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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
@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.
“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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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…
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.
Ah what a shame. Along with Cox, I consider Kaku to be a brilliant science communicator.
“…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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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
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.
Mucho Cuckoo. 😉
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.”
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.
CNN is an Obama mouthpiece…
Eadler quotes Masters… LOL
Sounds like GEnnis from the Gleube and Mail… 😉
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.
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.