Michio Kaku goes cuckoo for global warming fueled snowstorms

Dr. Kaku from cosmos magazine

Comments by Dr. Ryan N. Maue

Apparently we can throw away the meteorology textbooks, fire the forecasters at the National Weather Service, and tell universities and research labs that they have utterly failed to explain the origin of “monster snowstorms”.  Renowned theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku crosses disciplinary boundaries to provide the readers of CNN.com his opinion on the recent winter weather over the Northeast and elsewhere.  However, his explanations are hand-wavy, lacking peer-reviewed foundation, and quite equivocal — yet typical of the recent media rush to blame winter weather or any weather on global warming.  However, as a theoretical physicist, Kaku needs to do a lot better and consult any weather forecaster that knows why there were snowstorms in the 1770s, 1970s, and still today.  At the AMS meeting, Dr. Trenberth highlighted the reason:  “winter”.    CNN.com article link.

From Monster Snowstorms still spell global warming, I copy a few paragraphs and get to the important one…

New York (CNN) — The weather seems to be going berserk, with more snow dumped on our beleaguered Northeastern cities in a month than in a year, paralyzing business and our lives. Records are being broken even as we speak…

Basically, snowstorms in this region arise from the collision of cold Arctic air from Canada moving south and bumping up against warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico, causing water vapor to condense and freeze and then form snowstorms, which travel up the Northeast corridor.

Among many factors, the amount of snow dumped is largely driven by the amount of moisture in humid air and not so much the temperature, and this seems to go against common sense.

Here’s the false dichotomy that Kaku sets up:

“There is no single smoking gun that can point us to the origin of these monster snowstorms. But we can focus our attention on two likely culprits. The first is pure chance. There are many random fluctuations in the weather due to many diverse factors (for example, last year’s weather was affected by El Niño).”

“But the second is global warming.”

Similarly, the main consequence of global warming is not warming at all but instead increasingly violent swings in the weather, with droughts and famine in one area occurring at the same time as flooding in another, and snowstorms in one region at the same time as hot spells in another.

More from Kaku:

“I saw this two weeks ago when I spoke in São Paulo, Brazil, where there were massive, lethal mudslides caused by unrelenting, pouring rain, which in turn might have been caused by increased moisture in the air. Of course, this means only that global warming is consistent with the monster storms hitting the Northeast, not that it is the only definitive factor.”

And as the Earth continues to heat, it means that there will be more moisture in the air to possibly drive more monster storms and hurricanes, simultaneously with droughts and hot spells. So we might expect more unusual, bizarre weather patterns in the future.

And unless something is done about it, get used to it.”

————

From someone of Kaku’s reputation and credibility, I am surprised to read this very basic and hand-wavy, meaning factually light, screed that is barely above high school level science.  Perhaps that was what was requested by CNN.com or whoever solicited this contribution, but come on.  Kaku sets up a false dichotomy:  it’s either random chance or it’s global warming (or I guess both).  But, then proceeds to equivocate on every major point thereafter.  To summarize, he says we need to do something about it.

Just a suggestion, if this is what the media establishment is putting out there to win over the public hearts and minds on draconian carbon taxation, then at least come up with some hardened facts.  I am happy to hear the mention of El Nino, but the transition to a very strong La Nina is likely more important on top of the other alphabet soup of atmosphere/ocean oscillations on a bunch of timescales.  It’s like the media, liberal politicians, and now television series scientists awoke out of a coma and are marveling about the drastic changes in the weather/climate all around them.  It’s snowed before, it’s flooded before, and it will again.  There is plenty of literature on storm track dynamics, extratropical cyclones, and countless broadcast meteorologists that could help a theoretical physicist out.  Heck, turn on the Weather Channel and watch the jet stream blue-worm graphic.

===============================================================

Addendum: Mike Smith at Meteorological Musings also has a good essay on the Kaku căca .

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has a related story here – Anthony

About these ads

139 thoughts on “Michio Kaku goes cuckoo for global warming fueled snowstorms

  1. What mitchio Kaku does not seem to understand is that the atmosphere has cooled to a level where it was almost 30 years ago at the beginning of satellite recording. It is this very cooling that is causing so much of the moisture in the air to come down in the form of rain and snow. I’m sure that once we go into another El Niño dryer weather will return.of course if this la nina lasts for any significant period of time it will also lead to drier weather because the atmosphere just can’t hold as much water when it’s colder.

  2. If there was a hot AGW believing chick that I wanted to get close to, I’d say the same kinds of things as Dr. Kaku. I wonder if the good Dr. was catin’ around in São Paulo? Then again, maybe it’s all about grant money.

  3. I these people which to make fools of themselves who am I to prevent them the opportunity. It is always dangerous for us to speak outside of our professional boundaries. Climatology is an earth science that uses mathematics, physics and chemistry. In many ways it is like my field geology, just way younger and far less mature. It is obvious Kaku is ignorant of most earth science and of history. He forfeits his right to use the title scientist.

  4. Kaku never had any credibility in my book. His physics is what I call ‘Star-Trek voodoo physics’. He preaches stuff like time warps, wormholes, time travel, multiple universes, etc. He loves to ape Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking and other relativists in claiming that gravity is caused by mass curving spacetime, which curvature, in turn, affects the motion of particles. It’s all crackpottery, of course, since nothing can move in spacetime, by definition. But don’t tell that nasty little truth to Kaku because he’s liable to have an apoplectic fit.

    What is it about relativists like Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking that they still can’t figure out that nothing can move in spacetime? Yep. This is the reason that Karl Popper called spacetime “Einstein’s block universe in which nothing happens.” Source: Conjectures and Refutations. Spacetime physics is not what it’s cracked up to be.

  5. I am not really surprised. His radio broadcasts are high on arrogance and low on useful information. That said, many are entertaining.

  6. I am a physicist, and the explanation seems like correct science to me. An increase in temperature means that the air can hold more water, and evaporation rates will increase . When the air holding this water cools, the moisture precipitates as rain or snow, depending on the temperature. So the distribution of precipitation in a sample of storms will go in the direction of increased rain or snowfall. It is reasonable that the amount of precipitation in extreme events would also increase.

  7. First, they bemoaned the lack of snow and loss of snowpack due to global warming. Now they bemoan getting dumped on (thus replenishing the snowpack) due to global warming. The air was too dry, now the air is too wet. The rivers were too low, now the rivers are too high, the land was too dry, now the land is too wet, the soil was too warm, now the soil is too cold, the wind was too still, now the wind is too great. I give up. It’s just too tiring to argue with stupid.

  8. Dr. Trenberth highlighted the reason: “winter”.

    Glad to hear that from a climatologist. So,
    when it’s real hot in July we can just say the real reason: “summer”,
    assured we’re backed by one of AGW’s chief priests.

    I’m so glad we finally cleared up what climate change is.

  9. I wonder if he will pontificate on the dangers of dihydrogenmonoxide as well?For sure its deadly and somehow connected to climate.

  10. These warm causes cold theories are a gift to skeptics. It has seriously undermined the publics belief in global warming. To see this all you have to do is read the comment section of any of these articles that publishes them.

  11. The list of mathematical constructs in science grows and grows

    Spacetime does not exist
    Missing Temperature does not exist
    Blackholes do not exist
    Dark energy does not exist
    Dark matter does not exist

    They are all imagined mathematical constructs built to cover the simple fact that observations do not match theory. So we see the ultimate endgame of such abuse

    Warming is cooling

  12. I don’t think that there is universal agreement on both sides that the world is getting hotter it has not got warmer since 1998, there probably is universal agreement on both sides that the world has got warmer before 1998.It is possible that at the end of this decade that there could be universal agreement on both sides that the world has cooled and the last decade was just the beginning of a slow change.

  13. >>Eadler
    >>I am a physicist, and the explanation seems like correct science to me.
    >>An increase in temperature means that the air can hold more water, and
    >>evaporation rates will increase.

    So it is this increased moisture in the atmosphere that causes more droughts, is it?

    And it is the increased temperatures, that are making the normal UK winter rains fall as snow?

    Tell me, what type of scientist are you?

    .

  14. This nonsense of global warming causing global cooling is at an end. We all suspected it was beyond silly. The atmospheric density of H2O surmised by The Warmists was far beyond the life expectancy of normal rehydration. It seemed infinite by their calculations.
    And now it turns out that the H2O density was actually less.
    This silly BS is over. These people are pushing another agenda.

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/comment-on-the-cbs-news-article-is-extreme-weather-a-result-of-global-warming/

  15. I’ve watched Kaku’s “sci fi science” show with a bit of regularity. His solutions to problems are often either impractical or theoretical to the point of idiocy. There is an occasional gem in there, but it is usually from the people he interviews.

    We need less theoretical physicists and more practical ones.

  16. I took a science class from the man NASA hired to design the nuclear interstellar vehicle. A series of nuclear explosions behind a screen. You remember this, right? oh you don’t? Because the idea was just as dopey now as it was then. At the age of 19 I was incredulous that anyone could believe that was a viable system of transport.
    This is surely no different.

  17. Michio Kaku is a hack who has watched too many episodes of Star Trek.

    He believes we need a world government to reach the point where our society becomes a Level 1 society, able to leave the planet.

    In is disturbed mind there is also a level 2 and a level 3 society.

    At level 3 we are immortal.
    We explore our universe by sending out robots.

    He believes we can reach level 1 within the next 100 years but a global nuclear war could spoil the party so we need this totalitarian concept of rule to protect ourselves from ourselves..
    In his theory there is no sense of reality whatsoever..
    Corruption for example is part of any doctrine. He doesn’t mention this in his concept of the future. He believes humanity is now squandering valuable resources.
    Well, free trade and exchange of business concepts and idea’s is exactly what propels our civilization and what brings us to incredible levels of progress and wealth accumulation. Without that there would not be any innovation.

    What Michio Kaku stands for at best is a very poor science fiction story and the best thing to do is to ignore him.

  18. unfortunately for “adler”above the earth is now cooling (-0.1 to 0.03C)and has been for 40 days during those events in Brazil, Australia and USA so its just BS again… check out AMSU channel 5

  19. “Common sense says that it’s the freezing cold that is behind the freaky weather. But physics says otherwise.”

    This is just an erroneous statement. The historical average high temperature for Central Park, New York City in January is 38 degrees F:

    http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USNY0998

    http://countrystudies.us/united-states/weather/new-york/new-york.htm

    Through January 26th the high temperature in Central Park, New York City has only been over 38F on 6 days:
    1-Jan 53
    2-Jan 52
    3-Jan 36
    4-Jan 40
    5-Jan 39
    6-Jan 33
    7-Jan 33
    8-Jan 31
    9-Jan 32
    10-Jan 35
    11-Jan 31
    12-Jan 31
    13-Jan 30
    14-Jan 30
    15-Jan 38
    16-Jan 37
    17-Jan 27
    18-Jan 41
    19-Jan 41
    20-Jan 35
    21-Jan 32
    22-Jan 24
    23-Jan 24
    24-Jan 24
    25-Jan 37
    26-Jan 35

    http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=okx

    The average temperature of Central Park, New York City through January 26th has been 34.6, well below the 38 degree average and things aren’t looking good for the foreseeable future:

    http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/USNY0998

    http://www.wunderground.com/US/NY/New_York.html

    There may be an increase in precipitation, but what makes this winter notable is that most of that precipitation is hitting the ground frozen:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/01/27/2011-01-27_new_york_snowstorm_new_january_record_set_as_19inch_snowfall_pushes_city_past_19.html

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-27/winter-storm-may-ease-as-new-yorkers-start-the-day-update1-.html

    http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/27/us-east-coast-winter-storm.html

  20. Similar thing in Australia with the usual gang of warmists – Flannery, Karoly etal saying that the floods we are having are caused by climate change. This is the same gang that said the drought we were having was caaused by global warming and that it was going to be the permanent weather state of affairs.

    Drought = climate change
    Rain = climate change
    lack of snow = climate change
    volumes of snow = climate change
    hot = climate change
    cold = climate change

    I am convinced!

  21. At least in the penultimate paragraph Michio Kaku recognizes that “global warming is controversial, of course, but the controversy is mainly over whether human activity is driving it”.

    In a couple of his essays H H Lamb discusses evidence of increased storminess in the North Sea during the LIA.

    It’s self-evident that both global warming and global cooling have their attendant hazards and that the only rational response is to try to anticipate them, deal with them as they arise and not regress to a more primitive or childish response that they are a result of our wickedness.

  22. I’m surprised as well of Michio Kaku’s comments regarding super storms . I have had some interest in Michio Kaku for some time.
    Because he is a bit cuckoo. His show on the Sci channel is fun to watch because of his zany approach to discussing science.
    But, with that being said, he sold out.

  23. Now I remember this kook. He’s on every crackpot unprovable theory claptrap program. History channel now even presents a movie about a day in the life of a dinosaur family, complete with all their habits, actions, feelings, thoughts and desires. There is drama, heartbreak, terror, and tenderness. All carefully narrated by some nut like Kaku.

    [ryanm: Bill Nye must have been busy.]

  24. This guy is more an activist than scientist – heir of the sympathetic Suzuki who said we’re all worms, he preaches that those against the New World Order are the “terrorists”. These people are all intellectual prostitutes; everything today is politics ( and money from foundations ).

  25. Nothing has been mentioned about land clearing or removal of vegetation. The more vegetation, the less chance of erosion and ultimately, landslides. Land clearing has been phenomenal in Queensland over the last 30 years, encouraging floodwater to speed up, soil becoming supersaturated, hence erosion, often severe enough to cause the damage seen in Queensland, Sri Lanka, the Phillipines and Brazil.

    Drainage classes taught me that a vegetated drain handles twice the volume of water of a bare drain. A large, mature Rivergum tree in Australia has an uptake of up to 5000 litres of water per day. Floodwater also speeds up through the use of obstructions such as levee banks, roads and fencing, forcing water into narrower channels that often break when pushed to their limits, causing more damage.

    River mouths that were once deltas with many smaller outlets to the ocean, have often been urbanised in such a way that some of these are silted up or reclaimed for development, adding to the flooding problems during ’50 or 100′ year events.

    The Fitzroy River in the Australian Kimberley near where I live has these flooding events every few years, with little damage. When in full flood this river, normally a half mile wide channel at most, becomes up to 20 miles wide, covering a wide flood plain with slower moving water. No land clearing here.

    Global Warming? …bulldust

  26. Okay, I know I should make my posts more science and less personal observation, but Kaku is just about the most annoying person I’ve ever had the misfortune of hearing. I mean, the content – the made-up science, the unjustified and history-ignoring authoritarianism, they’re bad enough – but the smug presentation, grating self-superiority and irritating cadence breaks make it almost impossible for me to even watch anything he’s part of.

    I just can’t do it any more. I have to turn it off when he starts talking.

    Yeah, he knows all about exactly how civilizations beyond everyone else’s grasp work, he knows all the limits of science and technology, everyone else in physics does things his way, and everyone who doesn’t accept his plan for the future is a terrorist.

    Seriously, someone put him in a straitjacket before he starts attacking people on the street for not following his plan.

    /rant

  27. eadler says:
    January 27, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    I am a physicist, and the explanation seems like correct science to me. An increase in temperature means that the air can hold more water, and evaporation rates will increase . When the air holding this water cools, the moisture precipitates as rain or snow, depending on the temperature. So the distribution of precipitation in a sample of storms will go in the direction of increased rain or snowfall. It is reasonable that the amount of precipitation in extreme events would also increase.
    ——————————
    It’s disconcerting that a self-professed physicist would consider that paragraph ‘science’, never mind ‘correct science’. Typically, the clause ‘the air can hold more water’ is derided into oblivion in ninth or tenth grade ‘science’ class.
    The temperature of what? You mean the average global lower troposphere? Maybe it’s the global average sea surface. It’s got to be some average or other or else we’d be talking about weather, not climate.
    Remember, all events are ‘extreme’ nowadays. You’ll be wanting some of them to produce less snow and /or rain. Let’s not forget wind.

  28. Below is what we were told by climate scientists in the past and what we are being told now. AGW explains both apparently. When will these people just put their hands up and say we don’t know? We are not so sure now?
    —————
    June 4, 1999
    “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990604081638.htm

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399452a0.html

    March 2000
    “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    —————————
    Nov. 17, 2010
    “Global Warming Could Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117114028.htm

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013568

    December 2010
    “Expect more extreme winters thanks to global warming, say scientists”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/expect-more-extreme-winters-thanks-to-global-warming-say-scientists-2168418.html

  29. From Mike Smith’s nlog:

    First he [Kaku] told us the heavy snow was due to “global warming.” Then, he corrected himself while answering the next question and said it was not global warming but “global swings” (whatever those are). He said there were [around the world] “droughts simultaneous with floods.” He added, “All scientists believe the earth is heating up.” “Last year was the hottest ever… get used to it, we are going to have more monster storms.”

    Kaku isn’t a Global Warmist. He is a Global Swinger.

  30. Something must be done! Squawk! Bleat! Send money or the penguin gets it!”

    Succinct question for the AGW True Believers:

    If cold weather today proves Gorebull Wurming is real, what did identical cold weather prove before nasty people started burning teh eevul modern fuels? Eh?

  31. There are some pretty convincing statistics that correlate river flow to solar variation, this was even in Brian Greene’s documentary on BBC1 just after Christmas. This is his series on the Solar system, and this particular programme was about the Sun.

    Sunpots high, rivers low, sunpots low rivers high.

    I would have thought that when the rivers are high this would mean increased precipitation. I remember very well in the 1990’s that there were worries the Rhine was drying up.

  32. Michio Kaku has gotten a reputation as a “pop physicist,” sort of like Carl Sagan; I see him on the Science Channel all of the time now. I can’t imagine that colleagues of his take him all that seriously these days. Guys like him end up on television when they can’t accomplish anything very meaningful in the classroom or the laboratory.

  33. If warmer air holds more moisture, then surely it must retain more moisture once it has stopped raining as well, resulting in a net no change in the amount of rainfall with increased air temperature.
    If an increasing global air temperature holds more moisture, doesn’t this reduce the sea level, as the water is now in the air instead of the sea?

  34. Check out Warwick Hughes’ latest posting on the deception of BOM with latest and past Queensland rainfall events.

    “Australian Bureau of Meteorology report conceals details of high rainfall in February 1893
    January 28th, 2011 by Warwick Hughes

    On 25 January 2011 the BoM published an amended SPECIAL CLIMATE STATEMENT 24 (SCS24) originally published on 7 Jan on the subject “An extremely wet end to 2010 leads to widespread flooding across eastern Australia.””

  35. There is no single smoking gun that can point us to the origin of these monster spinstorms. But we can focus our attention on two likely culprits.
    The first is pure ignorance. There are many who talk a lot about “science” but really have very little idea of what they are talking about.

    But the second is intentional fraud.

    As the global consensus amongst climate “scientists” are that they are not ignorant, but their own logic, we must change the null hypothesis and they should prove it is not fraud!

  36. I am a physicist, and the explanation seems like correct science to me. An increase in temperature means that the air can hold more water, and evaporation rates will increase . When the air holding this water cools, the moisture precipitates as rain or snow, depending on the temperature.

    The bit you are missing is that if AGW is true “when the air cools” implies less cold. You are trying to get more water into the atmosphere when hot (fine), then turn off AGW so it cools like normal (bollocks).

    In fact global warming works exactly the other way round. The highs are not much higher, but the lows are warmer. So the sensible prediction is less snow, because the differential between hot and cold is less. And until a short time ago that was the warmist position.

    (In fact I suspect the measured lows are higher largely due to UHI effects, but either way your analysis fails unless you can show how AGW will give hotter highs and colder lows. Good luck!)

  37. Just watched the video of Michio Kaku monologue above.

    He is all Type 3 fiction and Type 0 science. The monologue is a Type 1 talk to gawking Type 0 teenagers who are familiar with Type 2 Hollywood productions.

    Kaku doesn’t neglect to mention all the most advanced Type 3 keywords in his talk: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Madonna, rock music, blue jeans, telephones, internet, space, Captain Kirk, and of course, Star Wars (“a Type 3 civilisation”), and many, many others.

    Then, he commits a Type 10 error while discussing a Type 1 exploration and colonisation. He suggests that that will be as easy as creating and sending a programmed robot to the Moon. One robot can build a factory, which can go on building millions more robots just like it -like the growth of a single cell organism, du’h- and they in turn go and explore “other moons”, and so on, “like a sphere expanding at the speed of light”.

    With trillions of these sloshing around the place, there comes a stage where the robot would land on a moon and wait. “Simply wait! For a Type 0 civilisation to become Type 1″. Now, just where have we seen this before? Well, that was precisely the basis of the movie 2001, where a Type 3 civilisation does that to our ape ancestors.

    The Type 10 mistake that Kaku makes is that replicating robots is a very, very bad idea, let alone sending them to other moons or planets for exploration and colonisation. We already know that these robots will come back to bite us (see, Arnold Schwarznegger, “Terminator”, 1984, Hollywood). Had he been fully informed of Hollywood literature on the subject, he’d know that Stargate SG1 and Stargate: Atlantis fully studied the idea and found it to be a very dangerous course of action. Indeed, as Stargate et al have found, the self-replicating robots (“the replicators”), originally created by the Ancients, turned into an existential danger for the Ancients, the Asgard and us humans. See, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LULVxYTdx3g&feature=related

    Now, did Michio Kaku say something about global warming?

  38. Since the NH extra tropics temperature is on the same level as 1990, I officially declare the “climate disruption caused by global warming” theory as BS.
    The only exception is, that the warming induced disruption “in a world that continues to heat” has caused its cooling.

  39. We should remember that this fellow led a protest against the Jupiter-bound Galileo probe’s gravity-assist flyby of Earth on the grounds that navigational errors might (in an alternate universe) cause its RTGs to enter Earth’s atmosphere, dispersing miniscule amounts of radioactive material over planetary expanses, causing little (but not zero) harm. He’s a pompous quack who has done no original research but who figured out long ago how to play the “expert” card for the media. He deserves to be ignored.

  40. “Similarly, the main consequence of global warming is not warming at all but instead increasingly violent swings in the weather, with droughts and famine in one area occurring at the same time as flooding in another, and snowstorms in one region at the same time as hot spells in another.”

    In several decades we have gone from fear of global cooling, to fear of global warming, to fear of climate change, to fear of increased abnormal events.

    A well-rounded addition, to cover all future bases, would say that “in between the extreme events, we predict that there will be anomalously more periods of absolutely normal weather.”

  41. I’m from Baltimore and have lived here more than 30 years. Every fall and winter there are nor-Easters, some of these are all snow and some are all rain. It’s not uncommon to alternate between rain and snow in January. What happened last year was not only did we get back to back major snows, it was cold dry snow the snow did not pack down much. So our record snow didn’t produce record moisture, as you would expect by Kaku’s hypothesis, just a lot of volume. If a single GCM had predicted the high pressure in the arctic (as a number of meteorologists did), they might have a leg to stand on but they did not. Science is about falsifiable predictions, not after the fact rationalizations.

  42. It’s just the Narrative. What’s important is “what’s repeated”. Without much effort you can find someone, usually with some degree, which will proclaim human caused global warming created the Big Bang “cycle” and that we’re in a headlong dash to the next human caused Big Bang. Likely 53% of Greenies would buy in and repeat it along with the MSM. Then they’d do talk shows. Then they’d feature it on The View. Then Oprah would have a couch-cozy on it right after a revisit of Bowling For Columnbine and finally the NYT’s reports there is a global consensus of the cause of how humans created the Universe confounding the Pope. Just for starters. Then a Brit MP would demand…well, one can write books about this stuff.

  43. I’m currently in western New York state in a small town experiencing my first northern winter in 35 years. It’s wonderful. Just like when I was a child before the winters got warmer and dryer. I’d forgotten how starkly beautiful it is when there’s a foot or two of snow on the ground and weeks on end without temperature rising above 32F. The problem with the north Atlantic coast is the same as always. They have the Gulf Stream keeping it warmer near the coast. Heavy snowfalls are rare enough so they just aren’t adequately prepared for them when they happen.

  44. Mooloo says:
    January 28, 2011 at 1:50 am

    “The bit you are missing is that if AGW is true “when the air cools” implies less cold. You are trying to get more water into the atmosphere when hot (fine), then turn off AGW so it cools like normal (bollocks).”

    My experience is that there is less snowfall in bitter cold weather. The air gets very very dry from the low temperature. The most snowfall (and lasting accumulation) is when nightly lows are in the low 20F’s and daily highs are in the high 20F’s. A bit closer to the Great Lakes (I’m about 60 miles away) is notorious for heavy snowfalls known as “Lake Effect” snow. The above freezing lake water injects a lot of moisture into the air then when it moves out over land with below freezing temperature it drops right out in heavy snowfall. By time those air masses get to where I’m at most of the moisture has been frozen out.

  45. Gerard:-
    I liked your “facts” about “climate”, which could be summarised even more in the following manner:
    “Almost everything is caused by global warming”.

    I say “almost everything” because, when the weather is fine yet mild, neither too hot nor too cold, and we get just the right amount of rain, but very late in the night when all good (read very old) people are safely tucked up in bed, fast asleep;

    THEN
    that’s just weather, not climate, silly me, silly you.

  46. This is really getting depressing. Blaming or praising “global warming” for anything is beyond reason from a logical argument point of view. If anything, “global warming” -here interpreted as average land and sea surface temparatures?- would be the result of weather events, not the cause. Weather has always been erratic over time, storms in Western Europe have diminshed significantly since my youth, both in frequency and strenght. And of course man has an influence on the weather no reasonable person can hold that for instance land use and -yes- antropogenic CO2 emissions must have some impact on the weather/climate but no one can tell what this impact is and it is unlikely that any of the alarming claims are valid. And this tale telling does not even pretend to have any scientific background, its just infamaous speculation.

  47. I found this bit from Dr. Pielke’s column quite interesting.

    “The NASA water vapor dataset would help further diagnose the global atmospheric water vapor issue, but, as discussed in

    Statement By Vonder Haar Et Al 2010 on Using Existing [NASA Water Vapor] NVAP Dataset (1988 – 2001) for Trends,

    while a preliminary study showed a (1988-1999) decrease in global atmospheric water vapor (see), an updated accurate NVAP data analysis will only be available in 2012 or 2013!

    The available data shows that sea surface temperature anomalies show large spatial variations, including large areas of cooler than average conditions, the lower tropospheric temperature anomaly is only slightly warmer than the long-term average (and shows no statistically significant trend since 1998), and the global water vapor anomalies, to the extent we can determine from recent data, shows that it has not increased significantly in recent years. The tropical sea surface temperatures also show large areas of cooler than average conditions.”

    Having gone dumpster diving through Google and various search engines looking for global water vapor data on a number of occasions over the last couple years, I’d concluded I was just incapable of drafting a proper search phrase, but it seems good near term water vapor data really isn’t widely available. Given that the AGW hypothesis is so critically contingent on positive H2O feedback, this strikes me as extremely curious. One would assume that this would be one of the most closely watched and widely circulated variables in the climate panoply, but that appears to be far from the case. Why do you suppose that is?

  48. Gerard says:
    January 27, 2011 at 10:44 pm
    ‘Drought = climate change
    Rain = climate change
    lack of snow = climate change
    volumes of snow = climate change
    hot = climate change
    cold = climate change’

    Thanks Gerard, excellent summary of the current state of crimatology. I’ve put it onto my facebook page as flame bait, along with this:

    I await the apoplectic responses :)

  49. @Louis

    The article you reference doesn’t say what you claim it says. In fact, the article praises Einstein to high heaven. Here’s the full quote


    At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles’ theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides’ myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein’s block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning).

    He was not claiming that Einstein’s universe doesn’t change. He was saying that adding a new dimention to Parminendes’ universe gives you Einstein’s universe, and IF nothing ever changed then it shouldn’t change in Einstein’s universe either, which is foolishness of course, since the dimension to which we refer is time, and the whole point of conceptualizing the “dimension” of time is to determine change in the other 3 dimensions.

  50. Kaku is entertaining enough if you enjoy those ‘what-if-maybe’ type of popularised science programs. In fact, Kaku now seems to be omnipresent, since I can’t seem to switch on any sciency documentary without him popping up to give his opinions on everything from multiverses to time travel or worm holes.

    Such programs rank scientifically alongside one I saw recently, where scientists were asked to ‘reverse engineer’ a ‘captured’ ufo to come up with credible mechanisms that would account for ‘witnessed’ behaviour. No, Kaku didn’t appear in that one, but the level of scientific rigour is about the same – take a few basic ideas of physics and toss them around to see what you can come up with. Basically, a schoolboy would come with as much – if he understood the physics.

    So Kaku’s arm waving on weather-is-global warming should be treated alongside his predictions that we are splitting off into parallel universes moment by moment.

  51. “Here’s the false dichotomy that Kaku sets up”

    A dichotomy involves a choice between two separate options which in no way overlap, since he begins the paragraph with “There is no single” he has not excluded the possibility that both of his suggestions could be correct. He also adds “But we can focus our attention on two likely culprits” – suggesting that the options are not limited to only his suggestions.

  52. Last year was, in fact, tied with 2005 as the hottest year recorded since 1880,

    No it isn`t if New Zealand is anything to go by, they finally obtained the real temperature data.

  53. That guy is about as goofy as they come. When global temperatures plunge as much as they have in the last two months, physics dictate that the atmosphere simply cannot hold as much water vapor, so we get torrentoial rains, record snowfalls, mudslides, etc… It happens like clock work when we transition from an El-Nino to a La-Nina.

  54. This is all a bunch of BS, Washington, Philly, NYC GET SNOW! They always have. This is not even close to the worst storm, the 1993 storm was far, far worse than anything since. Birmingham, AL got 17 inches, Washington DC got 14 inches shutting the city down for days. Places farther north got 2, 3, even 4 FEET of snow.

    I know a lot of you are not from the US, but trust me, the only are of the east coast having exceptional weather is the south (GA in particular) which rarely gets more than a dusting of snow that melts within hours, and that little bit causes them to freak out. Nothing too far out of the ordinary anywhere else.

  55. I just called my Dad to double check the year and figures, because I’m curious. During the winter of 1960-61 ~ our FIRST in New Jersey after moving from MIAMI (!) ~ we received a cumulative winter snowfall of 157 inches and it was bitterly cold for what seemed like forever to a five-year-old.

    I’m a weather fan, not a geek (no head for numbers) and started wondering: Is this possibly a manifestation of that same weather pattern?

  56. Then there is the Blizzard of 1996, more localized but still damn potent. I remember having walls of snow about 8 feet high in Central PA that winter. They had to bring in giant vaccum hose dump trucks to get the stuff outta here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_of_1996

    When you have a Storm of the Century every 3-5 years you might need to reaclibrate your Panic Mode scales just a bit.

  57. He was all over TV as the ‘expert” in the Gulf Oil Spill. Same entertainment value then.

    I do wonder why when he says a warm atmosphere “holds” more water vapor he concludes there will be more precip.

    What part of “holds” does he not understand. If the air is holding water vapor, we should expect droughts.

  58. Another science blogger attack’s Kaku’s misrepresentation of possibility of an eruption at Yellowstone here:

    http://bigthink.com/ideas/26680

    Looks like this guy’s a sensationalist publicity hog who would rather be in the spotlight than be right.

    Madman2001

  59. Michio-kaku was seen jumping up & down, running in circles & exclaiming “I’m CUCKOO for AWG-puffs, CUCKOO for AWG-puffs, CUCKOO for AWG-puffs.

  60. The Globull Warning industry screwed up decades agao when they coined the “Global Warming” phrase. With that phrase, you can more easily convince lay-people into believing global warming if the observables seem “right” to them, such as record heat, droughts, etc. But when the weather turns cold and rainy or snowy the connection is much harder to sell. Sure, scientifically there might be some stretch of the physical laws to draw a connection, but to try and convince the average person, you’re only going to look foolish to them. It doesn’t match conventional wisdom or basic sensibilities. The average person does not believe that global warming is yielding the colder snowier winter we are observing. Making this connection only makes the theory much more foolish in their eyes.

    Had the globull warnings industry been smarter about their PR, and used a label such as climate change, then they might be able to convince folks that humans are affecting the climate by observable drastic changes in weather patterns, either hotter or colder, drier or wetter.

    So, now they are trying to switch the terminology from “global warming” to climate change, or IBS, or whatever…but it’s probably too late because to the average lay-person the moniker “Global Warming” has stuck.

    [I think we all get your dislike of the AGW theory but banging on with globull just grates after a while . . personal opinion, sorry]

  61. Pamela Gray says:
    January 27, 2011 at 9:32 pm
    “First, they bemoaned the lack of snow and loss of snowpack due to global warming. Now they bemoan getting dumped on (thus replenishing the snowpack) due to global warming. The air was too dry, now the air is too wet. The rivers were too low, now the rivers are too high, the land was too dry, now the land is too wet, the soil was too warm, now the soil is too cold, the wind was too still, now the wind is too great. I give up. It’s just too tiring to argue with stupid.”

    What a scream! But you need to add the meta-whine that everything was perfect just yesterday and that evil humans (parents?) are responsible for all changes in weather or climate. Also, you might consider adding that today droughts and floods are too close together and cats and dogs are living together.

  62. If more moisture causes more Winter weather then I dread the snowstorms that will hit upstate New York this Summer when the humidity is stifling.

  63. Agree with Louis Savain and many others.

    This guy is in showbiz/politics with a science flair. I can’t stand it when scientists’ first concern is to appear “competent” through maintaining a conventional attitude. I have to say, though, that the only field that compares to the fraud of AGW is theoretical physics. So, maybe it’s a natural fit.

  64. Bill Sticker says:
    January 27, 2011 at 9:17 pm
    “He’s also talking up the ‘supervolcano’ under Yellowstone. Looks like he’s desperate to raise his media profile.”
    Someone who wasn’t too empressed with Dr. Kaku on his knowledge of volcanism and yellowstone is volcanologist, Erik Klemetti, an assistant professor of geosciences at Denison University.
    He says:
    “What happens next is one of the worst interviews about Yellowstone I’ve ever seen – and shows us what happens when you are lazy and don’t get a real expert in the field. Heck, it didn’t even need to be a volcanologist, but I’m sure that they could have found even a geologist for the interview.”
    He concludes:
    “I know many people like Michio and his work towards popularizing science, something that I fully support, but CNN and Kaku should be ashamed of this performance.”
    Read it here at :

    http://bigthink.com/blogs/eruptions

  65. Bill Sticker says:
    January 27, 2011 at 9:17 pm
    “He’s also talking up the ‘supervolcano’ under Yellowstone. Looks like he’s desperate to raise his media profile.”
    Someone who wasn’t too impressed with Dr. Kaku on his knowledge of volcanism and yellowstone is volcanologist, Erik Klemetti, an assistant professor of geosciences at Denison University.
    He says:
    “What happens next is one of the worst interviews about Yellowstone I’ve ever seen – and shows us what happens when you are lazy and don’t get a real expert in the field. Heck, it didn’t even need to be a volcanologist, but I’m sure that they could have found even a geologist for the interview.”
    He concludes:
    “I know many people like Michio and his work towards popularizing science, something that I fully support, but CNN and Kaku should be ashamed of this performance.”
    Read it here at :

  66. In closing his diatribe the author of this blogpost says:

    “There is plenty of literature on storm track dynamics, extratropical cyclones, and countless broadcast meteorologists that could help a theoretical physicist out. Heck, turn on the Weather Channel and watch the jet stream blue-worm graphic.”

    In fact some meteorologists say the Dr Kaku is correct. Here is a post by Jeff Masters at Wunderground:

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1427

    … There are two requirements for a record snow storm:

    1) A near-record amount of moisture in the air (or a very slow moving storm).
    2) Temperatures cold enough for snow.

    It’s not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the globe warmed 0.74°C (1.3°F) over the past 100 years. There will still be colder than average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow. The more difficult ingredient for producing a record snowstorm is the requirement of near-record levels of moisture. Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events–the ones most likely to cause flash flooding–will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. This extra moisture in the air will tend to produce heavier snowstorms, assuming it is cold enough to snow. …

  67. Kaku is writing fort CNN, so of course he is writing at a basic level. Maue does not actually rebut any of the points Kaku makes, except to demonstrate that he (Maue) does not know how to use the word dichotomy. What meteorology textbook is Kaku contradicting? Why does Maue think increased water vapor has no impact on snow fall?

  68. @eadler: I am a physicist, and the explanation seems like correct science to me. An increase in temperature means that the air can hold more water
    —-
    As a physicist, it should be trivial for you to explain why the phrase “air can hold more water” is patently ridiculous and why only a person ignorant in basic gas laws would use it.

  69. “the main consequence of global warming is not warming at all but instead increasingly violent swings in the weather”

    Pure opinion with nothing to back it up. It is hand-waving and prevarication at its best – making stuff up to explain what is happening in the real world.

    A warmer world would more likely see less violent weather as the temperature differences between the oceans and the atmosphere would be less; it is the temperature differences which drive the heat engine of storms. Thus, during periods of cooling, as in the 1970s, we had more energetic storms as the atmosphere was cooling and the oceans were lagging behind (as they will and should). During warming, in particular, colder oceans and warmer atmosphere (again the oceans lagging the atmosphere) means a smaller differential and weaker storms – which is exactly what we have seen in recent years when we stopped warming and held relatively steady for a few years. Now we are cooling and should expect storms to ramp up.

    The global warming cabal simply changes what they predict to match whatever is really happening. We should always remember that SOMETHING THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING REALLY EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  70. Oliver Ramsay says:
    January 27, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    “eadler says:
    January 27, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    I am a physicist, and the explanation seems like correct science to me. An increase in temperature means that the air can hold more water, and evaporation rates will increase . When the air holding this water cools, the moisture precipitates as rain or snow, depending on the temperature. So the distribution of precipitation in a sample of storms will go in the direction of increased rain or snowfall. It is reasonable that the amount of precipitation in extreme events would also increase.
    ——————————
    It’s disconcerting that a self-professed physicist would consider that paragraph ‘science’, never mind ‘correct science’. Typically, the clause ‘the air can hold more water’ is derided into oblivion in ninth or tenth grade ‘science’ class.
    The temperature of what? You mean the average global lower troposphere? Maybe it’s the global average sea surface. It’s got to be some average or other or else we’d be talking about weather, not climate.
    Remember, all events are ‘extreme’ nowadays. You’ll be wanting some of them to produce less snow and /or rain. Let’s not forget wind.”

    One can’t explain something to someone who doesn’t want to understand it.
    The latest sea surface temperature anomaly data just posted today by Tisdale , shows that the just off the east coast of the US, the ocean is about 3 degrees above normal. When this air clashes with the colder air over land, the result is heavy snow.

  71. Limits and hot chicks.
    What monster storms is he talking about? I have watched enough SyFy movies to know that a monster storm has loose limits and these recent storms are not even close. Also it takes a hot chick lead scientist who is the only one who foresees the storm and knows how to make the sunshine.

    SyFy movies always operate without normal limits where bugs, earthquakes, storms and ect can be any size but usually very big and powerful. In the world outside the two dimensional screen there are limits and hot chicks, real and imagined.

  72. Looks like the sun is blank again…I wonder if anyone is measuring the cosmic radiation and overall cloud cover?

    Anybody got a recent cosmic radiation count?

  73. Dr Kaku was always making cuckoo claims on the “Coast to Coast AM” show with Art Bell. I used to listen to Art Bell just about every night for many years! Zany stuff. Chubracabras(?) chemtrails, remote viewing etc were favourite topics of discussion for Art, and he usually brought on Dr Kaku to add “scientific” credibility to what were really camp-fire stories. I think it was back in ’97 when Dr Kaku really got fired up over the Hale/Bop “companion” story though. I found it strange to hear a physicist speculating about UFO’s.

  74. Before Kaku, before Sagan ,there was Irwin Corey:

    Trouble is, he makes as much sense…
    I read that Supervolcano thread…
    I’m not giving Corey enough credit…

  75. Kaku maybe cuckoo, but don’t start making derogatory remarks about Star Trek;
    “….His physics is what I call ‘Star-Trek voodoo physics’…..”

    Afterall, everthing I learned about Science came from Star Trek.

  76. “…there will be more moisture in the air to possibly drive more monster storms and hurricanes,…”

    Those in the South who live in areas prone to hurricanes know that the strenth of hurricanes has dropped significantly over the last half-dozen years. Many remember Camille (1969), most everyone, Katrina (2005). So, Kaku’s statements would fall of deaf ears.

    Since agriculture is also big in the South, more people keep track of the weather and are more in-tune with how it compares to previous years. In the last few years we’ve had droughts, floods, hot summers, and cold, snowy winters. In other words, the same types of weather events we typically get over the years, nothing uprecedented – and most everyone realizes it. Except for the city yuppies, AGW is a tough sell here.

    If the press gave as much coverage to climatological history as it does to AGW scare-mongering, no one would believe in it.

  77. This statement proves to me that Kaku has gone completely cuckoo:

    “Similarly, the main consequence of global warming is not warming at all but instead increasingly violent swings in the weather, with droughts and famine in one area occurring at the same time as flooding in another, and snowstorms in one region at the same time as hot spells in another.”

    So, according to Kaku the consequence of global warming is that it doesn’t actually warm, and this non warming will cause increasingly violent swings in the weather?

    Maue is wrong to call this a false dichotomy – it is more like an oxymoron.

  78. Warm air may equal more water vapor, but 32+ F means no snow. The average Jan Temp of Baltimore, DC, NYC and Phila are all over 32F so any warming would result in less snow, there just isn’t two ways about it. Of course reality is NEseters routinely plow in the Mid-Atlantic, and the costal temps from DC to Mass cross over the 32F point on almost a daily basis, so some years you have bad luck and lots of snow, some years you have good luck and lots of rain. Then some days you get shat on and have freezing rain, which is by far the worst.

    Unless of course global warming causes the freezing point of water to go up, which will probably be claimed shortly.

  79. This isn’t the 1st time Kaku has delved into AGW. Kaku is a semi-regular guest on Coast to Coast AM if it’s still called by that name. I heard him giving his opinions to Art Bell (the co-author of “the Coming Global Superstorm”) one night on the radio. Kaku’s ideas about AGW were weak even by celebrity standards. Ever since I heard that segment Kaku has been suspect in my book.

  80. Still haven’t broken any snow records here since 1982, no cold records since the early 50s. Also no warm records since the 90s.

    Extreme weather in northern Alberta is still just run-of-the-mill, old-fashioned weather.

  81. “The model is not an extremely extreme event.”

    I wonder about the consequences if it were actually “extremely extreme?”

    “Jones noted that the largest damages would come from flooding — the models estimate that almost one-fourth of the houses in California would experience some flood damage from this storm.”

    Ten feet of rain would cause flood damage?

    Houston, we have a problem.
    —————————————————————————————-

    ARkStorm: California’s Other ‘Big One’
    ScienceDaily (Jan. 18, 2011) — For emergency planning purposes, scientists unveiled a hypothetical California scenario that describes a storm that could produce up to 10 feet of rain, cause extensive flooding (in many cases overwhelming the state’s flood-protection system) and result in more than $300 billion in damage.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110117142512.htm

  82. I have been deeply disappointed with Dr. Kaku since I found out that he accepted
    “hand-wavy” pseudo-facts about climate change. Deeply.
    The official climatologist of the State of New Jersey says it is the NAO.

  83. Because you know before SUVs it was exactly 72F at all times from April to October, it only rained at night when we asleep, and our fields were fertilized by Unicorn Poo. In the winter it was exactly 30 degrees, always snowed on Christmas, and our reindeer power sleighs got us hither and yon without a trace of Co2.

    “Similarly, the main consequence of global warming is not warming at all but instead increasingly violent swings in the weather, with droughts and famine in one area occurring at the same time as flooding in another, and snowstorms in one region at the same time as hot spells in another.”

  84. eadler says: January 27, 2011 at 9:25 pm . “An increase in temperature means that the air can hold more water, and [increased] evaporation rates will [mean more] . . . . rain or snow.”
    That is logical reasoning – a logical theory. Now let us test the theory per the discussion at hand concerning the last two winters. Water vapor is not evenly distributed across the world, nor are sea temperatures. The ocean areas that gave up the water vapor for the storms in the last two winters did not have positive anomalies. In fact, quite the opposite. The Gulf of Mexico and the western Atlantic Ocean were negative last winter, but they provided moisture for the significant snowfall. The Pacific was remarkably positive last year, but the west coast was noticeably dry. This year, the Pacific and the Gulf and western Atlantic all have negative anomalies; yet they are providing moisture for these remarkable storms. We are having snow all the way down to Florida because the temperatures over land have been cold. England is getting snow rather than rain because of cold temperatures. Of course, a complete discussion of these two winters would require mention of Arctic air movements, but this winter’s CAGW proclamation blaming the snow on Global Warming does not hold up under scrutiny.
    Also, you mentioned that precipitation amounts in extreme events would increase. However, records for rainfall in the U.S. are over a half-century old – they are not being eclipsed today.

  85. EADLER Says:

    An increase in temperature means that the air can hold more water, and evaporation rates will increase . When the air holding this water cools, the moisture precipitates as rain or snow, depending on the temperature.

    ++++++++++++

    I agree that air, being warmed, contains more water vapour per cubic metre at a given relative humidity. Your reference to extra precipitation taking place when the air cools is relevant, though incorrect.

    The problem with the assertion that a warmer world will cause more precipitation (everywhere?) is that the temperature to which the air cools also increases. The Delta-T is the same, agreed? After all, it is warmer at both ends of the process, right? So what is the difference between the water vapour contents in both cases if the temperature drop is the same?

    The claim that increased snowfall/rain is caused by ‘warmer air because the globe is warmer’ was always propped upon the misundertanding about the lower temperature, hoping, I presume, to capitalise on peoples general ignorance about all things thermodynamic. Ditto for the ‘increased evaporation’ into air that has already picked up more moisture. Plain ignorance!

    So, look at the basic physics: higher (slightly) initial temperature, higher (slightly) final temperature = no change in precipitation at all attributable to global warming (or cooling) within the normal Earthly temperature ranges, right? Only a huge change in temperature and ice cover can produce meaningful changes is total precipitation.

    Next, have a think about how long it takes air to pick up moisture when warmer. It is nearly immediate – on the scale of a few minutes to hours. The changes from year to year would certainly be undetectable by human senses.

    It is plain and obvious to me that the El Nino and La Nina-driven shifts in precipitation are being ignored in order to trumpet the possibility that a warmer world is causing (near) record snowfalls and rainfall. The prophecy that these events will ‘continue to get worse’ is pure speculation. As the mis-informed, mis-understanding, mis-interpreting prophets are unaware of the causes, how can they be aware of the effects? They would do just as well to ‘look into a liver’ [Ezekiel 21:21] and try to ‘divine’ something that way. After all, it fits the rest of the behaviour profile.

  86. Jimash says:
    January 28, 2011 at 8:19 am

    “I have been deeply disappointed with Dr. Kaku since I found out that he accepted “hand-wavy” pseudo-facts about climate change. Deeply.
    The official climatologist of the State of New Jersey says it is the NAO.”

    The occurrence of the NAO is not a contradiction of the theory that says AGW intensifies the effects of storm systems. These storms were North Easters bringing moisture from the ocean air above warm waters of the east coast, dropping the snow on land as the ocean air cooled. This is a physically sound theory which fits the storm patterns.

  87. What a shame, I have always held great respect for Dr. Kaku, have watched him on the Science Channel and various programs elsewhere. Unfortunately, this brings the level of respect down several notches. I’m sad, he’s always been one of my favorites, sadly no more.

  88. Kaku must have set some sort of record for wildly contradictory statements in this made-up stew of nonsense. He is obviously a few sandwiches short of a full picnic. I note that the Geography people aren’t very thrilled with his mad assertions about Yellowstone either.

  89. About a year ago I read michio Kaku’s book Parallel Worlds. Kaku spends an inordinate amount of time bragging about a formula he discovered. He comes across as insecure, having to repeatedly validate what he did.

    That fits in with his self promotion on shows like Art Bell. Anyway, if someone wants to read a much better book on the same subject, Brian Greene’s The Fabric Of The Cosmos was much better written and more interesting.

  90. Well we have the example of the paper of Wentz et al; “How Much More Rain will global Warming Bring ?” SCIENCE July-7, 2007.

    Frank Wentz, who is with RSS in Santa Rosa CA (Remote Sensing Systems) is a commercial purveyor of what UAH does with satellite data (not the same data, RSS gets their own, and uses it their own way) . In my view, the SCIENCE paper is among the most important papers ever in “Climate Science”.

    It is actual real measured atmospehric data from satellite observations. Tehy found that the rate of increase in Total atmospheric water with Temperature (presumably either lower tropo, or surface) is 7% per deg C rise.

    Now that is also the prediction of the Clausius Clapeyron equation, as Bill Illis mentioned here some time back; and is also in agreement with the GCMs which no doubt actually get their super computer simulated values by actually using the c-C equation.

    Wentz et al, also found that total global evaporation and precipitation rates, had the same 7% per deg C rise. This disagrees with the far more believable GCMs which are simulated by super computer; and which say the evap precip pair are only 1% to 3%; shall we say 2% +/-50% which of course is the same hallowed 3:1 fudge factor that attaches to all Climatism simulations. Why should we believe Wantz et al’s actuyal observations, when we have such fine models to simulate it.

    It should be obvious to all that evap and precip must be the same over time, because we don’t want the oceans to be over our heads, instead of down in those big holes where they are now.

    So it is a no brainer that higher global temperatures will lead to more precipitation; but not necessarily where you want it.

    I’ll leave it to those who understand AMO/PDO/ENSO and the like to ‘splain why it gose where it gose. I’m totally ignorant of any of that; and figure I can afford to be, since others know what it all does.

    As for MK, it has always disappointed me that Physicists at that level of understanding of the arcane; seem content to remain relatively ignorant of Physics/chemistry, down at the level of communicating with the lay public.

    Who cares if there are an infinite number of universes; that maybe are joined for our convenience by time travel and worm holes; or that the most fundamental things are strings that wiggle and vibrate.

    Hey if you hand any 2 year old kid ANYTHING that wiggles or vibrates; it will inside of two minutes, have separated that wiggly thing into multiple elements; which by definition MUST be more fundamental than the wiggly thing.

    So I think quarks are somewhat fundamental; they simply sit there and look stupid; they do not wiggle or do anything else to indicate they are alive; or made up of simpler bits.

    So Brian Green or MK or not; I’m not a fan of strings or worm holes, and in my lexicon UNIverse implies there is only one; no matter how bizzarre it may turn out to be. If it is not part of the universe we can see (by any conceivable means, real or imagined) then it is not a part of the field of science; which is the study of things we can “see”.

  91. Well, as a theoretical physicist, there is probably some 12th dimensional explanation in an alternate universe where string theory can explain all of this. He may just understand these things on a deeper level than any of us know…

  92. Bob from the UK says:
    January 28, 2011 at 12:41 am

    Sunpots high, rivers low, sunpots low rivers high.

    Pretty interesting correlation! But, I’se confoozed.

    What’re “sun-pots”??
    ;p

  93. sHx says:
    January 28, 2011 at 1:52 am

    Replicators etc. are copy-cat borrowings from the Master: Fred Saberhagen’s “Beserkers”. Self-replicating intelligent weapons from some ancient war, with a slipped disk that morphed their mission into Destruction of All Life. There’s a temporary reprieve for “goodlife”, those who collaborate, and help spy on and subvert the “badlife”.

    I have my suspicions about which group Kaku falls into …

  94. Back to the real world. And speaking of frigid cold winters, the period 1975-1978 was saw some of the coldest and snowiest Northern Hemisphere winters of the 20th Century. And what is remarkable is that this was a period of not only El Nino (1976-1977), but it occured during the Great Pacific Climate Change (ie the PDO went from negative to positive). In my hometown, the winter of 1978 brought a record 136 inches of snow. And the borreal Winter of 1976-77 brought unusually cold temps as early as Saint Nicholas Day (Dec 6th 1976, the low was -2 deg F and the high was only +1 for South Bend Indiana).

    And to make matters even more interesting, there was a double dip La Nina (1971-1974) that preceeded the 1976 El Nino. And in late April 1974 one of the worst outbreaks of severe weather hit North America (The Day of the Killer Tornado). Also of interest, devastating floods hit the Ohio River Valley during the La Nina periods, 2 severe droughts hit the Midwest as well (1974, 1975). The summers of 1977 and 1980 were some of the hottest on record for North America.

    Dr. Kaku’s speculations are just that. If one was to get accurate weather information going back to colonial times, and from Europe as well, one will see that somewhere weather “extremes” occur.

  95. E-Adler;
    Please quit trotting out Masters as a competent climate authority. He’s a meteorologist who happens also to be a rabid Global Warming Believer. So what? There are 10 meteorologists who Doubt or Unbelieve for every Masters.

  96. Charles Higley says:
    January 28, 2011 at 6:57 am

    “the main consequence of global warming is not warming at all but instead increasingly violent swings in the weather”

    Pure opinion with nothing to back it up. It is hand-waving and prevarication at its best – making stuff up to explain what is happening in the real world.

    A warmer world would more likely see less violent weather as the temperature differences between the oceans and the atmosphere would be less;

    Also, the gradient between tropics and poles flattens out, reducing the power of energy transport to the polar “sinks”. Cooling, on the other hand, steepens that gradient and makes for more violent weather (see historical accounts from the LIA, for example.)

  97. “… There are two requirements for a record snow storm:

    1) A near-record amount of moisture in the air (or a very slow moving storm).
    2) Temperatures cold enough for snow.”

    Jeff Masters has been an AGW groupie for a long time. His assertions concerning water vapor are not completly correct. The term “near record” amount of moisture is a misnomer. The is a saturation point for every air parcel. Any forecaster who is old enough to remember plotting and analyzing Skew-T log P charts know that the mixing ratio is the metric used to measure absolute humidity. And as far as I know, no one keeps records of mixing ratios. For severe thunderstorms to form, a mixing ratio of at least 12g of water vapor to 1kg of water vapor is the norm. In really extreme cases, mixing ratios can go as high as 16-18g/1kg of dry air. But that usually occurs when the surface temp is over 28 deg C.

    A typical New England snowstorm will see temps vary as much as +5 deg C to – 5 deg C. With a saturated surface condition, the mixing ratios would hit a limit around 8g of water vapor/1kg of dry air. As far as moisture aloft is concerned, we move into the dynamics of an occluded frontal system. Besides the inflow of warmer moist air of the Gulfstream, there is the moisture aloft released by intense vertical shear, positive vorticity advection, and upper level cold air advection. The injection of frigid cold air from Canada upstream and warm moist air from the Atlantic only increase this dynamic. But, the true genesis of these dynamics come from the Pacific. And in a warming world, the southern branch of the Polarjetstream would migrate northward. Most of the really frigid air would remain bottled up in the northern source regions with the northern branch of the polar jetstream.

    In a warming wolrd where the Hadley Cell expands poleward, most of the dynamics for both classical Midwest snowstorms and Nor’Easters would fail to materialize. This was the IPCC predictions not only a decade ago, but also in 2007. My how quickly things change.

  98. “I am a physicist, and the explanation seems like correct science to me. An increase in temperature means that the air can hold more water, and evaporation rates will increase . When the air holding this water cools, the moisture precipitates as rain or snow, depending on the temperature. So the distribution of precipitation in a sample of storms will go in the direction of increased rain or snowfall. It is reasonable that the amount of precipitation in extreme events would also increase.”

    Eadler, you are talking about theoretics. Have you ever wondered why some parts of the Pacific and Atlantic (as well as the Indian Ocean) go through periods of extreme drought despite having surface temps as high as 30 deg C and high absolute humidities? There is much more to meteorology than theoretical abstractions.

  99. JDN says:
    January 28, 2011 at 6:17 am
    Agree with Louis Savain and many others.

    This guy is in showbiz/politics with a science flair. I can’t stand it when scientists’ first concern is to appear “competent” through maintaining a conventional attitude.

    I have to say, though, that the only field that compares to the fraud of AGW is theoretical physics. So, maybe it’s a natural fit.”

    Did you know that Mike Mann entered Yale graduate school as a student in theoretical nuclear physics and then switched to climate research?

  100. eadler says:
    January 28, 2011 at 9:06 am
    [In response to my comment about the weather in NJ beng dies to the NAO]
    “The occurrence of the NAO is not a contradiction of the theory that says AGW intensifies the effects of storm systems. These storms were North Easters bringing moisture from the ocean air above warm waters of the east coast, dropping the snow on land as the ocean air cooled. This is a physically sound theory which fits the storm patterns.”

    Not to put a pin in your bubble or anything, but the “warm waters” are colder than usual.

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/catl.html

    And the air temperature and humidity have been LOW.

  101. eadler says:
    January 28, 2011 at 9:06 am
    Jimash says:
    January 28, 2011 at 8:19 am
    [referring to the recent heavy snowfalls ]
    “The official climatologist of the State of New Jersey says it is the NAO.”

    The occurrence of the NAO is not a contradiction of the theory that says AGW intensifies the effects of storm systems. These storms were North Easters bringing moisture from the ocean air above warm waters of the east coast, dropping the snow on land as the ocean air cooled. This is a physically sound theory which fits the storm patterns.

    But the “warm waters” are colder than last year. Warm waters can hardly be any colder they are.
    And as far as the general temperature goes it has been way below normal mostly since October. So where is this AGW doing it’s magic ?

  102. Dave Wendt says:
    January 28, 2011 at 3:30 am

    …it seems good near term water vapor data really isn’t widely available… …Why do you suppose that is?

    ‘Cause it’s not at all well-mixed, involves changes of state and therefore in the too difficult box?

  103. INGSOC says:
    January 28, 2011 at 7:32 am
    “I found it strange to hear a physicist speculating about UFO’s.”

    I don’t understand. Why would that be “strange”?

  104. Jose Suro says:
    January 28, 2011 at 4:39 pm
    Seems to me the good Doctor has discovered an new element: Dollarium.

    +++

    Dollarium Tremens… ;-)

  105. This one is frustrating. I had more faith in Michio Kaku than this level of understanding. I really liked his book “Einstein’s Cosmos”. I actually feel sad that he hasn’t looked into things more than this.

  106. “I am a physicist.”

    ====================

    Really??

    Eadler….please state your qualifications and training.

    All us non-physicists and inquiring minds…want to know.

    And the physicists do too.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  107. I am surprised “Renowned theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku…” didn’t complain about that Cosmos pic breaking the laws of optics and insist it was fixed. Perhaps the magazine’s photoshopping “graphic artist” might not be aware of how the angle of refraction at the air/water interface would distort his appearance, but an esteemed cross-discipline physicist should have made sure the science was right.

    I am more surprised how, unless I missed it, no one here has commented on the pic’s inaccuracy. Although perhaps my Pedantry Setting could be too high…

  108. The truth is that we will never reach the level of a catagory 1 civilization as long as we take the hubris of a charlatan like Obama for granted when he states the following:

    “We will advance a high speed railway network so travelers will be able to travel without a pad down and we don’t need those planes anymore.”

    Completely denying the terror attacks on the trains in Madrid, London and Casablanca.

    and

    “We will be the first Nation that will have 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015″
    at the same time banning the incandescent light bulb.

    “We will further promote the use of bio fuels”
    He makes this criminal promise when half the world is ablaze because people can no longer afford food.

    “We will generate 80% of our energy with alternative energy by 2035″
    He makes this promise while the Spanish economy crashed because of their attempt to generate their energy by alternative means like wind and solar.

    Instead of kicking this incredible hack out of office people cheer and his ratings go up. U N B E L I E VA B L E

    This guy is wrecking the economy and nobody stops him.

  109. Jimash says:
    January 28, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    “eadler says:
    January 28, 2011 at 9:06 am
    Jimash says:
    January 28, 2011 at 8:19 am
    [referring to the recent heavy snowfalls ]
    “The official climatologist of the State of New Jersey says it is the NAO.”

    The occurrence of the NAO is not a contradiction of the theory that says AGW intensifies the effects of storm systems. These storms were North Easters bringing moisture from the ocean air above warm waters of the east coast, dropping the snow on land as the ocean air cooled. This is a physically sound theory which fits the storm patterns.

    But the “warm waters” are colder than last year. Warm waters can hardly be any colder they are.
    And as far as the general temperature goes it has been way below normal mostly since October. So where is this AGW doing it’s magic ?”

    If you look at Tisdale’s January Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly map posted on WUWT, you see that there is a tiny band of very warm water, just off the east coast of North America, jst beyond it a wider band of water colder than normal, while the bulk of the Atlantic Ocean is warmer than normal at this time, and especially warm in the far north. When the colder air over land, combines with marine air, the precipitation falls as snow and a lot of it.

  110. Oliver Ramsay says:
    January 27, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    eadler says:
    January 27, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    “I am a physicist, and the explanation seems like correct science to me. An increase in temperature means that the air can hold more water, and evaporation rates will increase . When the air holding this water cools, the moisture precipitates as rain or snow, depending on the temperature. So the distribution of precipitation in a sample of storms will go in the direction of increased rain or snowfall. It is reasonable that the amount of precipitation in extreme events would also increase.
    ——————————
    It’s disconcerting that a self-professed physicist would consider that paragraph ‘science’, never mind ‘correct science’. Typically, the clause ‘the air can hold more water’ is derided into oblivion in ninth or tenth grade ‘science’ class.”

    It is wrong to say that warm air will hold more water than cold air. The N2 and O2 in the air determines the temperature of the water vapor. The temperature of the water vapor determines the maximum possible concentration of gas phase vapor. It is true that water vapor doesn’t need air to hold it in the gas phase, and in that sense the air is not holding the water. You are quibbling over semantics.

    The temperature of what? You mean the average global lower troposphere? Maybe it’s the global average sea surface. It’s got to be some average or other or else we’d be talking about weather, not climate.
    Remember, all events are ‘extreme’ nowadays. You’ll be wanting some of them to produce less snow and /or rain. Let’s not forget wind.

    The sea surface temperature is one of a number of variables that determines the evaporation rate. If this temperature is higher, then it is likely that more water will evaporate into the air, and that the air temperature above the sea surface will also be warmer.

    When you say “Let’s not forget about wind”, it begs the question “What will happen to wind speeds in a warmer world?”. Unless you claim they will decrease, the effect will be more moisture in the air.

  111. Chip Knappenberger says:
    January 28, 2011 at 7:24 am

    Here is a link to my quick and dirty analysis looking into any global warming/New York City snow linkages.

    If anything, they don’t point towards more warming=more snow.

    Global Warming Means More Big New York City Snowstorms? Not So Fast!

    -Chip

    Chip,
    Your analysis doesn’t hold water. There are no models or mechanisms involved in your analysis. It relies on drawing a straight line through data that involves many different mechanisms that are in play at different times. This is pseudo scientific nonsense. The amount of snowfall in an extreme snowfall event, could be parabolic in temperature, rather than linear for all we know. You provide no justification to postulate a linear relationship.

    The case of the scientist who moaned that his daughter wasn’t going to use her sled is irrelevant to the correctness of Cohen’s model. In 1996, that scientist had no idea about the impact of the reduction of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean on NYC’s winter weather. He was not even a climatologist, but rather an ecologist.

    Cohen has done some simulations to verify his theory, and as you concede, it seems to make sense. If you can name some phenomena that he left out, or an error that he made, you would have a case, but you haven’t done that.

  112. Crispin in Waterloo says:
    January 28, 2011 at 8:58 am

    EADLER Says:

    An increase in temperature means that the air can hold more water, and evaporation rates will increase . When the air holding this water cools, the moisture precipitates as rain or snow, depending on the temperature.

    ++++++++++++

    I agree that air, being warmed, contains more water vapour per cubic metre at a given relative humidity. Your reference to extra precipitation taking place when the air cools is relevant, though incorrect.

    The problem with the assertion that a warmer world will cause more precipitation (everywhere?) is that the temperature to which the air cools also increases. The Delta-T is the same, agreed? After all, it is warmer at both ends of the process, right? So what is the difference between the water vapour contents in both cases if the temperature drop is the same?

    The claim that increased snowfall/rain is caused by ‘warmer air because the globe is warmer’ was always propped upon the misundertanding about the lower temperature, hoping, I presume, to capitalise on peoples general ignorance about all things thermodynamic. Ditto for the ‘increased evaporation’ into air that has already picked up more moisture. Plain ignorance!

    So, look at the basic physics: higher (slightly) initial temperature, higher (slightly) final temperature = no change in precipitation at all attributable to global warming (or cooling) within the normal Earthly temperature ranges, right? Only a huge change in temperature and ice cover can produce meaningful changes is total precipitation.

    Next, have a think about how long it takes air to pick up moisture when warmer. It is nearly immediate – on the scale of a few minutes to hours. The changes from year to year would certainly be undetectable by human senses.

    It is plain and obvious to me that the El Nino and La Nina-driven shifts in precipitation are being ignored in order to trumpet the possibility that a warmer world is causing (near) record snowfalls and rainfall. The prophecy that these events will ‘continue to get worse’ is pure speculation. As the mis-informed, mis-understanding, mis-interpreting prophets are unaware of the causes, how can they be aware of the effects? They would do just as well to ‘look into a liver’ [Ezekiel 21:21] and try to ‘divine’ something that way. After all, it fits the rest of the behaviour profile.”

    You are wrong about the claim that the same amount of moisture precipitates for a given temperature change regardless of the initial temperature. The water vapor content at a given relative humidity increases exponentially with temperature. This means that more water will precipitate at higher temperatures for the same decrease in temperature.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-air-d_854.html

  113. Brian H says:
    January 28, 2011 at 11:59 am

    E-Adler;
    Please quit trotting out Masters as a competent climate authority. He’s a meteorologist who happens also to be a rabid Global Warming Believer. So what? There are 10 meteorologists who Doubt or Unbelieve for every Masters.

    If you are going to talk numbers, please get a source.
    One systematic poll of scientists shows that 64% of meteorologists believe that humans are causing global warming.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature

    A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

    It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[106

  114. JP says:
    January 28, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    “I am a physicist, and the explanation seems like correct science to me. An increase in temperature means that the air can hold more water, and evaporation rates will increase . When the air holding this water cools, the moisture precipitates as rain or snow, depending on the temperature. So the distribution of precipitation in a sample of storms will go in the direction of increased rain or snowfall. It is reasonable that the amount of precipitation in extreme events would also increase.”

    Eadler, you are talking about theoretics. Have you ever wondered why some parts of the Pacific and Atlantic (as well as the Indian Ocean) go through periods of extreme drought despite having surface temps as high as 30 deg C and high absolute humidities? There is much more to meteorology than theoretical abstractions.

    I am sorry, but I don’t understand how an ocean suffers from drought. If you mean that evaporation from the surface is increasing I can understand that. This happens when the surface gets warmer, and windier.
    Drought is a phenomenon that happens on land, when the temperatures over the land get higher for long periods of time, and precipitation has decreased. This causes a loss in soil moisture. Higher temperatures will result in increased drought in some areas, and an increase in storm intensity in other areas. Climate is not uniform across the globe.

  115. Whoops,
    In my post
    eadler says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    January 29, 2011 at 10:54 am

    The first sentence of my reply to Oliver Ramsey should read:

    It is NOT wrong to say that warm air will hold more water than cold air.

  116. Whoops,
    In my post
    eadler says:
    January 29, 2011 at 10:54 am

    The first sentence of my reply to Oliver Ramsey should read:

    It is NOT wrong to say that warm air will hold more water than cold air.

  117. @ eadler,
    I purposely didn’t say that the holding water thing was “wrong” because, given the amiguities of the words ‘can’ and ‘hold’, it’s possible to interpret the sentence variously.
    Bearing in mind that this arises in the context of discussion of specific weather events, I find it pointlessly vague to say “warm air holds more water, so it rains more, or maybe snows”.
    Water vapour is not a guest of the atmosphere, it is a constituent, as are liquid water and ice crystals. As you say, it’s the temperature of the water vapour that determines when it will precipitate, but it’s ironic that you appear to be turning your back on thermalization of the atmosphere by greenhouse gases and ascribing temperature control to the ‘non-radiative’ molecules. Of course, there’s also a lot of heat transfer aloft with condensation and evaporation. Not a big contribution from N2 in that regard.
    Anyway, more water evaporates from the surface because it’s warmer than it was before. The air rises and cools and droplets and ice crystals form; even over the tropics snow falls but it doesn’t show up on the banana trees because it warms up as it falls and either becomes rain or vapour long before it reaches the surface.
    So, when the surface water is warmer, the surface air is warmer and so is the air higher up. With an adequate water source specific humidity will rise with warming, not necessarily relative humidity. Water vapour ascends a little higher before it precipitates but comparable proportions will reavaporate in descent, just as snow becomes rain within the cloud.
    There are so many details in each and every occurrence that a generalized ‘more warmth, more snow’ line doesn’t look like science, it just seems glib.

  118. RdH;
    Did he really say “pad down” instead of “patdown”? BAAAD Teleprompter!

    His “green energy/jobs” rhetoric is just Climate Warmism in thin disguise.

    As for the jobs and investment, while this particular Stupidity Bubble lasts they will go to the lowest bidder(s). Clue: they reside in Asia.

  119. P.S. What effect does he think a bomb would have on a 300 mph train? The resulting mess would make spaghetti with meat sauce look neat.

  120. Oliver Ramsay says:
    January 30, 2011 at 12:56 am

    @ eadler,
    I purposely didn’t say that the holding water thing was “wrong” because, given the amiguities of the words ‘can’ and ‘hold’, it’s possible to interpret the sentence variously.
    Bearing in mind that this arises in the context of discussion of specific weather events, I find it pointlessly vague to say “warm air holds more water, so it rains more, or maybe snows”.
    Water vapour is not a guest of the atmosphere, it is a constituent, as are liquid water and ice crystals. As you say, it’s the temperature of the water vapour that determines when it will precipitate, but it’s ironic that you appear to be turning your back on thermalization of the atmosphere by greenhouse gases and ascribing temperature control to the ‘non-radiative’ molecules. Of course, there’s also a lot of heat transfer aloft with condensation and evaporation. Not a big contribution from N2 in that regard.
    Anyway, more water evaporates from the surface because it’s warmer than it was before. The air rises and cools and droplets and ice crystals form; even over the tropics snow falls but it doesn’t show up on the banana trees because it warms up as it falls and either becomes rain or vapour long before it reaches the surface.
    So, when the surface water is warmer, the surface air is warmer and so is the air higher up. With an adequate water source specific humidity will rise with warming, not necessarily relative humidity. Water vapour ascends a little higher before it precipitates but comparable proportions will reavaporate in descent, just as snow becomes rain within the cloud.
    There are so many details in each and every occurrence that a generalized ‘more warmth, more snow’ line doesn’t look like science, it just seems glib.

    Another poster also claimed that an increase in temperature and an increase in moisture in the air would make no difference in precipitation.
    My reply also applies to your objection. It was :

    “eadler says:
    January 29, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    “Crispin in Waterloo says:
    January 28, 2011 at 8:58 am
    ….
    You are wrong about the claim that the same amount of moisture precipitates for a given temperature change regardless of the initial temperature. The water vapor content at a given relative humidity increases exponentially with temperature. This means that more water will precipitate at higher temperatures for the same decrease in temperature.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-air-d_854.html

  121. It does seem strange that we are attacking the persons credibility here as much as the science, which does make me uncomfortable.

    The Joy of Michio is that he thinks outside the mainstream, something which every scientist should do more often. I do not agree with his position on climate change, nor do I agree with many other things he does say but he is passionate about science and one of the true eccentric great thinkers.

    Michio will be proven right on many other things, the singularity of science, the human mastery of genetics allowing people to live for many many years.

    He will be proven wrong about climate change but let’s remember he is a champion for the unthinkable and the out of mainstream science. I for one am grateful for that.

  122. AF;
    The trouble with “the unthinkable” is that it is a very slick slope, and Kaka lost his footing long ago. He is now approaching the Sanity Barrier. Expect a loud “Boom!” and then an unending word salad (technical term — seriously!).

Comments are closed.