By Paul Homewood
http://news.fsu.edu/More-FSU-News/Researchers-develop-model-to-correct-tornado-records
[Note Update Below]
Quantification of long term tornado trends has been hampered by the fact that many more tornadoes are reported today than was the case in the past. NOAA summarise this well:-
With increased national Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the U.S., the total number EF1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF3 to EF5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These are the tornadoes that would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports.
FSU Professor, James Elsner, has attempted to develop a model to determine the real trends, in the paper “The Decreasing Population Bias in Tornado Reports across the Central Plains”.
I have no particular comment to make about the model itself. WUWT has covered this issue well already.
I was intrigued, though, by the comment in the press release that “The model shows that it is likely that tornadoes are not occurring with greater frequency, but there is some evidence to suggest that tornadoes are, in fact, getting stronger”
Elsner reinforces this message with this quote:-
“The risk of violent tornadoes appears to be increasing. The tornadoes in Oklahoma City on May 31 and the 2011 tornadoes in Joplin, Mo., and Tuscaloosa, Ala., suggest that tornadoes may be getting stronger.”
We’ll leave aside the obvious fallacy that a few isolated events constitute some sort of trend, and look at what the facts tell us.
But first, a bit of detective work.
A Statistical Model for Tornado Intensity
A close study of the Elsner paper does not appear to reveal any reference at all to “tornadoes getting stronger”. (The paper is here – if anyone finds such a reference, let me know!) So where does he get this evidence from?
It appears to be based on another paper he has written this year, A Statistical Model for Tornado Intensity. There is already, of course, a well established system of measuring the severity of tornadoes, the Enhanced Fujita Scale, which uses damage surveys to estimate wind speeds.
Elsner, however, has taken a different approach, and uses a combination of tornado path length and width to estimate wind speeds. (The logic being that the strongest tornadoes tend to have the longest/widest paths).
This approach has a very fundamental drawback – the reliability of historical data relating to length and width. In Elsner’s provisional work, he seems to have used 1985 as his start point, but his paper now uses 1994 instead. Elsner told to me in May that “the data had problems before the mid 1990’s”, a fact which is confirmed in his paper.
And we also know already that, in 1994, NWS changed their recordings of width from “mean” to “maximum”. (Even then, discrepancies in the data where path width has been underestimated have been found more recently, such as this one in 1997 – see here).
But, even assuming that the data since 1994 is accurate, we are still only left with a trend of just 18 years. Is Elsner seriously suggesting that reliable trends can be calculated over such a short period of time?
Nevertheless, his paper concludes
More work needs to be done to understand the upward trends in path length and width. The increases lead to an apparent increase in tornado intensity across all EF categories.
EF Scale
So, how does analysis using the traditional EF Scale compare with Elsner’s study? Does it confirm his results?
Let’s start by looking at NOAA’s graph of stronger EF3+ tornadoes.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png
Certainly, 2011 sticks out , but it is absolutely clear that the last decade is unexceptional. It is also clear that there were many more strong tornadoes in the 1970’s, and to a lesser extent in the 1950’s.
This analysis surely casts huge doubt on Elsner’s conclusions, based as they are on such a short period.
But what about the strongest tornadoes, the EF-4’s and EF- 5’s? If Elsner’s theory is correct, surely we should be seeing an increasing frequency of these?
I have plotted below the numbers of these tornadoes since 1970’ using the data from NOAA’s Storm Prediction Centre.
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/#data
The situation is quite clear on EF-4’s – the trend has significantly declined, and even 2011 had far fewer events than 1974 – 17 v 29.
The position with EF-5’s is less clear, with a slightly increasing trend. However, this trend has been heavily influenced by the single year of 2011.
With an average of just one EF-5 tornado a year, the numbers are simply too sparse to reach any proper conclusion. It still remains the case that 1974 had more EF-5’s than 2011, and that the decadal total in the 1970’s was significantly higher than the latest 10 year period.
Conclusions
- The Elsner paper relies on far too short a period to draw any meaningful conclusions.
- It also totally ignores the evidence of the 1950’s and 1970’s, which clearly points to a decrease in stronger tornadoes over the longer term , not an increase.
- Elsner’s conclusions seem to be heavily influenced by the EF-5 tornadoes in 2011.
- The analysis relies totally on the accuracy of path width and length data. While this may now be reasonably accurate, past data is highly suspect.
- There are attempts in the paper to link the supposed increase in tornado intensity to “climate change”. Elsner goes further in an earlier presentation, saying
“Evidence points to growing frequency and intensity of extreme weather worldwide due to global warming, but an effort to detect changes in the intensity of tornadoes has yet to be made.
Here we show compelling evidence for a growing trend in the ferocity of strong tornadoes across the United States.
But as there has been no warming since 1997, how can any increase in intensity since then be due to global warming?
- The paper’s conclusions state that “the EF Scale is not adequate for analyzing tornado intensity”. I am not sure if the tornado experts at NOAA would agree.
There is no doubt that the decreasing frequency and severity of tornadoes is a problem for those who claim that global warming has brought an increase in extreme weather.
There is already a well established system for measuring the strength of tornadoes, and a well established database to back it up. Yet Elsner has attempted to replace this with a statistical model, based on a small amount of potentially unreliable data.
Is this a case of moulding the evidence to suit the theory?
Footnote
To avoid any ambiguity, in the Introduction to Elsner’s paper, he equates “tornado intensity” with “wind speed”.
Update
When I ran the above graph for EF-5 tornadoes, I had left the zero fields blank. This apparently gives a false trend line, so I have now rerun it with zeros. The result, as below, now shows the true position, which is a declining trend.
Thanks to Donald Mitchell and Scott Scarborough for pointing this out.
References
1) FSU Press Release
http://news.fsu.edu/More-FSU-News/Researchers-develop-model-to-correct-tornado-records
2) “The Decreasing Population Bias in Tornado Reports across the Central Plains” by James B. Elsner and Laura E. Michaels
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00040.1?journalCode=wcas
3) “A Statistical Model for Tornado Intensity” by James Elsner, Thomas Jagger & Ian Elsner.
http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/TornadoWindSpeeds.pdf
4) NOAA Tornado Climatology Page
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html
5) Storm Prediction Centre Database
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/#data
Why warming reduces the occurrence and intensity of tornadoes
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-warming-reduces-occurrence-and.html
In a post by Andy Revkin, Dr. Harold Brooks of the National Severe Storms Laboratory points out that “There are more F1+ tornadoes in warm winter months and fewer in warm summer months.” and that “there are ~20% fewer tornadoes in the collection of warm months.” Dr. Brooks also notes, “Probability of occurrence is mostly driven by wind shear and intensity is almost completely independent of the thermodynamics. The observations are clear on that. As a result, expected changes in occurrence and intensity would be driven by wind shear changes” and that 2/3 of the models indicate “a decrease in [wind] shear over the US.”
(The logic being that the strongest tornadoes tend to have the longest/widest paths).
==============
Shouldn’t that be:
The assumption being that the strongest tornadoes tend to have the longest/widest paths.
“Is this a case of moulding the evidence to suit the theory?”
No. I think this is a case of torturing the data to invent a desired outcome!
/ikh
I hope there was no gov’t grant involved in this waste of time.
A short – even by human terms, noting our “three-score-years and ten” lifetimes – period of observations, seems to be melded to heavyweight conclusions – like: “the EF Scale is not adequate for analysing tornado intensity”.
I don’t think that is good science or good statistics.
I am sure Professor Elsner [with lots of letters after his name] can refute this – well, it’s not even a hypothesis – suggestion [perhaps].
Thanks, Paul, an interesting post. One note. You say:
“The position with EF-5’s is less clear, with a slightly increasing trend. However, this trend has been heavily influenced by the single year of 2011.”
Actually, the result is quite clear. The EF-5 trend is far from being statistically significant, and as you point out is highly influenced by the final point.
w.
Here are just a few references on tornado climatology, intensities, distributions, etc. Brooks and Doswell are generally regarded as two of the world’s leading authorities by tornado researchers. I did my PhD on tornado characteristics and certainly used their work as a staple.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WAF910.1?prevSearch=%5BContrib%3A+verbout%5D&searchHistoryKey=
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0434%282004%29019%3C0310%3AOTROTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2?prevSearch=%5BTitle%3A+path+length%5D+and+%5BContrib%3A+brooks%5D&searchHistoryKey=
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0434%282003%29018%3C0626%3ACEOLDT%3E2.0.CO%3B2?prevSearch=%5BTitle%3A+probability%5D+and+%5BContrib%3A+brooks%5D&searchHistoryKey=
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1023647414047
Hockey Schtick says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:10 am
“Probability of occurrence is mostly driven by wind shear and intensity is almost completely independent of the thermodynamics.”
This was also confirmed by my research. Wind shear is by far the most important factor.
More work needs to be done to understand the upward trends in path length and width.
translation — give me more money!
And what about the intensity of all those unreported rural tornados in the past?
(The logic being that the strongest tornadoes tend to have the longest/widest paths).
How does the conservation of angular momentum factor in? As we know, if a figure skater has her arms extended, she spins more slowly, but if the arms are brought in, then the spin is faster as the lower radius has to be compensated for by a faster speed to maintain angular momentum. If I were forced to be in a tornado, I would rather be in one that increased by a factor of 3 in radius versus one that decreased by a factor of 3 in radius.
“If wishes were horses beggars would ride.”
by the time these morons get a paper out….about the weather
…the weather changes
Attempting to extrapolate backwards into dates where there is little, no or unreliable information would appear to be similar to:
Are ‘science’ and ‘conjecture’ synonyms? Perhaps we can get the Macquarie Dictionary to revise the meaning of both, as they did for our past Prime Minister (in Oz) for ‘misogyny’.
I guess I am a suspicious individual, but the graph for the F5 tornadoes did no look right to me. I put the data into a spreadsheet and got a slope of +0.00128 which should have shown up in the illustration as a flat line. To be a devils advocate, I asked the spread sheet what if it would be if I removed the entries for all years after 1995 that had only one F5. Low and behold, the spread sheet gave a slope of +0.0444 which is over 30 times as great a rate of increase as the data that actually shows all of the F5s in the latter half of the graph. This is neat since it shows you can make the rate of increase look larger by actually disregarding small entries in the latter part of the data. Back in high school, the first book I read on statistics was “How to Lie With Statistics”. Now with computers, I can have a spreadsheet do it for me.
Needless to say, when I entered zeroes for the years in the original graph, it gave a slope of -0.0143 which is a little greater than 10 times the value without the zeroes entered and in the other direction. It seems the spreadsheet also has an option which may be overlooked which allows considering missing entries as zero instead instead of disregarding them.
No warming since 1997? Have a look at smoothed HadCRUT3:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
It looks to me as if the lack of warming started in 2001.
No wonder this PHD student gave up. Now I see why. Sad really.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/14/a-window-into-academia-via-a-resignation-letter/
All they have left is the Arctic death spiral and lying claims of ‘bad weather’. They use suspect methods to arrive at their silly conclusions. All in the name of keeping their tattered reputations and their snouts in the Dollar trough. Scammers the lot of them.
Relax.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/21/pielke-jrs-follow-up-qa-from-the-senate-epw-committee/#comment-1396364
“Despite increasing temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age (ca. 1850), wildfire frequency has decreased as shown in many field studies from North America and Europe. We believe that global warming since 1850 may have triggered decreases in fire frequency in some regions and future warming may even lead to further decreases in fire frequency….”
doi:10.2307/3237261
It would be refreshing to hear members of the science community simply state that there is insufficient historical data and a conclusion or trend cannot be reached. -Paul
To avoid any ambiguity, in the Introduction to Elsner’s paper, he equates “tornado intensity” with “wind speed”.
===
Curious. Energy is speed squared. The power if can exert on a stationary object is speed cubed.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=218
Under-counting is a vastly over-stated problem. It really only affects EF1 and lower. Also no evidence of “increasing intensity” that I can see.
Are tornados getting stronger? No, but the hot air is sure blowing hotter!
Much of it is probably better reporting & sensing, as well as urban and suburban sprawl in “tornado alley” regions, e.g. Moore OK, Joplin MO etc.
Question – if an EF5 tornado is tearing up a vast, isolated stretch of farmland in KS or NE, will it be reported? I’m not sure, I’d like to know how many of these monsters actually occur every year, vs. the ones that rip up a community like Plainfield, IL; Barneveld, WI; Joplin MO etc. and are then reported. Anthony?
So they are going to go back and adjust past – pre Doppler – counts up ………snark/
================================================
I would add, “that anyone had a cellphone to send the picture to The Weather Channel.”
Today there is better radar and more people in more places with more devices to record weather events. I mean, in the 1920’s, how many farmers’ reports of a tornado in their cornfield were reported and paid attention to?
A model to “correct” tornado records?
Are they taht desparate to keep the hockey stick alive?
Donald L. Klipstein says:
September 14, 2013 at 2:54 pm
No warming since 1997? Have a look at smoothed HadCRUT3:
This is what they were talking about:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.2/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.2/trend