Japan radiation causing tornadoes?

[rockhouse]

Is it possible? Sorry if it's a dumb question, but can radiation in the jet stream from Japan cause severe weather? Is that possible?

I've been looking at weather radar a lot lately and I've never seen such activity on such a large scale, and it seems rather isolated in the jet stream area. Even though the activity is within the 'tornado alley' area, it just seems like these recent super-cell storms are way bigger than usual.

Mods, please move to appropriate sub-forum if in the wrong place, thanks.

 

[Borek]

can radiation in the jet stream from Japan cause severe weather? Is that possible?

I don't see how these could be related.

Levels of radiation are very low - they are detectable with sensitive instruments, but it doesn't mean quality of the air is substantially different from the quality of the air in other years.

Then, severe weather is an effect of energy accumulated - in the form of different temperatures and levels of moisture of air masses colliding. No accumulated energy, no thunderstorms, tornadoes, whatever. And this accumulated energy has nothing to do with radiation from Fukushima.

And before someone will start to argue that radiation is a form of energy - yes, it is. But we are talking about amounts of energy differing by many, many orders of magnitude.

 

[Studiot]

Well actually it isn't just a question of energy balance.

I do believe Mr E. N. Lorenz and his butterfly effect need (serious) consideration.

Of course, that doesn't mean the answer will not be 'no effect' but we really need a detailed meteorological answer, which I'm sorry I'm not able to provide.

 

[DaveC426913]

What you are talking about? Has cause and effect gone splah?

If we started reading newspaper articles about increased sunspot activity, would we be asking if the Fukishama disaster is causing sunpsots?

 

[Studiot]

From the great man himself.

Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil cause a Tornado in Texas?

 

[Evo]

If radiation caused tornadoes, then why were't there more tornadoes after Chernobyl?

The two years before Chernobyl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_of_1984#Events

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_of_1985#Events

Year of and year after Chernobyl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_of_1986#Events

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_of_1987#Events

 

[Ophiolite]

From the great man himself.

However, it is highly unlikely that the current tornadoes are the result of this particular butterfly (the Fukushima radiation). You would be far more likely to find that the removal of substantial areas of housing and vegatation in the Tsunami zones changed atmospheric conditions in Japan, which in turn could impact on global weather patterns. However, it seems even more likely still that the tornadoes are simply an example of the normal variation of intensity that occurs in all weather patterns. I think you'll find that's why we distinguish weather from climate.

 

[Borek]

http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Quantum_weather_butterflies.

 

[rockhouse]

Thanks for the responses.

 

[Algr]

I do believe Mr E. N. Lorenz and his butterfly effect need (serious) consideration.

I think that this is rather seriously misunderstanding what the butterfly effect is. A small change to a chaotic system can have very large changes far down the line. But these changes are impossible to predict and unrepeatable. The Fukushima event is far to recent to have had this kind of result, and because of it's low physical energy, it is not likely to have an effect any greater then someone driving a truck cross country.

A butterfly effect is just as likely to prevent bad weather as cause it, and would most likely just moves similar storms to different areas.

============
Am I correct that radiation doesn't effect the physical behavior of materials much? I think it's mainly chemical reactions and the introduction of heat that are changed.

 

[Studiot]

I think that this is rather seriously misunderstanding what the butterfly effect is.

Not really. It's more that you should read my post more carefully.

I could have chosen cloud seeding or camels and straws or piles of sand and catastrophe theory to illustrate my point instead.

edit in italic.

 

[Borek]

Am I correct that radiation doesn't effect the physical behavior of materials much? I think it's mainly chemical reactions and the introduction of heat that are changed.

That's basically right, although it may have some unexpected effects. Ionization may speed up nucleation in clouds, after all that's how cloud chamber works. I remember reading hypothesis that cosmic rays may add ionized paths in atmosphere that facilitate lightning creation during storms. But you need a preexisting specific conditions for these effects to be at work.

 

[DaveC426913]

I do believe Mr E. N. Lorenz and his butterfly effect need (serious) consideration.

Still don't get the slightest connection. Also, I think you misunderstand the butterfly effect. It is not the kind of model that results in an increase in tornadoes.



Could someone give a plausible explanation of the cause-effect relationship between the tiny amount of radiation released from a nuclear power plant and the birth of tornadoes?

 

[Studiot]

Still don't get the slightest connection.

Well actually it isn't just a question of energy balance.

I am trying to make the point (in a friendly fashion) that small causes can have large effects yet no less than four of the other five responders have leapt straight past it to castigate my butterflies, although it was stated quite unambiguously up front.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am trying to make the point (in a friendly fashion) that small causes can have large effects yet no less than four of the other five responders have leapt straight past it to castigate my butterflies, although it was stated quite unambiguously up front.

But it still doesn't follow.

1] If we're tallking about, say, the explosion, then this one is no different from any other large explosion, such as the propane tank that went up here in Toronto a few years ago. Do we start looking for increased tornado activity here?

2] If we're talking about radiation then there's still no plausible connection.

And finally,

3] The butterfly effect is not description of a creation of weather events like tornadoes. It is a description of the nature by which they might change.

As per chaos, if you could roll back a day and run it forward again, you'd see a different pattern of weather - one town might get missed by a tornado, another might get hit, or one might even form where it would not have before - but you wouldn't see a dramatic increase in the number of tornadoes - it just doesn't work like that.

Looking at it from the other side, if we did suddenly observe more tornadoes occurring in the area, we could not look to the butterfly effect as the cause of them.

 

[Studiot]

A discussion that goes on at cross purposes can go on indefinitely without conclusion.

 

[DaveC426913]

A discussion that goes on at cross purposes can go on indefinitely without conclusion.

What are the cross purposes? Aren't we all trying to answer the OP's question?

 

[Studiot]

Aren't we all trying to answer the OP's question?

That was not the direct statement made in my original post in this thread.

Since you are not the only one who has difficulty with my original statement I will try to rephrase with amplification.

It was stated in response to the OP that the energy released by the disaster was insignificant compared to the weather energy in Tornados.

I pointed out (rather briefly) that it is not necessary to meet the weather head on in order to affect it.

That was, and remains, my main point.

I offered Lorenz theory as an example and subsequently other examples in later posts.

I also stated that I did not know if the answer to the OP was affirmative or negative.

 

[Algr]

By definition, you can never use the butterfly effect to link a specific cause to a specific effect - except comparing one computer simulation to another or hypothetically perfect time travel.

You seem to be pointing in a direction that leads to blaming Fukushima for tornado damage, and the butterfly effect can't be used that way. In real life AFAIK, the only real world use of the butterfly effect is to check the validity of computer simulations. If making small changes actually changes the result, then neither result is valid.

it is not necessary to meet the weather head on in order to affect it.

The Fucashima event is too small and too recent to have such an effect. As others said above, all sorts of explosions or other common events would change the weather as much as Fukushima.

A speculation: I think the butterfly effect could only change one result to another of equal probability. Thoughts?

 

[DaveC426913]

That was not the direct statement made in my original post in this thread.

Since you are not the only one who has difficulty with my original statement I will try to rephrase with amplification.

It was stated in response to the OP that the energy released by the disaster was insignificant compared to the weather energy in Tornados.

I pointed out (rather briefly) that it is not necessary to meet the weather head on in order to affect it.

That was, and remains, my main point.

I offered Lorenz theory as an example and subsequently other examples in later posts.

I also stated that I did not know if the answer to the OP was affirmative or negative.

Oh. I see. As you say, we don't necessarily need to meet the weather head-on. If we can figure out the initial conditions (that this, and all, weather is sensitive to), we could stop tornadoes before they start.

I see your point.


But do I think Borek addressed this in post 2. The energy gradient is there; you can't avoid it. As long as you have these huge amount of energies being moved about, you won't be able to tweak some initial condition and have it prevent tornadoes; they are pretty much inevitable with that much energy.

You could tweak it and have a tornado occur elsewhere, but of course you have no idea whether you just turned a non-lethal desert tornado into a lethal town-squashing tornado or the other way around.

 

[rockhouse]

So it's a resounding 'no' then.

Ok, i was just curious. I know a lot of other factors play into weather patterns, but was curious if any radiation could be the spark that lights the fuse where the other factors are already present.

Thanks guys.