'Polar Vortex' to Blast Frigid Air Over Much of US

A couple of weeks ago some animals froze to death in Mexico city zoo, so I presume the southern half of the USA is already quite cold, even colder once that vortex starts to move, also Winnipeg is colder than the surface of Mars!
The other end of the planet Ant-arc-tic ( or anartica, phonetically) the ice there, not forgetting it is summer there, is 63% above normal, sea ice that is, according to the scientists in the stricken ship, the fresh water ice is melting! so, sea ice that freezes at a lower temperature that fresh water is growing. I find that confusing.

reply to post by VoidHawk

Fact. As noted by another member, YOU added the global warming slant. YOU altered your OP after people had noted what you had done. True or false?

There is no edit in the OP - fairly obvious

The OP is pretty straightforward - for anyone that can read. There is no slant - unless you think an honest question and a real link is a slant:

A study linked in the article explains in detail what's been observed and what conclusions have been drawn about how global warming is likely causing this effect to happen more frequently.

To me this is at least a good part of the answer as to why if the planet is warming, it has been getting so damn cold in the winter. There's a lot more involved such as arctic amplification and the negative/positive phases of the Arctic Oscillation. Maybe those can be discussed throughout the thread.

She also goes out of her way to point out that this is how it appears - to her

What I think is interesting is how angry this subject seems to make certain individuals - and the lengths they'll go to make people out to be liars

Hysterical - with actual hysterics

:-)

Speaking of hysterics....

It's interesting how Climate Central stakes claim to the idea that these sudden stratospheric warmings are occurring "more frequently" when, in fact, these very common events (they occur numerous times throughout most northern hemisphere winter seasons) only just started to be measured since the early 1950's.

The common seasonal "minor" warmings occur all the time, whereas the "major" warmings occur every couple of decades, give or take... the "major" one being the one that causes the polar vortex to spread out further south as we are seeing this season.

Fact: The last "major" sudden stratospheric warming that caused the polar vortex to spread down through the eastern US was roughly about 20 years ago. So it seems to be right on schedule.



So what justifies this "sudden stratospheric warmings are occurring more frequently" claim then ?

They can only lay out data going back to the 1950's.... so what about prior to that ? What would the data look like before we started measuring it in 1952 ??

More ? Less ? We have no friggin' idea.


Thus, hysterics and speculation, indeed.

Our temperatures are still in the double digits... Celsius...

Last year the polar vortex caused all of Europe to get stuck in a cold spell into early summer though.

Because of other weather systems, like the jet stream getting hammered... We've got these weather systems getting stuck... Like in traffic...

"normally" weather systems are drifting, continuously getting pushed away making room for the next system.

Because of changes in our atmosphere, like the jet stream not being around as we are used to...

We get these cold or warmth periods getting stuck now. Whatever the exact cause of the jet stream malfunction...
The effects can be pretty big.

Warmer weather getting blown to areas where there used to be colder weather is explained perfectly well...

reply to post by CranialSponge


I'm not sure how you get hysterics from this:

Sudden stratospheric warming events take place in about half of all Northern Hemisphere winters, and they have been occurring with increasing frequency during the past decade, possibly related to the loss of Arctic sea ice due to global warming. Arctic sea ice declined to its smallest extent on record in September 2012.

The tone I get from the article is "it seems like" or "likely".

I hope this is perceived as a rational approach to the whole global/climate change debate.

What we see below is a sine wave.



Now you can look at it as;

0600 - 0600

or

may - april

or

100,000 years in scope.

or

1,000,000 years.

or

1,000,000,000 years.

Humans are so arrogant that we can presume to alter the climate by what we do. We are small creatures on a massive planet.

29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas. There may be other areas with a human footprint of some kind but it is insignificant in any relation to global warming.

wiki.answers.com...

Climate change is a political movement meant to shift capital from one place to another.

Believe.
Don't believe.

That is my take on the whole climate change movement.

Right now it's cold. Damned cold. But in a while it will be warm. We need to stop thinking we are rulers of this world.

We are merely occupants.

That is my take. Like/hate/believe/disbelieve.

It matters not. To me or the planet.

Kali74
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

I'm not sure how you get hysterics from this:

Sudden stratospheric warming events take place in about half of all Northern Hemisphere winters, and they have been occurring with increasing frequency during the past decade, possibly related to the loss of Arctic sea ice due to global warming. Arctic sea ice declined to its smallest extent on record in September 2012.

The tone I get from the article is "it seems like" or "likely".

I didn't get "hysterics" from that.

I got "hysterics" from the poster above me. I guess my sarcasm aimed towards someone else's hyperbole flew over your head.

And you've completely missed the point I was making in my post. You, again, link back to Climate Central with their claim that these stratospheric warmings are occurring more frequently this past decade... Meanwhile, they really truly have no friggin' idea whether or not an increasing frequency is the norm or not.

60 years worth of data tells us absolutely nothing from a geological timescale.

Therefore, attempting to lay blame back to the global warming agenda for any kind of frequency increase over a period of one decade is not only pseudoscience, it's outright blatant intellectual dishonesty.

CranialSponge

Kali74
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

I'm not sure how you get hysterics from this:

Sudden stratospheric warming events take place in about half of all Northern Hemisphere winters, and they have been occurring with increasing frequency during the past decade, possibly related to the loss of Arctic sea ice due to global warming. Arctic sea ice declined to its smallest extent on record in September 2012.

The tone I get from the article is "it seems like" or "likely".

I didn't get "hysterics" from that.

I got "hysterics" from the poster above me. I guess my sarcasm aimed towards someone else's hyperbole flew over your head.

And you've completely missed the point I was making in my post. You, again, link back to Climate Central with their claim that these stratospheric warmings are occurring more frequently this past decade... Meanwhile, they really truly have no friggin' idea whether or not an increasing frequency is the norm or not.

60 years worth of data tells us absolutely nothing from a geological timescale.

Therefore, attempting to lay blame back to the global warming agenda for any kind of frequency increase over a period of one decade is not only pseudoscience, it's outright blatant intellectual dishonesty.

It didn't fly over my head in the least nor was there any hyperbole on the part of the poster you borrowed the word from in order to make a point about Climate Central's article. I linked back to Climate Central because that is what you were posting about... you were trying to make the article out to be on the hysterical side when it's anything but. There's nothing in the realm of hysteria about saying that something is occurring more frequently than the past (most people read that with context, whether you believe so or not, as the measurable past) and stating what could be the cause of it.

reply to post by beezzer

Humans are so arrogant that we can presume to alter the climate by what we do. We are small creatures on a massive planet.

Plus, hasn't there been various scientific articles, over the last decade or so, stating that all the other planets are also warming up?
Maybe the warming/cooling/changes are due to a section of space that we're travelling through. Interstellar fluffy clouds or something......

We're just monkeys on a living, roundish lump of land, travelling through space

beezzer
I hope this is perceived as a rational approach to the whole global/climate change debate.

What we see below is a sine wave.

Now you can look at it as;

0600 - 0600

or

may - april

or

100,000 years in scope.

or

1,000,000 years.

or

1,000,000,000 years.

Humans are so arrogant that we can presume to alter the climate by what we do. We are small creatures on a massive planet.

29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas. There may be other areas with a human footprint of some kind but it is insignificant in any relation to global warming.

wiki.answers.com...

Climate change is a political movement meant to shift capital from one place to another.

Believe.
Don't believe.

That is my take on the whole climate change movement.

Right now it's cold. Damned cold. But in a while it will be warm. We need to stop thinking we are rulers of this world.

We are merely occupants.

That is my take. Like/hate/believe/disbelieve.

It matters not. To me or the planet.

We've changed more than 50% of the Earth's surface.

ABSTRACT
In recent decades, changes that human activities have wrought in Earth’s life support system have worried many people. The human population has doubled in the past 40 years and is projected to increase by the same amount again in the next 40. The expansion of infrastructure and agriculture necessitated by this population growth has quickened the pace of land transformation and degradation. We estimate that humans have modified >50% of Earth’s land surface. The current rate of land transformation, particularly of agricultural land, is unsustainable. We need a lively public discussion of the problems resulting from population pressures and the resulting land degradation.

Our effect on this planet is much, much bigger than it should be. We've become too big for our britches. We've used up or polluted most of the drinking water. Burned up most of the fossil fuels. Put holes in the ozone layer. Cut down most of the rainforests. Invented bombs that will kill life on half the planet and then another and another to make sure if we can't live, neither can you! The whole it's arrogant to assume we can have such a huge effect because we're so tiny argument... is completely ludicrous. Just look out your damn window to see how ludicrous it is.

Kali74

CranialSponge

Kali74
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

I'm not sure how you get hysterics from this:

Sudden stratospheric warming events take place in about half of all Northern Hemisphere winters, and they have been occurring with increasing frequency during the past decade, possibly related to the loss of Arctic sea ice due to global warming. Arctic sea ice declined to its smallest extent on record in September 2012.

The tone I get from the article is "it seems like" or "likely".

I didn't get "hysterics" from that.

I got "hysterics" from the poster above me. I guess my sarcasm aimed towards someone else's hyperbole flew over your head.

And you've completely missed the point I was making in my post. You, again, link back to Climate Central with their claim that these stratospheric warmings are occurring more frequently this past decade... Meanwhile, they really truly have no friggin' idea whether or not an increasing frequency is the norm or not.

60 years worth of data tells us absolutely nothing from a geological timescale.

Therefore, attempting to lay blame back to the global warming agenda for any kind of frequency increase over a period of one decade is not only pseudoscience, it's outright blatant intellectual dishonesty.

It didn't fly over my head in the least nor was there any hyperbole on the part of the poster you borrowed the word from in order to make a point about Climate Central's article. I linked back to Climate Central because that is what you were posting about... you were trying to make the article out to be on the hysterical side when it's anything but. There's nothing in the realm of hysteria about saying that something is occurring more frequently than the past (most people read that with context, whether you believe so or not, as the measurable past) and stating what could be the cause of it.

edit on 1/4/2014 by Kali74 because: omfg an edit

I'll just simply say this again:

Therefore, attempting to lay blame back to the global warming agenda for any kind of frequency increase over a period of one decade is not only pseudoscience, it's outright blatant intellectual dishonesty.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the IPCC's AR5 report will have absolutely no mention of this "increased frequency" regarding these sudden stratospheric warmings for the exact reason that I pointed out above.

If that doesn't give you some food for thought regarding your OP, I don't know what will.

snowspirit
reply to post by beezzer

 

Humans are so arrogant that we can presume to alter the climate by what we do. We are small creatures on a massive planet.

Plus, hasn't there been various scientific articles, over the last decade or so, stating that all the other planets are also warming up?
Maybe the warming/cooling/changes are due to a section of space that we're travelling through. Interstellar fluffy clouds or something......

We're just monkeys on a living, roundish lump of land, travelling through space

No, there aren't any such articles that pass muster.

reply to post by CranialSponge


Maybe you should also read the paper I linked. Also as you well know climate is measured in periods of at least 30 years. So in the past 60 years, the last 10 have seen an increase in SSW events. The climate has changed to allow that to happen regardless of the reasons why, the study authors and the CC article author propose global warming as the catalyst. What do you propose it is?

reply to post by beezzer


Here here to Cycles:



Our planet seems to have a lot of them:



Our sun too for that mater:



As always, my own personal opinion about Climate Change is: we have a lot to still learn about Climate Change, Causes, and Effects.

reply to post by eriktheawful

As always, my own personal opinion about Climate Change is: we have a lot to still learn about Climate Change, Causes, and Effects.

We do have a lot to learn, that doesn't mean we have learned nothing.

reply to post by Kali74

Maybe you should also read the paper I linked.

I did.

You might also find it interesting to read through a number of science articles that also claim these SSW events are twice as likely to occur during an El Nino winter rather than a La Nina winter. Why ? It's due to tropical SST anomolies changing stratospheric distribution functions causing a warmer pole and a weaker vortex.

We just so happen to be in an El Nino winter.

Add to that the fact that we're in a positive PDO period, and you've got a nice recipe for a major SSW to occur, causing the polar vortex to travel further south... not to mention increased cold snaps and heavier snowfalls, with or without the polar vortex.


So what's my point ?

Not everything is linked to anthropogenic global warming.

Also as you well know climate is measured in periods of at least 30 years. So in the past 60 years, the last 10 have seen an increase in SSW events. The climate has changed to allow that to happen regardless of the reasons why, the study authors and the CC article author propose global warming as the catalyst.

I'd be interested to see if this science article and proposal by its authors makes it into the AR5 report. I'm willing to wager a bet that it doesn't.

We have no idea if any kind of climate change can be linked to an increased frequency of SSW events. That's a plain and simple fact. The authors of this particular paper are simply making a proposed supposition, and nothing more.

This does not mean that it is fact just because they might think so.

What do you propose it is ?

I don't propose anything other than to sit back and make observations over a far far longer period of time in order to determine whether or not this increased frequency has anything to do with climate change OR anthropogenic global warming.... We need to see if it becomes an actual trend or not.





Kali, I respect your passion for this subject, but you need to be careful with the kinds of "proofs" you're tossing around in order to show further backing to this AGW theory.

That's all I'm trying to point out.

reply to post by Kali74


Does anyone know why the "top stops spinning" so to speak, or at least as it was explained previously in the thread?

reply to post by Kali74


I listened a weather guesser talking about the Polar Vortex as per your article. He said this cold event had happened on a more regular basis about 50 years ago and falls within the known parameters of what has happened before.

The good news is there will be multitudes of Pine Beatles and others pest that will perish an thus save some trees. The less cold winter temps these last several years has allowed the pest to claim larger territories.. Time for a reset for them.

Thanks for the thread and info Kali74

P.S. Sorry I did not read all the replies and what I posted might have been covered already... I am out the door; 73F here for a little money game of Golf....stay warm .

CranialSponge
reply to post by Kali74

 

Maybe you should also read the paper I linked.

I did.

You might also find it interesting to read through a number of science articles that also claim these SSW events are twice as likely to occur during an El Nino winter rather than a La Nina winter. Why ? It's due to tropical SST anomolies changing stratospheric distribution functions causing a warmer pole and a weaker vortex.

We just so happen to be in an El Nino winter.

Add to that the fact that we're in a positive PDO period, and you've got a nice recipe for a major SSW to occur, causing the polar vortex to travel further south... not to mention increased cold snaps and heavier snowfalls, with or without the polar vortex.


So what's my point ?

Not everything is linked to anthropogenic global warming.

Kali, I respect your passion for this subject, but you need to be careful with the kinds of "proofs" you're tossing around in order to show further backing to this AGW theory.

That's all I'm trying to point out.

I'm not casually throwing proof around. I am saying that a lot of people are taking these brutal cold spells during winter as proof that there's no such thing as global warming. I took an article which talked about another cold spell expected and stated that there's more to it than what they wrote the article about and here's what not just me, but climate scientists, think is happening. In the very least, I'm hoping people will look beyond the surface of weather before making declarations.

We have been in negative/neutral PDO since November 2012 as of this December we are still in neutral.

During November, ENSO-neutral persisted, as reflected by near-average sea surface temperatures (SST) across much of the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Fig. 1). SST anomalies in all of the Niño regions were small, but showed increases in the Niño-3.4 and Niño-4 regions (Fig. 2). The oceanic heat content (average temperature in the upper 300m of the ocean) increased (Fig. 3) due to the eastward propagation of a downwelling oceanic Kelvin wave. This increased heat content reflects above-average subsurface temperatures across the Pacific (Fig. 4). The wind anomalies remained small at lower and upper levels during the month. Equatorial convection was suppressed in the central equatorial Pacific and enhanced over Indonesia (Fig. 5). Collectively, these atmospheric and oceanic conditions reflect ENSO-neutral.

The majority of model forecasts indicate that ENSO-neutral (Niño-3.4 index between -0.5oC and 0.5oC) will persist into the Northern Hemisphere summer 2014 (Fig. 6). While current forecast probabilities are still greatest for ENSO-neutral by mid-summer, there is an increasing chance for the development of El Niño. The consensus forecast is for ENSO-neutral to continue into the Northern Hemisphere summer 2014 (see CPC/IRI consensus forecast).

NOAA

reply to post by 727Sky


When you have a chance I'd like to see some links if you have any. Enjoy your warmth even if it was cruel for you to post those temps!