Slashdot Mirror
Polar Vortex Sends Life-Threatening Freeze To US
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Reuters reports that the Midwestern United States is shivering through the region's lowest temperatures in twenty years as forecasters warn that life-threatening cold is heading eastward as a polar vortex of freezing Arctic weather sweeps across the United States. 'The coldest temperatures in almost two decades will spread into the northern and central U.S. today behind an arctic cold front,' says the National Weather Service. 'Combined with gusty winds, these temperatures will result in life-threatening wind chill values as low as 60 degrees below zero (Fahrenheit/minus 51 degrees Celsius).' The coldest temperature reported in the lower 48 states on Sunday was minus 40 F (-40 C) in the towns of Babbitt and Embarrass, Minnesota. Meteorologists warn that the wind-chill factor could make it feel twice as cold, causing frostbite to exposed parts of the body within minutes. Eleven people have already died in weather-related incidents in the past week, including a 71-year-old woman with Alzheimer's who wandered from her home in upstate New York and was found frozen to death only 100m away. Polar vortexes occur seasonally at the North Pole, and their formation resembles that of hurricanes in more tropical regions: fast-moving winds build up around a calm center. Unlike a hurricane, these are frigid polar winds, circling the Arctic at more than 100 miles per hour. The spinning winds typically trap this cold air in the Arctic. But the problem comes when the polar vortex weakens or splits apart, essentially flinging these cold wind patterns out of the Arctic and into our backyards. 'All the ingredients are there for a near-record or historic cold outbreak,' says meteorologist Ryan Maue. 'If you're under 40, you've not seen this stuff before.'"
Yeah, here in NE Ohio we're expecting lows about the same as we saw in 1994, while this is an unusual cold pattern it's not like it's unprecedented.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Though they both cause extremely cold weather, a polar vortex and an Alberta clipper are very different meteorological events.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Not where I live in Alberta. Anything North of Calgary doesn't get Chinooks all the often and we are stuck in the deep freeze. We just don't whine about it like the Easterners. Yesterday morning it was -34c with a wind chill of -45c. We decided it would be better to walk to the grocery store instead of driving as the car was just to frozen over. This morning we remembered to plug it in and it's no where near as cold, only -24c not sure of the wind chill. Still walked to work though.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
TL;DR: Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena.
Yeah, like *I FUCKING SAID*, I'm perfectly fine with the idea that climate and weather are two different things. I just want some consistency. You can't just pick and choose weather events and say "This weather event counts as evidence, but this one doesn't." Nor can you construct a hypothesis that is so convoluted as to be supported by ALL EVIDENCE, and which is impossible to disprove. That's not science, it's religion.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
The NOAA lists -27F as the lowest recorded temperature in Chicago.
They also have a list of days with a temperature below -16F and 1980 wasn't listed.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lot/?n=chi_temperature_records
Well, eventually, yes . . . but most of us not today.
www.wavefront-av.com
While normally I'd agree with you, wind chill isn't actually a temperature. It's an imaginary reference temperature based on the heat loss rate of a human (comparing the rate with wind to the stagnant-air rate of a different temperature). So, "twice as cold" here has a logical definition: the heat loss rate of a human is twice as high.
"at a rate far far less than predicted by all your models."
Patently False. They aren't rising as fast as the worse case scenarios the media likes to report. They are rising within model predictions.
"Nor have they risen to temperatures that exceed recent human history past"
irrelevant. Then rise in the past was do to different reasons. WHAT EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF CLIMATOLOGY are talking about is energy trapped by excess CO2.
" Dismissed global warming that transpired on other celestrial bodies in our solar system during the same time."OK, you are just waving your ignorance arounbd.
A) If you are implying the warming is from an extrenal source, say in increase in the out put of the SUns energy, it would apply to every single body in the solar system in accordance to the inverse square law. Other body warming is NOT happenign on all bodies, and where it does happen there is no correlation to it happening on few other bodies.
B) IF you are implying there is an increase in the energy output of the sun, we would know becasue we measure it pretty accuratly. The rising trend does NOT correlate with the Suns activity.
" Has a habit of touting every storm or weather incident (even earthquakes) as proof of global warming, "
um, that's the media, not scientists who are experts in that field of study. However, there will be an increase in the energy of events. This can be stronger storms, or more storms,. The bottom line: more energy expressed over time.
"we did have some of the hottest years in recent record during the late 90's.
That really nice and I"m sure that makes sense in your little box of ignorance, sadly it shows you are completely ignorant and just restating the same bull crap Fox has fed your simpleton mind.
"We have also had some of the coldest incidents in recorded history in recent years as well."
As expect by climate change models, dumb ass. The term climate change is older the global warming, BTW.
Facts:
1) Visible light comes from the sun.
2) Visible light creates IR when it strikes something
3) CO2* absorbs IR energy
4) We put out far more CO2 then can be absorbed by the pre-industrial climate cycles.
So tell me: What's happening to the extra absorbed energy id it is impacting the climate?
There is a reason you echo chamber only cherry picks 'facts' and never talks about the actual science.
*This applies to other gases as well, but CO2 is the biggest one we emit at this time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on