along lines of convergence with little windshear as a result or vortex stretching in the (mostly) developing stages of cumulus development. The True or Fair Weather waterspout is not related in any way shape or form to tornadic processes as would occur over land.

    The Tornadic waterspout is basically a tornado developing over water formed by tornadic processes in association with a thunderstorm as would occur over land.

    As far as calling it "tornado, over water, non-meso", I'm not sure what the purpose is since waterspout is such an accepted terminology with mariners and the general public alike, and, again, is formed by different processes altogether.


  • It doesn't matter what we call it, it's still gonna happen and people still won't pay attention. You have to remember, outside of these weather boards and the meteorlogical community in general - nobody cares.

    I'm not sure I care.

    I was burning some brush in Vermont and the smoke started to rotate. As the column contracted it began to rotate faster. Was that a tornado?


  • Sam is right - there is no way of determining whether storm-scale rotation is present in UK storms, but that doesn't matter - a tornado is a tornado, period...there's an obsession with tornadoes beneath mesocyclones, which in part I can understand, due to their sometimes violent characteristics.

    However, in my view, this is due to the updraught being much stronger and more persistent than in "ordinary" cells, rather that there being something fundamentally different. At the end of the day, it's still vortex stretching!

    I would assume that if non-supercell tornadoes were not called tornadoes in the US (for statistical purposes), the yearly average would be quite a bit lower than 1,000!


    p.s. Mungo, you seemed such a nice chap when we met in the pub after the TORRO conference you attended - were we not polite enough? Or did I forget to buy you a drink! ;)


  • Surely tornadoes, whether forming beneath a mesocyclone or not, are formed from the stretching of vertical vorticity. Of course, there may be several different methods of generating such vorticity, but the end result is still a narrow vortex pendant from a cumuliform cloud, a tornado.

    An example of confusing nomenclature occurred with the El Reno tornadoes, this past April. Some were classifying the second as a "landspout" - IMO, it was just a second tornado.

    Granted it was not beneath the mesocyclone, but what should that matter? It still formed in the same manner, IMO, as the 1st tornado, it's just that its vorticity was derived from the other "side" of the RFD, and the stretching occurred beneath the flanking line (what what I can gather).


  • Hi Jeff, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many offices that would issue a tornado warning for gustanadoes (what is recgnoized as gustanadoes). Certainly the winds can sometimes reach a damaging level but think about the duration, by the time the office gets the report it's likely already dissipated. There was one event earlier this year that involved some tornado warnings with what some thought were tornadoes, others thought were gustanadoes so FSD erred on the side of caution and issued a warning.


    Hey Scott! Nice to see you.

    please explain your reasoning behind this.

    If a gustnado is sighted, I have heard many spotter/chaser reports calling in a gustnado (or simply a rotating debris whirl on the ground) and shortly therafter a TOR warning is issued. I also know Gustnado winds can approach 80 MPH which, in a Trailer park, can be devestating. If a Gustnado hits a trailer park, is it not possible for deaths to occur? And would it not be the fault of the NWS for failing to issue a TOR warn if such a scenario (albeit rare indeed) was to occur? No other warning covers this sort of event and at the wrong place at the wrong time - anything is possible.


  • It seems a bit late to change things. People who are out boating will know to watch out for waterspouts, but if they hear about the possibility of tornadoes they might not think it applies to them. Also, if someone is out and sees a landspout, gustnado or tornado, it will probably be called in as a tornado but the NWS will have the last say when verifying.

    Don't be afraid of change! Just because something is entrenched in history doesn't make it right!


  • Mungo, the TORRO police are on their way! ;) Dust off those great white cages and get the chase truck ready for when I come over.

    Mark


  • Just to respond to Mungos continued vendetta against TORRO, although I'd probably be better retaining the high moral ground, TORRO stands for the "TOrnado and storm Research Organisation". We have a paid membership which covers newsletters and journals.

    The staff are a group of volunteers, a mix of professional and amateur meteorologists, who are interested in researching severe weather phenomenon. If they have opinions on other topics, that's fine and there's no reason for it to interfere with severe weather research. As mentioned above, staff and members pull together to try and research all potential tornadic events, with site investigations and papers written where appropriate. It would be great if more pure research could be done (I'd like to do some myself), but as volunteers, time is of a premium. I think most would agree that the work we do is more positive than no-one doing anything!

    As for classifying "landspouts" as tornadoes Mungo, I've explained above why we can't differentiate in the UK. We have no dopplar, so unless a witness can confirm rotation within the cloud, we have no way of knowing. "Landspout" is rarely used by anyone in the UK, except those with connections to chasing stateside, so it's little surprise we don't use it. I accept however, that the vast majority of the tornadoes we record in the UK are what would be classified as landspouts in the US and I doubt anyone within TORRO would disagree.

    Anyway, this isn't meant to be a discussion about TORRO as I'm sure most aren't very interested. Perhaps you've something to add with regards the differences between tornadoes, waterspouts, landspouts etc instead Mungo?


  • Evening Sam

    I am glad that you have brought the arguement over here where is it almost certainly doomed to failure.

    There is nothing wrong with using the term Landspout or Waterspout and you should not try to attempt to eradicate terms well recognised by chasers like me and others on here.

    Fellow stormtrack members should feel free to read this thread on UKww where a voiciferous defense of these terms is being made by myself and others.

    http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=6820&start=1

    You may even get a laugh ot two...


  • I would not take it that far as to apply it to landspouts. A non-supercell landspout is the same as a supercell landspout (a misocyclone being stretched by an updraft). Landspout is always refered to as a non-supercell tornado, IMO because it can satisfy the 'violently rotating' which is the most important distinction that was to be made against calling waterspouts a 'tornado over water'.

    Just to question your logic a little if I may Scott, if a non-supercell landspout is the same as a supercell landspout, isn't a waterspout the same as a tornadic waterspout and a waterspout the same as a non-supercell landspout? Don't they all satisfy the "violently rotating" criteria by virtue of the updraught stretched misocyclone? I get the impression you're not including a true waterspout as being violently rotating?


  • As a Brit myself I find this thread rather embarrssing. The views here from the UK seem to represent those of the TORRO organisation, which is not affiliated to any university, or credible scientific body (if that's harsh, then I am sorry) . I don't believe all or most serious meteorolgists in the UK call landpsouts or whirlwinds tornadoes as do this TORRO organisation.

    This in effect is a form of propaganda, and it gives rise to statements like the claims that the UK experinces more tornadoes per area than anywhere else. Which I believe is nonsense. I live in S Africa and have lived in the UK for quite a while as well. Where I live now there are hundreds of landspouts and whirlwinds here everyday. But nobody is calling them tornadoes, quite rightly.


  • Thanks Rob... guess I should have read up on that one a bit more. Never heard anyone used tornadic landspout before, but I assume it's the land based equivalent of a tornadic waterspout. This is the only common sense way of classifying things if their family is "tornado", though the tornadic landspout just takes on the term tornado I guess. Not confusing at all! ;)

    Seems that they're all accepted as tornadoes anyway in this case, just with the sub-species used more generally. Needn't have bothered with this thread in the first place by the looks of it as you guys already have it covered! :D


  • I've just skim read this thread. my thoughts...

    The term 'waterspout' has been around a long time and is here to stay. No question about that.

    The term 'landspout' is a relative newbie but I like it. It is useful to have a term for a non-mesocyclonic tornado.


  • "As the column contracted it began to rotate faster. Was that a tornado?"

    Of course not - even the simplest of definitions wouldn't accept that.


  • Or indeed the Latin term ~ 'tuba'

    Tuba: Latin for "trumpet" or "tube", this is simply the Latin term for a tornado, waterspout, or funnel cloud. The instrument called a tuba takes its name from the same Latin word


    http://takeourword.com/TOW204/page1.html


  • To a degree Shane, I guess you're right. Still better to be consistent though... ;)


  • Another issue in the UK I guess is where do you draw the line between a mesocyclonic tornado and a non-mesocyclonic tornado. A mesocyclone technically has to display persistent rotation to be defined as such, but what really counts as persistent? Although a few LT supercells probably occur every year in the UK, full size supercells born from a tropical airmass are very rare, simply because we don't have the land mass to support the necessary conditions.

    What we do get regularly of course is short lived rotation within the updraught. Whilst not persistent, so not being classed as a mesocyclone, this is probably the most common situation for producing tornadoes in the UK... or would these be termed landspouts? As I said earlier, landspout isn't really used in the UK, probably due to the lack of mesocyclones!

    I'm sorry if my comments have embarrassed you Mungo, but they are only opinions after all. They're held be me and not TORRO specifically... some there agree, more don't. Whether or not the organisation has specific affiliations is surely irrelevant... what's important is that a group of qualified and amateur meteorologists are seeking to study severe weather in the UK. Why attack that?

    I thought the misconceptions and vagaries of the spout terminology would be an interesting point of discussion. Science never moves forward if people don't question things. It's not propaganda for anything either... as I've just stated above, if you don't count landspouts as tornadoes, you could probably count the UK's annual total on one hand. Considering the amount of us that chase on the Plains, it should be obvious that we know the place to go to see a tornado! ;)

    Anyway, back on topic. Where exactly do you draw the line between a tornado and landspout / tornadic waterspout and true waterspout if both are produced by a rotating updraught? Does the rotating updraught need to be persistent enough to be called a mesocyclone? Also, what is the ceiling wind speed for a landspout / true waterspout? If a short lived rotating updraught produces a landspout, but the rotating updraught becomes long lived enough to "become" a mesocyclone, does the landspout "turn into" a tornado? These all seem to be vagaries that need defining to me.


  • "How is a waterspout not related to a tornado?"

    A waterspout cannot be created over land, even though the clouds are of the same type. Similar environment. A waterspout forming over water will die within 50 feet of land, while causing no more than F0 damage. So to call them the same thing is scientifically incorrect - they are not the same, regardless of the "similarity" of their formation. They do not form the same way.


  • True, or Fair Weather waterspout, is formed along lines of convergence with little windshear as a result or vortex stretching in the (mostly) developing stages of cumulus development. The True or Fair Weather waterspout is not related in any way shape or form to tornadic processes as would occur over land.


    If they're formed by different processes then it's fine to give them different names in my opinion, but how is the tornadogenisis thought to be different? I appreciate the larger parent environment will be very variable between situations, but that is described by whether the meso does or doesn't occur. I genuinely cannot see how a spout is any different from a tornado under a meso, other than in terms of its strength, longevity and parent environment. Can someone explain how it is? :)


  • "waterspouts regularly come ashore and survive in the UK, so long as the vorticity and updraught survive."

    Do they ever form over land? No. How long do they survive inland? I can't believe it's more than a few minutes?

    "waterspouts don't come ashore much, because the alignment of the convergence zone remains offshore and this is what provides the vorticity for the updraught to stretch. Would you agree?"

    I'm not familiar with Florida waterspouts - I'm talking about Great Lakes ones. They do come ashore, and fall apart within 50 feet of making landfall. Never any further inland.

    "Therefore, doesn't that prove that waterspouts and tornadoes are the same?"

    No, it shows exactly my point - they can't be intermixed. A tornado can go over water with no change at all, then back to land on the other side. Waterspouts cannot. Tornadoes can form over land, over water, or anywhere else as long as they are related to CB. Waterspouts form out of fair-weather cumulus (not storms) over water only (not land.) Hard to say they are the same.

    - Rob


  • Surely you assign terms for the vortex and the environment surrounding it separately though? A tornado over water may or may not be related to a supercell. If it's not, it will come ashore if the convergence zone and updraught producing it move ashore too. It's clearer to identify a vortex in terms of "tornado, over water, non meso" than "waterspout"/"true waterspout" I think... it's certainly more descriptive.

    Despite being involved with severe weather, I'm not familiar with a definition for a "true waterspout". Is this produced by an updraught stretching vorticity too?


  • Why don't you try and refute my points Martin?... I suspect because there's no logical argument that can. Whatever the sway of opinion, it doesn't negate the other argument... take global warming scepticism for instance! :P

    I'd like to continue this discussion in a constructive manner if that's ok?



    Deary me Sam...do you always get this touchy when you don't get your own way....? ;)

    I have been constructive and I have nothing to refute. I know the processes of tornadogenesis as well you know...

    The fact that Waterspouts and Landspouts are in effect tornadoes is neither here nor there. I'm not in dispute with that.

    The problem here, as I see it, is the fact that you want to rename certain meteorological phenomena (as laid out...named and described in glossaries/guides) to meet your own personal (amongst others) agenda or whim.

    Now is that constructive enough for you...? :)


  • Evening Sam

    I am glad that you have brought the arguement over here where is it almost certainly doomed to failure.

    I'm sure it is Martin, but I needed some real reasons for not dropping the terms... your reasons just weren't cutting the mustard! :P

    There is nothing wrong with using the term Landspout or Waterspout and you should not try to attempt to eradicate terms well recognised by chasers like me and others on here.

    Perhaps using them as sub-genre as I mentioned in my previous post might be more acceptable then?


  • Wow! I am amazed at how jumbled and confused all of the terms for tornadoes have become through the course of this thread.

    I highly suggest that everyone interested in this thread read “What is a tornado?” by Chuck Doswell. Link (http://www.cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/a_tornado/atornado.html)

    Better yet I'll just quote the paper here.

    2. Waterspouts, landspouts, and ...?

    Having mentioned waterspouts, this raises another topic. There is a special name for a tornado moving over the water: a waterspout. Why do we not have special names for tornadoes moving over sand (sandspout?), or asphalt (tarmacnado?), or mobile homes (manufacturnado?), or eucalyptus trees (gumswirl?)? Is it a waterspout if the water is fresh water rather than sea water? Does it become a waterspout if it moves over a lake? What about a pond? How about encountering a swimming pool or perhaps a puddle? How big does a body of water have to be to create a waterspout from a tornado? What about when crossing a river? A creek? A dry streambed? Would this last example be a "dry waterspout"? I am engaging deliberately in reductio ad adsurdum here because I do not believe there is any scientific distinction of consequence between a waterspout and a tornado!

    In the new Glossary, in fact, the definition of a waterspout is now:

    Waterspout -- 1. In general, a tornado over a body of water. 2. In its most common form, a nonsupercell tornado over water.

    For years, people believed that waterspouts were a distinctly different phenomenon, uniquely associated with tropical and subtropical convection that might not even qualify as cumulonimbus clouds. Of course, some "authorities" knew of the annoying problem of supercells over water; recognition of this produced the abominable term: "tornadic waterspout." Of late, it has been observed that phenomena quite comparable to waterspouts arise over the land, leading to another dubious term (that I have used!): "landspout" (by analogy, a "waterspoutic tornado"?). In my opinion, all these terms refer to the same phenomenon: an intense vortex associated with deep moist convection. Thus, I must quibble with the standard definition for its exclusion of convective vortices that happen with clouds not meeting the criteria to be cumulonimbi (e.g., those without glaciation at the cloud top).

    I am proposing the following definition:

    Tornado -- A vortex extending upward from the surface at least as far as cloud base (with that cloud base associated with deep moist convection), that is intense enough at the surface to do damage should be considered a tornado.

    This is without regard to

    * the underlying surface,
    * the existence/non-existence of a condensation cloud from cloud base to the surface,
    * the depth of the moist convective cloud,
    * the presence/absence of ice in the upper reaches of the convective cloud,
    * the occurrence/non-occurrence of lightning within the convective cloud, or even
    * the intensity of the phenomenon beyond some lower threshold.

    My broadened definition is designed to ignore what I consider to be incidental aspects of the situation. I believe that the physical process giving rise to an intense vortex is not associated with any of these coincidental issues and so the labeling of the real vortices that occur should not depend on them. It also excludes any phenomena not associated with deep moist convection, such as dust devils or "mountainadoes," and avoids making artificial and scientifically unjustified distinctions between "spouts" and tornadoes.[5]

    I hasten to add that I do not believe that the physical processes giving rise to tornadoes are all the same. It appears that tornadoes arise in many different ways, and perhaps different process can be associated with the tornado at different times in its life cycle. Moreover, not all tornadoes associated with a given moist convective cloud arise via the same processes (see Doswell and Burgess 1993). Some of the relatively intense vortices associated with a convective storm probably should not be considered tornadoes; e.g., circulations not extending to the surface, and true gustnadoes (see below), assuming we can identify them as such. There is a fair amount of anecdotal evidence for non-tornadic intense vortices in association with convection (see Moller et al. 1974; Cooley 1978; Doswell 1985; Bluestein 1988; Doswell and Burgess 1993; Bluestein 1994), but not much hard information about the processes giving birth to these vortices.

    At present, we are more or less content to classify tornadoes according to whether or not they occur with supercells. In the future, it may become scientifically useful to sub-classify tornadoes even further, as we learn more about how real events occur (as opposed to, say, events in our computer simulations!). If we must classify, then it seems to me that we should do so on the basis of physical processes and not be concerned with superficial aspects of the events. We are far enough along in our understanding of tornadoes that we ought to be able to move at levels deeper than the surface now.

    e. Other wierd things. It is plausible to believe that gustnadoes can develop into tornadoes (see below); there are at least some indications [e.g., from Erik Rasmussen in some personal communications] that a true dust devil could, as well! Essentially, there are many ways to produce an intense vortex from a preexisting, nontornadic vortex. Since there's a lot we don't know or understand, if we look carefully, we may continue to find examples that don't fit our nice, clean hypotheses.[8]

    8. What to do with "gustnadoes"?

    There is another class of events that has caused a large amount of heartburn: gustnadoes. Observations indicate clearly that relatively weak, short-lived vortices can form along the leading edge of an outflow boundary. The mechanism(s) by which such vortices form? No one really knows. Hence, almost anything I can say about these events is pure speculation. We have no detailed Doppler radar observations of them; we have no numerical simulations of them; we have virtually no validated knowledge. All we have is anecdotal evidence from storm chasing and some analogies with things seen in laboratory simulations (Idso 1975). The visual appearances of true gustnadoes (as opposed to tornadoes along a gust front, which are manifestly different phenomena) indicate they are shallow (perhaps 10-100 m deep) with no apparent connection to any process happening at cloud base or above (Fig. 6). When they arise, which I believe to be frequently, they occur in "swarms" such that there may be several in existence at the same time along the same gust front, forming and dissipating within no more than a few minutes and probably having only weak wind perturbations. Superimposed on a damaging gust front (i.e., a downburst), they might represent local concentrations of damage. Superimposed on a non-damaging gust front, they might be manifest as isolated damage events in an otherwise benign situation. My guess is that typically, they represent only a minor perturbation of essentially no significance, except in very rare examples.



    picture of gustnado

    Fig. 6. One of several gustnado events near Welch, Texas on 23 May 1982 [photo ©1982 by Chuck Doswell].

    I have some anecdotal evidence that a gustnado can evolve into a true tornado [Dave Blanchard, personal communication], but such an evolution is almost certainly rare. Whereas some true tornadoes might initially resemble a gustnado at the start, I certainly would find it easy to deny gustnadoes (as I have defined them) the status of true tornadoes. Unfortunately, it may be hard to train folks to be able to distinguish them from other vortices occurring in conjunction with deep, moist convection. I certainly have encountered a lot of different notions about gustnadoes, even among meteorologists, much less the lay public. There seems to be a disturbing trend to refer to all tornadoes occurring on a gust front as "gustnadoes" whereas I have tried, apparently without success, to confine the term to the shallow vortices on gust fronts that seem not to extend as far as cloud base. Moreover, even with 20+ years of chasing behind me, I still am encountering things I haven't seen before. What about the person experiencing something like this for the first time? If that person is confused and has a hard time sorting out what he/she experienced, I think they can be forgiven. But we need not assume that the public is congenitally stupid, either. Some people can report quite accurately what they saw, but they describe it in inappropriate terms (e.g., a tornado with multiple vortices becomes several tornadoes merging into one)

    There is a


  • I have a multifacetted answer to this question.

    There is one thing I am dead set against, and that is terming a true waterspout as a tornado, since true waterspouts are formed by a completely different mechanism only on water and dissipate before or just after making landfall. To term this sort of vortex as a tornado is a misnomer in my opinion.

    Then the question arises about land-based vortices. I think that there should continue to be differences in classifications of vortices.

    Landspouts are a land-based vortex, yes, and can be a KIND of tornado by definition only, and to the public, a tornado is a tornado. However, us in the weather circle recognize a landspout as a different form of tornado formed by a different process (not associated with a supercell mesocyclone). They can produce damage that is significant however, and the public does not need to have a distinction between a landspout tornado and a mesocyclone tornado. If it can cause damage, it is a tornado, and they need to take cover. My answer here would be who is the audience: The public or the weather weenies.

    Gustnadoes are yet another type. The public, again, usually has never heard of such a thing. They have no clue where a tornado is supposed to originate. Watch any yahoo video clip and they will think a tornado or funnel is any lowering off of any storm cloud and flip out. Television markets would call a Gustnado a Tornado if it is confirmed so that the public is not confused and wonder what the heck a Gustnado is. For us in weather circles, we are well aware a Gustnado is simply a shallow eddy forming ahead of a strong gust front. To the public, it is a tornado. They don't need to know it is generally weak or we'd see yahoos having contests at who can get inside the gustnado and get mudblasted rather then seeking shelter.

    In short, it depends on the audience. To the public (waterspouts excluded), call it a tornado, regardless of the type. To us in weather circles, the definitions are needed and necessarry because they give many clues concerning storm mode and tornadic type/function.


  • I kinda find it hard to believe that this debate is even going on as long as it is.
    I get peeved enough hearing people call tornadoes waterspouts when they move over water, when they are in fact not related.
    Very different meteorological factors contribute to these different whirls and that is why they are called different names.


  • Jeff,

    Re: tor-warnings for gustnadoes... Most gustnadoes are shallow and weak, thus making radar-warning difficult (if not impossible unless the area is very, very near the radar). They also aren't too uncommon along strong gust fronts. So, T warnings for such events would have a limited (or, likely, zero) lead-time for an event that typically lasts what, 10-20 seconds? Sure, 80mph winds in a gustnado can cause damage, but so can 80+mph straight-line winds. I'd go with a beefed-up SVR warning, and mention the possibility for short-lived, weak vorticies along the leading edge (I've seen warnings much like this, as well).


  • Really my point, Sam. I don't think we need a bunch of hifalutin' terminology, but the simple terms that are already being used have their application. The genus/species thing was just my attempt to point out why. Maybe sometimes the word waterspout needs a bit of further clarification, but how hard is that? Unless the Wx community sees a need to develop some full-blown categorization of tornado types--and I doubt that's an issue weighing heavily on anyone's mind--then we'll probably continue to use general terms and expand on them as the occasion calls for. Nomenclature is good only to the point where it muddies up the waters rather than clears them; other aspects of communication are at least as important.:)


  • Many waterspouts come ashore in the UK, but then I suppose we've got a rather higher water to land ratio, this is why complacency surrounding them is a concern of mine. A tornado occurred only last night just N of the coastal town of Aberystwyth in Wales. Not sure if this began over water or not, but sounds like F1 damage so far, roofs removed, chimnies down etc. There's a TORRO guy on site doing an investigation as I type. This is my reasoning behind not wanting people to think a waterspout is something different... it is simply a tornado that is currently over water. If it comes ashore it can be equally as dangerous.

    Scott Lincoln - "Very different meteorological factors contribute to these different whirls and that is why they are called different names."

    The general synoptic environment may be very different in terms of that which encourages supercells and that which encourages shallow convection along a convergence line, but the factors required for tornadogenesis are probably very similar. There's no obvious reason to assume they're different certainly. Those that like them classified separately largely want the vortex classified by the environment I think, rather than by the physics of the vortex itself...

    MatthewCarmen - "are Dust Devils made the same way a tornado is?"

    No, devils form from the ground up and are simply and eddy and a thermal getting combined I suspect. Tornadic updraughts are sustained from above, by the release of latent heat and therefore instability when condensation occurs in a cloud. Devils aren't associated with parent clouds. Different physics makes these entirely separate from tornadoes imo.


  • I know this sounds like a stupid question but are Dust Devils made the same way a tornado is? If so and we decided to call every Dustdevil or whirlwind we see a tornado how are people suposed to know which ones are dangerouse? I believe Waterspouts and Landspouts should stay the way they are. Now if a waterspout becomes strong enough to be a F0-F1 tornado or higher then I would still issue a tornado warning to let people know how bad it is but not call it one unless it is a actuall tornado. Just my thoughts. Have a nice day.

    Ps. I have never heard of Torro are they like the Noaa?


  • Ps. I have never heard of Torro are they like the Noaa?


    Hell no.

    It's a private subscription organisation of UK folks who like, well, tornadoes and other natural phenomena.

    They have some interesting views, for example the guy in charge, whose is called Terence, was on National Geographic recently to explain his personal theory on how crop circles are caused by solar flares!!

    I freely admit my view is a little biased. As you may see from previous posts.;)

    I have been taking great public exception with their calling whirlwinds and lanspouts 'tornadoes' for quite a while now...

    I protest greatly at what they try to label 'science', because it's not, it's just talk.


  • Thanks for your considered response Bob... I agree I think. I don't really think there are different "species" of tornado as such, as there are any number of characteristics you could classify them on down that route i.e. shape etc. However as a compromise position, usage of familiar terms within the family of tornado perhaps makes sense. Once you consider whether or not it's hanging from a mesocyclone however, you end up with a species called tornado inside a family called tornado... not very logical! For consistency you'd want 4 categories I guess... true waterspout, tornadic waterspout, true landspout, tornadic landspout. Not practical to use methinks! ;)

    Mungos post above also prompted me to think about how we compare our tornado stats. To do that, we'd need consistency in our naming conventions. The problem there lies that in areas of the planet without dopplar (much of the planet apart from the US), there's no way to confirm a meso. So whilst useful to recognise in the tornado stats, we can't do the same unfortunately with the same level of confidence or consistency.

    What I guess it comes down to, is we need to educate the public in the UK that waterspouts are just as dangerous as tornadoes...


  • Gustnadoes, thought, are definately not tornadoes, as they are merely swirls along a gustfront, without vertical stretching from above.

    Agreed. My point is, the public does not know that, or care. And because technically, a gustnado can be damaging, it still needs to be tornado warned if sighted.


  • Martin, I expected opinion in the US to be firmly in favour of waterspout/landspout as you well know. It is well used and familiar terminology here... though that doesn't make it right! ;) As for the car analogy, I'm surprised you're repeating it here after I shot you down in flames on UKww... I'll quote from there rather than re-writing it here! :P

    "If the cars are all built in the same way Martin, they have to all have the same name do they not? The factory they were built in is irrelevant. Build them in different ways and you have different names eg tornadoes and devils!"

    I'd accept that if the cars look different you might want to add some additional description though... ;)

    Get a grip Sam! ;)

    When are you going to drop this meatless bone...

    You no more shot me down here than anywhere else. This arguement is on three boards now and you are losing across all three.

    Time for you, I suggest, to be elegant in defeat and drop the subject... :p


  • A non-supercell landspout is the same as a supercell landspout (a misocyclone being stretched by an updraft). Landspout is always refered to as a non-supercell tornado, IMO because it can satisfy the 'violently rotating' which is the most important distinction that was to be made against calling waterspouts a 'tornado over water'.


  • "the environment producing them may be very different."

    Bold and italics on the "very" in there...

    "Shouldn't that environment be classified separately, rather than included in the tornado terminology?"

    No. A waterspout carries no threat to anyone other than a stray boater on the lake and a shed near shore. That's it. Never any worse. So why confused the public? You can't have a tornado on the ground without a warning, but you won't find anyone saying we need to go wall-to-wall because a waterspout is going to spend 30 seconds on shore.

    So let's keep the definition how it's been, and use the description to tell you the environment. You'll have a hard time finding a meteorologist who will refer to a true waterspout as a tornado...


  • Hi Rob,

    How is a waterspout not related to a tornado? Aren't they both produced by the same process, the stretching of vorticity by an updraught?

    OK, the environment generating that updraught and vorticity will vary, but the tornadogenesis is essentially the same process. That surrounding environment may dictate the strength of the vortex and although non-supercell tornadoes (waterspouts/landspouts) are often weaker, there is a large overlap, so to use these separate names diminuates them and can lead to misconceptions.

    This wouldn't be dropping terms for the sake of it, but defining the event accurately plus describing the surrounding processes and geography separately, making their identification clearer...


  • Don't be afraid of change! Just because something is entrenched in history doesn't make it right!

    Agreed - but changing 'just because' doesn't make it right either. A waterspout is called a waterspout because it is not related at all to a tornado. So changing the name of a waterspout takes it away from the scientific reality... A tornado over water is simply called a tornado over water. to imply that mariners won't be vigilant on supercell days because SPC issued a Tornado Watch holds no water (sorry ;> )

    - Rob


  • As a Brit myself I find this thread rather embarrssing. The views here from the UK seem to represent those of the TORRO organisation, which is not affiliated to any university, or credible scientific body (if that's harsh, then I am sorry) . I don't believe all or most serious meteorolgists in the UK call landpsouts or whirlwinds tornadoes as do this TORRO organisation.

    This in effect is a form of propaganda, and it gives rise to statements like the claims that the UK experinces more tornadoes per area than anywhere else. Which I believe is nonsense. I live in S Africa and have lived in the UK for quite a while as well. Where I live now there are hundreds of landspouts and whirlwinds here everyday. But nobody is calling them tornadoes, quite rightly.

    You do "spout" some odd things at times Mungo! Many meteorologists in the UK haven't even heard of the term landspout, so that is your first mistake.

    Secondly, as Martin has said, the views are not TORRO's per se, they are the views of a few forward thinking members/staff, who can see the way forward! :)


  • As a Brit myself I find this thread rather embarrssing. The views here from the UK seem to represent those of the TORRO organisation, which is not affiliated to any university, or credible scientific body (if that's harsh, then I am sorry) . I don't believe all or most serious meteorolgists in the UK call landpsouts or whirlwinds tornadoes as do this TORRO organisation.

    This in effect is a form of propaganda, and it gives rise to statements like the claims that the UK experinces more tornadoes per area than anywhere else. Which I believe is nonsense. I live in S Africa and have lived in the UK for quite a while as well. Where I live now there are hundreds of landspouts and whirlwinds here everyday. But nobody is calling them tornadoes, quite rightly.

    Mungo

    This is not the view of Torro. It is the personal view of some directors/executives and members. If you could see the poll on Torro's forum...you would see the vigour with which this battle is being fought!

    Sadly though...I think this method of terming all votices may be forced through...at which stage I shall discontinue my involvement and membership.

    However that said...I must defend the organisation and its membership against the personal vendetta you have been running against it for some time...


  • Well Sam a Jury of your peers has spoken (or written ;))...

    Nothing could confuse matters more than if you go around naming every single Waterspout that occurs off the Florida Keys in summer a Tornado for data collection purposes.

    Although every car is a car...we can have Mustangs and Hummers. What you are saying is almost..."that's not a Ford...it's a car" ;)

    What say you....:confused:







    • #If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#
    Your name:
    E-mail:
    Telphone:

    Your comments:


    If you have any other info about Should the terms waterspout, landspout etc be dropped? , Please add it free.

    Filed under: portal.dalikeji.com by rose - - -
    edit