By P Gosselin on 13. March 2022
A rational look at the data and physics tell us there are no real signs that tornadoes are going to get more frequent and worse.
German Die kalte Sonne’s 2nd part of its most recent video looks at tornadoes, a ferocious and extremely destructive meteorological phenomenon that global warming alarmists claim will only get worse and worse. They want you to panic over it.
But Die kalte Sonne’s video report notes that a number of sources say that trend has yet to materialize. Many statistics in fact have shown the opposite is happening:
Ideal conditions for tornado formation could weaken
The ideal conditions that lead to the formation of tornadoes are lower warm moist air clashing with cold dry air moving above. The conditions are common in the springtime, when warm, humid air from southern USA clashes with a cold air mass blasting in from the north. Yet, should the these cold masses of air warm up, then this would lead to a smaller temperature gradient and thus be less favorable for tornadoes to form.
According to Die kalte Sonne, with respect to tornado frequency and intensity: “The future remains unknown.”
Less tornado damage
Die kalte Sonne also presents a chart by Roger Pielke Jr., showing that tornado damage in the United States has in fact been trending downward as well over the past 70 years, this likely also in part due to improved early warning systems and better infrastructure:
Chart source: Roger Pielke Jr. here.
The tornado debate, which heats up every time severe activity occurs, remains completely undecided when it comes to what the future holds. But so far, the data have been pointing in a direction that is opposite to what the alarmists have been claiming – so on’t let the fear-mongers scare you.
Support good climate videos
Finally, good climate realism needs donors, and contributions help keep the calm and rational Die kalte Sonne climate and energy video reports coming.
You can donate easily to Die kalte Sonne via Paypal here.
In case you prefer a bank transfer, write to: spenden@kaltesonne.de
If you live in an area that does have tornadoes, like the Hill Country of Texas west of Austin, fronts producing strong thunderstorms will have the local TV weather going continuous coverage.
Doppler radar will pick up tornadoes that do not touch down, or cause any damage. Given the enhanced coverage of Doppler radar, artifacts as to the number of tornadoes should be common compared to before such coverage.
Tornadoes that do not reach the surface of the earth are called funnel clouds. The inception of Doppler radar in the early 1990s has caused a large increase in the number of tornado warnings since then in the U.S., due to the fact that velocity signatures on the radar (in concert with other salient features) cannot be ignored. If a signature is extant, a US DOC/NOAA/NWS warner cannot be in the position of not issuing a warning, lest a tornado actually occurs from the rotation aloft or just above the surface; this would be a “missed event,” which is a black mark against the employee. Monday morning quarterbacks/ supervisors looking at the data after the fact, in the luxury of non-real-time, can criticize the warner, perhaps in a warranted fashion, but also perhaps in a retaliatory way. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to NOT issue a warning.
It’s always better to have a false alarm than a missed event. There are lax False Alarm Rates (FARs) that are tolerated, but a high Probability Of Detection (POD) is important so as to provide this vital service for public safety. Besides, it’s also important to tout to Congress (and the public) that a great job is being done, and to “send more money.” However, if the FAR is too high, the public is apt to ignore even Tornado Warnings, mainly in areas that do not suffer many tornadoes. Look at the abject apathy to Severe Thunderstorm Warnings, and even Flash Flood Warnings. This is the “cry wolf” syndrome.
I’ve learned to check the weather radar whenever I hear the alarms. The vast majority of the time, even when there is an actual tornado, it isn’t heading towards me. If it is headed towards me, I take heightened awareness based on how well formed the cell is. Then continue monitoring until I either have to dive into my safe place, or the cell falls apart. So far, I’ve never had to go for my safe place.
Could, should, may, might – all weasel words. Elephants may fly. Prove me wrong.
It’s impossible to prove you wrong, John, since it is well known that elephants always fly Business Class for the extra leg room.
P.S. As a Business Class perk, instead of a dinky overnight bag, they are also allowed a carry-on trunk in the overhead bin
Is that for a spare trunk, or the one that is attached?
I visited Arkansas a few years back in the late spring. I was amazed at the TV weather coverage of storm systems as they moved through. Little spinning circles streaming across the bottom of the TV screen constantly naming areas under storm watch and warnings.
The next day, according to newspaper reports, nothing had happened. So it was all fear porn as far as I was concerned.
I live in Arkansas. March to May is considered tornado season. Years ago, it wasn’t unusual to be under watches and warnings almost everyday during that period. But I’ve noticed during the last few years the number seems to have gone down quite a bit.
A colder world is a stormier world. Period.
The engine of whirling storms is temperature differential. Hence, warmer, fewer storms. More difference between lower latitude temperatures and higher, more storms.
This applies to parts of Earth and to other planets.
“ A colder world is a stormier world. Period.”
Is it possible a stormier world results from larger temperature differentials?
Yes. A colder world has bigger differentials between tropical and temperate latitudes.
On Earth, the paleoclimatic data are unequivocal in this respect. The great loess belts of our planet, whence comes most of our grain, were laid down by glacial interval dust storm winds around the ice sheets. This includes my native semi-arid, dryland wheat farming region of NE Oregon.
For starters. All other evidence only confirms this inconvenient truth of real climatology.
It is possible. However, it is generally acknowledged that the Arctic is warming 2-3X faster than the world over all, and as Eschenbach has demonstrated, there appears to be a mechanism to limit the warming in the tropics. So, the only way to get larger temp’ differentials is to cool the Arctic.
The engine of whirling storms is temperature differential.
_____________________________________________
Yes, and the IPCC says:
Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures, leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range.
That’s from the IPCC’s AR4 Chapter Ten Page 750
Don’t they know how science is done today? You’re supposed to cherry pick 2003 as the start date to show a dramatic increase. A one year anomaly is definitive proof of human caused climate destruction!
Actually that should be 2004 or 2009 to get the best answer.
Has any attempt being made to destroy one after it forms and is approaching a town.
I realise that a possible legal action could occur if it then went on to strike another town.
Michael VK5ELL.
PS. I turned 95 yesterday..
Mazel tov!
You’re on the Methusaleh Express.
Long may you wave.
Don’t give government ideas…I see a new funding stream for climate research.
Mazel tov also!
Erich W6LID
I can see by your call sign that you are no spring chicken either. I received KN6TZX at age 14 in 1956.
Happy Big 8-0! It’s the new 7-0.
Your post reminded me of Treasure Chest comics. A Catholic comic book that was around when I was in elementary school (late 60s-early 70s). One of the continuing stories had to do with a whiz kid that theorized that positive and negative charged droplets aided in tornado formation. He used a rocket designed to capture the energy from lightning to short circuit a tornado and caused it to dissipate. Yeah, it made for an interesting comic book story.
Myron
N5TFK
Actually sounds more realistic than much of modern climate Scientology
Apply for a grant
You would think that a good size bomb or fuel-air explosive could at least affect the course on the ground for a few seconds. At some point a tornado has to have hit a large gas line. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to do a study to find the largest explosions caused by tornadoes and determine if they had any effect on the track or ground wind speeds,
The weather was more severe and extreme in the cooler decades of the 1950s-70s. Considering that there is a natural warming/cooling cycle of around 65 years I would not be surprised if tornado numbers begin to increase as we have entered the cooling half of that cycle.
And that downward trend comes despite the fact that proportionally more EF-1 and 2 tornadoes are being detected and recorded because of the ever increasing Doppler coverage, increase in trained spotters, and ever increasing population and geographic dispersion of the population.
And thus proportionally fewer of the stronger and much more dangerous EF-3,4,5 storms are being recorded.
Actually Doppler picks up more of the little ones that never would have been counted in the past which Mann trumpets as increased activity.
All a lie of course.
All about technology and detection
Same thing with hurricane counts
Hmm, That is what I said about Doppler plus the increase in the coverage.
How do householders in Tornado areas manage to afford their Insurence coverage.
Are they subsised by Governments ?
Michael VK5ELL
In most years, only a small number of homes are damaged. Even in really bad years, compared to the total number of homes, only a small percentage are damaged or destroyed.
The chart above is total damage. It says it’s normalized. I don’t know if it’s only normalized for cost, or if it’s also being normalized for increased population.
Whether a small storm in the past was missed doesn’t factor in.
Early warning is the key, in my experience. Not just my experience. There’s a very recent example for Iowa. In the small city of Newton, Iowa, the tornado alarm failed to sound on March 5. Thankfully, no one was killed in Newton or the county it is in (Jasper). Nevertheless, it shows the importance of upgrading, maintaining, and regularly testing tornado siren systems.
I can understand the number of injuries and/deaths trending downward due to improved early warning, but “damage” going down for the same reason?
Are people moving their homes, businesses and towns, etc. out of the tornado track upon receiving the “earlier warnings”?
Such a crock. Damage is going down due to reduced number and/or severity of tornados.
We have learned how to build structures that are better able to withstand tornadoes and hurricanes, and how to build safe areas within structures.
That’s not to say that all structures are built with to best practices.
And even when built to best practices, nothing withstands a direct hit by an EF5.
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f5torns.html