NOAA: U.S. Tornadoes lowest since 1954 – during the "hottest year ever"

Latest data from NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center indicate that as of today, the total count for 2016 of US tornadoes are fewest in a calendar year since record-keeping began in 1954. That’s a hard fact, that flies in the face of claims of extreme weather being enhanced by warmer temperatures,  as many have tried to claim. This graph from NOAA SPC shows that with 830 tornadoes so far this year (in black), it has crossed the minimum line (in magenta) showing 879 as the previous lowest number recorded on this date.

tornado-graph-big

Source: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/adj.html

Additionally, the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Nashville said today:

There have only been 5 tornadoes in Tennessee this year. It’s been the quietest year for tornadoes in the state since 1987.

Meanwhile the U.N.’s weather bureau is warning of this:

It is very likely that 2016 will be the hottest year on record, with global temperatures even higher than the record-breaking temperatures in 2015. Preliminary data shows that 2016’s global temperatures are approximately 1.2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels, according to an assessment by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

So, in the “hottest year ever” there’s actually the lowest number of tornadoes, ever.

I’d like to take these numbers and shove them in the face paid political hack, Brad Johnson formerly of Climate Progress, who once claimed this stupid ugliness:

ThinkProgress discussion of the tornado outbreak
ThinkProgress discussion of the tornado outbreak in 2011

Then there was John Kerry in 2008:

Kerry Blames Tornado Outbreak on Global Warming

But of course, facts mean nothing to paid political shills like Johnson and Kerry.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.- John Adams

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

86 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rocketscientist
November 16, 2016 9:17 am

The title of the graph leaves me confused. How exactly are the numbers of tornados adjusted for inflation? Are we now to assume that “economic warming” will increase tornados. If the recession deepens does the number increase or decrease?
Perhaps an economic recovery will bring back the missing tornados with the vengeance of a scorned woman?

rocketscientist
Reply to  rocketscientist
November 16, 2016 9:56 am

Never mind I answered my own question. it appears as though the numbers are “adjusted” to account for 15% over reporting. How was the 15% number arrived at?

Reply to  rocketscientist
November 16, 2016 10:00 am

Note the (*) asterisk. Preliminary count multiplied by 0.85 to reduce over-count due to local reporting overlapping reports.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  rocketscientist
November 16, 2016 10:03 am

Tornadoes that are not actually witnessed are assumed to have occurred based on a number of observations, including wind speed. It is well known that this causes more tornadoes to be claimed than actually occurred, which is called “tornado count inflation”. So they adjust by assuming that 15% are over counts. Agree or disagree with the methodology, at least they are consistent and use the same adjustment for all years.

Paul Penrose
November 16, 2016 10:07 am

Darn, beat me to it!

November 16, 2016 10:25 am

I am sure that I saw a news report recently stating that due to CAGW there was an unusually high number of tornados this year. People will say the craziest things.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 16, 2016 1:05 pm

IOW, Jeff, if it hadn’t been so hot there would’t have been any at all.

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 16, 2016 2:11 pm

Don’t you know that prior to a couple of years, tornadoes were no more than strong breezes that nobody ever worried about.
Dorothy was an outlier.

November 16, 2016 12:11 pm

Anthony Watts: Speaking as an ally, you are incorrect:
1) 2013 was lower: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/torngraph-big.png
2) You have misunderstood what the pink line in the chart you cited represents — it’s a theoretical expected minimum, not an actual minimum. Read the entire page: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/adj.html

john harmsworth
November 16, 2016 3:29 pm

They’re getting smarter! Starting to hide and camouflage themselves as windmills!

Michael Jankowski
November 16, 2016 4:49 pm

It won’t be long before fewer and weaker tornadoes are “consistent with global warming/climate change theory and models.”

November 16, 2016 9:51 pm

Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Reblogging this as the alarmist claims that are readily believed by the public, and by the vested interest supporters, are clearly suspect.
Claims of rising sea levels, weather extremes, coral reef deterioration, hottest “….” etc., are all distorted and /or inaccurate.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Ken McMurtrie
November 17, 2016 5:45 pm

Wow, speaking of inaccurate distortions…

Reply to  tony mcleod
November 18, 2016 5:09 am

Perhaps we need to agree to disagree 🙂
Some people understand science and some do not.
I am with Anthony Watts.

tony mcleod
Reply to  tony mcleod
November 18, 2016 11:10 pm

My guess is that Anthony would agree that:
-the earth has warmed substantially in the last few decades,
-sea levels have indeed risen and are rising at an accelerating rate,
-humans are contributing to that warming, but that
-there is doubt as to what degree it is caused by human activity versus natural variability.
But that the jury is out as to whether that is a good or a bad thing, but on balance, little or no change is likely to be the best condition for humans to continue to proper.
As I say, that is my guess.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  tony mcleod
November 26, 2016 7:51 am

maybe a very inaccurate distortion is how silent they are about this event in russia
i gladly quote the intro:

Meteorologists are having a difficult time recalling a more amazing contrast.
While the North Pole flirts with melting temperatures, Siberia is shivering in off-the-charts cold.
The Weather Channel described the stunning side-by-side extremes as “one of the most bizarre juxtapositions seen”.
The Siberian cold, up to 60 degrees below normal, has persisted for weeks. On Nov. 15, it manifested itself in more than 12 cities registering temperatures to minus-40 degrees or colder, the Weather Channel said.

The area they speak about dwarfs the arctic and the cold anomaly is 2 times colder (-60degress) compared to the +32 degrees anomaly of the north pole.
note: al the degrees are degees F
an area that’s double the size of the arctic, with a double negative anomaly then the arctic or in human terms: a massive record smashing cold doesn’t hit even the news….
while a flirt with freezing point on the arctic hits almost the front page everywhere… that sounds like inaccurate distortion to me…
also the warmer the pole the less contrast there is. even more moist air won’t win from a lower temperature gradient. The temperature gradient is what is called the lifted index (LI). Then you need colder upper dry air and moister lower warm air for higer CAPE. the warmer and lesser dry the dry air, the better the air masses do mix and the higher the dewpoint is and the less CAPE and LI you got.
so record warm arctic with low ice cover will result in less violent thunderstorms as CAPE is related to moisture gradient of both airmasses and LI is related to temperature
this is very simplfied it’s more complex as it’s also buoyancy, windshear, dryness and dewpoint related and i left out those parts in both.

November 18, 2016 7:36 pm

The fewest tornadoes this year
No cause for alarmists to cheer
For the CO2 rise
makes for more peaceful skies
the climate change blessings are here. https://lenbilen.com/2016/11/18/new-record-for-the-fewest-tornadoes-nov-14-thanks-to-increasing-co2-a-limerick/

jmorpuss
November 19, 2016 2:03 am

Mod , Was there a problem with my post about the nitrogen cycle??

Verified by MonsterInsights