I've actually brought up this subject before, that tornado number is such a strong function of the number of observers that there is no accurate way to compare old numbers with recent numbers. I have doubts even about year-to-year numbers. Until there is some objective way of identifying tornadoes (radar isn't good for that, by the way), then establishing a trend is just so much guesswork.
The situation is quite different with tropical cyclones (e.g. hurricanes). Since the advent of geostationary weather satellites, no tropical cyclone has gone undetected. The problem there is not one of detection, but relatively small sample size and influence from external factors.
Zippi62, I challenge you to find a climate model that says ANYTHING about tornadoes. That is a fantasy of yours.
EDIT for Zippi62: I see that you were not up to the challenge. By the way, your statement "The climate is the average of all weather put together and science can't predict squat (nothing) past 48 hours!" is absurdly wrong on a couple of counts. (1) Your conclusions is faulty, there are many, many things you can predict averages for when it is hopeless to predict the individual events. Haven't you ever heard of Las Vegas? (2) Your belief that you can't predict past 48 hours is many decades out of date. You really should try learning some NEW science. The plot I'm attaching is an objective gauge of the accuracy of the premier global weather model (at present), the ECMWF. These all for forecasts farther out than 48, they have improved tremendously over the past 30 years, and even the 7 day forecasts are pretty accurate these days.
Another EDIT for Zippi62: Have you already forgotten your own answer? Here is what you said "Tornados are just another problem for climate science's future predictions through their erroneous climate modeling techniques"
As for your anecdotal forecast error example--why don't you write a paper on it? Perhaps you don't realize that millions of data points went into the plot that I showed--you have one. And you never defended your incredibly dumb statement about averages.
Just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about, so you base your conclusions on religion and politics.
I've heard that there are more world wide weather, and many other phenomenon reports, because of so many cell phones being used. Maybe there really are not more tornadoes than any other historic time. There's just more data being sent by literally billions of people these days.
I think your main problem is there are no estimates of changes in tornado activity due to AGW, the IPCC (in fact the scientists who consult the IPCC) estimate an increase in the strength of some hurricanes but don't think there will be an increase in overall hurricane numbers.
You may want to look up the difference between a hurricane/cyclone and a tornado.
The IPCC said that data was not good enough and had been affected by improvements in detection back in the last IPCC report (2007)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
Which I'm sorry, rather cuts the legs out form under your weak conspiracy theory.
edit: interesting 2 thumbs down but not one retort on the fact the IPCC don't make estimates on tornadoes. I guess that's denial for you, deniers would rather invent groundless conspiracies based on no real evidence than face facts.
No, NOAA did not fudge the data.
Wikipedia lists world wide tornado's while NOAA lists U.S. Tornado's. (Wikipedia has a lower tornado and death number for the U.S in part because that page has not been updated..)
Quick! Someone post a video of a graph taped to a see-saw.
The WMO is the one who makes predictions and they have been found to be wrong on several occasions. In fact, they predicted a much warmer winter this past winter and were totally off base. "Not one of our better efforts ... "
" ... Everyone knows that regional weather forecasts are notoriously unreliable, especially beyond 48 hours. This fact weakened the credibility of the IPCC predictions with the public from the start. Some supporters of the IPCC position tried to counteract the problem by saying that climate forecasts were different from weather forecasts. It is a false argument. Climate is the average of the weather, so if the weather science is wrong the climate science is wrong. ... "
Tornados are just another problem for climate science's future predictions through their erroneous climate modeling techniques. They are proving to be more and more inept. They constantly trip over their research. LMAO!!!!
pegminer - LOL! The IP CC does predict that the climate is changing and specifically has predicted worse weather events and tornados are part of that. Of course they don't give numbers.
If simple weather can't be correctly predicted, then how can the climate be predicted? The climate is the average of all weather put together and science can't predict squat (nothing) past 48 hours! 97% of climate scientists just like to think they can predict future climate states. Climate models are the greatest gift from a climate alarmist to a skeptic. LMAO!!!
pegminer - You're so full of it! These past couple of days are a prime example of how simple weather can't be predicted here in the Midwest. 2 days ago it was forecast that today was suppose to be sunny and in the upper 60s. Current temperature is just above freezing and never made it to 40. That's weather forecasting for ya. You are talking about averages of averages of daily weather (temperature is just one aspect of the climate) which becomes convoluted with scientific conjecture. We are simply talking about 1 molecule of CO2 being mixed with 10,000 other molecules in our atmosphere and affecting the entire climate system. That part of the science is incomplete and the IP CC is ringing alarm bells for no reason.
Additionally for pegminer : My answer started out by stating that the WMO (works closely with climate models btw) makes the predictions. Never said anything about the IP CC or anyone else for that matter, making tornado predictions.
I believe the farmer's almanac before I before I believe any projection from NOAA.
I somehow imagine that NOAA did no such thing.
You don't like the facts, so it's a scandal?
Yes you are.
See http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/adj.html.
The raw data shows the number of tornadoes per year going up at 15 per year! But they claim that this is due to better observation, and so they fudge the early years so the trend is defined as level! So 2013 is rated the lowest in history, (Wikipedia tornadoes 2013) even though twenty years have a lower raw count. Is there a conspiracy to hide AGW?
