(Photo credits: NOAA)
We are pleased to introduce WUWT’s newest addition, the WUWT Tornado Reference Page. We would like to dedicate this page to Dana Nuccitelli, of Skeptical Science infamy, who single-handedly managed to get Keith Kloor, Roger Pielke Jr., William Connolley, Thomas Fuller, Harold Brooks and countless others, all on the same side of a debate. At least most of us can agree that disparaging good scientists with unsupported assertions about “misleading the American public”, is not helpful to any side or anyone within this debate, unless of course you are a paid mudslinger.
Anyways, the WUWT Tornado Reference Page offers a combination of Current Convective Watches, Storm/Tornado Reports, 1 and 2 Day Outlooks and Historical Data on the Strength, Frequency and Location of tornadoes in the United States. The United States “experiences approximately 75 percent of the world’s known tornadoes”, however there weren’t graphs or graphics identified for the approximately 25% of global tornadoes that occur outside the U.S. If you are aware of any Global tornado graphs graphics, or have suggestions for additional U.S. content, please post them in comments.
Below are a few observations from the new WUWT Tornado Reference Page:
U.S. Inflation Adjusted Annual Tornado Trend and Percentile Ranks show that the current tornado count of 790 for 2013 is 154 tornadoes below the historical minimum of 944, 497 tornadoes below the 50th percentile of 1287 and 1089 tornadoes below the historical maximum 1879:
Tornado counts are Inflation Adjusted “because the increase in tornado reports over the last 54 years is almost entirely due to secular trends such as population increase, increased tornado awareness, and more robust and advanced reporting networks.” NOAA – Storm Prediction Center However, for reference, the following are non-Inflation Adjusted Preliminary U.S. Annual Tornado Trend From National Weather Services Local Storm Reports. Currently the Preliminary U.S. Tornado Count for 2013 year to date is 934, which is 544 tornadoes below the 2005 – 2012 average of 1478 and 134 tornadoes below the 2012 low of 1068 tornadoes.
When looking over a longer time frame U.S. EF1-EF5 Tornadoes;
U.S. Strong to Violent EF3-EF5 Tornadoes;
and Normalized US Tornado Damage;
“tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.” as Roger Pielke, Jr. noted in his recent testimony at a congressional Sub-Committee hearing on “A FACTUAL LOOK AT THE RELATIONSHIP OF CLIMATE AND WEATHER”. You can either believe the data, your own eyes and Roger, or you can believe Dana Nuccitelli and his claim that unamed “Tornado experts say @RogerPielkeJr and Richard Muller are misleading the American public”…
In addition to the WUWT Tornado Reference Page. if you have not had the opportunity to review some our other WUWT Reference Pages it is highly recommended:
- Atmosphere Page
- Atmospheric Oscillation Page
- ENSO (El Nino/La Nina Southern Oscillation) Page
- “Extreme Weather” Page
- Geomagnetism Page
- Global Climate Page
- Global Temperature Page
- Ocean Page
- Oceanic Oscillation Page
- Polar Vortex Page
- Paleoclimate Page
- Potential Climatic Variables Page
- Northern Regional Sea Ice Page
- Sea Ice Page
- Solar Page
- Spencer and Braswell Papers
- Tornado Page
- Tropical Cyclone Page
- US Climatic History Page
- US Weather Page
Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data within the Reference Pages, as WUWT is simply an aggregator. All of the data is linked from third party sources. If you have doubts about the accuracy of any of the graphs on the WUWT Reference Pages, or have any suggested additions or improvements to any of the pages, please let us know in comments below.
“Commerative?” Does Dana get his own vocabulary now? 😉
…. my mind still reads that as ‘Nutticelli’ … perhaps a change in the surname was effected sometime in the past …
.
Jeff Alberts says: December 22, 2013 at 11:10 am
“Commerative?” Does Dana get his own vocabulary now? 😉
Yes, it was hard to write that with a straight face or correct spelling 🙂
‘Frequency and Location of tornadoes in the United States. The United States “experiences approximately 75 percent of the world’s known tornadoes”’
You mean to say, that with only 5% of the world’s population, the United States consumes 75% of the world’s tornadoes? This over consumption of the Earth’s resources by the US, and particularly its unsustainable middle class lifestyle, has got to stop.
sarc
Can a map be generated and updated to show where they form?
I know that take time…
Here is some information about Canadian tornadoes:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=6C5D4990-1#tornadoes
and specifically studies of tornadoes in Alberta:
(These papers no longer appear to be pay walled.)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WAF921.1
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WAF921.1
Nucc-job.
Just looking at ‘normalised tornado damage’ plot it suggests this may be something that should be plotted on a log scale. I’m sure damages do not rise linearly with wind speed ( wind speed cubed would be a likely proposition, that is what gives the power transfer as with wind turbine calculations).
I think in that case we will see how it varies more clearly. Already I would say it hit a minimum in 1997.
Then if we take a look at extra-tropical N. Pacific SST that determines air entering the west coast, and tropical to southern, north Atlantic SST that determines the air entering from the east, we may get some insight into how temperature variations relate ( or not ) to tornado count.
MaxLD says: December 22, 2013 at 11:45 am
Sills, D. (Environment Canada) et. al (2012) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Here is some information about Canadian tornadoes:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=6C5D4990-1#tornadoes
Yes, added to the WUWT Tornado Page:
Canadian Confirmed and Probable Tornadoes 1980 – 2009
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
Thank you
Box of Rocks says: December 22, 2013 at 11:36 am
Can a map be generated and updated to show where they form?
I know that take time…
What exactly are you looking for? This page offers maps with U.S. tornado locations by year through present;
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html
and this map shows all U.S. tornado tracks from 1950 – 2011
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/gis/svrgis/images/tornado_tracks.png
It appears that Canadian tornadoes occur only where there are people.
Normalized damage means absolutely nothing, you could have a season of low count with massive damage hitting populated areas OR a season of high count that are mainly rural. The odds of hitting populated areas are completely chance variables. That being said trailer parks appear to have a magnetic attraction for storms. ( or they are easier to be damaged ) hint
I would imagine Dana Nuccitelli will take it in good spirit and be suitably honoured that his profile is such that he has been honoured by the widest read climate blog on the net.
Speed says:
December 22, 2013 at 12:18 pm
It appears that Canadian tornadoes occur only where there are people.
And that is the big problem with all tornado research. You generally need people to report their occurrence. A situation that is particularly difficult in sparsely populated Canadian areas.
“It appears that Canadian tornadoes occur only where there are people.”
He He.
Plain ol’ Damn Nutter is probably an accurate description of this “dramagreen” whacko.
So there IS one useful thing Dana did in his life .. getting this thing going.
===================================================================
Isn’t that some kind of breakfast spread made form nuts?
What I want to know is where one can find the data for the above time series plots of EF 1+ and EF 3+ Tornadoes. I would be interesting to analyze them for relationships with ENSO and other things that way. But the links onlly go to the graphics.
The link above to “Global Climate Page” seems to be broken?
On tornadoes – I have done quite a bit of walking in the Australian bush over many years and have often come across localised damage from “high wind” events. We tend not to call them tornadoes in Australia but cyclones. It is only when one of these hit suburbia do they rate a mention in the main stream press and of course any in the last 10 years or so are definitely due to “carbon pollution” /sarc.
@ James from Arding,
That is the first time I have read an Australian confusing tornados with Cyclones. However, I’m disturbed by the recent tendency by the public and the press to report every bit of storm damage to be the result of a “mini-tornado” and “like a bomb going off” all within the CO2-induced extreme weather meme
timetochooseagain says: December 22, 2013 at 1:11 pm
What I want to know is where one can find the data for the above time series plots of EF 1+ and EF 3+ Tornadoes. I would be interesting to analyze them for relationships with ENSO and other things that way. But the links onlly go to the graphics.
Should be here;
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/#data
this should be the 5.7mb data file:
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/data/1950-2012_torn.csv
James from Arding says: December 22, 2013 at 1:34 pm
The link above to “Global Climate Page” seems to be broken?
Corrected, thank you.
Dana doesn’t care he just keeps cashing his paychecks that Exxon helped pay for,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/07/dana-nuccitellis-paycheck-funded-by.html
MaxLD says
And that is the big problem with all tornado research. You generally need people to report their occurrence. A situation that is particularly difficult in sparsely populated Canadian areas.
Most Alberta/Saskatchewan storms do get reported/spotted. It’s just most do not become news until they hit a town or several farms or someone dies. Edmonton and Pinelake are the most recent where deaths and damage have occurred.
Another where damage stats mean nothing for year to year tracking, those are just odds of being hit if a tornado touches down. Alberta is interesting case in point where insurance companies are claiming global warming/climate change to justify rate hikes for hail damage. They claim an increase in both severity and frequency. While neither of those have occurred, it’s an easier sell to the general public. The only thing that has increased is the population due to oil production jobs, so the odds have increased in finding cars and oases to damage. The other thing that has changed is the materials used to build both cars and houses are materials less likely to handle hail. Cars sheet metal is way thinner than the 50’s thru 70’s vehicles. And the use of plastics in both vehicles and housing materials make hail damage more likely. Using the climate change angle the public has been conditioned to accept makes it easier for them.
Oases = houses (iPad keyboard grrr)
Dana is the perfect choice. After all, he knows how to spin.
Shub Niggurath says:
December 22, 2013 at 12:32 pm
“It appears that Canadian tornadoes occur only where there are people.”
He He.
.
That must mean that it’s people causing the tornadoes?
.
On a seriously serious note is all the extra tornado energy hiding in the 25% not recorded?
Well prove me wrong then…
Go on.
I don’t really need to put a “sarc” on this do I?
I believe all the missing hurricanes are below 700m which explains why we can’t see them.
Whoops! not “hurricanes”, “tornados”
Dana will like this. 🙂 We must act now! Dana will take the initiative by telling his oil employer, Tetra Tech, to act on climate change. Tetra will in due course stop its assisted digging in oil sands of the United States of America. It’s all for the sake of the grandchildren. Hansen agrees.
[UK Tornado] and Storm Research Organisation
http://www.torro.org.uk/
But it is much worse that we imagined?
Here is some extra reading material on the UK’s terrible tornado situation. The Prime Minister must act now on climate change for the sake of the littleuns. They are screaming!!!
Tell me, that it is a coincidence that Dana just won Prat of the Years, from Pointman.
Pointman does a wonderful ode to Dana’s magnificence ignorance.
Well worth a read, Merry Christmas.
Hey Dana, here is your oil services employer at work, expanding its fossil fuel network last year. Dana, you are such a hypocrite, you just can’t resist fossil fuel funding. I for one don’t work for any fossil fuel company and don’t receive a single dime from any either. My only interests in fossil fuels is that I use them, like the consensus of Warmist hypocrites. What about you Dana???? Chirp, chirp. Haaa, haaaaaaaaa.
The last time I was banned at the Guardian (about 4 weeks ago) it was under one of Dana ‘Nutter’ Oil Selly‘s articles. He cited the 97% consensus while trumpeting a minority of climate scientists backing his latest horse poop claim. I pointed out ‘the problem’ and was promptly banned. I can’t remember the article but my comment got some great up clicks. I also compared his stance to Lysenkoism.
Jimbo
“I also compared his stance to Lysenkoism.”
.
There was a time when you would have been shot for saying such a thing……Bet they wish though….
Yet they call others fascists….
from
Nutella
Chocolate and almonds.
Nutella: Chocolate and Filberts
I noticed that the highest year for tornado activity was 1879 about 30 years after North America came out of the Little Ice Age. I would suppose this is because this is when maximum heat differentials were present in the atmosphere vs oceans vs land. And with 2013 being one of the years of the lowest tornado activity I suppose this was due to low temperature differentials, perhaps because of a near zero trend of temperature for the last 17 years, thus an equalization of temperature differentials. If so, does this mean that we are seeing the lowest value of tornado activity, or will it continue to generally trend downward, or will there be a reversal of tornado activity? What if North American temperatures continue to or start to fall?
Is the normalized tornado damage adjusted for inflation?
I’m not sure celebrating an irrational eco-activist that can’t or wont even calculate some junior high math is a good idea. Dana is best ignored.
Note to Mods, you were probably right to moderate my previous descriptions of Dana but in fact, in my opinion I was technically correct. Dana’s behaviour is in my opinion irrational when it comes to CAGW. What reasonable rational person will refuse to consider simple refuting evidence or refuse to do some simple arithmetic to get perspective on CAGW. Irrational is a synonym for my previous description, which was hyperbole, designed to highlight this.
@Stacey,
Actually I believe it is normalised for inflation and population.
I know who Dana is and who he works for. I don’t know who justthefactswuwt is or who he works for.
I should. Even though it makes no difference to the quality of their arguments.
Using the best of alarmist scientific methodology, I have derived the following, sometimes with the help of Wikipedia:
1. Nut: Mildly lunatic
2. Tic: Blood sucking insect, which can cause great damage.
3. Elli – Old age.
On par with a typical troll comment – not funny, but perhaps in this case, appropriate.
Thanks Anthony, JustTheFacts, a great addition.
As Mr Nuccitelli sails skyward hoisted by the mighty up-draught of his very own Petard, he will at the zenith perhaps have a moment to look below.
As he cartwheels betwixt, he can contemplate a beautiful blue world below and give thanks for all of it. Before rushing down.
This is a link to the European Severe Weather Database that allows you to select a report based on type of severe weather, date range, and several other options.
http://www.essl.org/cgi-bin/eswd/eswd.cgi#lookupanchor
I don’t know if that is exactly what you are looking for but it’s a good source of information.
Roger Clague says: December 23, 2013 at 4:59 am
I know who Dana is and who he works for. I don’t know who justthefactswuwt is or who he works for.
I should.
Eventually, but in short, I have never received any compensation for any of the work I have done on WUWT. Thus in the context of climate, I work for no one.
Even though it makes no difference to the quality of their arguments.
That’s really the point in that who I am should have no baring on facts I present. I’d prefer that who I am not distract from the clear and unbiased presentation of the facts.
justthefactswuwt says:
December 23, 2013 at 9:31 am
I’d prefer that who I am not distract from the clear and unbiased presentation of the facts.
Describing Dana as a mudslinger is a literary metaphor not an unbiased fact.
Anonymous posters should be especially careful to avoid ad homs
Who you does not affect presentation of facts. Who you are will affect confidence in what you present.
Roger Clague says: December 23, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Describing Dana as a mudslinger is a literary metaphor not an unbiased fact.
I disagree, the Google definition of mudslinging is “the use of insults and accusations, esp. unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=mudslinging&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
When Dana tweeted that “Tornado experts say @RogerPielkeJr and Richard Muller are misleading the American public” his actions fell within the definition of mudslinging.
Anonymous posters should be especially careful to avoid ad homs
I completely agree.
Who you does not affect presentation of facts. Who you are will affect confidence in what you present.
That’s why whenever possible all graphs and graphic posted are linked to their data sources and any assertions made are supported by the associated links. I think that there should be no confidence placed in what I present, rather I strongly suggest that readers review the data sources themselves so that they can get their facts directly from the sources.
Attacking reputations is part of science. We do it all the time here. You are questioning Dana’s reputation, especially his motives.You are mudslinging.
The new tornado page is a fair response. However there are not just facts. There are arguments using evidence for or against theories.
The problem for me is that you are hiding your reputation. Do you have a record of being right about other
theories? We don’t know.
The only reason I understand for posting anonymously is if otherwise you expect adverse reaction, for example getting sacked. Why are you not proud to put your name to your work?
Roger Clague says: December 26, 2013 at 3:57 am
Attacking reputations is part of science. We do it all the time here. You are questioning Dana’s reputation, especially his motives.You are mudslinging.
Please cite the specific language I used that meets the definition of mudslinging. Pointing out that someone else is mudslinging, is not in and of itself mudslinging. I am not questioning Dana’s reputation and motives, rather I cited articles that do so in a compelling manner, and which were not refuted in comments or elsewhere as far as I read. I then synthesized these articles into a statements of fact as I understand it to be. If you think that any of the facts stated above, or the links supporting them, are inaccurate, please post such evidence for consideration.
The new tornado page is a fair response. However there are not just facts. There are arguments using evidence for or against theories.
I can’t say I am perfect, occasionally an opinion or two slips through, but I am judicious in trying to present only the facts, and sensor out any opinions I come across in editing. Please cite the specific language that you think is “not just facts”.
There are arguments using evidence for or against theories.
So? If there are facts that support the arguments for or against theories, why is this not “just the facts” to present them?
The problem for me is that you are hiding your reputation. Do you have a record of being right about other theories? We don’t know.
No, I have no reputation, I have no record of being right or wrong. Assume that what I write is inaccurate and go check the data for yourself.
The only reason I understand for posting anonymously is if otherwise you expect adverse reaction, for example getting sacked. Why are you not proud to put your name to your work?
Initially there was risk of an “adverse reaction, however at present anonymity focuses attention on the facts, versus the messenger.