![wea00246[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/wea002461.jpg?quality=83)
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.
I guess I’m in the minority here in that I welcome this project. Just like we know that early 20th century hurricanes were underreported, it is likely that earlier tornadoes were underreported.
If someone is trying to do trend analysis, it is best to do it with both the raw, unadjusted data; and also with the best possible adjustments/estimates/fudge factors. Of course, one should alway be careful to show what is actually being calculated.
Steven Mosher says:
September 12, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Poor Mosher, you still don’t understand that there is a world that is independent of you and that your theories about it and your models have no impact on it. You also don’t understand that you must respect that world. Your best estimates are not bounded by that real world. So they fall outside of scientific method and are no better than any other kind of make-believe.
If every lightning strike left a permanent strike marker and these markers were easy to find and you were willing to test your estimates against the markers, then your estimates would be worth something because they would be bounded by the real world. But there is no such thing as a permanent strike marker. Your estimate, no matter how sophisticated, cannot be more real than the non-existent permanent strike marker.
Corey S. says:
September 12, 2013 at 2:17 pm
“So, they are saying that those yokels in the sticks don’t know how to report a tornado, or neglected to when their homes or crops were destroyed? Seriously? Why don’t they just come out and call them dumb.”
Guess who really is dumb? Apparently, these so-called “scientists” are looking for the evanescent tornado, the one that never touched down. (Farmers and foresters and all local people identify tornadoes by their tracks and those people know their farms and forests like they know the back of their hands.)
And what will be the headlines tomorrow?
Scientists find tornadoes are getting stronger!
The same can be said with Hurricane Statistics:
http://www.theweatherspace.com/2013/09/11/noaa-pushes-humberto-to-hurricane-status-without-proof-to-fulfill-global-warming-agenda/
NOAA Pushes Humberto To Hurricane Status Without Proof To Fulfill Global Warming Agenda
There is no such thing as an honest scientist anymore. Its and oxymoron. Scientists are either chasing popularity, grant money or the cheerleader! They are more that likely destined to achieve none of the above unless they are willing to lie, cheat and steal! We have entered the age of ObamaScience!
Everyone knows tornadoes are more dangerous now because of all the sharks!
Let me understand this correctly. If in fact, historical tornado data are underestimating the number of tornadoes, then by increasing those numbers, doesn’t it lessen, not increase the trend slope for future tornado occurrences??????
Steven Mosher – In your lighting example; instead of ‘guessing’ at the number of historic lightning strikes in the county it would be better to have 3 data sets. One going back to 1900 for lightning strokes in town; one going back to 2001 for lighting strikes in town + golf course; and one going back to 2005 for lighting strikes in the whole county.
That lets you compare real historic data with current trends while allowing you to build new datasets which, over time, will eventually be able to address trends in enlarged coverage area.
That’s roughly the equivalent of Stephen Rasey’s post from upthread to (instead of ‘inventing’ historic tornadoes) create a annotation in newer tornado records for tornadoes that (due to location, small size, or time of day) are considered unlikely to have been recorded if they’d happened ‘X’ years ago. That let’s you compare the real historic record with a reasonably filtered modern record to do ‘same to same’ trend comparisons without modifying the historic record. It’s going to be more far more reliable and defensible to filter out (some) observed events than to estimate unobserved ones.
Charlie A says: @ur momisugly September 12, 2013 at 2:30 pm
I guess I’m in the minority here in that I welcome this project…..
If someone is trying to do trend analysis, it is best to do it with both the raw, unadjusted data; and also with the best possible adjustments/estimates/fudge factors. Of course, one should alway be careful to show what is actually being calculated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What you are doing is fooling yourself. If the data is spotty or does not exist it does not exist and wishing it into existence doesn’t get you more accurate data it just introduces MORE ERROR.
What is happening is people have fancy new toys to play with and it is lots easier to sit in an A/C office and play with a computer than it is to get off your duff and search through the dusty newspaper morgues of every tiny little town in the USA. (My Father-in-law and his family ran small town newspapers for generations and yes the morgue still exists.)
Hmm let me see. I see one of many possibilities: The banks making seed loans to the farmers will require crop tornado insurance in areas, that had in the past, man made tornadoes, that never were. Banks making mortgage loans…
It is odd to note that people cannot couple increasing population with increasing victims of tornadoes (hurricanes/droughts/floods/whatever weather disaster happens). The reports are, even from the BBC, that this year has seen fewer tornadoes than normal. Similarly, the frequency and power of hurricanes has decreased over recent years, with none to date this year, yet the number of people affected has increased. The AGWists find this odd, and insist that hurricanes be recategorised, not to strength of wind, but to potential number of victims and damage done. Similarly, in the UK, more and more homes are being built on the flood plains of rivers. Well, guess what – the number of homes affected by flooding is increasing! Without having access to the figures, my own suspicion is that the incidence of widespread flooding in the UK is actually decreasing. Of course, this anomaly is overlooked by the AGWists – it is all the fault of climate change (or global warming or whatever they are calling it today).
As someone has wittily noted on another post (not even sure it was the same subject): these alarmists want to take the guesswork out of Russian roulette – by loading all six chambers!
Henry II had it easy – he only had one troublesome priest to be rid of.
(Historians, please note: I only use this as an allegory; I know the king did not actually want Thomas Beckett slaughtered.)
Butch says: @ur momisugly September 12, 2013 at 2:56 pm
There is no such thing as an honest scientist anymore. Its and oxymoron. Scientists are either chasing popularity, grant money or the cheerleader! ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes there are still honest scientists you meet a lot of them here at WUWT. Dr. Tim Ball is one. However I will grant you scientists with integrity are few and far between and often get fired or otherwise abused for opening their mouths.
What if the occurrence of historic tornadoes is related to ion dis-charges between the clouds and the ground/water table, and the increase in power grids with every power pole grounded locally at its base, and also at the transformers linking the net to the HV distribution systems. Then the increase in rural electrification would be adding additional discharge paths for the creation of more rural tornadoes, along with the intensification of urban occurrences where the grid and connected metal buildings, are the most dense?
Prior to 1950 there was no formal process of reporting tornadoes, the only records kept/recovered were from the occurrences of injuries or death claims from insurance records, and the occasional news paper article of building damages.
I have absolutely no problem with someone playing around with the data for fun – but if this is intended to be a serious scientific endeavour, then that someone needs to be taken aside and given a serious slap! ‘Fixing’ data in such a way cannot possibly be validated, ever, period, full stop.
My first reaction to this post, was OMFG ! – and I would anticipate all science trained folk hereabouts would think the same. It is in the realms of fantasy to invent ‘observations’ or ‘data’ and must be considered as completely false.
@Mosher – yeah, they may well be ‘estimating’ ‘missed’ observations – but estimating based on current observations is a falsehood – even moreso, when they then try and say tornadoes are increasing/decreasing/whatever – talk about generating a false trend! -it would be farcical in the extreme. Jeez – the mere fact you try and defend this is laughable!
Every time I see the phrase “ever recorded” in some pronouncement purporting to be scientific, as if the phrase has some earth-shattering scientific significance, my brain shuts it out.
If they are really interested in trends, then surely confining the collection to those areas where accurate historical data is available would yield the correct result, unless of course it can be shown that increased population density attracts increased tornado activity.
Steven Mosher says:
September 12, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Steve no electrons were wished into existence they existed in fact.
These folks have make up a storm that may never have existed.
“Twister history: FSU researchers develop model to correct tornado records for better risk assessment”
Gee Whiz! What are you clucks going to do – correct payments for past risk? If the present means of determining how many tornadoes there are is satisfactory, how can “correcting” the past make better risk assessment for now, Explain how a destructive tornado of yesteryear avoided not being mentioned by the people whose farm was blown away.. If there was a tornado that did go undetected, it did so because it didn’t do any damage so there was no risk attached to it. Cor’ Blimey, when are these guys going to be arrested or have their toys taken away from them?
My husband just gave me an example of how the ‘Data Accumulators’ are not bothering to do their homework and actually gather real data. First there was a tornado that went through the area in 1840 that was big enough to be the talk of the town years later that is not listed. Second the ‘Official Website’ also lists volcanoes as ‘Zero’ Only one problem there is a volcano (I have stood on top of it) and it was written about in the family newspaper more than once.
As I said the newspaper morgue is intact and near Boston, you can even get to it by rail, but no one bothered to get off their duffs to actually do the work of gathering data. Just another sterling example of Steve McIntyre’s ‘Starbucks hypothesis’
I have to echo what Kev-in-UK wrote. Making unverifiable assumptions and running with them can make for interesting dinner conversation, but it is not science. Estimating the unknown AND unknowable does not advance science. How does one replicate this ‘research’? Use their same assumptions and confirm their math? AFA their assumption, did they make adjustments for regional droughts, excessive rain, cold snaps, and heat waves? Did they factor in ENSO and its effect on weather (and tornadoes are weather events, not climate)?
As far as ‘infilling’ missing data, here’s a replicable sample of how ‘useful’ it can be: In the middle of summer go outside at 6am, noon, and 6pm. In each case the sun is visible in the sky. Since most of us are asleep at midnight, we will just infill the missing data, and clearly there is no reason not to believe the sun would be visible in the sky. Where do I get my study grant for how that impacts global warming?
These so-called scientists are just looking to publish without doing any research.
I would hope that perhaps the use of certain noted ‘precursor’ and/or associated events such as would be noted or recorded by the US Weather Bureau in its observer records are consulted in this endeavor, esp. the written records of rainfall, the passage of fronts (can be noted in particular by next day’s temperature being lower) … I would say those are probably fairly good ‘proxies’ for the precursor T-storm events required for leading up and into “imagined” or hind-casted ‘tornado’ events …
.
_Jim says:
September 12, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Jim; that’s still BS fabrication – kind of like saying I saw clouds, so it must have rained…….and we all know how ‘local’ rain CAN be, especially on a showery day? The ‘precursors’ to any event does not mean that event will have happened. Heck, you drive a car, you know you can have an accident, but how often do you crash? The precursors are there, you are regularly in your car on a road!!
It helps in these occasions to think of what appears on the front of the various supermarket tabloids e.g. The Enquirer, The Globe, Weekly World News and Sun, …
For entertainment purposes only: Weekly World News front page stories
Yesterday’s story: “THE RETURN OF THE ZEPPELIN!” Obama to Fly First!
http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/57772/the-return-of-the-zeppelin/
.
re: Kev-in-Uk says September 12, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Not really Kevin; Oops, I see by the moniker you’re in the UK … perhaps you do not associate the occurrence of severe weather as we do in the states with the passage of fronts.
Anyway, you’re overlooking the obvious: This was a ‘homework’ assignment to the researchers as a necessary prerequisite which required verification before any W. A. Guesses were cast about as to the assumption of some ‘new’ number of tornadoes (also a rarity in jolly ‘ole England I take it?)
.