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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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.
Oliver Ramsay says:
January 30, 2011 at 12:56 am
@ur momisugly 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“
@ur momisugly eadler
So, when the oceans get to 100 C, it will rain (or snow) a lot. … 😉
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.
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!).