Opinion Debunking the so-called Polar Vortex (1 Viewer)

ndcc

Saints' fan 4ever
VIP Subscribing Member
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
18,659
Reaction score
25,592
Location
Sad to leave NOLA to AZ; going into ministry
Offline
Wrote this OP-ED article about 7 yrs. ago, but I believe it is still relevant.

I still haven't bought-in on this hype about the so-called "Polar Vortex." This article might be a bit deep if you don't have a strong science background. But I tried to explain it in laymen's terms.

I have no doubt that there will be naysayers to my rationale. That's OK. But if you want to refute it, I ask that you put forth the REASONING for your rebuttal.

 

harschman

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Nov 26, 2006
Messages
7,074
Reaction score
6,520
Location
Florida Panhandle
Offline
Wrote this OP-ED article about 7 yrs. ago, but I believe it is still relevant.

I still haven't bought-in on this hype about the so-called "Polar Vortex." This article might be a bit deep if you don't have a strong science background. But I tried to explain it in laymen's terms.

I have no doubt that there will be naysayers to my rationale. That's OK. But if you want to refute it, I ask that you put forth the REASONING for your rebuttal.

Great article, thanks for sharing.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
26,435
Reaction score
70,143
Location
Earth
Offline
Hard for me to take it as a serious weather related article when you use the words desperate, alarmist, propaganda, and scrambling in the opening to describe 97% of scientists polled on global warming.

If your position is strong enough and backed by fact there's no need attack with dog whistles that make you seem like a partisan hack out to sabotage the opponent since you can't refute their science.

IDK, maybe there was some substance later, but the whole vector you came at it ruined any chance you had of being impartial and fact based.
 

Bayouboy

Football Genius
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 30, 2000
Messages
10,706
Reaction score
2,377
Age
47
Location
Vacherie, LA
Offline
Hard for me to take it as a serious weather related article when you use the words desperate, alarmist, propaganda, and scrambling in the opening to describe 97% of scientists polled on global warming.

If your position is strong enough and backed by fact there's no need attack with dog whistles that make you seem like a partisan hack out to sabotage the opponent since you can't refute their science.

IDK, maybe there was some substance later, but the whole vector you came at it ruined any chance you had of being impartial and fact based.
I tend to agree here. You could have easily put forth the material without "sounding the alarm" that you don't believe in global warming.

From some of the articles I've read, the warming of the earth (global warming or just changes in the earth's climate) can affect winters at lower latitudes. The material I read stated that the warming of the poles can cause shifts in the prevailing winds around the globe (such as the jet stream). The main reason we are seeing the record cold in Texas is the huge dip in the jet stream....and that pattern is holding for a long period of time (which is unusual). It will be hard for anyone to go toe to toe with you because you are clearly very educated on meteorology. I have a BS degree & took meteorology in college, but some of the concepts are complex.....so the layman will be lost. Cuddos for a fine vocabulary!

Congrats on getting published. Article was interesting.
 
Last edited:

livefromDC

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
9,943
Reaction score
16,862
Age
41
Location
Atlanta, GA
Offline
Does the article from 7 years ago cover what's causing the calamity in Texas right now?
 

Bleu Raeder

Tasty
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Feb 3, 1998
Messages
23,006
Reaction score
5,356
Age
62
Offline
Hard for me to take it as a serious weather related article when you use the words desperate, alarmist, propaganda, and scrambling in the opening to describe 97% of scientists polled on global warming.

If your position is strong enough and backed by fact there's no need attack with dog whistles that make you seem like a partisan hack out to sabotage the opponent since you can't refute their science.

IDK, maybe there was some substance later, but the whole vector you came at it ruined any chance you had of being impartial and fact based.
I'll join in this sentiment and add that CDN is a decidedly biased organization.

I read the whole article though and must say that you appear to know what you're talking about. However, it also appears that there is quite a bit of "hair-splitting" going on. Here is a quote early on (you're attempting to refute a particular source: https://theweathercentre.blogspot.com/2013/01/multiple-stratospheric-warmings-confirm.html for whom I could not identify the author's credentials) -

The polar vortex is a low pressure system that sits on the North Pole. This is false. The arctic region, which covers the North polar ice cap, is dominated by a large scale surface high pressure system that is semi-permanent and exists nearly year round. In fact, this high pressure gets stronger each winter and weakens during the summer. The “low pressure” feature in this polar vortex argument is a geopotential low height system that is nearly always present above the coldest core of the surface high pressure system.
This actually looks like you picked a particular quote ("sits on the North Pole") on the polar vortex to attack because other sources say things like this:

The polar vortex is a large area of low pressure and cold air surrounding both of the Earth’s poles. It ALWAYS exists near the poles, but weakens in summer and strengthens in winter. The term "vortex" refers to the counter-clockwise flow of air that helps keep the colder air near the Poles. Many times during winter in the northern hemisphere, the polar vortex will expand, sending cold air southward with the jet stream (see graphic above). This occurs fairly regularly during wintertime and is often associated with large outbreaks of Arctic air in the United States. The one that occurred January 2014 is similar to many other cold outbreaks that have occurred in the past, including several notable colder outbreaks in 1977, 1982, 1985 and 1989.
The polar vortex is a large area of low pressure and cold air surrounding the Earth's North and South poles. The term vortex refers to the counter-clockwise flow of air that helps keep the colder air close to the poles. Often during winter in the Northern Hemisphere, the polar vortex will become less stable and expand, sending cold Arctic air southward over the United States with the jet stream.

The polar vortex is nothing new – in fact, it's thought that the term first appeared in an 1853 issue of E. Littell's Living Age.
Emphasis mine.

As I continued to read I noted other hair-splitting. Again, from your article:

This system holds cold air up. Again, this statement is false. Basic meteorology illustrates that warm air rises and cold air sinks. The colder, more dense air will always seek equilibrium by sinking towards the surface. Atmospheric physics defies the notion of any process holding cold air up. Such a description is tantamount to atmospheric instability, which cannot be maintained for any appreciable period of time.
Go back and read the next sentence after that author states that the system holds cold air up -
When the vortex is weakened, cold air tends to flow south. This is also known as the negative Arctic Oscillation.
In context, the author is stating that the vortex is keeping cold air from flowing South, not holding cold air above warm air which is your assertion and further argument.

I could continue with a couple of more points, but it is more "hair-splitting" and contextualization.

Bill, you are no doubt a learned and articulate person. The science you explained is correct (albeit wordy and intended to be impressive by vocabulary). However, I could not find how your assertion that "Polar Vortex reasoning for Arctic outbreaks is hyperbole" was supported by the science that you presented. (But you did say your post was an OP-ED, not an article on science.) What I did find is that you took umbrage with a particular blogger whose credentials are unknown and attacked their post with one of your own in which you took some things out of context.

For those wishing to continue to read reports on the polar vortex, including scientific peer-reviewed materials, please consult the reference section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex

Just a note: At one time I was a global warming denier but understood that climate change was a real and consistent factor of our Earth. I am also a scientist at heart and understand that my current beliefs at any given time can be disrupted by science. I am now, having continued to read and study, a climate change activist who believes that we need to do all that we can to protect and preserve our planet as much as it is in our power to do so. Science FTW.
 
Last edited:

Zack Lee

VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
23,073
Reaction score
35,768
Location
a van down by the river
Offline
Hard for me to take it as a serious weather related article when you use the words desperate, alarmist, propaganda, and scrambling in the opening to describe 97% of scientists polled on global warming.

If your position is strong enough and backed by fact there's no need attack with dog whistles that make you seem like a partisan hack out to sabotage the opponent since you can't refute their science.

IDK, maybe there was some substance later, but the whole vector you came at it ruined any chance you had of being impartial and fact based.
I agree but I didn’t find a ton of that language. Omitting them would improve the article since those words are confirmation bias rally cries and that doesn’t serve a purpose other than the divisiveness we just crucified Rush for.
 

0rion

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
7,563
Reaction score
12,584
Location
Central Ohio
Online
I don't think you can argue against the existence of the polar vortex dipping south because it's pretty obvious right now when you step outside its unseasonably cold. Your argument is more about why it's caused. The temps above siberia were observed to jump nearly 100 degrees in early January which is how the vortex dipping south was predicted.


 

Brandon13

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
4,244
Reaction score
2,729
Age
32
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline

Sun Wukong

Worlds Deadliest Fighting Arts Champion and Master
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
12,051
Reaction score
27,680
Location
Around
Online
Yeah, sorry, don't talk about how it's "deep if you don't have a science background" then open with that first paragraph. I checked out immediately as it sounded like something from any number of partisan hack fringe websites.
 

Zack Lee

VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
23,073
Reaction score
35,768
Location
a van down by the river
Offline
Contemplated whether to do this or not, but I think it's fair game:

OP has a history pushing conspiracy theories.. he ran for Congress in 2010 and at that time he publicly speculated there may have been collusion between the federal government and BP to create "a leak" which then got out of control.


well he was doing ok until the last minute. Saying that the government institutions in charge of monitoring that signed off on it need to be investigated. Then he says maybe it’s for a reason - yes it’s always greed. Bribes. But at “maybe they wanted it to leak...”. Ok wait you said earlier you are not a conspiracy theorist.
 
Last edited:

Bayouboy

Football Genius
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 30, 2000
Messages
10,706
Reaction score
2,377
Age
47
Location
Vacherie, LA
Offline
well he was doing ok until the last minute. Saying that the government institutions in charge of monitoring that signed off on it. Then he says maybe it’s for a reason - yes it’s always greed. Bribes. But at “maybe they wanted it to leak...”. Ok wait you said earlier you are not a conspiracy theorist.
Yea man.....that's way out there. The gulf oil spill being planned by the government and BP is the Mother of all conspiracy theories.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

Headlines

Top Bottom