Experts Say Recent Tornadoes Had Unusual Characteristics

By Maria Medina

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) — National Weather Service (NWS) investigators scoured the area where it’s confirmed three tornadoes touched down. They’re trying to determine just how many twisters actually occurred.

Investigators are trying to confirm an eyewitness account of seven tornadoes that touched down on Wednesday. They’re looking at evidence like gaps between damage, and whether or not one tornado stayed on the ground or dissipated then re-formed.

“By God, stuff was just flying,” said Albert Ashton, who witnessed the tornadoes.

Tornadoes in California normally last a few minutes, but for some inexplicable reason, on Wednesday these lasted longer – a lot longer.

“One was about an hour and 40 minutes, and one was about an hour and 20,” said Kathy Hoxsie, a NWS investigator.

Pointing to a damaged area, Kathy says: “These were the tracks of the two tornadoes that we had confirmed.”

All signs point to two EF-1 tornadoes that formed outside of Willows. One dissipated outside of Chico, and the other ended in Durham where the twister uprooted more than 5,000 almond trees. In total, the storm caused $1 million in damage.

The third twister formed outside of Oroville, destroying a four-car garage and even carrying the family dog as Albert could only watch.

“I’m lucky I’m alive,” said Albert.

The damage is so widespread that it’s leaving the NWS in awe.

“That’s the most unusual part of this entire event: how long those tornadoes were on the ground. That just doesn’t happen in California very often,” said Kathy.

It could take months, or even years, to solve the mystery of this unusual storm.

  • Sam Stone

    Mystery? It’s called Global Warming…when will the climate deniers wake up and realize they need to do something about this now or else these disasters are just going to be higher and higher in magnitude.

    • JusticeWarrior

      It is NOT, idiot!

    • NoSheepHere




    • OlDog

      Yup, global climate change or warming is probably one factor. Rest assured that political frauds like bullet trains and paying PG&E 40% more for solar and windmills will have little if any effect. Except to suck our wealth into government coffers.

    • mike

      Yes this global warming is really proving it’s point with record snowfall (IN MAY) and many campgrounds closed due to SNOW on MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND. Did you know tornadoes CAN NOT form without cold air? Why aren’t we upset at global chilling? That is where all of the bad weather comes from. Seriously who ever hung out in hawaii saying, “darn this global warming, it’s just too sunny down here” vs how many people are getting snow in the sierras thinking, “global warming my arse”

    • Babsbo

      Doesn’t ANYONE read the history of Earth and geography anymore???? WOW! What do the schools teach…oh never mind! The point is if you look from the formation of Earth to today, you will see CYCLES Earth goes thru every so many years, decades centuries etc.,..
      These cycle aren’t just climate change they are ALL changes!
      Earth is a living growing thing. CYCLES happen. Get it over it.

  • Dale Clark

    no, it’s not global warming, it’s the sudden departal of La Nina, it normally hold the jet stream further north to keep the cold artic air away. but when the jet stream goes further south the colder dry air start to mix with the warm moist air, that’s when tornados occurs, the warm air wants to rise upward while the cold air sinks, The only way they can do that is though a tornado.

    • Feel free to read something that contradicts your views

      I agree with some of your statement. However El nino and la nina occur usually in 2-7 year intervals and the issue at hand is the amount of time these tornados were on the ground. It is the extremely extended amount of time and the strength at which these tornados were formed that is raising serious questions. This is clear evidence that climate change should be seriously considered. Climate change forecasts predict stronger than usual storms for a specific geographic region. If your statement was completely correct then you would be able to cite specific times similar (similar in strength and duration) events like this have happened in California’s history. They have not, and this data adds to the already staggering data that supports the climate change hypothesis. You should seriously consider reckless statements like you made and the certainty at which you make them when you are dealing with a hypothesis that has a significant amount of data supporting it and when the consequences alone are projected to be globally catastrophic. I am not sure what agenda one has when they immediately dismiss such a hypothesis supported by a wide range of professionals in the related fields, but you should consider the effect you have on others (ignorant people who don’t research such topics for themselves) when you make dogmatic claims.

      • Rob

        Climate change is normal. Always has been for the planet earth. You act like the ‘staggering data’ is something new. How many types of ice ages has the planet gone through? Napolean witnessed a mini ice age during his campaigns in Europe. Then the planet went through a warming period.

        Do you have data showing tornadoes before the 1800’s in California?? No, you don’t. So, how do you know what this region has experienced in terms of extreme tornadoes over the past 30,000 years???

        There is nothing that humans (at least Americans) can do to prevent, or encourage, climate change. Here in the USA, we rank high for the cleanest air. This change is going to happen whether we like it or not. So, stop lying to people just to control what we drive, or how we fuel our vehicles, or try to impose even more burdensome taxes on our society. We’re sick of the fabricated ‘staggering data’ and being told that global warming is the cause when it’s not snowing, then blaiming global warming when it is snowing.

        Now for some real experts and real data. The first is from a JPL scientist with NASA who admits that extreme cold air in the upper atmosphere is clashing with warm air closer to the surface and causing unstable weather INCLUDING extreme tornadoes like what we saw here in California.

        “- A rogue jet stream is responsible for causing severe weather since the fall – including Sunday’s devastating tornado in Joplin, Mo. – and could trigger severe flooding in the West, a JPL climatologist warned Monday.
        Bill Patzert of the NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Ca ada Flintridge said he is “extremely anxious” about the possibility of floods that could arrive in late spring and early summer in the West.

        “Especially on the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers” and the upper Colorado River, he said.

        The jet stream in the upper atmosphere, which has seen wild dips since November, drags dry, cold air down from the north, which collides with warm, moist air from the south.

        It’s the source of recent “heart-breaking” tornado activity in the Midwest and South, Patzert said, as well as the severe storms that have produced record snowpacks in the country’s northern tier and historic Mississippi River flooding.

        “We’ve had so much snow in the Rockies and the Sierras, and it has not begun to melt yet,” he said. “We might see flooding that we haven’t seen in over 25 years here in California.”

        And here is a list of all tornadoes on record in California including F1’s like we saw on Wednesday.

      • Marty Smith

        The tornadic activity in the midwest has been described as the worst since the early 1940″ and 1930’s. What part of global warming caused the issues back in the “dustbowl” days? I’m not saying the world is not warming up a degree or two or three, but is it truly man’s fault? Or is it Nature? I was involved in a test involving the Ozone holes over the North and South poles. Those of us who were borrowed from the Air Force Satellite Control Network were not aware of what we were being used for. We simply used our equipment to monitor certain false color spectrums. It was determined by the scientists that the largest impact on either holes was from ash from volcanic activity. Since that testing was completed I have not heard any major scientific organization put near the blame on MAN that was being placed there prior to 2006.

  • jackim

    It’s Bushes fault.

    • wateva


  • dave

    definitely Obamas fault

    • Alicia

      I agree

  • John

    It’s my fault

  • Here you go ROB

    The climate change most people are talking about is the climate change theorized to be manmade. As Rob mentioned the mini-ice ages and major ice ages prior are from normal cycles. Your understating of climate change seems to be fueled by misinformation and some kind of personal agenda, hints the rant about taxes and controlling what car you drive. This assertion was quite off topic, I don’t see how, if that was even true, my opinion on your tax bracket and the vehicle you are driving is a conspiracy against you. Your statement that I desire to control you with misinformation is comical at least and borderline schizophrenic. That is the kind of self absorbed dogma I mentioned earlier. Now back to the topic at hand. I can see you didn’t read what was written prior to responding. The tornado data you posted does show plenty of tornados, however, this is because all you need to be considered a tornado is the funnel cloud (Which is normal in many storms across many geographic regions). The duration on ground and number of tornadoes in one storm is what we (or at least people who understand what they are saying) are talking about. While we are on the topic of ice ages, Earth is currently scheduled for another major ice age and yet we are increasing average world temperature every year (it is important you understand this fact, as it is empirically proven). A typical regression analysis asserts that the probable cause is the net increase in CO2. Once again, feel free to read the opposite opinion of what you want to believe, you may learn a few things.
    Now onto our impact on the earth. You mentioned that we can’t impact the earth enough to influence change in the climate. However, we constantly ruin entire ecosystems ranging thousands of miles, a recent example would be the tiny hole in the golf spitting out thousands of gallons of oil and devastating the entire coast. That is just a few months of leaking. We burn 10 times more than that a day on this planet and send it into the atmosphere (BP leaked 53,000/day the USA burns 19.6 million/day conservatively- yes just counting the USA). Have you intentionally neglected this fact? (also see; dust bowl, manmade reorganization of flood plains *such as many parts of the central valley to name one*, and Japan’s nuclear fallout and their effects on their environment) We have empirical evidence of increased CO2, we can track the sources of said CO2, thus, we know where it comes from. I’ll give you a hint, it’s manmade. The rogue jet stream would be another potential effect from global warming. If you follow the causal logic you began to use in you argument, instead of stopping when convenient, you might have got to that point.
    Lastly, Rob mentioned a lack of data prior to the 1800. 200 years of weather data coupled with well known cyclical climate change data (650,000 years) isn’t enough to spark even a moment of second thought? Exactly how much more data would you need? This argument can never be satisfied because Rob would always want data prior to any new data presented. The lack of effort to see this point of view seemed very bias and short-sighted. When the majority of scientist (yes, scientist in general, from every field) support this claim you might want to consider it, instead of dismissing it because you think they are trying to take your car away from you. That is very entertaining by the way.

    • Rob

      You say I’m bordering on ‘schizophrenic’ because I believe part of the agenda behind ‘man made global warming’ (now conveniently termed climate change) is an excuse to raise taxes against society?? So, I’m just imagining ‘cap and trade’ then? The soviets used to declare anyone that spoke out against tyranny as ‘crazy’ and locked them up. I guess socialists never change their colors.

      It’s mighty presumptuous of you to assume myself, and others, haven’t read peer reviewed scientific literature regarding ‘climate change’. As a long standing honorary member of AAAS, as well as receiving several invitations for speaking engagements throughout the scientific community… I assure you I understand the data (probable, as well as fabricated) quite well, including the hacked CRU emails clearly showing fraud by global warming scientists. See, I do read opinions of those that have an opposing view.. too bad they had to manipulate data to forward their agenda… oh, I forgot.. I must be crazy for thinking that, along with everyone else.

      I equally assure you that there is NOT a consensus among scientists that anthropegenic global warming is the cause for our climate change.

      For example:

      “WASHINGTON­, Sept. 12 /PRNewswir­e-USNewswi­re/ — A new analysis of peer-revie­wed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance­. “This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperatur­e increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
      Other researcher­s found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantl­y; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflie­s are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.”

      • Hi again ROB

        The people you claim are trying to take your cars are policy makers making decisions based data presented to them from scientists they trust. Taking your car is not their goal, once again you seem confused with cause and effect. The effect is climate change and other negative environmental impacts certain vehicles and business practices (the causes) have. The goal is not to take you car Rob, it is to prevent and reverse the negative impact said causes have on the environment, both local and macro. Robs argument is yet another example of why he appears bias on the topic and does not understand the arguments in their entirety. Your paranoid concern for your car over the evidence is morally concerning. You claim to read peer reviewed articles from scientist yet you can’t seem to find any data that supports my claim? The vast majority of the journal articles are in support of the climate change hypothesis, so why is this so difficult for you to find said information? You then will probably argue that the journal articles you read say otherwise. It wouldn’t matter because if you had actually read any peer review articles you would know that they are PEER REVIEWED, hence the name. They are reviewed by other leading scientist (people who are professionals in their field with a significant amount of education on the topic) who have the incentive to disprove any methods used in data collection or even the conclusion the writers have made. This is what brings credibility to the process of a peer review. The emails you mentioned were not just concerning for you, but everyone else who has taken issue with this topic (including me). This data that was falsified was only a hand full of scientists with even less data they manipulated using statistical trickery. None of this data nor the methods of obtaining them was available yet for peer review and would have most likely been laughed out of serious debate once it was. The data was used in references for research hundreds of times but not used in any science publication nor peer review process. But the data (misleading as it may have been) its self was not manipulated hundreds of times. Your assertion that this proves there is some kind conspiracy to take your car from you is comical and incoherent in that you neglect the fact that they were never given a chance to be peer reviewed, and thus never given credibility. It sounds like you read the Washington post and stop your research there. Furthermore, your same assertion is insulting to those professionals who do support climate change with credible data that was peer reviewed.
        On to the convenience factor of how or why it is called climate change. It was referred to loosely as global warming until the lay person took it out of context. It is only warming for some (from one geographic perspective) and not so warming for other locations. The “warming” is the overall average earth temperature (empirically proven and I stated so previously, I still haven’t heard any argument refuting this fact, nor any evidence you even understand it). So now it must be referred to by its literal name so that we can stop the semantic confusion.
        Which brings me to your statement of being a standing honorary member of AAAS. I would like to begin with, “WOW.” WOW, where do I begin? Your argument in general and lack of understanding of the semantic differences and history behind global warming and climate change is evidence that seriously questions that statement (as an AAAS member/speaker). I have had many discussions with professionals in related fields and never had to have such a rudimentary discussion. Your “citations” are also lack-luster to say the least and would never be considered in the arguments you are making. So I am not entirely clear as to what capacity you are involved with AAAS (perhaps a janitorial position where you speak on effective cleaning methods) but anyone can make that statement, and like I said, your rhetoric is not typical of someone with a finite education on the topic (I would even say general education). It appears you read misinformation that aligns with your current world view and never take the opposite opinion into consideration. If so, I would not have had to explain such a simple thing as the reason behind the semantic issue.
        I would like to end with the fact that you have yet to neither refute nor directly address any of my empirically proven arguments against your statements. The only one you seem concerned with is the paranoid idea that this is a ploy to take your cars from you and raise taxes. As I have mentioned earlier, this is probably due to not following through with your causal argument from earlier posts.

    • Rob

      I’m glad you’re entertained by my paranoid visions that the global warmists are trying to take our cars. Maybe you’re the one that should do some more reading:

      EU to ban cars from cities by 2050
      The European Commission on Monday unveiled a “single European transport area” aimed at enforcing “a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers” by 2050. Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto “alternative” means of transport.

      “That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres,” he said. “Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour.”

  • Primetime Editorials

    tornados are bad real bad
    but this crime in america is worse
    i hope a tornado just takes all the criminals with it
    visit my blog

blog comments powered by Disqus
The Taz Show
LIVE: Monday through Friday from 6am – 6pm ET

Listen Live