(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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

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.