SCIENCE : Distinguishing Vortexes

I prepared a visual aid to help readers distinguish between global warming vortexes and those caused by global cooling.

artic-vortex screen-shot-2016-12-17-at-12-55-17-pm

1977      2016

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to SCIENCE : Distinguishing Vortexes

  1. AndyG55 says:

    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.

  2. gator69 says:

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

    • Jason Calley says:

      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.

  3. RAH says:

    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.

  4. Gail Combs says:

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

  5. annieoakley says:

    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.

  6. John Niclasen says:

    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.

  7. TomRude says:

    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.

    • Gail Combs says:

      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?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.