SCIENCE : Distinguishing Vortexes

15 Responses to SCIENCE : Distinguishing Vortexes

1. AndyG55 says:

   December 17, 2016 at 8:43 pm

   As usual.. all one can say is…. BRILLIANT

   You must have one huge load of historic files, or a lot of searching time, to be able to just grab them at will. :-)

   Well done as usual.

   Reply
   • tonyheller says:

     December 17, 2016 at 8:46 pm

     Thanks Andy

     Reply
2. gator69 says:

   December 17, 2016 at 9:05 pm

   Thanks for clearing this up for meTony! I never was able to distinguish them before, and definitely cannot now. Mind blowing. ;)

   Reply
   • Jason Calley says:

     December 18, 2016 at 5:23 am

     Hey gator! “I never was able to distinguish them before”

     It is easy to tell the difference. The snowflakes from the new global warming blizzards have six points each, while the snowflakes from the old global cooling blizzards have an even half dozen points.

     Reply
3. RAH says:

   December 17, 2016 at 9:11 pm

   Yep, they both have blocking highs over the Arctic. I wonder if it’s not a polar vortex when it dips down somewhere but N. America. It was extremely cold in much of N. Asia with lots of new record lows set in October and yet no mention of that when it was happening in the general press of the US.

   Back then Joe Bastardi said it would be coming here due to the “bath tub slosh effect”. And here it is.

   Reply
   • AndyG55 says:

     December 17, 2016 at 9:16 pm

     according to CR, the “more colder” anomaly is now over both USA and Northern Russia/eastern Europe, while the “less colder” anomaly sits in the Arctic

     Reply
     • wert says:

       December 17, 2016 at 10:01 pm

       Equiareal projection. Please. Svalbard is small.

       Reply
     • AndyG55 says:

       December 18, 2016 at 5:46 am

       yeah, but in the other projection the north Russia “more colder” doesn’t show up as much. :-)

       difficult to get all three anomalies on the same image

       http://cci-reanalyzer.org/dailysummary/#T2_anom

       Reply
4. Gail Combs says:

   December 17, 2016 at 11:54 pm

   I love the second diagram where the only two cities shown are Buffalo NY and San Francisco CA.

   Reply
5. annieoakley says:

   December 18, 2016 at 4:19 am

   I do not care what ‘they’ call it. I call miserably cold. Even my dog won’t stay out for more than a few minutes. Can’t take the trash out sans ski gloves.

   Reply
6. Jim Hunt says:

   December 18, 2016 at 9:14 am

   At the risk of repeating myself:

   https://lmgtfy.com/?q=sudden+stratospheric+warming

   Capiche?

   Reply
7. John Niclasen says:

   December 18, 2016 at 9:20 am

   The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eDTzV6a9F4

   “I believe the odds are that we can expect, as a result of global warming, to see more of this pattern of extreme cold in the mid-latitudes and some extreme warm in the far north.”

   The troubling thing with global warming is, that this religious nonsense is at the highest level in the most powerful nation in the world.

   Reply
   • FourTimesAYear says:

     January 2, 2017 at 6:13 am

     Yup – and they can’t get their “doctrine” straight, either. ?

     Reply
8. TomRude says:

   December 18, 2016 at 5:02 pm

   http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-as-seen-from-space-bob-mcdonald-1.3899865

   Bob McDonald’s CBC blog is never open for comment. If it were, his low level agitprop would be easily debunked. Image of Pine Glacier calving a small iceberg “proof” of CO2 induced climate change forgetting that in 1956 the USS Glacier measured a 335 km x 97 km size tabular iceberg off Scott Island.

   Truisms such this are supposed to make us take the CBC clown seriously: “But Earth is a planet too, and satellites that point their instruments down are providing us with a planetary perspective, which is often lost among our daily concerns with economies, conflicts and other tightly focused human needs.”

   No kidding…

   McDonald concludes: “It would be a good idea for anyone who believes there is no evidence of climate change to have a look at the records NASA has released and to see the changes for themselves. Satellites don’t lie.”

   Well, paid activists do.

   Reply
   • Gail Combs says:

     December 18, 2016 at 5:30 pm

     Actually the lie is in the strawman “…anyone who believes there is no evidence of climate change… “

     And it swings on the definition of “Climate Change”

     “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

     That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). or link
     The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.

     So ‘De1n1ers can have no problems with the graph below but still be called out on denying ‘climate change’ Nasty little twist on definitions isn’t it?

     Reply