Page 3 of 3

Re: Polar Vortex 2019

Unread postPosted: Fri 01 Feb 2019, 13:15:59
by Outcast_Searcher
KaiserJeep wrote:The way things are going, most if not all of those aging Nuclear plants will be replaced with Natural Gas co-generation facilities. The dependency on FF's will therefore grow to 80-90% within 2 decades. Renewables other than hydropower (which does not exist in the MidWest in the "Great Plains" states) are not suitable to replace Nuclear as stable baseline power plants.

It kinda looks like in the absence of true political leadership on Energy, the problem gets lots worse before it gets better.

Good point, KJ. Since we lack the will as a country to try and use safe nuclear power effectively, that will be one more big source of FF burning, as more NG plants come online. Not as bad as coal, but certainly far worse than nuclear, re pollution and AGW.

Too bad they can't go to solar and wind, since it's supposedly so cheap now at utility scale. But of course, when you add in the STUPENDOUS amount of battery backup required, deal with the transmission distances, etc. -- it's not so cheap or easy as the super-greens say, or they'd do it.

Maybe the next cycle, since the green tech rollout will take several decades.

Re: Polar Vortex 2019

Unread postPosted: Fri 01 Feb 2019, 15:50:12
by KaiserJeep
The "cheapness" factor is unfortunately not there with wind/solar, either. YES, these technologies are relatively cheap to acquire and install, much more so than in past years.

However, there is an intermittancy problem. My rooftop solar PV here in sunny California produces power at 18% of rated capacity, when averaged all year round, because the sun shines less in Winter and not at all at night. In the Winter months (even the relatively mild California Winter), I owe a few bucks per month to PG&E, mainly due to the increased Natural Gas consumed by my furnace. In the Summer, I get credits which make up for Winter, in the semi-annual "true-up" bill, I end up with an annual balance about $350 below prior years, after figuring the $90/month lease payments on the Solar PV. If I had laid out the $18K and boughht those panels outright in the beginning, I'd be saving about $1400 per year. Nowadays panels are cheaper and the expense would be $14K, payback in the first decade.

An alternative to Jennifer F.

Unread postPosted: Tue 05 Feb 2019, 09:27:32
by Whitefang ... cillation/

The theory that has been most popular in the media Among those that argue that Arctic change is forcing more extreme weather in the mid-latitudes is that of Francis and Vavrus 2012. Their argument is that accelerated Arctic warming is leading to a slackened equator to pole temperature differential across the NH. The Jet Stream feeds off of this temperature gradient so therefore the weakened temperature gradient results in a slackening or weakening of the Jet Stream. The slower Jet Stream has further knock on effects of a wavier, more meandering Jet Stream with greater amplitude. A slower, wavier and more amplified Jet Stream produces more extreme weather including more heat and cold waves, flooding and droughts.
I have proposed an alternate theory with different iterations of Arctic sea ice loss and increasing Siberian snow cover leading to more frequent disruptions of the stratospheric PV. In the scientific literature this idea was proposed as early as Cohen and Barlow 2005 (top of page 4511) but possibly best described and illustrated in Cohen et al. 2014 in Box 2. Disappearing Arctic sea ice focused in the Barents-Kara Seas coupled with increasing Siberian snow cover favors an anomalous tropospheric wave across the Eurasian continent with ridging across northwest Eurasia, due to anomalous heating from sea ice loss and troughing across northeast Eurasia, due to anomalous cooling from increased snow cover. This anomalous wave projects onto or amplifies the naturally occurring wave across Eurasia forced by the land ocean contrast and the topography of the Eastern Hemisphere. Amplification of the natural or climatological wave results in greater vertical energy transfer from the troposphere into the polar stratosphere leading to more frequent stratospheric PV disruptions. Stratospheric PV disruptions are often followed by an increase in severe winter weather across the NH mid-latitudes including the Eastern US, Europe and East Asia (Figure iii). ... rming.html

Actually, there are two polar vortices in the Northern Hemisphere, stacked on top of each other. The lower one is usually and more accurately called the jet stream. It’s a meandering river of strong westerly winds around the Northern Hemisphere, about seven miles above Earth’s surface, near the height where jets fly.
The jet stream exists all year, and is responsible for creating and steering the high- and low-pressure systems that bring us our day-to-day weather: storms and blue skies, warm and cold spells. Way above the jet stream, around 30 miles above the Earth, is the stratospheric polar vortex. This river of wind also rings the North Pole, but only forms during winter, and is usually fairly circular.

Both of these wind features exist because of the large temperature difference between the cold Arctic and warmer areas farther south, known as the mid-latitudes. Uneven heating creates pressure differences, and air flows from high-pressure to low-pressure areas, creating winds. The spinning Earth then turns winds to the right in the northern hemisphere, creating these belts of westerlies.
Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have warmed the globe by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 C) over the past 50 years. However, the Arctic has warmed more than twice as much. Amplified Arctic warming is due mainly to dramatic melting of ice and snow in recent decades, which exposes darker ocean and land surfaces that absorb a lot more of the sun’s heat.
Because of rapid Arctic warming, the north/south temperature difference has diminished. This reduces pressure differences between the Arctic and mid-latitudes, weakening jet stream winds. And just as slow-moving rivers typically take a winding route, a slower-flowing jet stream tends to meander.

Large north/south undulations in the jet stream generate wave energy in the atmosphere. If they are wavy and persistent enough, the energy can travel upward and disrupt the stratospheric polar vortex. Sometimes this upper vortex becomes so distorted that it splits into two or more swirling eddies.
These “daughter” vortices tend to wander southward, bringing their very cold air with them and leaving behind a warmer-than-normal Arctic. One of these eddies will sit over North America this week, delivering bone-chilling temperatures to much of the nation.

Splits in the stratospheric polar vortex do happen naturally, but should we expect to see them more often thanks to climate change and rapid Arctic warming? It is possible that these cold intrusions could become a more regular winter story. This is a hot research topic and is by no means settled, but a handful of studies offer compelling evidence that the stratospheric polar vortex is changing, and that this trend can explain bouts of unusually cold winter weather.
Undoubtedly this new polar vortex attack will unleash fresh claims that global warming is a hoax. But this ridiculous notion can be quickly dispelled with a look at predicted temperature departures around the globe for early this week. The lobe of cold air over North America is far outweighed by areas elsewhere in the United States and worldwide that are warmer than normal.

I'm with Judah C. on this instead of Jennifer F, what is going to direct the weather is topography, snowcover/mtn ranges/deserts instead of the jet/vortex, now we are inbetween, both are driving the highs and lows, but we are going to a monsoon/stable cold lows on the American and Asian continent pattern. That will turn this world upsidedown and around. We are in the transition to the new world order, climate and the other, self government by people who try to adapt to whatever changes are upon us.
No more stable circular vortex in the future but continents will heat up in summer/cool down in winter :roll:

Re: Polar Vortex 2019

Unread postPosted: Wed 06 Feb 2019, 10:05:11
by jawagord
It’s what we call winter.


Re: Polar Vortex 2019 and Natural Variability

Unread postPosted: Tue 12 Feb 2019, 09:45:24
by jawagord
The problem with climate science is alarmist jumping to dire conclusions based on short term data and cherry picking start dates to make a “scary” trend when really all we have is decadal upcycle that will be followed by a decadal down cycle.

Just because we see the polar vortex getting weaker and sea ice declining doesn’t mean that one’s causing the other,” says William Seviour, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Bristol. “I showed that if we ran simulations that include everything we know [about the atmosphere], rising CO2 and everything, they’re just as likely to simulate [the polar vortex] getting weaker and they are it getting stronger,” says Seviour of his 2017 study in Geophysical Research Letters. “The trend in the vortex is not consistent.”
Seviour says while there are signs the polar vortex is getting weaker, the patterns in the polar vortex we’re seeing may be explained by natural variability. The records we have of disruptions to the polar vortex are limited and vary a lot decade-to-decade, adds Amy Butler, an atmospheric scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. And the relative infrequency of polar vortex shifts means there’s little historical data to go off in studying these events.
“There were almost no polar vortex disruptions in the 1990s, and then one almost every year in the 2000s,” says Butler. “This kind of decadal variability has been seen throughout the historical record back to 1958.”

Re: Polar Vortex 2019

Unread postPosted: Tue 12 Feb 2019, 09:51:03
by Newfie
Vortex weakening
Plant growing zones moving North
Ocean warming
Glaciers melting
Precipitation patterns changing/monsoons
CO2 increasing
Ice decreasing

Re: Polar Vortex 2019

Unread postPosted: Tue 12 Feb 2019, 12:02:26
by yellowcanoe
It's interesting looking at the Environment Canada daily Jetstream map at

Usually at this time of year you can expect to see parts of the Canadian Arctic and most of the Greenland icecap experiencing a daytime high of -40C or colder. However, recently what I have tended to see is little to no areas with -40C temperatures in the Canadian Arctic. Even the Greenland icecap is shown on some days with no area of -40C temperatures. It seems pretty evident that the colder than normal temperatures we are experiencing in Southern Canada are being balanced out by warmer than normal temperatures in the Arctic and in Greenland.

Re: Polar Vortex 2019

Unread postPosted: Tue 12 Feb 2019, 13:58:24
by Newfie
Exactly right. The total energy change is slight, it’s nust that it’s getting moved around. If it’s abnormally ccold (hot) here then it’s abnormally hit (cold) elsewhere. Yet the overall trend is to warming.

Re: Polar Vortex 2019

Unread postPosted: Tue 12 Feb 2019, 19:09:11
by dissident
The deep penetration of polar air masses to middle latitudes is exactly what should be expected from global warming. The failure of the polar front jet to develop its normal intensity and act as a polar containment vessels directly the result of warming. The loss of Arctic sea ice is what drives this destabilization since it slows the initial stage of polar front jet development allowing barcolinic eddies which routinely transport heat and momentum poleward, which are more active in winter due to the increased pole to equator temperature gradient, to more easily disrupt the jet and keep it weak. A strong jet develops a strong PV gradient which has elastic properties. The weaker the gradient the easier it is to deform PV contours.

Deniers keep on bleating the same tired sh*t about it being cold in some location. Well, duh, that means nothing. Only hemispherically average temperatures matter. Cold polar air masses moving south is associated with warmer middle latitude air masses moving towards the pole. ... ,54.88,397

In the past the meander of the jet stream(s) was smaller. One effect of this meander is that the winter average temperatures over the polar cap are warmer than they would be with a more axially symmetric polar air mass distribution. So even though the heat loss is not much different, the temperature is higher. The extra non-zonality is tapping into the low latitude warm air and amounts to a global enhancement of equator to pole heat transport.