From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
It’s time to unpack the annual tornado fraud from NOAA:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/tornadoes/202313
According to NOAA’s latest annual report, the frequency of US tornadoes has been steadily rising since the 1950s. To the average reader, this is obviously down to global warming, which we all know makes weather more extreme!
Nowhere does their report mention that we are observing more tornadoes nowadays because of better technology and reporting procedures, not because more are actually occurring. Here is the guidance that NOAA published a few years ago, something that has mysteriously disappeared from their website now. Thanks to Wayback, we can still view it.
One of the main difficulties with tornado records is that a tornado, or evidence of a tornado must have been observed. Unlike rainfall or temperature, which may be measured by a fixed instrument, tornadoes are short-lived and very unpredictable. If a tornado occurs in a place with few or no people, it is not likely to be documented. Many significant tornadoes may not make it into the historical record since Tornado Alley was very sparsely populated during the 20th century.
Much early work on tornado climatology in the United States was done by John Park Finley in his book Tornadoes, published in 1887. While some of Finley’s safety guidelines have since been refuted as dangerous practices, the book remains a seminal work in tornado research. The University of Oklahoma created a PDF copy of the book and made it accessible at John Finley’s Tornadoes.
Today, nearly all of the United States is reasonably well populated, or at least covered by NOAA’s Doppler weather radars. Even if a tornado is not actually observed, modern damage assessments by National Weather Service personnel can discern if a tornado caused the damage, and if so, how strong the tornado may have been. This disparity between tornado records of the past and current records contributes a great deal of uncertainty regarding questions about the long-term behavior or patterns of tornado occurrence. Improved tornado observation practices have led to an increase in the number of reported weaker tornadoes, and in recent years EF-0 tornadoes have become more prevelant in the total number of reported tornadoes. In addition, even today many smaller tornadoes still may go undocumented in places with low populations or inconsistent communication facilities.
With increased National Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the United States, the total number of EF-1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF-3 to EF-5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These tornadoes would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.
.
In fact, there was a definite decline in the number of strong tornadoes up to 2014, rather than the “little trend” noted by NOAA.
We now have full data for 2023, so I can extend the above two graphs:
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/#data
The picture has changed little since 2014. There is still little long term trend in EF-1s and over, but the number of EF-3s has remained at a much lower level than pre-2000. The latest data confirms NOAA’s conclusions from 2015.
There was no EF-5 last year, nor any so far this year. The last was the Moore tornado in 2013. On average there are two EF-5s every year three years. The longest previous absence of EF-5s was between 1999 and 2007.
Moreover with only two EF-4s last year. only 2005 and 2018 had fewer.
The evidence clearly shows that tornadoes have become less intense since reliable records began in 1970, but NOAA would like you to believe otherwise.
It is hard to describe NOAA’s reporting of tornadoes as anything other than fraudulent.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In Austin, Texas, when a strong weather front comes through, the local TV stations will often go to continuous coverage. Doppler radar picks up a fair number of EF0 or EF1 tornadoes that do little or no damage. I agree that the total number of tornadoes is an artifact of this.
On top of that, any sign of cloud rotation automaticly triggers a tornado warning.
Many Amateur-radio operators participate in Sky Warn and report Tornados and wall clouds to their coordinator who then relays this to the NWS. Quite often after I have reported a Tornado that I sighted that I clearly determined was very near Radio/TV station towers from my vantage point on a hill that gives me coverage of over 8 – 10 miles. As I watched it’s travel, another Ham reported it about 5 minuets later in a different location and a few minuets later another Ham reported it in another location. Does this get counted as One or Three tornados? If the other Hams can not see the Radio towers they have no idea it is the same one.
The sort of Doppler radar shown on TV avoids that issue, as it is a continuous track.
So who was doing the minuets? I don’t think you’re living up to your moniker. 🙂
Has anyone else noticed how excited the media are to report the development of Hurricane Debby from a mere tropical depression into a full-blown hurricane? I feel like I’m at the sidelines of a football game waiting for the Hurricanes to score and the media to root them on. After four weeks of inactivity they finally have something to cheer about to blame on “Climate Change”.
Yes I noticed that especially this evening on The Global Warming Channel (aka The Weather Channel) and the Fox Weather Channel. The reporters were just about ready to wet all over themselves with excitement. Fox Weather even had a reporter in the field somewhere in GA reporting on cars driving fast thru a puddle and water flowing into a storm drain. It was all very comical.
“Fox Weather even had a reporter in the field somewhere in GA reporting on cars driving fast thru a puddle and water flowing into a storm drain. It was all very comical.”
Yes, Fox Weather has one male reporter that positions himself to make things look as dramatic as possible. I forget his name. This morning he was standing in ankle-deep water with a strong wind blowing and his trousers were flapping like a sail while he bent over trying to resist the wind. He could have easily given his report from inside a shelter, but he chose not to. Very dramatic!
I think Fox Weather has an excuse for the excessive hype, at least to a point. Fox just started this new weather channel up, so they hype everything that comes along.
The one good thing about Fox Weather is they have not attributed any weather phenomenon to Human-caused Climate Change, as of yet. if they do in the future, I’m going to have to complain to Janice Dean, the Weather Machine.
I’ve seen complaints that one of Murdoch’s children is a “climate activist” and is involved in hyping climate change on the Fox Weather channel.
I don’t listen to the Fox Weather Channel much, although I do see the weather reports on Fox News every day, and have never heard them mention Human-caused Climate Change.
Both the Fox News Channel and the Fox Weather Channel use “historic” a little too much when describing the weather, but, as far as I know, they never relate any of this to Human-derived CO2.
Well, their job is to keep your eyeballs (or clicks, depending on the medium) firmly attached to their channel so that you will see the ads that come on. Yes, they may go commercial-free for a bit (on TV) but when it’s all said and done, the likelihood of you returning to watch their channel (or click their website) is greater, thus the flow of ad revenue.
No matter what aspect of supposed “Man-caused climate change” it is, it’s all over the internet that everything – all the bad things – is getting worse. And more people than ever believe it because they are lazy, and the propaganda is so ubiquitous. You can’t argue with them, their mind is made up – and if so many “scientists” also believe it, how can it not be true? Consensus is everything to them.
Maybe the only thing that will cure them, is one at a time as they live longer and the dire predictions do not come to pass, they will realize so much is just made up. But only if they notice, and so many do not. Acid rain, ozone hole, Alar apples, polar bear extinction, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, heat waves, cold spells, the list is nearly endless. They firmly believe that CO2 is pollution, it causes all the bad things, and that it is the temperature control knob for the planet. Good luck at trying to change their minds!
“Consensus is everything to them.”
That’s basic human nature. People who are unfamiliar with what is going on around them, look to Voices of Authority in Society for guidance. This works as long as those Voices of Authority are living in the Real World.
Younger. less experienced members of the Tribe look to their Elders for life saving advice. It’s the same in the Modern World. The tribes are just bigger.
When the Voices of Authority are not living in the Real World, or are corrupt, then the People depending on their “expertise” suffer. Like the situation today.
Say it ain’t so: IT AIN’T SO https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/1/17#
With a 17 second attention span programmed into the population starting with TV advertising decades ago, they will forget the last headline and the only truth is the headline that just appeared.
They need not read the article, the headline is the IKR for them.
Isn’t there a US Federal law prohibiting US Government entities from publishing false or misleading information? If so, could NOAA be sued or prosecuted?
Jim,
I am with you.
There are some lies being told. I cannot imagine that the fibbers are unaware that other people see them as lies. So, if they proceed to lie, it is a deliberate or premeditated lie.
There muist be some way for an official body to be advised or cautioned or even tolds to stop it or they will go blind.
Geoff S
TIP
A23a: The world’s largest iceberg is trapped spinning in deep water
The spinning introduces the action of a “Taylor column” – discussed on the wiki/A2a page
Another source of story:
https://observatorial.com/news/technology-and-science/946765/a23a-the-worlds-largest-iceberg-is-trapped-spinning-in-an-ocean-prison/
Story and photos on the BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd168081wxvo
“Fraudulent”. Yep, pretty much describes the whole Biden Executive Branch.
I live in Tornado Alley, and the coverage of tornadoes is orders of magnitude better than when I was a kid.
Today, if tornadoes are a possibility, all our local tv stations go to continuous coverage, and with the improved radars of today and the Storm Chasers, we pretty much know where any tornadoes are and where they are headed.
When I was a kid all we knew was that tornado weather was coming but had no idea where any tornadoes were located unless you actually saw one.
One time, in about 1967, a friend and I were riding around in the car listening to the local radio station. There were reports that tornado weather was approaching but that’s all we knew.
Then, suddenly, the DJ stopped playing music and came on the radio, and started yelling, “Get out of your cars, and get in the ditch! Get out of your cars, and get in the ditch! A tornado is here at the radio station! (which was just about a mile weat of our location).
Well, me and my friend looked up into the sky and it was still partly cloudy and no sign of any storm, and we thought, what the heck is that guy talking about!? Btw, we knew the DJ personally. It is a small town.
About a minute later, the DJ came back on the radio and gave us the all-clear. He said their wind speed gauge at the radio station had broken and was reading 100mph! and so he thought a tornado was right on top of him!
We had a good laugh over that one. We didn’t get in any ditch. 🙂
Most “bad weatber” shows no significant trend, and the insignificant trends are downward.
But THE MOST severe categories if THE MOST violent “bad weather,” EF3 – EF5 tornadoes, show a SIGNIFICANT DOWNWARD trend.
So the notion that “climate change” (aka global warming) will make “bad weather” both more frequent and more severe is CLEARLY FALSIFIED.
We have continued flow of weather reporting that verges on the ecstatic (climate porn?). There are breathless reporters hyping many of the usual bad weather as weather Armageddon…the 100 year storm or even 1000 years storm, without much in the way of actual records that support the claim (or a convenient truncation of records to avoid questions). After all, how would those of us under 120 know?
Then there is the actual definition of 100 year storm, etc.
It’s not like on July 7, every 100 years exactly, the same storm arrives.
It is statistical. On average, 1 storm of that magnitude arrives in any given 100 year interval.
The long and short of it is, a 100 year storm has a 1% change of arriving in any given year.
2 in a row is not impossible, just 0.01% chance.
You know, NOAA sounds like some drunks who refuse treatment. It’s so negative.
How about .. Yankee Environmental and Scientific Assay Agency (YESAA)
In my opinion, the error is in the comparison of years, using a (any) statistical approach for a phenomena which is the result of chaotic dynamics — and thus, the actuality of any single tornado is itself a non-predictable phenomena. Being non-predictable, tornadoes will appear in what appears to be a random pattern (year to year, location to location) despite being entirely deterministic.
It is fair enough to say: “Ah, more tornadoes this year than last.” It is [almost] nonsensical to complain that “There are more tornadoes recently.” It isn’t that there may not have been “more” and “recently” but with chaotic processes (non-linear dynamical systems) the “past” is not related to the “present” in that normal way.
And the “causes” of tornadoes — what triggers any particular tornadoes to form — are not understood. We know what “tornado weather” looks like — but literally have no clue as to why a tornado forms here or there or fails to form when conditions are “ripe”.