this is from 1959.

the fact is that the factors underlying weakening in the polar vortex is something we understood before anybody even uttered the phrase "climate change".

we don't need new research to uncover something we've understood for decades. we just need to collect evidence and watch the theories we already have prove themselves - which is exactly what's happening.

the fundamental point is this: as the polar vortex is a solar phenomenon, you should consult solar scientists about how it works. and, when the solar scientists tell you "we don't need dubious speculations from people dabbling well outside their field about melting sea ice to understand how this works", that should be enough to put the issue to rest.

anthropogenic climate change is a real thing.

but, it has nothing to do with the polar vortex, which is controlled by the sun.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JZ064i007p00749

i'm certain that the truth of it is that somebody somewhere got the terms "jet stream" and "gulf stream" mixed up.

you would expect melting glaciers to fuck with the gulf stream - and this would indeed make it colder in europe.

i need to be clear.

this isn't a situation where the original author came up with a bad mechanism that's been savaged by physicists.

absolutely no mechanism to describe this clearly physically impossible transfer of energy has been presented at all.

she has a correlation and a hunch. that's it. but, correlation is not causality.

and, we already have a decades old theory that perfectly describes what is actually happening - we don't need new research, we already understand this.

another example.

this article - apparently written by a science correspondent - has the temerity to link to a document that was not peer reviewed or even published in a journal, but sent to nature as a letter. this is worse than incompetent, but sneaky, as it brings in the authority of nature as a journal, while undermining it at the same time, as the article was not actually published by nature at all, and in fact was presumably rejected by it if it showed up in the letters section.

think of it like an op-ed.

and, the "journalist" then has the stupidity to claim that this widely rejected hypothesis is a "fact". wrong.

but, why does she sink to such an absurd low? because she's pushing an agenda, and can't find a decent source. if she could find a better source, she would have published it. one doesn't exist.

why is the cbc giving the denialist right this kind of fuel? they yell that this is a giant hoax, despite all evidence to the contrary - then the media gives them the evidence that they need to make a credible argument. it's madness.

grown-ups are able to understand that the world is complicated. we don't need to be force-fed lies in order to avoid being distracted. the actual fact is that we're undergoing a decline in tsi, and this decline is weakening the force that bottles up the polar winds, leading to extreme outbursts of cold in the northern hemisphere. and, so long as the sun's output remains weak, we should in fact expect this to continue - whether we reduce our carbon emissions or not.

the theory that this article - and so many others - are citing argues that melting polar ice is elevating energy from sea level into the troposphere. this is in contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics. worse, the author does not provide a mechanism, she cites some statistics and then waves her hands - it's magic. then, she wonders why nobody takes her seriously, except liberal journalists trying to argue that it's cold because of global warming, because they don't want to confuse people that have a grade ten science education as a part of their masters in comparative literature.

the correct theory talks about energy levels moving downwards into the atmosphere, in obeyance with the laws of thermodynamics. as the polar vortex happens in the atmosphere, the correct theory talks about things that affect the atmosphere - and melting sea ice is not one of them.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-polar-vortex-1.4998820

and, this focuses more explicitly on the effects in the northern hemisphere.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535

this is a little older, but it's maybe a little easier to read.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4758621/

this is just one article, and it is exploring just one facet of a complicated thing.

if you really want to understand this, you shouldn't go sorting through periodicals, but should just pick up a textbook in meteorology that explains how the polar vortex is a solar phenomenon - it is essentially a swirling mass of cold air that is kept in check by solar radiation, and that both tightens up when radiation is increased and starts to break apart and expand when solar radiation decreases. as the earth moves around the sun in a roughly elliptical orbit, on an angle, that creates fluctuations in the amount of radiation hitting the earth, an expansion (and subsequent contraction) is something that happens every year, and we've known about it for decades. it's in the textbooks...you don't need need recent periodicals....it's well understood, already...

so, i'm not citing this - which is a recent paper from a very good source - to prove any specific point.

what i'm doing is trying to direct you to what the actual scientific community - not the liberal media - is considering right now to try and understand what is happening in the northern hemisphere, specifically.

this is a starting point for further research, not an authoritative end point.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13351-018-7101-2

the sad truth is that all of these people walking around saying "it's cold because of global warming", because they read a piece in the atlantic or the nation or something, are just as clueless as the people that still think iraq had weapons of mass destruction, because fox still won't drop the lie, years later.

it's the same repetition of lies pushed down from the top, and the same inability to think critically that allows people to fall for them.

these people are mirror reflections of each other - both convinced they know the truth, and both led astray by dishonest media.

see, this is the kind of thing i'm talking about.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/how-frigid-polar-vortex-blasts-are-linked-to-global-warming-climate-change-connection-weather-environment/123443/

this idea is being presented here as though they're providing a science lesson, when they are in fact presenting what amounts to a fringe theory that has been widely ridiculed by physicists. the authors have not even presented a mechanism by which this "amplification" can occur, in contradiction to the basic laws of thermodynamics. it is a theory in the colloquial sense - a hunch, with little supporting data to back it up, and one that has been roundly denounced as incoherent, at that.

even the known climate change sites, like climate skeptic, tend to step away from this as bunk. the publications that are pushing it are not science journals, but liberal political sites like the nation that want to maintain a narrative - all weather on the planet has the same cause.

but, you don't have to choose between what we understand about the sun and what we understand about the greenhouse effect. both of these things are, in fact, happening at the same time. and, in this case, they're acting against each other.

i don't expect to win this argument, because i'm not having it with scientists. but, ask a physicist about "arctic amplification". you won't like their response.

what i'm more concerned about with this is the media. it was one thing when this was a new idea, and we could throw it out there for debate; but that's already happened, now, and it's been discarded as nonsense. yet, the liberal press continues to run with it, oblivious to what the science actually says about it, because it aligns with an ideological perspective. and, that is dangerous - because we've seen the consequences of it on the right.

there have been studies done on people that watch fox news that have concluded that they understand less about the world than people that don't watch the news at all, because all they're able to regurgitate is an ideology that's been pushed down to them. when the left starts pushing debunked science like "arctic amplification" in order to fit an ideological perspective, and oblivious to what the science actually says on the matter, it is essentially just repeating the fox news model. and, we're going to end up with the same problems on the left that exist on the right - if we don't already have them.

on top of that, you're essentially giving the right what it's asking for. climate change is real, and a serious problem that needs to be addressed. but, "arctic amplification" is exactly what the idiots in the right-wing media are accusing the left of - it's essentially a liberal hoax. by continuing to push bad science, you're converting a strawman argument into an actual truth.

we have centuries of data to use to understand how the sun affects the polar vortex. it's not a new theory, it's tested and understood science. and, we know that what we're seeing in the northern hemisphere is what we should expect from an extended solar minimum. there's nothing controversial here.

we just have to understand that the world is complicated, and that the things we experience have multiple complicated causes to them that often don't align well with the kinds of simplistic narratives pushed by the media.