Climate Dynamics

, Volume 45, Issue 3–4, pp 651–659 | Cite as

The increasing efficiency of tornado days in the United States

  • James B. Elsner
  • Svetoslava C. Elsner
  • Thomas H. Jagger
Article

Abstract

The authors analyze the historical record of tornado reports in the United States and find evidence for changes in tornado climatology possibly related to global warming. They do this by examining the annual number of days with many tornadoes and the ratio of these days to days with at least one tornado and by examining the annual proportion of tornadoes occurring on days with many tornadoes. Additional evidence of a changing tornado climate is presented by considering tornadoes in geographic clusters and by analyzing the density of tornadoes within the clusters. There is a consistent decrease in the number of days with at least one tornado at the same time as an increase in the number of days with many tornadoes. These changes are interpreted as an increasing proportion of tornadoes occurring on days with many tornadoes. Coincident with these temporal changes are increases in tornado density as defined by the number of tornadoes per area. Trends are insensitive to the begin year of the analysis. The bottom line is that the risk of big tornado days featuring densely concentrated tornado outbreaks is on the rise. The results are broadly consistent with numerical modeling studies that project increases in convective energy within the tornado environment.

Keywords

Tornado Trends Cluster Outbreak Efficiency 

References

  1. Anderson CJ, Wikle CK, Zhou Q (2007) Population influences on tornado reports in the United States. Weather Forecast 22:571–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooks H, Doswell C (2001) Normalized damage from major tornadoes in the United States: 18901999. Weather Forecast 16:168–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coleman TA, Dixon PG (2014) An objective analysis of tornado risk in the United States. Weather Forecast 29:366–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dean AR (2010) An analysis of clustered tornado events. In: 25th conference on severe local storms, American Meteorological SocietyGoogle Scholar
  5. Diffenbaugh NS, Scherer M, Trapp RJ (2013) Robust increases in severe thunderstorm environments in response to greenhouse forcing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi10.1073/pnas.1307758110
  6. Doswell CA, Brooks HE, Kay MP (2005) Climatological estimates of daily local nontornadic severe thunderstorm probability for the United States. Weather Forecast 20:577–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duda RO, Hart PE (1973) Pattern classification and scene analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards R, LaDue JG, Ferree JT, Scharfenberg K, Maier C, Coulbourne WL (2013) Tornado intensity estimation: past, present, and future. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 94:641–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elsner JB, Widen HM (2014) Predicting spring tornado activity in the central Great Plains by March 1st. Mon Weather Rev 142:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elsner JB, Michaels LE, Scheitlin KN, Elsner IJ (2013) The decreasing population bias in tornado reports. Weather Clim Soc 5:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fujita T, Pearson AD (1973) Results of FPP classification of 1971 and 1972 tornadoes. In: Eight conference on severe local storms, pp 142–145Google Scholar
  12. Genio ADD, Yao MS, Jonas J (2007) Will moist convection be stronger in a warmer climate? Geophys Res Lett 34(L16):703. doi:10.1029/2007GL030525 Google Scholar
  13. Grazulis TP (1990) Significant Tornadoes, 1880–1989: Discussion and analysis. Significant Tornadoes, 1880–1989, Environmental Films. http://books.google.com/books?id=E8hFAAAAYAAJ
  14. Groisman PY, Knight RW, Karl TR, Easterling DR, Sun B, Lawrimore JH (2004) Contemporary changes of the hydrological cycle over the contiguous United States: trends derived from in situ observations. J Hydrometeorol 5:64–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hennig C (2014) fpc: Flexible procedures for clustering. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=fpc, r package version 2.1-7
  16. Klooster SLV, Roebber PJ (2009) Surface-based convective potential in the contiguous United States in a business-as-usual future climate. J Clim 22:3317–3330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kunkel K et al (2013) Monitoring and understanding trends in extreme storms. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 94:499–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ramsdell JV Jr, Rishel JP (2007) Tornado Climatology of the Contiguous United States. Tech. Rep. NUREG/CR-4461, PNNL-15112, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, P.O. Box 999, Richland, WA 99352Google Scholar
  19. Reynolds A, Richards G, de la Iglesia B, Rayward-Smith V (1992) Clustering rules: a comparison of partitioning and hierarchical clustering algorithms. J Math Model Algorithms 5:475–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schaefer JT, Edwards R (1999) The SPC tornado/severe thunderstorm database. In: 11th conference on applied climatology, American Meteorological SocietyGoogle Scholar
  21. Shafer CM, Doswell CA (2011) Using kernel density estimation to identify, rank, and classify severe weather outbreak events. Electron J Severe Storms Meteorol 6:1–28Google Scholar
  22. Simmons KM, Sutter D (2012) The 2011 tornadoes and the future of tornado research. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93(7):959–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Speheger DA, Doswell CA, Stumpf GJ (2002) The tornadoes of 3 May 1999: event verification in central Oklahoma and related issues. Weather Forecast 17:362–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Trapp RJ, Diffenbaugh NS, Brooks HE, Baldwin ME, Robinson ED, Pal JS (2007) Changes in severe thunderstorm environment frequency during the 21st century caused by anthropogenically enhanced global radiative forcing. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(50):19,719–19,723. doi:10.1073/pnas.0705494104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Verbout SM, Brooks HE, Leslie LM, Schultz DM (2006) Evolution of the U.S. tornado database: 1954–2003. Weather Forecast 21:86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • James B. Elsner
    • 1
  • Svetoslava C. Elsner
    • 1
  • Thomas H. Jagger
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations