“The actual main purpose of this term, ‘polar vortex’, is for the journalists to sound credible and convey a thesis about the climate that is absolutely idiotic.”
Global warming left when the Midwest needed it most
By Dr. Lobos Motl
Excerpt:
So the polar vortex may be more frequent, indeed. But it’s also less intense because, you know, the Arctic which sends this chilly air is less chilly than in the past – because this is basically the Earth’s region where the global warming was fastest!
When you quantify such things, you will realize that the frequencies of well-defined cold spells and the temperatures of the worst ones may change at least by a few percent or a few tenths of a degree – the two opposite effects above largely cancel – so there is really no change that anyone could detect.
This whole “narrative” involving the polar vortex is just another pseudoscientific scam, a subset of the general climate change and environmentalist scams. What’s annoying is that the scientific terminology is being abused to promote some totally silly anti-scientific beliefs among the gullible laymen. And needless to say, “polar vortex” isn’t the only scientific term that is being abused like that.
On one hand, you could say: It’s nice that the journalists talk about the “polar vortex”. The public may learn some atmospheric physics from the newspapers, isn’t it great? On the other hand, the actual main purpose of this term, “polar vortex”, is for the journalists to sound credible and convey a thesis about the climate that is absolutely idiotic. Cold spells like that didn’t exist before 1776 or some year like that! They’re caused by SUVs or coal power plants!
Sorry, the latter statement is a sign of the speaker’s absolute illiteracy – and it’s way more harmful and stupid than the notion of “polar vortex” is useful and intelligent. At the end, rather normal people have always used the phrase “Arctic air” terms involving “North” to describe the sudden arrival of very cold weather. They may use “polar vortex” now – which is somewhat more complete in its description of the shape of the masses of cold air.
But the increase of accuracy or knowledge from “Arctic air” to “polar vortex” is much smaller than the decrease of people’s scientific literacy when they unlearn that the weather was always changing approximately equally – and instead start to believe that the weather was free of extremes a few century ago. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of science which is much worse than the ignorance of the term “polar vortex”.
You know, the leftists used to agree with such things. They were mocking Christians for believing that the world wasn’t there 6,000 years ago, that there was the Big Flood, Creation, and other things. Everyone should know about the longevity of the Earth. Cosmology, astrophysics, geology, archaerology, and genetics have all determined that the world around us – and even most of the important objects and processes – are billions or at least “many millions” years old.
To believe that something didn’t exist thousands or hundreds of years ago – mammals, trees, stars, mountains, seasons, days and nights, rainbows, cold spells, earthquakes, anything like that – means to be a hopeless, scientifically illiterate imbecile. And this is what the deceitful media are trying to make out of millions of readers and viewers – while they’re pretending that they’re making them smarter by occasionally using some scientific jargon.
Sorry, science isn’t about the jargon. Science is about the content, especially the most essential insights. The fact that nothing fundamental has changed about Nature in recent centuries is a cornerstone of the scientific world view and inkspillers and demagogues who are eroding this understanding of the world among the readers need to be punished.o the polar vortex may be more frequent, indeed. But it’s also less intense because, you know, the Arctic which sends this chilly air is less chilly than in the past – because this is basically the Earth’s region where the global warming was fastest!
When you quantify such things, you will realize that the frequencies of well-defined cold spells and the temperatures of the worst ones may change at least by a few percent or a few tenths of a degree – the two opposite effects above largely cancel – so there is really no change that anyone could detect.
This whole “narrative” involving the polar vortex is just another pseudoscientific scam, a subset of the general climate change and environmentalist scams. What’s annoying is that the scientific terminology is being abused to promote some totally silly anti-scientific beliefs among the gullible laymen. And needless to say, “polar vortex” isn’t the only scientific term that is being abused like that.
On one hand, you could say: It’s nice that the journalists talk about the “polar vortex”. The public may learn some atmospheric physics from the newspapers, isn’t it great? On the other hand, the actual main purpose of this term, “polar vortex”, is for the journalists to sound credible and convey a thesis about the climate that is absolutely idiotic. Cold spells like that didn’t exist before 1776 or some year like that! They’re caused by SUVs or coal power plants!
Sorry, the latter statement is a sign of the speaker’s absolute illiteracy – and it’s way more harmful and stupid than the notion of “polar vortex” is useful and intelligent. At the end, rather normal people have always used the phrase “Arctic air” terms involving “North” to describe the sudden arrival of very cold weather. They may use “polar vortex” now – which is somewhat more complete in its description of the shape of the masses of cold air.
But the increase of accuracy or knowledge from “Arctic air” to “polar vortex” is much smaller than the decrease of people’s scientific literacy when they unlearn that the weather was always changing approximately equally – and instead start to believe that the weather was free of extremes a few century ago. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of science which is much worse than the ignorance of the term “polar vortex”.
You know, the leftists used to agree with such things. They were mocking Christians for believing that the world wasn’t there 6,000 years ago, that there was the Big Flood, Creation, and other things. Everyone should know about the longevity of the Earth. Cosmology, astrophysics, geology, archaerology, and genetics have all determined that the world around us – and even most of the important objects and processes – are billions or at least “many millions” years old.
To believe that something didn’t exist thousands or hundreds of years ago – mammals, trees, stars, mountains, seasons, days and nights, rainbows, cold spells, earthquakes, anything like that – means to be a hopeless, scientifically illiterate imbecile. And this is what the deceitful media are trying to make out of millions of readers and viewers – while they’re pretending that they’re making them smarter by occasionally using some scientific jargon.
Sorry, science isn’t about the jargon. Science is about the content, especially the most essential insights. The fact that nothing fundamental has changed about Nature in recent centuries is a cornerstone of the scientific world view and inkspillers and demagogues who are eroding this understanding of the world among the readers need to be punished.
