Guest post by Paul Homewood
Although tornado numbers still need to be confirmed for November/December, NOAA have issued their report for 2012.
It has been abundantly clear for several months that the year would be one of the quietest on record. I was therefore more than a little surprised to see this graph NOAA put right at the top of their page.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/2012/13
Although they rather grudgingly comment that “tornado activity during 2012 was below average”, the impression is clearly given that tornado numbers in recent years, and even 2012, are much higher than in earlier decades. And, of course, many readers will simply look at the graph, read the first paragraph, and walk away with that very impression.
This impression would be most definitely a wrong one. Let me explain.
The above graph is based on total number of tornadoes reported, everything from the weak EF-0 ones right up to killer EF-5’s. As NOAA themselves acknowledge elsewhere, on their excellent “Tornado Climatology” website:-
Today, nearly all of the United States is reasonably well populated, or at least covered by NOAA’s Doppler weather radars. Even if a tornado is not actually observed, modern damage assessments by NWS personnel can discern if a tornado caused the damage, and if so, how strong the tornado may have been. This disparity between tornado records of the past and current records contributes a great deal of uncertainty regarding questions about the long-term behavior or patterns of tornado occurrence. Improved tornado observation practices have led to an increase in the number of reported weaker tornadoes, and in recent years the number of EF-0 and EF-1 tornadoes have become more prevelant in the total number of reported tornadoes. In addition, even today many smaller tornadoes still may go undocumented in places with low populations or inconsistent communication facilities.
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 true variability and trend in tornado frequency in the U.S., the total number of 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. The bar chart below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the strongest tornadoes over the past 55 years.

[For instance, Doppler radar was phased in from 1992-97]
Their graph only runs to 2011, but the preliminary total of EF-3+ for 2012 is 33, as illustrated in my graph below.
Out of the 43 years since 1970, there have been 15 with less EF-3+ tornadoes, so it is not exactly an uncommon occurrence. In terms of total tornadoes, the Storm Prediction Centre project that 2012 will be the quietest year since at least 2005 .

My own analysis suggests a total of about 920 total tornadoes, including 350 EF-1 or stronger. If the latter figure is right, this would leave 2012 as the 3rd quietest year for EF1+ tornadoes since 1970. Only 1987, with 316, and 2002, with 311, had fewer.
The November and December numbers will not be confirmed till March, when I will do the usual full analysis, including a look at whether early season tornadoes are on the increase.
After Thought
I cannot finish without revisiting my opening comments.
For NOAA to present the graph that they have at the very start of their report is, in my opinion, not only grossly misleading, but deliberately so.
They cannot claim ignorance, as they themselves already have already admitted that such comparisons are invalid.
Given the misleading data recently issued by other bodies, such as the UK Met Office, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that NOAA deliberately took the decision to publish this particular graph, rather than the more relevant strong tornadoes version, in order to promote their message that “extreme weather” is increasing.
For the second time this week, I am forced to ask the question – “ Is this really what “science” has come down to?”
References
1) Analysis of 2012 data is from NOAA’s Storm Events Database
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormeven
================================================================
Addendum by Anthony:
January 9th, 2013 marked a milestone in U.S. tornado history. That day marked the longest stretch of days without a tornado death. It will go down in recorded history as the longest streak with no tornado deaths: 197 days and as of this writing, 201 days and is still climbing.
Good piece. The public-relations from NOAA et al. is so deeply reflexive at this point that intentionality may not even matter. “Choices” like putting the misleading graph at the top of stories happen with about as much thought as cows chewing cud. It’s what they do.
I guess Dorothy has to keep waiting for that ride to the land of Oz then …
They sure like to adjust the temperature record, but don’t like to fix the under-reporting of tornados and hurricanes (even though the work has been done and is available to make valid comparisons).
There is a serious problem at the NCDC section of the NOAA. Somebody has to clean this up and it needs to start now.
They like to see if they can spin the tornado data more than the tornado itself.
Does the coriolis effect spin Southern hemisphere data clockwise?
I get the impression that there are two separate groupings at NCDC. One includes the proper scientists, like Greg Carbin, who know their topic inside out.
The other includes the PR people and data massagers.
Outreach is the job…….Tornado…..not so much.
cn
I am curious what exactly constitutes a “tornado “report. Are civilian reports counted? I also wonder if the increasing prevalence of cellular technology has also contributed.
UK Met Office
“UK Outlook for Monday 28 Jan 2013 to Monday 11 Feb 2013:
There is greater than average uncertainty through this period, with no strong signal for any one weather type to dominate. However, on balance colder conditions are more favoured rather than the milder weather experienced so far this winter.
Issued at: 0400 on Mon 14 Jan 2013″
As it’s winter it might be cold!
And their computer only cost 30 millon pounds!
Paul’s note about PR people is quite correct. This is a firm trend in governments around the world headed by our own Canadian Prim Minister. Last summer it only took three email to Nat. Res. Can. to get a technical question answered by a technical person. The first two resulted in completely irrelevant baffle gab about the wonderful job the gov. of can was doing, not! I think groups need to be kept far, far away from science: lawyers and PR.
A ripe topic for Spin!
‘And, of course, many readers will simply look at the graph, read the first paragraph, and walk away with that very impression.’
Job done then , for the mistake is to think this an argument about the facts or the science when in pratice its not . Its about getting the ‘right ‘ message out by what ever it takes .
Several dozen of those from the near-record year of 1974 were from one storm, the one that spawned the tornadoes that almost wiped out Xenia, Ohio. I’m not suggesting the numbers be massaged, but I wonder if there’s a way to account for such “multiple births” or a need for it.
Tornado reporting mirrors cyclone reporting. The name a slew these days, most would not have been reported before 1980 since no one would know they existed.
Is there any chance that tornado activity could be “normalized” with some kind of measurement stat like the ACE index for tropical cyclones? (length travelled on the ground multiplied by F scale etc.)
According to NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center (SPC) US Inflation Adjusted Annual Tornado Trend and Percentile Ranks, we ended up 5 tornadoes above the record annual low:
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/2012/torgraph-big.png
This are an array of other NOAA SPC analyses are available here:
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/
If NOAA is under the control of paid up members of the Global Warming Industry, there will doubtless be no press release clarifying matters, such as has been done here. After all, it is clear the principal purpose of this chart on tornadoes was to alarm, rather than to inform.
On the other hand, if NOAA wishes to be seen as being both objective and factual, then a clarification will be issued shortly.
I know which of these two options my five bucks is on,
I wonder how “Final data” could fall below “Area of Uncertainty” of “Preliminary Data” for 2012 in the NOAA Jan-Dec Total Number of Tornadoes graph. The error bar was surely in error, was not it?
Logic and Rhetoric are opposite sides of the same coin. Both seek to persuade the listener to accept a conclusion. Logic seeks to persuade by demonstrating that the conclusion is correct. Rhetoric seeks to persuade by making the listener ‘feel good’ about accepting the conclusion, regardless of its veracity or lack thereof. Any study of the Fallacies of Informal Logic will lead one to recognize that the Fallacies are still in common use because they are often more persuasive than logic.
Science is *supposed* to avoid use of fallacies by requiring all propositions to be empirically testable, but when money enters the game, politics soon follows.
Bloke down the pub says: Does the coriolis effect spin Southern hemisphere data clockwise?
While I’m sure it affects the direction of ‘spin’ to flush our tax money down the toilet on climate catastrophe ‘research’, it apparently makes no difference in political entropy at the point of discharge.
Congress.. haul them in front of a committe and tell them that their budget is for science, not propaganda. Since they do not seem to know the difference, give them a 20% budget cut.
Addendum by Anthony:
> January 9th, 2013 marked a milestone in U.S. tornado history. That day marked the longest stretch of days without a tornado death.
And of course a pretty impressive streak of no US landfalling major hurricanes. 2700 days or so (I don’t have time to look it up).
Maybe we need one of those “Days without an Accident” signs like they have at hazardous work sites. 🙂 Speaking of which, the ENSO meter updated fine, and is at (very) boarderline La Niña “conditions.”
I have my update cron script reporting the last five weeks of data now:
Opening http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&day=15&month=dec&year=2012&fday=14&fmonth=jan&fyear=2013&lat0=-5&lat1=5&lon0=-170&lon1=-120&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
Found target /png/tmp/CTEST135816481519198.txt
Opening http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov//png/tmp/CTEST135816481519198.txt
Data file
data from 00Z15DEC2012 to 00Z14JAN2013
“———-”
0.0246506
-0.119068
-0.045533
-0.228761
-0.514692
Length of data file 102, most recent value: -0.514692
file_last -0.228761
anomaly -05
For NOAA to present the graph that they have at the very start of their report is, in my opinion, not only grossly misleading, but deliberately so.
They cannot claim ignorance, as they themselves already have already admitted that such comparisons are invalid.
Given the misleading data recently issued by other bodies, such as the UK Met Office, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that NOAA deliberately took the decision to publish this particular graph, rather than the more relevant strong tornadoes version, in order to promote their message that “extreme weather” is increasing.
Yeah, but…
remember, it is not a conspiracy and they aren’t committing fraud.
/sarc /cynic
Now Global Warming results in greater storm reporting.
It would be hard to state out-right that the number of tornado’s has increased due to global warming – because tornado’s result from a mixing of both hot and cold air. This is in fact true of most of what we identify as “extreme” weather events.
This is one of the most ironic facets of claiming an increase in “climate disruption”.