A history of twisters: Tornadoes in the United States since 1950
This interactive map pinpoints where a cyclone touched down and traces its path of destruction.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been tracking tornadoes for decades. This interactive map, which contains data from January 1950 to May 31, 2026, pinpoints where a cyclone touched down and traces its path of destruction. For more recent tornadoes, clicking deeper provides more details, damage estimates and whether someone was injured or killed in the storm.
With increased National Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency…
The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.
This is a classic example of how data can be misleading without the right context. On the surface, the raw number of tornado reports has gone up, which seems alarming. But as NOAA points out, that increase is largely due to better detection tools like Doppler radar, a growing population that reports more storms, and more attention given to severe weather events. The actual frequency of the really dangerous, strong tornadoes hasn’t changed much over the past 55 years.
It’s a great reminder to always look at the underlying methodology and the full timeline when you see a trend. The exchange about the last five years is a valid point, though. A trend that held steady for decades could still be changing in the most recent years, and it’s worth keeping an eye on that.
This kind of careful analysis is also crucial when you’re optimizing a pay-per-call campaign for conversion. You can look at raw call volume and think you’re doing great, but if you’re not tracking the quality of those calls—the actual conversion rates, the caller intent, the source attribution—you could be wasting your budget. It’s the same principle: you need to dig into the details and understand what’s really driving the numbers, not just take the surface-level data at face value.