NY Times: Polar Vortex Is Nothing New, But It’s Still A Sign Of Climate Change

Here’s award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer

“Polar vortices have been around forever. They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere,” Happer said in an exclusive interview with Climate Depot.

There’s “no evidence of any unusual or unprecedented changes in the latitude or speed of the North Atlantic jet stream over the past 142 years since 1871.”


Then there’s the Idiotorial Board of the NY Times

By now, we all know that a polar vortex is a cyclone of frigid air centered on the Arctic. A rogue sweep of that air moved south and pushed the temperature in Central Park in New York City to a 118-year low of 5 degrees on Tuesday morning; records were similarly broken in scores of other American and Canadian cities; and flights were canceled across North America. Yet winter has barely begun, and, even before the icy cold of this week, it had already treated the eastern United States to snowstorms, southwest Britain to monster waves and northern Europe to unusually nasty weather.

Weather is changing in ways we cannot easily predict or understand. The polar vortex has had kinks before — most dramatically in March 1921, when temperatures in Central Park plummeted from 82 degrees to 26 degrees in 14 hours — just as there have been catastrophic floods, droughts, heat waves and blizzards all through recorded history. Experts say this week’s kink in the polar vortex could be the result of warm air over Greenland and Alaska; some point out that changes to the polar vortex have become more common in recent years. British meteorologists said the brutal storms in Britain since October could be the result of hot Sahara air that got stranded over the North Atlantic.

There you go: it’s happened before, but now it could be “global warming”.

The point stressed by meteorologists the world over is that severe conditions that used to occur infrequently, say once a century, now happen more frequently, with greater and greater consequences. The threat of climate change is real, and our governments should prepare for the damage and dislocations caused by more extreme weather. Common sense would dictate that we attack all the risk factors that might make things worse next time.

Obviously, the answer to all this is more and more government, more regulation, more control by government over the private sector and the lives of individuals. Am I right? Even though this has happened before. Will the NY Times give up its use of fossil fuels to help stop “climate change”?

BTW, most meteorologists say exactly the opposite of what the Times thinks.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “NY Times: Polar Vortex Is Nothing New, But It’s Still A Sign Of Climate Change”

  1. Jeffery says:

    the Pirate: “BTW, most meteorologists say exactly the opposite of what the Times thinks.”

    Meteorologists (e.g., Anthony Watts), are trained in weather forecasting and in general are not climate scientists.

    According the American Meteorological Society (representing “most meteorologists”):

    “Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.”


  2. Thawed_Gumballs says:

    There you go: it’s happened before, but now it could be “global warming”.

    it is when they say it is. and, it didn’t happen before because it wasn’t written about 25 years ago. Anything before that, is alien.

  3. jl says:

    “Most meteorologists..” Whoops..the argument is lost already. J, if “most people” think your name is Sam, what’s your name? I thought so. And are these the same meteorologists that can only get a 5-day forecast, what- 60% or so correct? Further on, back to the same old mistake the alarmists always seem to make-“The dominant cause of the rapid climate change in the past half-century is human induced…” Which might mean something if they could compare it to all, or most of all, the other half-century intervals that have occurred over the last 4 billion…well, you know. But they can’t because they don’t. J- were you trying to discredit your side by copying and pasting that meteorologist quote? Because it sure seems like it.

Pirate's Cove