Tornadoes May Be Getting Stronger. Or Not

Sometimes scientists cant help themselves from showing dramatic curves, even though they have so many caveats that no firm conclusions can be made from the data.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Sometimes scientists can’t help themselves from showing dramatic curves, even though they have so many caveats that no firm conclusions can be made from the data. James Elsner at Florida State University has a killer curve, and lots of caveats. The curve indicates that tornadoes in the U.S. may be getting stronger. The caveats indicate they may not be.

“If I were a betting man I’d say tornadoes are getting stronger,” he noted on Tuesday during a lecture at the annual American Geophysical Union fall meeting in San Francisco. But when asked directly at a press conference whether that is the case, he would not commit. “I’m not doing this [work] to establish the future intensity of tornadoes,” he explained, but to establish a method that someday could indeed determine if the storms are becoming more powerful.

Because the lecture was titled “Are tornadoes getting stronger?” the audience expected an answer. And their consternation rose when Elsner showed his final graph, adding up the kinetic energy of tornadoes each year from 1994 to 2012. The curve is flat from 1994 to about 2006 but then spikes upward through 2012. It was reminiscent of the now famous “hockey stick” graph produced by Michael Mann and colleagues a decade ago, indicating that Earth’s temperature had been flat for 1,000 years and began spiking upward in the mid-1800s. But Mann had 1,000 years of data; Elsner has 18. His data begin in 1994 because that’s when Doppler radar, the best at tracking tornadoes, began covering the entire U.S.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The point of the curve, however, is to show that measuring the length and width of a tornado’s damage path gives an accurate indication of its strength, which is driven by the storm’s peak wind speed. It is difficult if not impossible to measure that speed directly, as is done for hurricanes by ground instruments and planes that fly into the storms.

Despite the caveats, several interesting and solid conclusions do arise from Elsner’s painstaking work to map every single tornado that made landfall since 1994. Top winds speeds appear to be rising. And the stronger the storm, the longer it stays on the ground and the wider its path of destruction. Storms that ranked a 4 on the EF scale (1 to 5, with 5 the worst) cut paths with a mean length of 43 kilometers and a mean width of 809 meters. EF5 storms had a mean length of 67 kilometers and a mean width of 1,390 meters.

Also intriguing is that slightly more tornadoes are forming in the springtime, and in December, while the frequency in June and July is down a bit. Storm strength seems to be increasing most in the southern-most portions of the country.

Of course AGU attendees, and reporters, asked Elsner several times if climate change is or might be making tornadoes stronger. He would not bite. “I’m not claiming this is because of climate change,” Elsner told the audience. “But it is provocative, isn’t it?” He later noted that more moisture in the atmosphere, a general result of global warming, could provide more fuel for stronger tornadoes, but that no one has proven such a link. Changes in the El Nino – La Nina cycle of ocean and atmosphere conditions in the Pacific Ocean could be affecting the frequency of tornado formation, “but that research is just beginning,” he said.

Elsner was clear about not being able to say with certainty if tornadoes are getting stronger, and was careful to not speculate on a cause if they are. He also seemed to sense his audiences’ disappointment. The purpose of his work, he said, is to establish a scientifically rigorous method for determining tornado strength, which some day might answer the bigger questions. After years of skepticism, he noted, “the public has accepted that there is a link between hurricanes and climate change. We are just beginning” to determine whether there is any linkage for tornadoes.

Photo courtesy of Justin1569 at WikimediaCommons

Mark Fischetti was a senior editor at Scientific American for nearly 20 years and covered sustainability issues, including climate, environment, energy, and more. He assigned and edited feature articles and news by journalists and scientists and also wrote in those formats. He was founding managing editor of two spin-off magazines: Scientific American Mind and Scientific American Earth 3.0. His 2001 article “Drowning New Orleans” predicted the widespread disaster that a storm like Hurricane Katrina would impose on the city. Fischetti has written as a freelancer for the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Smithsonian and many other outlets. He co-authored the book Weaving the Web with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, which tells the real story of how the Web was created. He also co-authored The New Killer Diseases with microbiologist Elinor Levy. Fischetti has a physics degree and has twice served as Attaway Fellow in Civic Culture at Centenary College of Louisiana, which awarded him an honorary doctorate. In 2021 he received the American Geophysical Union’s Robert C. Cowen Award for Sustained Achievement in Science Journalism. He has appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN, the History Channel, NPR News and many radio stations.

More by Mark Fischetti

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe