Science Says: Get used to polar vortex outbreaks

January 28, 2019 by Seth Borenstein
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

It might seem counterintuitive, but the dreaded polar vortex is bringing its icy grip to parts of the U.S. thanks to a sudden blast of warm air in the Arctic.

Get used to it. The polar vortex has been wandering more often in recent years.

It all started with misplaced Moroccan heat. Last month, the normally super chilly air temperatures 20 miles above the North Pole rapidly rose by about 125 degrees (70 degrees Celsius), thanks to air flowing in from the south. It's called "sudden stratospheric warming."

That warmth split the polar vortex, leaving the pieces to wander, said Judah Cohen, a winter storm expert for Atmospheric Environmental Research, a commercial firm outside Boston.

"Where the polar vortex goes, so goes the cold air," Cohen said.

By Wednesday morning, one of those pieces will be over the Lower 48 states for the first time in years. The forecast calls for a low of minus 21 degrees (minus 29 Celsius) in Chicago and wind chills flirting with minus 65 degrees (minus 54 Celsius) in parts of Minnesota, according to the National Weather Service.

The unusual cold could stick around another eight weeks, Cohen said.

"The impacts from this split, we have a ways to go. It's not the end of the movie yet," Cohen said. "I think at a minimum, we're looking at mid-February, possibly through mid-March."

Americans were introduced to the polar vortex five years ago. It was in early January 2014 when temperatures dropped to minus 16 degrees (minus 27 Celsius) in Chicago and meteorologists, who used the term for decades, started talking about it on social media.

This outbreak may snap some daily records for cold and is likely to be even more brutal than five years ago, especially with added wind chill, said Jeff Masters, meteorology director of the private weather firm Weather Underground.

When warm air invades the polar region, it can split the vortex or displace it, usually toward Siberia, Cohen said. Recently, there have been more splits, which increase the odds of other places getting ultra-cold, he said. Pieces of the polar vortex have chilled Europe, Siberia and North America this time. (It's not right to call the frigid center of cold air the polar vortex because it is just a piece or a lobe, not the entire vortex, said University of Oklahoma meteorology professor Jason Furtado.)

When the forces penning the polar vortex in the Arctic are weak, it wanders, more often to Siberia than Michigan. And it's happening more frequently in the last couple decades, Furtado said. A study a year ago in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society looked at decades of the Arctic system and found the polar vortex has shifted "toward more frequent weak states."

When the polar vortex pieces wander, warmth invades the Arctic, Alaska, Greenland and Canada, Masters said. While the Midwest chills, Australia has been broiling to record-breaking heat. The world as a whole on Monday was 0.7 degrees (0.4 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1979-2000 average, according to the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer.

Some scientists—but by no means most—see a connection between human-caused climate change and difference in atmospheric pressure that causes slower moving waves in the air.

"It's a complicated story that involves a hefty dose of chaos and an interplay among multiple influences, so extracting a clear signal of the Arctic's role is challenging," said Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center. Several recent papers have made the case for the connection, she noted.

"This symptom of global warming is counterintuitive for those in the cross-hairs of these extreme cold spells," Francis said in an email. "But these events provide an excellent opportunity to help the public understand some of the 'interesting' ways that climate change will unfold."

Others, like Furtado, aren't sold yet on the climate change connection.

Northern Illinois University meteorology professor Victor Gensini, who has already felt temperatures that seem like 25 degrees below zero, said there's "a growing body of literature" to support the climate connection. But he says more evidence is needed.

"Either way," Gensini said, "it's going to be interesting being in the bullseye of the Midwest cold."

Explore further: Science Says: Why there's a big chill in a warmer world

Related Stories

Deep freeze grips Upper Midwest, more bitter cold to come

January 25, 2019

An arctic wave has wrapped parts of the Midwest in numbing cold, sending temperatures plunging and prompting officials to close schools in several states on Friday, but forecasters say the worst may be yet to come.

What is the polar vortex?

December 15, 2016

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 ...

Recommended for you

Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?

February 15, 2019

Astronomers have spent decades looking for something that sounds like it would be hard to miss: about a third of the "normal" matter in the Universe. New results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory may have helped them ...

What rising seas mean for local economies

February 15, 2019

Impacts from climate change are not always easy to see. But for many local businesses in coastal communities across the United States, the evidence is right outside their doors—or in their parking lots.

86 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bart_A
2.3 / 5 (19) Jan 28, 2019
So, with no real evidence, these self-proclaimed scientists are stating as fact that global warming is causing record-breaking cold. Everything these days can be attributed to AGW. Wow! That's why so many of us just shrug and ignore these wolf criers. It's all hype.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2019
@barf
So, with no real evidence, these self-proclaimed scientists are stating as fact that global warming is causing record-breaking cold
no evidence?
you mean other than the observations that lead to a prediction, modelling and physics that repeatedly stated that it would happen and that we've subsequently been validating for years?
(Francis-Vavrus, etc)
That's why so many of us just shrug and ignore these wolf criers. It's all hype.
yeah, you ignored Francis-Vavrus as being hype too, and yet, here it is being validated *yet again*

sorry, but that makes you stupid, not sceptical or cautious

it's not crying wolf when different organizations from different cultures all over the planet all point to the same thing while observing the exact same evidence

I don't see you decrying the moon as being a fake, nor do I see you arguing that there is no such thing as lead poisoning...

malai5
2.5 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2019
The earth's climate has been in constant change ever since it had a climate, way before people.
People have always had to adapt to those changes, that is what evolution is all about.
It's a bit egocentric to believe that we need or even could change that.

Why all the fuss now???

Malai5
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2019
@malai5
The earth's climate has been in constant change ever since it had a climate, way before people
for starters, the problem isn't *that* it is changing, it's the rate of change

for two, the fuss is because it's anthropogenic in origin

change is always inevitable, but with current rates of change, it's warming faster than we can evolve to cope, etc, giving demonstrable effects that life in general isn't coping or evolving with the increase

to argue that change has happened in the past, therefore why do anything would be like arguing that because your car has been hot in the past there is no reason to put out the fuel fire it's currently involved in
malai5
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2019
The rate of change has always been at the speed that was applicable due to all the physical elements that fed off the evolutionary process. Evolution is not linear, nor is it totally predictable.
Now is no different.
Why do you feel we are evolving faster than we, as humans, can cope. I see no evidence for this.
You may not be able to mentally cope with it, but your physicality can, or not based on its ability to do so.
The earth and the solar system it is part of is not as simplistic as your car comment.

Malai5
malai5
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 29, 2019
"Anthropogenic"
The work of humankind/history of the works of humankind.
Are we not, as humans still subject to Nature and the forces of?
Our total influence compared to the forces of nature are puny, it's just our egocentric view that tells us different.
What wins in the end, not humans, that is for sure.

Malai5
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (16) Jan 29, 2019
An almanac proves you wrong, @mala. The economic figures indicating how much carbon we've released into the atmosphere are incontrovertible.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
@malai
Now is no different
actually, the current situation would be akin to the massive rapid changes in the past which elicited extinction events, like the Permian–Triassic (P–Tr or P–T) extinction event
Why do you feel we are evolving faster than we, as humans, can cope. I see no evidence for this
I never said we were evolving faster than we could cope. I specifically stated "it's warming faster than we can evolve to cope"

it's not like we can't see massive changes and effects in the flora and fauna on the planet
You may not be able to mentally cope with it
completely irrelevant
this isn't likely to affect my generation near as much as the next several
The earth and the solar system it is part of is not as simplistic as your car comment
the "car comment" is an analogy of your attempt to dismiss the temperature rise of climate because change has happened in the past

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
@malaka
Are we not, as humans still subject to Nature and the forces of?
no one claimed differently
but dismissing our contributions to the climate because we're animals and part of nature is like termites dismissing structural integrity of a wood frame house

the problem isn't that we're animals and subject to nature, but rather that we are aware of our own contributions to the problem and - this is a salient point - we have the ability to foresee future problems and change now to eliminate threats to our survival due to our own pollution
What wins in the end, not humans, that is for sure
irrelevant

we will evolve in the future so long as we can survive our own stupidity, and they will be different than us. that doesn't mean we should ignore reality and sh*t on our breakfast platters before consuming our meal. it means we should take measures to provide for the survival of our species

Bart_A
2 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
Stumpy's further hype in these comments proves my point....
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
@barf
Stumpy's further hype in these comments proves my point....
so... quick question, jeeniyous: why has no denier, ever, been able to refute the science?

not once

ever

I keep seeing you idiots say bullsh*t like "with no real evidence" or "There's no proven evidence" and ignoring the overwhelming evidence in front of your faces

... science works on scepticism and evidence
the one thing that is true is this: if you could prove the evidence was wrong, fake, or in any way biased, it would be retracted and debunked

and again, where is your debunking of the evidence for AGW?

https://youtu.be/...rg?t=107
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2019
so... quick question, jeeniyous: why has no denier, ever, been able to refute the science?

not once

ever

Cap'n StumPID brays again.
Hey StumPID, please provide a SINGLE pal reviewed study that conclusively show that anthropogenic CO2 is reponsible for any of the doom and gloom that's preached by the AGW Cult.

Thanks.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
@idiot illiterate f*ckwad stoner reject burnt anal bloodfart antigore
please provide a SINGLE pal reviewed study that
already did that
already provided you with ample evidence

you ignored it because you can't read

where is your peer-reviewed and validated refute of *any* of the hundreds of peer-reviewed and validated studies that I've linked?

just one

provide a link here to just one factual, peer-reviewed and validated refute to just one of my peer-reviewed and validated studies

thanks
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2019
already did that
already provided you with ample evidence

Cap'n StumPID, does what it does best. BRAY, to deflect from the truth.
Please StumPID, provide a SINGLE pal reviewed study, from the HUNDREDS, that conclusively show that anthropogenic CO2 is reponsible for any of the doom and gloom that's preached by the AGW Cult.

Thanks.
snoosebaum
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2019
hey Stumpers is back !, have you composed your understanding of the AGW theory yet ?

meanwhile its getting so cold they have to call it '' climate change ''
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
@snoozeTROLL the illiterate
have you composed your understanding of the AGW theory yet
I'm still waiting for your study link that isn't to a known pseudoscience site ( https://phys.org/...ury.html )

I got nothin' but time

PS - I predicted you would keep repeating this
so repeating your lie doesn't make it truer

prediction:
likely you will just repeat this lie again and again, as you already have

anyone care to take my bet?
https://phys.org/...ave.html

its a compulsion with a chronic liar and delusional denier like you
it is how cults work
snoosebaum
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2019

''I got nothin' but time''

thats so sad , on the other hand thats lots of time to explain how which version of AGW you think works .

i really am curious cause ya know ,,, because the last century warmed 1 degree its minus 60 instead of minus 61 !
Old_C_Code
2 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2019
The economic figures indicating how much carbon we've released into the atmosphere are incontrovertible.


CO2 is not a poison, you are brainwashed.
humy
not rated yet Jan 29, 2019

edit
humy
not rated yet Jan 29, 2019
edit
humy
not rated yet Jan 29, 2019
edit
humy
not rated yet Jan 29, 2019
edit
humy
not rated yet Jan 29, 2019
edit
humy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
The rate of change has always been at the speed that was ...
malai5

No, the rate of warming has increased due to man made causes.
humy
not rated yet Jan 29, 2019
edit
humy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2019
Why doesn't someone correct this ridiculous bug that somehow causes multiple unwanted posts like the ones I somehow accidentally did above and I re-edited to make each one just say "edit" ?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
Why doesn't someone correct this ridiculous bug that somehow causes multiple unwanted posts like the ones I somehow accidentally did above and I re-edited to make each one just say "edit" ?
@Humy
you're talking about a site that auto-loads news from other sites without checking spelling or grammar and refuses to actually abide by it's own formerly enforced comment guidelines ...

.

@old c
CO2 is not a poison
depends on the concentration
it can be a poison just like potassium or iodine, both required for human life and both capable of killing humans as well

you're the one who is brainwashed
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2019
The polar vortex doesn't split due to warm air, the warm air is a result of the additional electrical energy which caused the vortex to split in two.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2019
Cap'n StumPID, just keeps braying, instead of providing a SINGLE pal reviewed study that conclusively show that anthropogenic CO2 is reponsible for any of the doom and gloom that's preached by the AGW Cult.
humy
5 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
The polar vortex doesn't split due to warm air, the warm air is a result of the additional electrical energy which caused the vortex to split in two.
cantdrive85

"electrical energy" from what, exactly? And Why should "electrical energy" split the weather vortex into two? By exactly what physical process? Explain...

Phyllis Harmonic
4 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
People have always had to adapt to those changes, that is what evolution is all about.


Oh really? Why not ask the Mayans, or the Anasazi, or maybe the Norse who settled Greenland, or how about the Indus Valley civilization, or members of the Khmer Empire about climate change impacts on human civilizations? Oh, that's right- they are all extinct due to climate changes.

The world has warmed twice, by as much as 4-6 degrees, in last *60 million years*. These warmings were a consequence of natural cycles BUT, they occurred over thousands of years. We're talking about a possible increase of 4-6 degree over the next *100* years. You simply have no concept of how dangerous and threatening to humanity this rate of change actually is.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
@Bart_A
@malai5
@antigoracle
@snoosebaum
@Old_C_Code
@cantdrive85

Please consider dynamics involved in a fluid system, previously in equilibrium range climate/wether/seasonal patterns/flows etc, which is then heated up and hence more perturbed; producing more violent patterns/flows/events etc, due to MORE heat energy RETAINED by system as atmospheric LAGGING effect INCREASES due to more 'greenhouse gases' like CO2 being added (Note: CO2 is a very stable molecule not readily removed quickly enough from upper atmosphere once emissions increase beyond 'drawdown' rate).

Criticality of atmospheric 'lagging' (slowing heat loss to space) is readily seen on Planet MERCURY; where NO atmospheric lagging allows immediate HEAT LOSS to space on its 'night side'; producing CRYOGENIC temp conditions DESPITE HUGE amounts of SUNLIGHT energy dumped onto Mercury's 'day side'!

Also realise that 'seasonal COLD' where YOU live is being MORE than matched by 'seasonal HEAT' here in Australia!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2019
...
Also realise that 'seasonal COLD' where YOU live is being MORE than matched by 'seasonal HEAT' here in Australia!

What I find amusing is that our record cold (tomorrow here in Chicago) will be replaced by almost record breaking heat, 2 days later...
Bart_A
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2019
Hi Reality, that is the whole point. We can't take these seasonal changes and occasional polar vertexes or whatever else and make sweeping conclusions about AWG from them. It is simply not science.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2019
''which is then heated up '' ah yes 1. ? degree since 100 yr ago , tut tut

i think heat is lke Elvis , once its left the building ,,, it ain't coming back
Old_C_Code
not rated yet Jan 29, 2019
Why doesn't someone correct this ridiculous bug


It's your browser.
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2019
depends on the concentration
it can be a poison just like potassium or iodine, both required for human life and both capable of killing humans as well


Nitrogen is a poison according to your law, you ignorant fool.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2019
@Whyde.
...
Also realise that 'seasonal COLD' where YOU live is being MORE than matched by 'seasonal HEAT' here in Australia!

What I find amusing is that our record cold (tomorrow here in Chicago) will be replaced by almost record breaking heat, 2 days later...
Yes, that is the sure sign that instability due to added/retained energy in the weather/climate system is now 'the new norm'. It's these increasingly UN-seasonal events which cost agriculture/infrastructure/transportation etc etc a lot due to unpredictability/severity/frequency.

ps: That excerpt you quoted, was pointing out (to those I addressed in the relevant post) that it's the GLOBAL overall TREND in WARMING that is the salient indicator, not local/hemispheric seasonal variations. Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2019
@Bart_A.
Hi Reality, that is the whole point. We can't take these seasonal changes and occasional polar vertexes or whatever else and make sweeping conclusions about AWG from them. It is simply not science.
First please see my above post to @Whyde, as it again stresses the global trend factor which the un-seasonal new norm extremes are building up now that cannot be denied because people all over the globe are experiencing the PREDICTED extreme/frequent weather/climate patterns/flows etc DE-stabilisation; which even the slight additional RETAINED heat is already making obvious. Imagine what'll happen as that trend continues to exacerbate IF we don't take CO2 increases seriously and start precautionary action to ameliorate/prevent the obvious end result if this trend continues! It's got beyond models/politics/religion/business 'interests'. The dangerous warming/destabilising TREND is now obvious even to 'blind Freddy' anywhere on the globe. We're running out of time.

RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2019
@Old_C_Code
@Captainn Stumpy

@Captain Stumpy said to @O_C_C:
depends on the concentration
it [CO2] can be a poison just like potassium or iodine, both required for human life and both capable of killing humans as well
@O_C_C responded to @CS:
Nitrogen is a poison according to your law, you ignorant fool.
Guys, you're having the wrong/irrelevant "CO2 as poison' argument. :)

It's the atmospheric heat-loss lagging CONTEXT that we're having this CO2 conversation in. Insofar as the increasing CO2 emissions will naturally increase the atmospheric lagging, then it IS a 'poison' to the earth's previous equilibrium state which held until the industrial revolution began to change it for the worse....as it is now increasingly clear from the GLOBAL increasing trend for average temps, destabilised weather/climate patterns etc.

So 'poison' effect is to Earth system; not directly (as inhaled) to life per se (unless CO2 increased drastically by runaway greenhouse effects).
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2019
@snoosebaum.
i think heat is like Elvis , once its left the building ,,, it ain't coming back
But what if the heat doesn't "leave the building" (ie, from Earth system to space through atmosphere) as quickly as before, mate? Answer that for yourself, and you'll see that atmospheric lagging effect is crucial, regardless of the heat inputs from sun/Earth interior. For if the CO2 increases act to increase the lagging effect of atmosphere, then the heat won't "leave the building" as quickly as before, and hence the 'new equilibrium' will end up being at HOTTER and HOTTER states. Then you and your family and everyone will be 'in the same boat' (or, in keeping with your 'Elvis' motif, 'in the same building'); which gets hotter as CO2 increases in atmosphere until the attendant warming triggers outgassing of vast previously naturally sequestered CO2 in clathrates/hydrates/permafrost/oceans....then all the denials and trolls will become even more irrelevant than they are now.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2019
But what if the heat doesn't "leave the building" (ie, from Earth system to space through atmosphere) as quickly as before, ''

yes, thats the central claim and issue that doesn't make sense to me , ie once it gets that high its gone who cares how slow it is

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2019
"electrical energy" from what, exactly?

You aren't familiar with Birkeland currents? They are electric currents flowing into the poles, the reason the cusps are there. Anyhoo, it is the Sun's electrical energy interacting with the charged body (Earth) which creates these vortices. It is the movement of charges that is the wind, the concentration of charge is the pressure systems. The wind and pressure are the result of the presence and movement charge.

And Why should "electrical energy" split the weather vortex into two? By exactly what physical process?

When the current density of a vortex reaches a threshold the matter cannot carry anymore current the vortex will split in two to lower the current density to retain stability
malai5
1 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2019
Ahh, all hail the new "religion", climate change.
As with all good religions there has to be an element of guilt borne by the adherents of that religion.
By bearing guilt the adherent takes on personal ownership of that "religion" a bit like a parent and child where the offspring doesn't function as the parent would have expected.
But I digress.
As in all good religions the belief in those religions relies on a belief in the apocryphal history.

Their validity relies on the repetition of that history till it becomes truth in the eyes of the faithful.
Notice how there is not a requirement for definitive proof.

This is the same method of indoctrination adopted by all totalitarian regimes throughout history.

Once the idea becomes ingrained in the psyche of the adherent, any one with any opposing idea becomes their personal enemy. All reason has gone out the door.

So, Hail the new "Religion", climate change and destroy all the deniers.

Malai5
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2019
@Whyde.
...
ps: That excerpt you quoted, was pointing out (to those I addressed in the relevant post) that it's the GLOBAL overall TREND in WARMING that is the salient indicator, not local/hemispheric seasonal variations. Cheers. :)

Trends are counter-intuitive by definition. They come and go.
I also remember 17" of snow in April of 1967... (I made almost a hundred dollars shoveling that crap....)
that melted the next day...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2019
@blatantly stupid old c
Nitrogen is a poison according to your law
1- it's not a law

2- a completely nitrogen filled room will most certainly kill you

3- too much nitrogen will also kill plants, much like the Iodine analogy for humans https://www.epicg...oxicity/

4- https://www.merck...oisoning

.

.

@idiot f*ckwad illiterate fraud sam
Guys, you're having the wrong/irrelevant "CO2 as poison' argument
no, I'm not

the idiot old c doesn't know jack sh*t about science, how materials can be considered poisonous or toxic dependent upon dose or exposure limits, or that even life necessary elements can be deadly - like CO2 poisoning, Nitrogen narcosis, NPN, or even hyperhydration (or water toxemia)

even f*cking oxygen will kill you above a certain limit

it's his continued argument from many, many other threads, much like your idiocy 8,557 posts ago
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2019
@malaka
Ahh, all hail the new "religion", climate change
thank you for admitting to your denialist religion so that others may simply ignore you now
Notice how there is not a requirement for definitive proof
obviously you're unaware of how the scientific method works... so thank you for admitting that as well

I guess that, since you're unable to actually provide an evidentiary refute, you will simply continue to post a dogmatic argument from your religion, a distraction from the topic with irrelevant discourse or your belief about why you can't argue from science?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2019
I guess that, since you're unable to actually provide an evidentiary refute, you will simply continue to post a dogmatic argument from your religion, a distraction from the topic with irrelevant discourse or your belief about why you can't argue from science?

LMAO.
That's really RICH coming from Cap'n StumPID.
Hey StumPID, of those hundreds of AGW Cult, Pathological "science" studies, please provide a SINGLE ONE that conclusively show that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for any of the doom and gloom the Cult preaches.
Or you can just keep braying at the heretics, like a jackass.
humy
5 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2019

electrical energy" from what, exactly?

You aren't familiar with Birkeland currents?
cantdrive85

Yes, I KNOW what Birkeland currents are. But you are TOTALLY confused here! The "vortex" said in this article is in the LOWER atmosphere (iat in BELOW the magnetosphere) and thus has VERY NOTHING TO DO WITH any of the vortices that might be in the magnetosphere, which is where Birkeland currents have their influence. So your assertion was complete nonsense!

https://en.wikipe..._current
"...A Birkeland current is a set of currents that flow along geomagnetic field lines connecting the Earth's MAGNETOSPHERE..." (my emphasis) -NOT the lower atmosphere; NOT the lower atmosphere.
humy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2019
My above misedits;

"...(iat in BELOW the magnetosphere) and thus has VERY NOTHING TO DO WITH.."

should be

(as in BELOW the magnetosphere) and thus has VERY LITTLE if anything to do with..."
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2019
Ahh, all hail the new "religion", climate change.
Idiot blocked. No one who can't read an almanac is smart enough to be worth talking to.
FredJose
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2019
The Polar Vortex is out in force, searching for the LEFT to gobble them up.
I thought I might as well join in the fun being had by everybody making up their own hypothesis.
malai5
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2019
All of this has nothing to do with science but a whole lot of egocentric posturing about who claims the high ground in the speculative climate change pissing contest.

Just another mindless distraction to focus attention on the virtue signalers who have taken up the "Motherhood argument" of doing the "right" thing by humankind.

I feel that the world has had well and truly more than enough "saviours" up till now.

All of them have saved nothing/no one, least of all themselves, but I guess there will always be those who fall for the "snake oil" salesman's spiel.
What was Mr Barnham's quote:
"There is a sucker born every minute".

Malai5
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2019
Yes, I KNOW what Birkeland currents are.

As you scramble off to wikistupidia to get the definition. When you say "below the magnetosphere", where do you assume the magnetosphere stops? Me thinks it's time for you to get up to speed on, a) how a charged object interacts in a plasma environment, and, b) how measurements have proven that solar electric energy is transmitted through the entire atmospheric column down to the surface of the Earth.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2019
What was Mr Barnham's quote:
"There is a sucker born every minute".

IOW, there is a Democrat born every minute.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2019
meanwhile,,,, the science is settled !!!

https://news.wisc...wKxmXHtC

lol
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2019
Antiporacle, the puss infected scab oozes once again. Your entire existence is dedicated to making the problem of Global Warming even worse. You have done absolutely nothing to help and instead attack the science and positive efforts of others at every turn with lies and obfuscation. How do you live with yourself knowing that you are the lowest puss infected scab on the body of humanity? Do you fear karma catching up with you some day? Perhaps it would be fitting if your cells turned cancerous and consumed you as you turned traitorous against humanity.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2019
@snoosebaum.
But what if the heat doesn't "leave the building" (ie, from Earth system to space through atmosphere) as quickly as before,
yes, thats the central claim and issue that doesn't make sense to me , ie once it gets that high its gone who cares how slow it is
I long ago (and again above) explained that, once CO2 concentration increases beyond quick drawdown levels, more CO2 will ALSO "get that high" up atmos column; because CO2 so stable against breakdown by sunlight it dwells longer there, REFLECTING back DOWN a LOT MORE of the infra-red wavelengths via which upper atmosphere usually radiates heat to space. The CO2 diffuses upwards more and more as emissions mount; transported upwards both by 'partial pressure' differential effects and by the ever-more extreme cyclonic/hurricane UP-spiraling airflow as extreme/frequent and 'taller vortex structures' exacerbated by AGW-heating/evaporation increase in strength and upwards reach. Rethinkit, mate: :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2019
@Whyde.
That excerpt you quoted, was pointing out (to those I addressed in the relevant post) that it's the GLOBAL overall TREND in WARMING that is the salient indicator, not local/hemispheric seasonal variations.
Trends are counter-intuitive by definition. They come and go.
That's the problem right now, mate, the current GLOBAL warming trend is NOT 'going' away, but exacerbating even though Earth's dynamical system continuously 'shuffles' the extra 'retained' heat into the oceans and other cold reservoirs like polar regions and alpine stone/glacial mass. As these natural 'buffer' components of Earth's system become 'saturated' as warming trend continues, the point will be reached when these reservoirs will release that additional 'stored' heat (and also release previously sequestered CO2 in clathrates/hydrates in oceans, under glaciers in permafrost). The 'tipping point' is when runaway greenhouse 'feedback loops' effects start overwhelming 'buffers' etc.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2019
''REFLECTING back DOWN a LOT MORE of the infra-red wavelengths ''

makes it sound really BIG ! but we are talkng about tiny ppm , and back radiation ? does my house insulatiion backradiate ? re stratospheric CO2 , yes there are big convections up there and CO2 is already 400 ? [380 / 2005 ] , so what about convective losses ? why aren't we seeing greater effects ? . the tropopause is not the nice smooth layer the warmers refer to it as .
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2019
Stratospheric warming
All started with misplaced Moroccan heat. Last month, the normally super chilly air temperatures 20 miles above the North Pole rapidly rose by about 125 degrees (70 degrees Celsius), thanks to air flowing in from the south. It's called "sudden stratospheric warming."
I like it, Stratospheric warming, even better as sudden stratospheric warming
So now we know where all the lost this heat is going
as we freeze
as our toes succumb to frostbite
just keep repeating to your self
stratospheric warming, stratospheric warming
then
in a flash it will come to you
sudden stratospheric warming
as just the thought
just 20 miles above the frozen polar caps
where you shiver
at balmy -30
in a wind chill of -60
just 20 miles up
is +70C
all due to
Sudden stratospheric warming
Where all the lost heat goes
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2019
@snoosebaum.
REFLECTING back DOWN a LOT MORE of the infra-red...
makes it sound really BIG ! but we are talking about tiny ppm
That's all it takes, mate. Unlike Water Vapour, which aggregates/precipitates etc out of the atmosphere at various times/places around the totality of global atmospheric columns, the CO2 remains dispersed/aloft for ages at those levels...and most dangerously, disperses across the WHOLE global layer of atmospheric at all altitudes...effectively forming an 'unbroken insulating blanket' effect stretching from the equator to the poles!
and back radiation ? does my house insulation backradiate ?
Of course; else home insulation material would itself accumulate heat to melting/ignition temp!
re stratospheric CO2 , yes there are big convections up there, so what about convective losses ?
The up/down 'mixing' doesn't actually 'drawdown' CO2 per se....it 'swaps' CO2 back/forth/up/down between/along layers; but, overall, CO2 persists.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2019
.and most dangerously, disperses across the WHOLE global layer of atmospheric at all altitudes !!!!
holy F*k !
'
''Of course; else home insulation material would itself accumulate heat to melting/ignition temp!''

now your're just a twister and a waste ,

ya ya everything radiates, ha, ha but insualtaion stops convection , why not use reflectors to stop radiative loss ? , they don't [ to any great degree ]

''mixing' doesn't actually 'drawdown' CO2 ''

you know i wasn't referring to co2 , i was referring to heat

is that the best u can do ? pissoff

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2019
@snoosebaum.
disperses across the WHOLE global layer of atmospheric at all altitudes
!!!! holy F*k!
Your response lacks everything except maybe indications of your incoherent incomprehensibility.
Of course; else home insulation material would itself accumulate heat to melting/ignition temp!'
now you're just a twister and a waste
YOUR 'side-context' was back-radiation from HOUSE insulating materials.
ya ya everything radiates, ha, ha but insulation stops convection
In YOUR house context, 'convection 'barrier effect' ALSO contributes to reduced heat loss by slowing/stopping convection through insulating barrier....HOWEVER, in the original context re TOP LAYERS of atmosphere, Infra-Red re-radiation/reflection downwards is towards ground/lower layers....BUT further heat transport via air convection from lower to upper layers in atmosphere STOPS at TOPMOST layers...which DO NOT SUPPORT further convection UP to space; ONLY RADIATION.

Focus, mate! :)
humy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2019
When you say "below the magnetosphere", where do you assume the magnetosphere stops? Me thinks it's time for you to get up to speed on, a) how a charged object interacts in a plasma environment, and, b) how measurements have proven that solar electric energy is transmitted through the entire atmospheric column down to the surface of the Earth.
cantdrive85

So 'therefore' "electrical energy" must be what must have split the polar vortex in the lower atmosphere into two and NOT what the EXPERTS say, you know, the people that ACTUALLY know what they are talking about, say was the cause? Is that your idiotic personal 'logic' behind your crackpot theory?
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2019
Of course, the appeal to authority. Why didn't I think of that? The "EXPERTS" know it all!
Born2100
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2019
Lets build a wall to keep Polar Vortex dude in the Northern Pole!
snoosebaum
not rated yet Jan 31, 2019
''adiation/reflection downwards is towards ground/lower layers....BUT further heat transport via air convection from lower to upper layers in atmosphere STOPS at TOPMOST layers...which DO NOT SUPPORT further convection UP to space; ONLY RADIATION. '

uh huh ,, and what portion of 360 degrees is downwards ? so, small portion of tiny and like i said once its gone its gone . and stratospheric convection ? u focus mate

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2019
@snoosebaum.
re-radiation/reflection downwards is towards ground/lower layers..BUT further heat transport via air convection from lower to upper layers in atmosphere STOPS at TOPMOST layers...which DO NOT SUPPORT further convection UP to space; ONLY RADIATION.
and what portion of 360 degrees is downwards?
All directions/degrees along which CO2's re-radiated/reflected Infra-Red radiation will go to (and be absorbed by) ground or lower atmospheric layers. Which is most, because even 'Earth-curvature' glancing/horizontally directed re-radiated/reflected IR from upper CO2 will eventually be absorbed by those atmospheric layers that 'wrap' around planet's curvature.
so, small portion of tiny
No, mate; as I just explained, your assumption there is flawed. Most of downwards/sideways directed re-radiated/reflected re-enters/re-absorbed by ground and lower atmospheric layers below and/or over horizon.
once its gone its gone
Point: more CO2; slower heat 'goes'.
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2019
too small, too high , fraud , moral panic
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2019
Of course, the appeal to authority. Why didn't I think of that? The "EXPERTS" know it all!


Or, you know, just avoid answering the question. As usual. Dum de dum dum.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2019
@snoosebaum.

The ENTIRE air column up to the topmost layers is what 'overall' lags the loss of IR from ground/lower layers. And the topmost layers are less turbulent, and also do not participate in 'hydrologic cycle' (ie, water vapor/condensation/precipitation etc dynamics wherein CO2 could be dissolved and precipitated out in rain as in lower layers); and hence CO2 content retained much longer and 'drawdown' is much slower/delayed from topmost layers...and hence even a little extra' CO2 acts for a long time to reflect/re-radiate back to ground/lower layers...hence adding to lagging effect and to CO2-related warming effect thereby. Try to 'lose' your simplistic propaganda spiels/denials, mate. Good luck to you and your family, snoose, especially when the problem becomes such that you are adversely affected like many are already around the globe. Here in Oz, erstwhile 'deniers' are increasingly being burnt out, dried out, flooded out etc...pity is, so is everyone else. Sad.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2019
'The ENTIRE air column up to ''

the bottom is already saturated and forms the basis for the popularized version of AGW

''topmost layers are less turbulent,''
'
less than AGW ' ers would like ;

https://phys.org/...ion.html

'' reflect/re-radiate back to ground/lower layers''
,
and think of that poor photon , has to go all the way up then get bounced all the way back down again without hitting anything or without losing energy

too high , too tiny

'' problem becomes such that you are adversely affected like many are already around the globe'

by cold , u will be ok in oz
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2019
and ,

''and hence CO2 content retained much longer and 'drawdown' is much slower/delayed from topmost layers''

so why isn't co2 already high there ? as u are implying there are small losses there ? And what drawdown ??? whats that ?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2019
@snoosebaum.

It's patently obvious you are a time-waster troll; posting GOP/Russian/Fossil Lobby etc troll-factory memes and disingenuous drivel. The intelligent PO readers will have already understood that layers ABOVE stratosphere are the 'cap' to further convection/turbulent mixing further up (hence why radiative loss from the top of the stratospheric layer is the main avenue for loss of heat to space). That this stratospheric layer is slowly but surely increasing its CO2 proportions is clear; which is why those 'frigid' layers are warming from their previous equilibrium norms. Any further CO2 increase will only exacerbate the situation up there. And the whole 'warming/increasing-CO2' air column gets extended further and further up into stratosphere and any heat previously lost to space from that layer will be 'lagged' even further by CO2 effect as discussed. That you still fail to comprehend, is indicative of your stupidity/greed as a Russian/GOP/Fossil paid-for troll.
malai5
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2019
When I was in the debating team in high school, there was a "get out of jail card" that was available if your team was seeming to be losing.
"If you can't convince, confuse".

To the average person, most of the comments above mean very little, but because they are confused. Some will just blindly trust that these so called experts actually know what they are saying and doing.

However, as the silent majority have grave doubts about being "sold a pup", they dismiss out of hand what they do not understand, trusting instead their intuition that many that are pushing the man made climate change argument have themselves a financial agenda to capitalise on the technology that is proffered up as a partial of otherwise solution to the "man made" problem.
The phrase:
"A paper tiger" rings loud and clear in this instance.
Create a problem then create a solution to that problem.
Looking for the Why behind the Why is always where the search for the truth lays.

Malai5
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2019
'Russian/GOP/Fossil paid-for troll.''

funny guy , who pays u ?

still ,

''drawdown' is much slower/delayed from topmost layers.

whats that ?

''ABOVE stratosphere are the 'cap' to further convection/turbulent mixing further up (hence why radiative loss from the top of the stratospheric layer''

so its the ionosphere now ? and ,, https://phys.org/...ion.html

'frigid' layers are warming from their previous equilibrium norms. ''

i thought the stratosphere was getting colder ?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2019
@snoosebaum.
who pays u?
I'm self-funded independent objective science researcher who doesn't need 'paying' to be so and observe/comment on science issues under discussion, mate. Meanwhile you, @snoose, still exhibit, and still mindlessly parrot, the paid-for-trolling memes and character employed (as one of many) by long-exposed Russian/GOP/Fossil lobby/troll-factories. Shame on you, @snoose, selling out yourself/your friends/family/future generations.
'drawdown' is much slower/delayed from topmost layers.
whats that?
You post troll-drivel on CO2 matters, yet you don't know what "drawdown' means in that context? Ignorance is bliss for trolls, I guess. Look it up.
so its the ionosphere now?
No.
and ,, https://phys.org/...ion.html
No. The air circulating from equator to poles carries CO2 from lower layers to stratosphere and back down to poles. Problem?...CO2 increasing proportion in that circulation.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2019
Rc , might find this interesting

https://saltbushc...4g43vEAo
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2019
fossil fuel use to be life , release it and the earth makes it live again
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2019
''Problem?...CO2 increasing proportion in that circulation.''

so why isn't GW worse ?

''and hence CO2 content retained much longer and 'drawdown' is much slower/delayed from topmost layers..''

https://phys.org/...ion.html

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2019
@snoosebaum.
Rc , might find this interesting
https://saltbushc...4g43vEAo
That is for a localised microclimate then, not a combination of global climate over centuries to date since then. Learn the effective difference, @snoose. :)
fossil fuel use to be life , release it and the earth makes it live again
The problem is the 'life' back then was not like the 'life' now. You would find it deadly to 'live' if CO2 emissions continue at this rate, mate. :)
Problem?...CO2 increasing proportion in that circulation.'
so why isn't GW worse?
Where have you been the last few decades? Come to OZ; and see if your uninformed opinion amuses anyone; especially all those farmers, conservatives, politicians and gullible anti-AGW fools being directly adversely impacted RIGHT NOW. They USED to be AGW-deniers. Not any more!

Rethinkit, @snoose. :)
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2019
'' You would find it deadly to 'live' if CO2 emissions continue at this rate, mate. :) ''

thats Right ! how did life survive !

''directly adversely impacted RIGHT NOW.!!! ''

so they never knew about the weather of australias past then ? gosh ,, it was all a ''localised microclimate then,''

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2019
@snoosebaum.
You would find it deadly to 'live' if CO2 emissions continue at this rate, mate. :)
thats Right! how did life survive!
Only forms of 'life' was those capable of withstanding the conditions, of course. That would rule you out quick smart, @snoose. :)
directly adversely impacted RIGHT NOW.!!!
so they never knew about the weather of australias past then ? gosh ,, it was all a ''localised microclimate then"
The climate of Australia's past just prior to the Industrial Revolution was more settled and less extreme than at present; that's what the erstwhile AGW-deniers are now realising; ie, that the tolerable range of weather/climate variability was more conducive to humans than is increasingly the case now as the climate warms due to our starting the CO2/warming feedback loop. And Australia as a whole CONTINENT is not what you should call a 'microclimate' region, @snoose. Neither is the whole global weather/climate patterns now developing. :)
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2019
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2019
@snoosebaum.
http://www.bom.go...month=12
Without your explanation as to the point you are attempting to make by that link, it is safe to assume you are a time-waster troll who has no clue as to what is relevant and meaningful in the context; let alone understands the complexity and subtleties involved in the relevant science/issues; and even less understands the evolving GLOBAL reality re AGW-exacerbated evolving instability, and increasingly 'back to back' extremely disastrous climate-change-driven events following the predicted increasing trend in extremity/persistence/widespread/prolonged nature of droughts, firestorms, rain/hail/wind etc storms, floods, pests and diseases etc etc. Go collect your 'troll pay' from the troll-factory foreman, mate...the thirty pieces of silver blood money will help you 'forget' your betrayal of family, friends and future generations. Shame.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.