Begint eigenlijk meer en meer een semantische discussie te worden.
Waarom mogen definities niet veranderen in de tijd, zeker als we onderscheid willen maken in ontstaanswijze van bepaalde fenomenen?
De meeste hozen in onze omgeving vallen onder het kopje "Cold air funnels" (incl. meeste waterhozen) en laat daar juist in de wetenschap nog tamelijk beperkte kennis over zijn (tenminste ten tijde van de laatste update van Chuck in deze definitie discussie)).
"9. Cold air funnels
This topic never seems to go away for long, so I suppose I should say just a little more about cold air funnels. There is not much about them in the literature ... the only published paper about them of which I am aware is that by Cooley (1978) and it offers relatively little insight. Doswell and Burgess (1993) have discussed them, but not in depth, because little of depth can be said. They occur in association with convective clouds (that may have little or no thunder) developing within cold pools aloft, in environments with relatively little vertical wind shear. These should be distinguished from tornadoes with low-topped supercells (that typically arise in environments that may be notably cold aloft, but with considerable vertical wind shear) and from "landspout"-type events (that have relatively little vertical wind shear, but are not tied to cold pools aloft). Cold air funnels are not items for urgent study because of their lack of associated damage and casualties ... we have other things to worry about that really do damage and create casualties. In my experience, many events are labeled inappropriately as "cold air funnels" even when they are not associated directly with cold pools aloft, simply because the events are unexplained (as noted in section 7, above). If one of these should happen to do surface damage, then I see it as a tornado ... plain and simple."
Maar goed, dan "mogen" we waterhozen en hun afgeleiden boven land ook tornado's noemen, ik vind het prima.
Quote selectie