[Strutz]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hahaha!

Back on topic (kinda) are you folks up yonder getting this "polar vortex" propaganda in your news media? Down here we're hearing this endlessly and it seems like a coordinated message (or at least a viral buzzword) to make a cold snap look like something caused by (GASP!) global warming.

Yes. But on both the CBC and CTV news sites they have indicated this polar vortex is only happening in the USA. I can't recall hearing that term before. I just checked back at both because I remember reading through the comments sections of one or the other (yesterday or day before) and someone brought up that HAARP is responsible and there were many comments for and against global warming being responsible. However, when I just checked CBC isn't showing any comments on the article and CTV is only showing more recent comments now.

[N_Fiddledog]

And now almost live from the center of the Polar Vortex.

[CanadianJeff]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hahaha!

Back on topic (kinda) are you folks up yonder getting this "polar vortex" propaganda in your news media? Down here we're hearing this endlessly and it seems like a coordinated message (or at least a viral buzzword) to make a cold snap look like something caused by (GASP!) global warming.

You mean, like this?

" On Monday's CBS This Morning, Charlie Rose predictably placed the blame for the unusually cold weather in North America on climate change. Rose wondered, "Is it definitely connected to global warming?"

Rose and co-anchor Norah O'Donnell turned to climate change alarmist Bryan Walsh of Time magazine, who only cited vague "theories...that some of the warming...you're seeing up in the Arctic might be changing the atmospheric circulation in that part of the world...and maybe, makes these cold spells a little more likely than they otherwise be."

[snip]

The former NBC correspondent and the Time editor then revealed that neither one of them had much background knowledge on the phenomenon of the polar vortex:

O'DONNELL: ...This is the first time I've heard the phrase 'polar vortex'....And I don't feel I'm out of it. I mean, were you familiar with it?

WALSH: I was not that familiar with it – no – but now, of course, it's one of those terms that's – that's everywhere, and it really – it does, sort of, explain – you know, if you think what is a hurricane up in the north, and you see that wind spilling down, you can actually see the temperatures falling up in the upper Midwest, all the way down to the south..."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-ba ... ted-global

But as you know words like 'might be', and 'may be' (as in connected) are the same thing as saying "is connected' in Warmism speak. It's just a way of saying a thing without having to support your supposition with anything inconvenient, like a fact.

Because people take morning TV personalities as fact.

Oh wait only republicans who like to point to it as a "democratic fact" that all progressives think like tv bimbos.

[BRAH]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

BRAH BRAH:

That cute is lucky Harper didn't go JC on his ass.

He may have been a dipshit as PM but at least he knew how to choke a chicken.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

BRAH BRAH:

That cute is lucky Harper didn't go JC on his ass.

The shades he's wearin' just make the image perfect.

"No Jean! NO! *ack gag gurgle*"

He was a mean SOB.

[andyt]

Strutz Strutz:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hahaha!

Back on topic (kinda) are you folks up yonder getting this "polar vortex" propaganda in your news media? Down here we're hearing this endlessly and it seems like a coordinated message (or at least a viral buzzword) to make a cold snap look like something caused by (GASP!) global warming.

Yes. But on both the CBC and CTV news sites they have indicated this polar vortex is only happening in the USA. I can't recall hearing that term before. I just checked back at both because I remember reading through the comments sections of one or the other (yesterday or day before) and someone brought up that HAARP is responsible and there were many comments for and against global warming being responsible. However, when I just checked CBC isn't showing any comments on the article and CTV is only showing more recent comments now.

Johanna Wagstaffe, the hot/geeky weather person on CBC newsworld clearly explained that the polar vortex always exists, just that right now it it closer to earth at one point. No talk of climate change, no propaganda.

Read a good sci-fi story long ago called The Last Canadian, about an American (of course) who is the only survivor of a new ice age caused by the jet stream touching down to earth in places - instant -150 degrees.

[ShepherdsDog]

The day after tomorrow.....more fact based than An inconvenient truth. Let`s hope so because that means an extended hockey season

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hahaha!

Back on topic (kinda) are you folks up yonder getting this "polar vortex" propaganda in your news media? Down here we're hearing this endlessly and it seems like a coordinated message (or at least a viral buzzword) to make a cold snap look like something caused by (GASP!) global warming.

You mean, like this?

<snip>

But as you know words like 'might be', and 'may be' (as in connected) are the same thing as saying "is connected' in Warmism speak. It's just a way of saying a thing without having to support your supposition with anything inconvenient, like a fact.

Unless of course, it is fact.

$1:

The polar vortex is a prevailing wind pattern that circles the Arctic, flowing from west to east all the way around the Earth. It normally keeps extremely cold air bottled up toward the North Pole. Occasionally, though, the vortex weakens, allowing the cold air to pour down across Canada into the U.S., or down into other regions such Eastern Europe. In addition to bringing cold, the air mass can push the jet stream—the band of wind that typically flows from the Pacific Ocean across the U.S.—much further south as well. If the jet stream puts up a fight, the moisture it carries can fall out as heavy snow, which atmospheric scientists say is the circumstance that caused the February 2010 “snowmageddon” storm that shut down Washington, D.C.

But why does the vortex weaken? Now it gets interesting. More and more Arctic sea ice is melting during summer months. The more ice that melts, the more the Arctic Ocean warms. The ocean radiates much of that excess heat back to the atmosphere in winter, which disrupts the polar vortex. Data taken over the past decade indicate that when a lot of Arctic sea ice disappears in the summer, the vortex has a tendency to weaken over the subsequent winter, if related atmospheric conditions prevail over the northern Atlantic Ocean. The situation looks something like that shown in the graphic below. (For a full explanation, see the Scientific American article that accompanies the graphic.)

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs ... g-the-u-s/

[DrCaleb]

Strutz Strutz:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hahaha!

Back on topic (kinda) are you folks up yonder getting this "polar vortex" propaganda in your news media? Down here we're hearing this endlessly and it seems like a coordinated message (or at least a viral buzzword) to make a cold snap look like something caused by (GASP!) global warming.

Yes. But on both the CBC and CTV news sites they have indicated this polar vortex is only happening in the USA. I can't recall hearing that term before. I just checked back at both because I remember reading through the comments sections of one or the other (yesterday or day before) and someone brought up that HAARP is responsible and there were many comments for and against global warming being responsible. However, when I just checked CBC isn't showing any comments on the article and CTV is only showing more recent comments now.

1) Never listen to reporters for Science based explanations. You have heard of it before, remember a couple years ago when Europe was experiencing record low temps and people were dying in Moscow from the cold? Similar weather system.

2) If anyone says 'HAARP' is responsible for anything, it's safe to ignore everything they say from then on.

[ShepherdsDog]

Saw them interview him and DePapesmear.....damn she`s stupid.

[ShepherdsDog]

so, what is the arctic ice pack like this year.....not much talk about it

[DrCaleb]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

so, what is the arctic ice pack like this year.....not much talk about it

6th highest record melt ever recorded.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/

[DrCaleb]

And along with the same theme:

$1:

Don't Overgeneralize About Global Warming
Marni Soupcoff
Managing Editor

. . .

What is the point of all this?

Let me tell you first what the point isn't.

My goal is not to convince you that global warming is or is not real. You've almost certainly already decided what you believe.

The point is that regardless of what you believe, you would do reason a service by resisting the human temptation to take any one or two breathtaking climate happenings -- no matter how dramatically they may be dominating the news -- and using them as proof that whatever you believe is true. You would also do civil discourse a service if you gave others a break when they fall victim to this temptation -- since people who think as you do will commit the same sins.
. . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/marni-soup ... 55592.html

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Unless of course, it is fact.

Concerning facts; it is a fact there are prevailing wind patterns and they can be labelled. After that we get theoretical.

If you want to say it is a fact melting ice in the Arctic is causing the polar vortex to weaken this year and this is causing the record cooling in the mid-west we have to have a closer look at the melting ice.

You mention a sixth highest record melt for 2013, and give a link. That link was the wrong one. There was no mention of record melt for 2013, so I had to search the site. Is this what your talking about?

$1:

On September 13, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum extent for 2013. The minimum ice extent was the sixth lowest* in the satellite record

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/ ... -for-2013/

OK when they're talking minimum ice extent they're talking about the point in mid-September when as much ice has melted as is going to melt.

Here's a couple of points on that you missed.

* We were discussing Antarctic temperatures on another thread. Somebody hastened to point out the Antarctic temp record is only 30 years long. It's the satellite record. The same is true with ice extent. The record is only about 30 years long. It's the satellite record.

* When discussing records you forgot to mention the year before - 2012 - was the record for minimum ice extent. The record for highest increase was last year, 2013, when it went from 1st to 6th.

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/sat ... ce_ext.png

OK so if we're going to say it is a fact the effect of the Polar Vortex is governed by ice melt, and large melt means greater cooling as a result of the weakening vortex why are we noticing this effect this year when there was a record increase in ice, and not last year when there was a record 30 year melt?

The answer is, it's not a fact. The polar vortex effect theory is only that - another theory. And it needs to be better thought out.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

so, what is the arctic ice pack like this year.....not much talk about it

6th highest record melt ever recorded.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/

Which explains why the Northwest Passage was clogged with ice all summer long.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Unless of course, it is fact.

Concerning facts; it is a fact there are prevailing wind patterns and they can be labelled. After that we get theoretical.

A scientific 'theory' is something that fits the available data. When climatologists study wind patterns for decades and their data points to certain behaviours, that becomes a scientific theory, and 'fact'. More data can come along to update the theory, but until it does the theory stands.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

If you want to say it is a fact melting ice in the Arctic is causing the polar vortex to weaken this year and this is causing the record cooling in the mid-west we have to have a closer look at the melting ice.

You mention a sixth highest record melt for 2013, and give a link. That link was the wrong one. There was no mention of record melt for 2013, so I had to search the site. Is this what your talking about?

$1:

On September 13, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum extent for 2013. The minimum ice extent was the sixth lowest* in the satellite record

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/ ... -for-2013/

Yes, that is the figure I recall. And I didn't say that "melting ice in the Arctic is causing the polar vortex to weaken this year". People much more in the know than me said it.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

OK when they're talking minimum ice extent they're talking about the point in mid-September when as much ice has melted as is going to melt.

Here's a couple of points on that you missed.

I didn't miss, but I'll play along anyhow. . .

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

* We were discussing Antarctic temperatures on another thread. Somebody hastened to point out the Antarctic temp record is only 30 years long. It's the satellite record. The same is true with ice extent. The record is only about 30 years long. It's the satellite record.

But you repeat yourself . . The satellite record for HadCRUT4 is 30 years long, but what about the monitoring stations and ice core records? What about GISTEMP, UAH and NCEP/NCAR? HadCRUT4 doesn't cover the poles because of it's orbit, but the others do.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... a-ice.html
http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/icecores.html

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

* When discussing records you forgot to mention the year before - 2012 - was the record for minimum ice extent. The record for highest increase was last year, 2013, when it went from 1st to 6th.

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/sat ... ce_ext.png

And why is that relevant? Are you going to try to prove that '1' is a pattern again?

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

OK so if we're going to say it is a fact the effect of the Polar Vortex is governed by ice melt, and large melt means greater cooling as a result of the weakening vortex why are we noticing this effect this year when there was a record increase in ice, and not last year when there was a record 30 year melt?

The answer is, it's not a fact. The polar vortex effect theory is only that - another theory. And it needs to be better thought out.

Again, you confuse 'Scientific Theory' with the English word 'theory'. They are not the same. And people with much more information on the subject are the ones who tell us about the polar vortex.

As for effect, in 2012 Europe had a massive cold snap that killed many people. So, we did feel the effect of the sea ice minimum.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/f ... ern-europe

If you can come up with a better theory, I'm sure there are Universities looking for good Climatologists.