Thank Global Warming for Record Lack of Tornadoes
The Biden administration and climate activists are already blaming global warming for the tragic and deadly tornado outbreak this weekend.
In reality, objective scientific data show tornadoes – and especially violent and deadly tornadoes – are becoming much less frequent and severe as the Earth modestly warms.
Global warming won’t make all strong tornadoes disappear, but it is nonsensical and unethical to blame global warming for the few tornadoes that still occur, when strong tornadoes become increasingly rare as the Earth modestly warms.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been keeping track of tornadoes since the mid-1950s.
As shown in the charts below, there has been no increase in the overall number of tornadoes as the planet modestly warms, despite new radar technology that allows us to spot tornadoes that we previously could not spot.
More importantly, there has bee a dramatic decline in strong, deadly tornadoes as the climate warms.
Image: NOAA
Image courtesy of Dr Ryan Maue
Indeed, recent years have set several all-time records for lack of tornadoes. For example, The Hill published a 2018 article titled, “2018 sees record low for deadly tornadoes in US.”
Even the alarmist Weather Channel published an article last year titled, “Stunning Lack of U.S. Tornadoes Since May Not Seen Since the 1950s.”
Data: NOAA/SPC, graph: Inforgram
Quote from the above Weather Channel article:
Only three of those tornadoes – two in May and one in June – were rated at least EF2, both record-low stronger tornado totals for each month, according to the SPC.
The nation’s only violent (EF4-plus) tornado since the April siege was spawned from an isolated supercell on July 8 in northwestern Minnesota.
NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center issued only 10 tornado watches in May and six in June, both the lowest monthly counts in 50 years.
Accuweather published an article last year titled, “June 2020 saw fewest tornadoes in nearly 70 years.”
The Weather Channel earlier this year published an article titled, “April 2021 Tornadoes May Have Been Lowest In Any April This Century.”
The Washington Post published an article earlier this year titled, “No severe tornadoes hit the U.S. this May for first time on record.”
Tornadoes have always occurred and will always occur.
Global warming won’t put a complete end to tornadoes. But tornadoes – and particularly strong, deadly tornadoes – are becoming less frequent and severe as the planet modestly warms.
Anybody claiming otherwise is either ignorant of the scientific facts, unethically deceitful, or both.
Anybody blaming global warming for the few strong tornadoes that still occur is equally ignorant and/or deceitful.
See more here: climaterealism.com
Header image: Getty Images
Bold emphasis added
About the author: James Taylor is the President of the Heartland Institute. Taylor is also director of Heartland’s Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy. Taylor is the former managing editor (2001-2014) of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
richard
| #
Tornadoes-
“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”
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends
Reply
Andy
| #
Nice one Richard 🙂
Reply
James McGinn
| #
James Taylor: it is nonsensical and unethical to blame global warming for the few tornadoes that still occur,
James McGinn: Tornadogenesis is completely ensconced in superstition. Our current model/paradigm completely fails to describe the origins of the structural component of Tornadoes, the sheath that encircles the low-pressure, fast moving air within.
Taylor’s concerns here are trivial.
How The Jetstream Maintains Its Momentum
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
If you believe the universal gas law is correct, then the kinetic energy of the gas molecules increases in the unconfined atmosphere, causing the density to decrease with increasing altitude. This would mean the air directly under the sun’s focal point, (only on the equator twice a year) is hotter higher in the atmosphere so the air at lower altitudes could not rise creating Hadley cells but must expand at sea level. It would flow west (towards the unheated air) and towards the poles, because the radius of the Earth is 22 km greater at the equator and it would not flow uphill into hotter air. In the northern hemisphere the flow would move north giving the air a clockwise rotation while in the Southern Hemisphere there would be a counter clockwise rotation. The air would rise over cooler air outside the tropics and sink at the other edge near the equator. This is why hurricanes form along the equator when the focal point of the sun is at the top of the tropic of cancer. The Hadley cells are tubes formed in the atmosphere by the flow of energy rom the sun’s focal point and the shape of the Earth.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Herb,
H: If you believe the universal gas law is correct,
JMcG: I do.
H: then the kinetic energy of the gas molecules increases in the unconfined atmosphere,
JMcG: You lost me here. I can’t make sense of this statement.
Maybe check this out:
Meteorology is Inundated with Superstition
James McGinn / Genius
.
This would mean the air directly under the sun’s focal point, (only on the equator twice a year) is hotter higher in the atmosphere so the air at lower altitudes could not rise creating Hadley cells but must expand at sea level. It would flow west (towards the unheated air) and towards the poles, because the radius of the Earth is 22 km greater at the equator and it would not flow uphill into hotter air. In the northern hemisphere the flow would move north giving the air a clockwise rotation while in the Southern Hemisphere there would be a counter clockwise rotation. The air would rise over cooler air outside the tropics and sink at the other edge near the equator. This is why hurricanes form along the equator when the focal point of the sun is at the top of the tropic of cancer. The Hadley cells are tubes formed in the atmosphere by the flow of energy rom the sun’s focal point and the shape of the Earth.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
PV=nrt. The pressure confining the atmosphere is gravity, which is measured from the center of the Earth (it is not atmospheric pressure). Pressure doesn’t change much with altitude, so the atmosphere can be considered an unconfined gas and any change in the kinetic energy (t) of the gas molecules will result in an increase in the volume of the gas resulting in the density decreasing. Since the density decreases with increasing altitude this means the kinetic energy (not the gas constant or number of molecules change) of the molecules increases with increasing altitude. The higher you go the hotter the molecules but the fewer molecules transfer energy to a thermometer
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
H: PV=nrt. The pressure confining the atmosphere is gravity,
JMcG: Apples and oranges. Gravity is one way to confine gases to produce pressure. But gravity is just a force. It is the weight and energy of gas molecules that create pressure. Do not draw an equivalence between gravity and pressure. You will just confuse yourself and your audience.
H: Pressure doesn’t change much with altitude . . .
JMcG: Pressure can be thought of as the weight (not gravity) of the air molecules in a column of air above. Obviously this changes drastically with changes in height.
H: . . . change in the kinetic energy (t) of the gas molecules will result in an increase in the volume of the gas resulting in the density decreasing.
JMcG: Right, per PV=nrt. But, so what?
H: Since the density decreases with increasing altitude this means the kinetic energy (not the gas constant or number of molecules change) of the molecules increases with increasing altitude.
JMcG: No, it doesn’t mean this at all. Moreover, energy isn’t even in the equation. Temperature is in the equation. Big difference.
Your verbiage is convoluted here and I think that is reflective of an underlying misconception. It (this alleged misconception) might simply be because you mistakenly used the concepts of energy and temperature interchangeably, or there might be something else also. I can’t figure it out right now. I’ll look again later.
Be aware that PV=nrt uses temperature not energy and temperature is a very poor (inaccurate) proxy for energy.
H: The higher you go the hotter the molecules but the fewer molecules transfer energy to a thermometer
JMcG: You are overgeneralizing to no good effect here. It is trivially true that when density is lower the individual molecules must be moving faster (have more energy) if the air maintains the same temperature. But you are twisting this fact to arrive at a wrong conclusion.
James McGinn
Reply
Burns Matkin
| #
James:
You’re nit picking. You say the weight of the gas not the gravity. I get your point but there is no weight without the gravity. Also, the comment that pressure doesn’t change much with altitude???? Where did that come from? There is a large difference between sea level and upper atmosphere. Ever tried to breathe on Mt. Everest?
I would also think that Global warming as described by the zealots makes the temperature differential much smaller between latitudes and elevations thereby decreasing the energy capacity of any storm.
If the world were in a bubble without any difference in temps, there would be no winds, no storms and no rain.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Burns,
The pressure referred to in the universal gas law is not atmospheric pressure but the pressure of a gas that is confined and cannot expand (increase in volume). Any change in the components of the gas (number of molecules, gas constant, or energy of the molecules) will cause a change in the macro properties of the gas.
Since gravity is measured from the center of the Earth, what is the difference in the weight (mass times gravity) of an oxygen molecule at sea level and an identical molecule at the top of the troposphere?
Herb
James McGinn
| #
James: You’re nit picking.
JMcG: No. I’m being accurate.
James: You say the weight of the gas not the gravity. I get your point but there is no weight without the gravity.
JMcG: The moon has gravity but no air pressure. Venus and Mars have gravity that is comparable to that of earth, yet their air pressures are very different.
James: Also, the comment that pressure doesn’t change much with altitude???? Where did that come from?
JMcG: Don’t ask me. Ask Herb. He said it.
James: There is a large difference between sea level and upper atmosphere. Ever tried to breathe on Mt. Everest?
JMcG: Don’t ask me, Ask Herb.
James: I would also think that Global warming as described by the zealots
JMcG: You are preaching to the choir. I have been on the forefront of exposing AGW Propaganda since 2006.
James:
makes the temperature differential much smaller between latitudes and elevations thereby decreasing the energy capacity of any storm.
JMcG: That storms are powered by pressure differentials is trivial/obvious.
James: If the world were in a bubble without any difference in temps, there would be no winds, no storms and no rain.
JMcG: Right. Moreover, if not for the surface tension properties of H2O that become maximized on wind shear boundaries producing the vortices that are the plumbing of the atmosphere storms would not exist.
Watch this:
https://youtu.be/3wi8nkHD7uY
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Burns,
“Sea level” does not exist as a reference mark. Because of the rotation of the Earth and the inertia of water, sea level is a different distance from the center of the Earth on the east coast of a continent (higher) than on the west coast of a continent. The greater radius of the Earth at the equator means that sea level at the equator is 22 km higher than its level at the poles. This is higher than mt. Everest yet people seem to have no trouble breathing on the equator.These difference, like the difference in depth of the troposphere are not significant for gravity which is measured from the center of the Earth. The atmosphere is an unconfined gas where an increase in energy causes an increase in volume (decrease in density) not a change of pressure.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The UGL is not an equation but a statement of the macro properties of a gas (pressure and volume) being the result of the result of the properties of its components (number of molecules, gas constant, and the kinetic energy of those molecules. If the nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and CO2 molecules had no energy the atmosphere would be a thin layer of solid on the Earth held there by gravity. Its weight would be the same. It is the energy of molecules that convert them to gasses and cause those gasses to expand creating the atmosphere. The more energy those molecules have the greater the volume of the atmosphere.
Atmospheric pressure is not the weight (gravity times mass) of the molecules in the atmosphere, it is the momentum (mass times velocity) of the molecules. If the number of molecules per unit area is fewer in a less dense warm air mass than in a cool air mass, how can fewer of the same molecules weigh more?
The basis of the warm air rising is that it is the surface of the Earth, not the sun, heating the atmosphere. If the Earth’s surface is heating the atmosphere than the air at the surface will become hotter, less dense, and rise. If the sun is heating the atmosphere then the air at higher altitudes will be absorbing more energy and be less dense than the lower air preventing the air from rising.
The belief that because the oxygen, nitrogen, and argon do not absorb visible or infrared light they are not gaining energy from the sun violates the laws of thermodynamics, which states that all matter absorbs radiated energy, Those gasses absorb the x-rays and 95% of the uv coming from the sun and convert them to kinetic energy.
The zig zag graph of the temperature, as measured by a thermometer, in the atmosphere shows that this is not a graph of the flow of energy (there is no source of energy at the top of the stratosphere to heat gas molecules) but a measurement of the momentum of the molecules striking the thermometer.
If you want to see a graph of the flow of energy in the atmosphere plot the inverse of density (the volume of a constant number of molecules) with changing altitude. It shows the energy increases in a straight-line in the troposphere (where water absorbs most of the energy) then in an exponential curve above the troposphere (no water0.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: The UGL is not an equation but a statement of the macro properties of a gas (pressure and volume) being the result of the result of the properties of its components (number of molecules, gas constant, and the kinetic energy of those molecules. If the nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and CO2 molecules had no energy the atmosphere would be a thin layer of solid on the Earth held there by gravity. Its weight would be the same. It is the energy of molecules that convert them to gasses and cause those gasses to expand creating the atmosphere. The more energy those molecules have the greater the volume of the atmosphere.
JMcG: Isn’t all of this obvious?
Herb: Atmospheric pressure is not the weight (gravity times mass) of the molecules in the atmosphere, it is the momentum (mass times velocity) of the molecules. If the number of molecules per unit area is fewer in a less dense warm air mass than in a cool air mass, how can fewer of the same molecules weigh more?
JMcG:I can’t figure out what your point is here. Nobody is saying fewer molecules weigh more. I was just saying it is the weight of the molecules above that confines the gas below it. Let’s not debate silly semantics.
Herb: The basis of the warm air rising is that it is the surface of the Earth, not the sun, heating the atmosphere.
JMcG: The greatest misconception in all of meteorology is that air rises due to convection/buoyancy. This notion is blatant psedoscience that is plainly refuted by the most rudimentary of observations. All uplift in earth’s atmosphere (especially storms) is the result of vortice activity at higher altidude. Vortices running along the tropopause channel low pressure energy from the jet streams through these vortices to create a vacuum effect at the location of the vortice activity at these higher altitudes.
Herb: If the Earth’s surface is heating the atmosphere than the air at the surface will become hotter, less dense, and rise.
JMcG: Nonsense. Heating the air at lower altitude dramatically increases its capacity to hold moisture. Except in the driest of deserts, this means that warmer air (without exception) is heavier/denser than any cooler air it it’s vicinity. As you realize, moisture in air ALWAYS gives it negative buoyancy.
Herb: If the sun is heating the atmosphere then the air at higher altitudes will be absorbing more energy and be less dense than the lower air preventing the air from rising.
JMcG: And I’m telling you that the notion that air rises due to buoyancy/convection is an urban myth. It’s just superstition. It’ conversational BS that has nothing to do with what is actually happening in the atmosphere.
Herb: The belief that because the oxygen, nitrogen, and argon do not absorb visible or infrared light they are not gaining energy from the sun violates the laws of thermodynamics, which states that all matter absorbs radiated energy, Those gasses absorb the x-rays and 95% of the uv coming from the sun and convert them to kinetic energy.
JMcG: I couldn’t agree more. (I think I may be the one that explained this to you.)
Herb: The zig zag graph of the temperature, as measured by a thermometer, in the atmosphere shows that this is not a graph of the flow of energy (there is no source of energy at the top of the stratosphere to heat gas molecules) but a measurement of the momentum of the molecules striking the thermometer.
If you want to see a graph of the flow of energy in the atmosphere plot the inverse of density (the volume of a constant number of molecules) with changing altitude. It shows the energy increases in a straight-line in the troposphere (where water absorbs most of the energy) then in an exponential curve above the troposphere (no water0.
JMcG: I mostly agree here too.
James McGinn / Genius
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=624#p5976
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
JMcG:”Nobody is saying that fewer molecules weigh more”
H: The barometer says this. It says the weight per square inch of a less dense, warm, high pressure air mass is greater than the weight per square inch of a cooler, less dense, low pressure air mass.
JMcG: I was just saying it s the weight of the molecules above that confine the gas below it.
H; How can this be when the molecules are not in contact with each other? If you put a weight on a scale, then stack another weight on top, the scale will register the mass of both weights. If you lift the top weight off and suspend it above the scale it will only register the weight of the remains weight. When you drop the weight onto the scale it will register the momentum of the falling weight and the mass of the stationary weight. The atmosphere exists because the kinetic energy of the gas molecules is overcoming the force of gravity and giving them upward momentum. When you add energy to the molecules they expand the atmosphere producing more momentum registering on the scale, not more weight on the scale.
Because the temperature in the atmosphere is well above the freezing point of oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, and argon additional energy will not produce more molecules/mass in the atmosphere. The number of molecules will remain constant but the momentum of those molecules will increase. The rock on the top of a mountain does to hold the mountain in place.
JMcG:Heating the air at lower altitude dramatically increases its ability to hold moisture. Except in the driest of deserts, this means that warmer air (with exception) is heavier/denser than any cool air in the vicinity. As you realize, moisture in the air ALWAYS gives it negative buoyancy.
H: The density is greater because there are more molecules per unit volume, but because the nano droplets are rising in the atmosphere (carrying energy to the top of the troposphere) they don’t make the air heavier. According to your reasoning adding more mass, in the form of helium to a balloon will make it heavier
.H: Convection is not air rising it is the movement of energy from molecules with more energy to objects with less energy. Since the molecules higher in the atmosphere receive more energy from the sun the flow is not up but outwards to molecules with less energy. Once the energy reaches an area where the molecules above have less energy then the energy will radiate up (heating the air above) as well as outwards.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
JMcG:”Nobody is saying that fewer molecules weigh more”
H: The barometer says this. It says the weight per square inch of a less dense, warm, high pressure air mass is greater than the weight per square inch of a cooler, less dense, low pressure air mass.
JMcG: A barometer DOES NOT MEASURE WEIGHT!!! It measures air pressure.
JMcG: I was just saying it s the weight of the molecules above that confine the gas below it.
H; How can this be when the molecules are not in contact with each other?
JMcG: If air molecule didn’t impact/contact each other there would be no air pressure and no sound.
H: If you put a weight on a scale, then stack another weight on top, the scale will register the mass of both weights.
JMcG: Right. And changes in air pressure will produce no change in the measured weight of these weights. Right? So your premise is wrong.
Herb: If you lift the top weight off and suspend it above the scale it will only register the weight of the remains weight. When you drop the weight onto the scale it will register the momentum of the falling weight and the mass of the stationary weight. The atmosphere exists because the kinetic energy of the gas molecules is overcoming the force of gravity and giving them upward momentum. When you add energy to the molecules they expand the atmosphere producing more momentum . . .
JMcG: Up to this point your explanation is correct.
Herb: . . . registering on the scale, not more weight on the scale.
JMcG: Air pressure hits an object on all sides. So no difference will be detectable by a scale. With a barometer, however, the bottom of the column of mercury is a vacuum. Thus a barometer can detect a change in pressure whereas a scale cannot.
Herb: Because the temperature in the atmosphere is well above the freezing point of oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, and argon additional energy will not produce more molecules/mass in the atmosphere. The number of molecules will remain constant but the momentum of those molecules will increase.
JMcG: Yeah, so? What’s your point?
Herb: The rock on the top of a mountain does to hold the mountain in place.
JMcG: True, but not relevant to anything we are discussing here.
JMcG:Heating the air at lower altitude dramatically increases its ability to hold moisture. Except in the driest of deserts, this means that warmer air (with exception) is heavier/denser than any cool air in the vicinity. As you realize, moisture in the air ALWAYS gives it negative buoyancy.
H: The density is greater
JMcG: Density of what?
H: because there are more molecules per unit volume, but because the nano droplets are rising in the atmosphere (carrying energy to the top of the troposphere) they don’t make the air heavier.
JMcG: Nano droplets don’t rise unless they are part of a mass of air that is rising.
H: According to your reasoning adding more mass, in the form of helium to a balloon will make it heavier
JMcG: Nonsense. The particle weight of helium is 4. The particle weight of air is 29. The particle weight of nanodroplets is 18 x X. X being the number of H2O molecules in the nanodroplet, which is rarely less than 10.
.H: Convection
JMcG: The word “convection” is ambiguous and otherwise meaningless. It means different things to different people.
H: is not air rising it is the movement of energy from molecules with more energy to objects with less energy.
JMcG: Nonsense. The rapid uplift witnessed in storms is the result of vortices introducing a vacuum effect at the top of the troposphere. It makes no difference whether or not it can or cannot be called convection. Convection has different meaning to different people.
Tom
| #
With all that global warming building up over the last 40 years, we should be getting an EF-6 or EF-7 monster tornado, right? There would be tornadoes where they normally don’t appear. There would be hundreds of tornadoes chasers and dozens of tornado shows on the idiot box.
Reply
George Kaplan
| #
Biden gets it wrong again.
Reply