Tornadoes: The ‘New Normal’ That Wasn’t
Image: National Geographic
Tornadoes killed 553 Americans in 2011, the deadliest year since 1925. May 22 marked the 10th anniversary of the Joplin, Missouri tornado that killed 161, the first triple-digit toll since 1953. The U.S. had been averaging 60 tornado deaths annually. This death toll shocked the public, weather forecasters, and researchers.
Improvements in weather radar, National Weather Service warnings, and the advent of real-time, street-level tracking had seemingly rendered such death tolls a historical relic.
Some experts had a ready answer for the devastation: man-made climate change. Bill McKibben took a tongue-in-cheek tack in the Washington Post, with a headline, “A Link Between Climate Change and Joplin Tornadoes? Never!”
He opined, “When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that.”
Researchers Kevin Trenberth and Michael Mann also stated that global warming is making tornadoes worse.
When the unexpected happens, researchers need to ask why and examine the data. Kevin Simmons and I had just published a book on the societal impacts of tornadoes.
We sought to assess whether the 2011 death tolls were due to the tornadoes which occurred, societal vulnerability, or perhaps some other factor. We published our findings in a book, Deadly Season: Analysis of the 2011 Tornado Outbreaks, and a paper in Natural Hazards Review.
Our conclusion: it was the tornadoes. The total number of tornadoes rated EF-5 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale for tornado damage, the highest rating, provides a short answer.
Six EF-5 tornadoes occurred in 2011, including four in Mississippi and Alabama on April 27. The nation averages less than one per year (59 since 1950), with only one since 2011. The year’s activity was extreme, but not unprecedented. For instance, seven EF-5’s occurred in the April 3, 1974 tornado outbreak.
Historical ratios of fatalities per injury, per millions of dollars of property damage, or per building damaged provide more detail and context.
For example, prior to 2011, violent tornadoes killed one person for every $20 million of property damage; this and similar ratios held steady in 2011.
The year’s many long-track, violent tornadoes produced enormous damage, with the corresponding casualties.
We further applied statistical models of tornado fatalities we used to examine the impacts of Doppler radar and NWS warnings. The models controlled for tornado and path characteristics like EF-scale rating, path length, and the numbers of persons and mobile homes in the affected counties.
Plugging the characteristics of 2011 tornadoes into the model would give a fatality estimate based on recent patterns.
The analysis predicted more than 500 fatalities for the year’s tornadoes with a high likelihood of a tornado killing more than 100.
Keep in mind, the deadliest tornado over the years used in the statistical analysis (1990-2010) killed 36 people. The tornadoes of 2011 were unlike anything we had witnessed for decades.
There was no upward trend in violent tornadoes prior to 2011; the year was a clear statistical outlier or Black Swan type event.
Consequently, we concluded that fatalities should return to the prior normal or decline further due to continued warning process improvements.
By contrast, proponents of climate change told us that Joplin and Tuscaloosa were the new normal due to global warming.
The U.S. has averaged 43 tornado deaths over the past nine years, with 76 in the deadliest year (2020). We have had only 11 deaths so far in 2021 (although please knock on some wood when reading this).
Mother Nature can be extreme, variable, and fickle. Events and years unlike recent experience are inevitable.
When unexpected (or inconceivable) weather events occur, we should try to figure out what happened and why, instead of lazily attributing it to man-made global warming.
See more here: climatechangedispatch.com
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.
Brian James
| #
May 25, 2021 Solar Storm Forcing of Earth Rotation and Axis Tilt | S0 News
https://youtu.be/Ziqr8-8CqBw
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James McGinn,
I went to Brian’s link and discovered that Space Weather News.com is a NOAA website. Which really surprised me! So I am curious, have you considered their ‘space’ data which they (NOAA) evidently consider is associated with tornadoes and weather?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
have you considered their ‘space’ data which they (NOAA) evidently consider is associated with tornadoes and weather?
James:
Well, in a sense, possibly. Electrification of earth’s atmosphere may be instrumental with respect to the formation of boundary layers between moist air and dry air that themselves are instrumental in the formation of vortices. So, possibly, the the solar wind can influence the weather by way of electrification of the atmosphere. But until we get a better understanding of the physics of storms and the physics of atmospheric flow (which have nothing whatsoever to do with convection) its kind of a distraction to speculate on the influence of space weather, in my opinion.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You didn’t answer my question. I was not trying to set you up in order to disagree with you. Look at the photo. I see two storm events: a continuous line of common thunder clouds with precipitation falling from their bases in places in the background and the rare small ‘funnel’ cloud of a tornado which extends down from a very dark and turbulent large cloud in the foreground with no precipitation in evidence. I have seen both and know that the ‘funnel’ is moving from side to side and up and down. But the massive destruction is not caused by such a small funnel. And I haven’t seen the ‘wide’ tornados which cause the massive property damage. So I cannot image what is occurring these. But to me there are at least two types (forms) of tornados. Of course, these words mean nothing except that I do not know.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I guess I don’t understand your question then, or its relation to space data.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Climate Change Dispatch:
When unexpected (or inconceivable) weather events occur, we should try to figure out what happened and why, instead of lazily attributing it to man-made global warming.
James McGinn:
Our understanding of storms and severe weather has always been ensconced in laziness, pretense, and confusion. So, although attributing it to global warming does not improve any of this it doesn’t hurt any of it either.
To understand storms we need to understand the plumbing of the atmosphere. And to understand that we need to understand the structural basis of the substance that comprises the sheath of atmospheric vortices (tornadic vortices) which are the pipes of the plumbing of the atmosphere. And to understand that we need to understand the plasma phase of H2O that emerges on wind shear boundaries in the atmosphere. And to understand that we need to accept that physics and chemistry have failed to understand H2O, leaving meteorologists with their hands tied, unable to make progress.
It is traditional physicist and the chemist that have dropped the ball on this.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Tom
| #
After over 40 years of hearing about fake global warming melting the planet, you would think by now we would have had at least one or two F6 tornadoes and a few cat 6 hurricanes. I have noticed in my neck of the woods that we can’t even get more than one decent ball-busting thunder and lightening storm during the warmer months. There have been none in the last 3 summers. Back in the 60’s-70’s growing up, ear splitting thunderstorms were a real treat and came several times during the summer. Now, it’s a few strokes of lightening and a thunderboomer or two that doesn’t even scare the cat anymore.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi James McGuinn and Dr. Jerry.
I found the following reference interesting on tornados and it then has links to cosmic plasma which it suggests could supplant “dark energy” hypothesis.
One thing it mentions which I have come across from a number of accounts is the electric green light from inside tornados.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050330tornado-electric-discharge.htm
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
As I read new information from unknown sources I evaluate, based upon my experiences, what is being stated. Consider this from the 2nd paragraph of the link you gave us. “The BIG difference is that the electrons are moving at many meters per second in the tornado while they take several hours to move one meter in the copper wire!” Based on your experiences, can you accept that it takes several hours for electrons to move one meter in a copper wire???
But despite this questionable statement I will read further. For I have seen the green color of the clouds present during very severe atmospheric winds. And yes, one time was when the steel sheets of roofing were lifted off a portion of our roof. And as we look at the photo of the tornado cloud of the photo we see that cloud from which the funnel descends is very dark (no solar radiation reaching the base of the cloud. But no green color and no evidence of lighting. I saw the green color of the cloud’s very extensive base before the tornado occurred. I cannot say that the green cloud I was seeing was still ‘green’ when the tornado actually occurred. And I am no longer sure about any lighting and thunder; but suspect there was some because lighting and thunder is very common and clearly has an ELECTRICAL NATURE which has been known since Ben Franklin flew his kite.
But the point of this comment is we must be skeptical of anything we read if its doesn’t fit our personal experiences. You trust your experiences and I trust what you write about them.
And I read on to see how the author explains electricity causes the green color (for which I have no explanation).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
I did notice the error of speed of electrons in copper wire. An error of one part of a concept does not necessarily make the whole concept wrong but errors do create credibility issues.
Cheers Jerry. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James McGinn and hopefully PSI Readers,
MattH’s link seems to clearly ‘support’ much of what you have been claiming no one else understands. But one doesn’t need to be a Genius to see lighting and hear thunder and see ‘green’ clouds. Now, most of us are familiar with aurora phenomenon and its colors which often move rapidly across great expansions of the sky. Think NEON signs.
As Einstein stated: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
MattH’s link seems to clearly ‘support’ much of what you have been claiming no one else understands.
James:
Does it? How so? Feel free to make a detailed argument to this effect.
Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmosphere
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17125
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Matt.
Yeah, this is old, 2005. I saw it a long time ago. As you can see its authors don’t open this to debate. That is understandable in that it has such obvious flaws. If a tornado was associated with ionic plasmas like we see on the sun then we would expect there to much more evidence of tornadoes starting forest fires. And if electricity was involved we would expect there to be accounts of people being electrocuted or shocked by tornadoes.
The much cooler, non-electric plasma of vortices is associated with the surface tension properties of water that spin up on wind shear boundaries.
The key to solving tornadoes is to solve water first:
Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
MattH
| #
HI James. You raise some pertinent questions. I need to clarify some of our past communication as a matter of respect to you before I dig a deeper hole. No time again right now.
What surprises me is the range of literature on tornado structure that do not mention the electric charge stratification of super cells and the temporary positive charge of the earth surface and near earth surface matter in a radius around supercells.
Be Happy. Matt
Reply
very old white guy
| #
one word, population.
Reply
Sky Watcher
| #
Look up … see those trails that extend horizon to horizon??
Record the date in your record book and were there a few or did they crisscross the entire sky ?… now watch the weather for the next couple of days… Excess Heat? Violent rain storms? Wind? Tornadoes?
When is the last time you saw beautiful fluffy clouds? Do the clouds turn into mist after the trails?? How about just lovely blue skies? What are you accepting now as “normal”?
Who has declared war on us? Is it military or Bill Gates (who wants to darken the sun?) or both??
Reply