Making up historical tornado data

wea00246[1]
Tornado at Lebanon, Kansas, from the collection of S. D. Flora. In: ‘Monthly Weather Review,” July 1919, p. 448. From the Historic NWS Collection, Location: Lebanon, Kansas, Photo Date: 1913 October 09 – Can we reliably say that because this tornado was photographed, there are others not seen?
From the “if a tornado hits a cornfield in Kansas, does it make a sound?” department comes this story. It isn’t enough that climate researchers have to constantly adjust the historical temperature record of the past to make it cooler, increasing the trend, now there’s talk of adjusting the historical tornado record because the technology explosion of the present lends itself to better reporting.

Problem is, tornado formation, being highly chaotic, can’t be as easily interpolated, infilled, and adjusted like temperature data can. Just because a tornado occurred in two places, doesn’t automatically mean there was one in between them that was unreported. Thunderstorm cell formation is micro to mesoscale in size, meaning tornadoes are highly local, and not all cells produce tornadoes, even if there is a line of tornadic prone cells with a front. They’ll have to make up reports out of whole cloth in my opinion. Interpolation of tornado sighting data just isn’t sensible, but they are going to try anyway:

Their model calls for the reported number in rural areas to be adjusted upward by a factor that depends on the number of tornadoes in the nearest city and the distance from the nearest city.

Also, in my opinion, this is statistical madness.

From an FSU press release, by Jill Elish

Twister history: FSU researchers develop model to correct tornado records for better risk assessment

In the wake of deadly tornadoes in Oklahoma this past spring, Florida State University researchers have developed a new statistical model that will help determine whether the risk of tornadoes is increasing and whether they are getting stronger.

Climatologists have been hampered in determining actual risks by what they call a population bias: That is, the fact that tornadoes have traditionally been underreported in rural areas compared to cities.

Now, FSU geography Professor James B. Elsner and graduate student Laura E. Michaels have outlined a method that takes the population bias into account, as well as what appears to be a recent surge in the number of reported tornadoes, thanks in part to an increasing number of storm chasers and recreational risk-takers roaming Tornado Alley.

Their model is outlined in the article “The Decreasing Population Bias in Tornado Reports across the Central Plains,” published in the American Meteorological Society’s journal Weather, Climate, and Society. The model offers a way to correct the historical data to account for the fact that there were fewer reports in previous decades. In addition to Elsner and Michaels, Kelsey N. Scheitlin, an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, and Ian J. Elsner, a graduate student at the University of Florida, co-authored the paper.

“Most estimates of tornado risk are probably too low because they are based on the reported number of tornadoes,” Elsner said. “Our research can help better quantify the actual risk of a tornado. This will help with building codes and emergency awareness. With our research, the science of tornadoes can move forward to address questions related to whether cities enhance or inhibit tornadoes.”

Although other researchers have proposed methods to address the population bias, all of them assume the bias is constant over time, Elsner said. This model is the first to take into consideration how the population bias has changed over time.

Historically, the number of reported tornadoes across the premiere storm chase region of the central Plains is lowest in rural areas. However, the number of tornado reports in the countryside has increased dramatically since the 1970s and especially since the 1996 release of the disaster movie “Twister.” The movie spawned a generation of storm chasers who are partially responsible for more tornado reports, Elsner said.

Interestingly, Elsner’s model was developed after he led a team of undergraduate and graduate students on a storm-chasing mission of their own.

“While we were driving around the Great Plains looking for storms, I challenged my students to think about how the historical data could be used to better estimate the risk of getting hit by a tornado,” he said. “The observations of other chasers and the geographic spacing of towns led us to our model for correcting the historical record.”

In addition to more storm chasers logging tornado sightings, greater public awareness of tornadoes and advances in reporting technology, including mobile Internet and GPS navigating systems, may also have contributed to the increase in reports over the past 15 to 20 years.

The increase in reports has diminished the population bias somewhat, but it introduced a second problem: There are more reports, but are there also, in fact, more tornadoes? In other words, is the risk actually increasing?

To address these issues, the FSU researchers first made the assumption that the frequency of tornadoes is the same in cities as in rural areas. They also operated on the assumption that the reported number of tornadoes in rural areas is low relative to the actual number of tornadoes.

Their model calls for the reported number in rural areas to be adjusted upward by a factor that depends on the number of tornadoes in the nearest city and the distance from the nearest city. 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.

“The risk of violent tornadoes appears to be increasing,” Elsner said. “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.”

The Oklahoma City tornado on May 31, 2013, was the largest tornado ever recorded, with a path of destruction measuring 2.6 miles in width. The Tuscaloosa and Joplin tornadoes are two of the most deadly and expensive natural disasters in recent U.S. history.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

92 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mac the Knife
September 12, 2013 11:28 am

Making Up Historical Tornado Data
or perhaps just
Making Up Hysterical Tornado Data

hunter
September 12, 2013 11:29 am

is this a bad thing for skeptics? that is a seperate question from “is it good science?”
If it can be shown that there were even more tornados in the past, then those showings would make it more difficult for the alarmists of today to claim things are “worse than predicted”.
Now is it good science? I leave this question to others.

September 12, 2013 11:30 am

Normally, I’d have something fairly sarcastic to say about the practice of ‘filling in the statistics with data that supports their theory,’ but really, Voltaire (the musician) says it for me: http://youtu.be/4bBD5yyT-s0

September 12, 2013 11:30 am

They should be fired immediately with no further debate. Anyone even publicly entertaining such a thing is not fit to be in the field of science. At this point they are not scientists, they are artists attempting to paint the desired picture. They should be shown the door. Today.

September 12, 2013 11:31 am

Can you say “cook the books”. It is the only reason for this proposal.
I don’t know if it is still the case, but Environment Canada policy used to say, appropriately, a tornado only occurred if it was observed.

hunter
September 12, 2013 11:32 am

Oooops….by the way the closing assertion: “The Tuscaloosa and Joplin tornadoes are two of the most deadly and expensive natural disasters in recent U.S. history.” is a very misleading claim, since it is not defined as to what “recent US history” means.

September 12, 2013 11:34 am

I have no problem with annotating current recordings with whether the tornado would likely have been reported in 1900 and 1950. This is NOT an adjustment. It is an opinion, an estimate, of the increase in our technical capability to observe. This estimate can be debated, adjusted, and used or ignored as other researchers desire. Do this instead of adjusting historical records.
If we cannot observe a tonado today…. it really doesn’t exist.

otsar
September 12, 2013 11:37 am

I smell insurance lobby money.

EW3
September 12, 2013 11:41 am

The prof has quite a CV. http://www.coss.fsu.edu/geography//elsner/Elsner_fullvita.pdf
He’s one money making machine, check out his grants.

Theo Goodwin
September 12, 2013 11:42 am

“Problem is, tornado formation, being highly chaotic, can’t be as easily interpolated, infilled, and adjusted like temperature data can. Just because a tornado occurred in two places, doesn’t automatically mean there was one in between them that was unreported.”
I feel the pain in those words. I feel it every time that some Alarmist agency does not have the data that they want so they make up some data. Unfortunately, I feel that pain often. Alarmists believe that their theories or their models give them the power to create data and, even worse, they believe that the Scientific Method permits data creation out of whole cloth when theories or models are sufficiently beautiful or awesome. Call it “Valley Girl” data and “Valley Girl” science. According to actual scientific method, if no one experienced the proposed datum and there is no reliable instrument on the scene recording the proposed datum then the proposed datum is no datum at all.
Just how low will Alarmist institutions go?

cms
September 12, 2013 11:42 am

Only one tornado in the top twenty five was in the 21st century. The most deadly was in 1925.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-State_Tornado
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/killers.html

GaryW
September 12, 2013 11:43 am

It is kinda sad that these supposed tornado experts don’t know how the system works these days. The NWS Doppler radar is monitored during potential tornado outbreaks. Once the storms have passed, that info is used by emergency response folks to tour back country for possible unreported tornado touchdowns. The NWS folks are notified and examine tornado tracks to evaluate size for reporting. There are very few tornadoes that go unreported these days.

Editor
September 12, 2013 11:44 am

James Elsner has already acknowledged to me by email that the data available for assessing tornado size and intensity is only possible back to the mid 1990’s, as data previously was “had problems”
We also already know that the NWS changed their methods for measuting width in 1994 from average width to maximum width.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/tornado-widthschanges-in-procedure/
So why is Elsner misleading people by claims of “largest tornadoes” and “tornadoes getting stronger”?

NotAGolfer
September 12, 2013 11:45 am

Can’t satellites capture about any tornado these days?

NotAGolfer
September 12, 2013 11:47 am

Shouldn’t insurance companies mainly be interested in how many tornadoes hit populated areas anyway?

Myron Mesecke
September 12, 2013 11:48 am

I am an amateur radio operator. I can’t wait for next Spring when I attend the Skywarn class by the NWS. I will make sure this is a hot topic.The NWS depends on hams and other trained storm spotters to verify what the radar is showing and to give accurate information.

Bob Shapiro
September 12, 2013 11:49 am

So, are they going to say that, since there were fewer people to report tornadoes in Tornado Alley 50, 100, or 150 years ago, then they are going to adjust historical records upward? That would give the appearance that today’s level of tornadoes is no big deal.

KNR
September 12, 2013 11:52 am

‘Problem is, tornado formation, being highly chaotic, can’t be as easily interpolated, infilled, and adjusted like temperature data can.’
oh yes they can , using the ‘magic power’ of models they can make day into night and snow
into fire . So this is easy stuff.

Crustacean
September 12, 2013 11:53 am

If, as is certainly the case, more tornadoes went unreported the farther back you go in time, then inventing “data” to “correct” for unreported storms will make the present appear less tornado-prone by comparison. So are these people subversives trying to undermine CAGW theory, or are they warmists who are just so carelessly presumptuous that they didn’t bother thinking through what they’re doing?
Or (the likeliest explanation,) did this just look like an easy, undemanding way to get something published?

Gail Combs
September 12, 2013 11:53 am

OH Good Grief! That land is not empty. Leave it to the urbanites to completely neglect the fact people actually live in ‘Fly-over Country’
Seems they forgot the Homestead Act of 1862 allowing citizens to claim up to 160 acres of land and prior to that the buying of a minimum of 320 acres in 4 installments. (1800) By 1934, over 1.6 million homestead applications were processed and more than 270 million acres—10 percent of all U.S. lands—passed into the hands of individuals. The passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 repealed the Homestead Act.
They also forgot 14 million acres of rangelands leased to ranchers by the BLM and the logging of federal land.
If you owned or lease land you are going to notice if a tornado did any damage. If it was decent size tornado the local town newspaper (desperate for a story) is going to report it.

James Strom
September 12, 2013 11:59 am

The point Anthony has made about hurricanes is that our observations are now more systematic and complete than in the past. So the reasonable “adjustment” would be to make the past more stormy. Same with tornadoes. It will be interesting to see whether FSU goes on to populate currently existing rural areas with unseen tornadoes, or puts new tornadoes into the distant past. At least one of these approaches, possibly both, seems pretty dicey.

MattS
September 12, 2013 12:01 pm

Theo Goodwin,
“Just how low will Alarmist institutions go?”
They are already at the center of the earth, all directions are up.

September 12, 2013 12:01 pm


Famous urban Rock Legend that if you play the Pink Floyd classic concept album Dark Side of the Moon its synchronizes perfectly with the 1939 Judy Garland Hollywood classic Wizard of Oz.
Check the Youtube clip, and I let you be the judge.
PS THE book Wizard of Oz was of course written in 1900 at the very start of the 20th century, long before the Micheal Mann’s Hockey Stick began to take off. So they were very much worried about tornados back then.

Ron Hansen
September 12, 2013 12:07 pm

I think an award should be given for the year’s outstanding CLIMATE AGNOTOLOGIST, and a weblog award also to the year’s outstanding CLIMATE AGNOTOLOGY BLOG.
Possibly a poll or we could vote. That would be fun.
There are soooo many candidates to choose from.
Any suggestions?

Editor
September 12, 2013 12:08 pm

Crustaceon and others
If, as is certainly the case, more tornadoes went unreported the farther back you go in time, then inventing “data” to “correct” for unreported storms will make the present appear less tornado-prone by comparison. So are these people subversives trying to undermine CAGW theory, or are they warmists who are just so carelessly presumptuous that they didn’t bother thinking through what they’re doing?
Note that Elsner, while unable to deny decreasing tornado numbers, is trying to hang his hat on “stronger” tornadoes.
Always watch the pea!

1 2 3 4