Polar Vortex Arrives: Here’s your Dittohead Repellant

December 8, 2016

You’re Welcome.

Washington Post:

A punishing blast of Arctic air will plunge into the northern half of the Lower 48 in five to seven days, dispensing some of the most frigid air since 2014 or 2015 in some areas.

“[The] upper-level atmosphere configuration [is] very similar in scale and magnitude as infamous January 2014 #PolarVortex”, tweeted Ryan Maue, a meteorologist with WeatherBell Analytics.

Computer models are unanimous in predicting that such a cold wave will occur, although they differ some on exactly how cold and how far south and east the Arctic air will penetrate. It is unlikely that this cold wave will be as intense as the January 2014 event because it is happening earlier in the winter and less snow is on the ground in North America (snow cover acts like a freezer and helps cold air masses stay cold when they exit the Arctic).

The bitter cold air is expected to first arrive in the northern Rockies and northern Plains on Sunday. It should reach Chicago on Tuesday and the northeast United States by Wednesday or Thursday.

While subject to change, the GFS model predicts temperatures from Chicago to western Montana to be 30 to 50 degrees colder than normal next Wednesday morning.




32 Responses to “Polar Vortex Arrives: Here’s your Dittohead Repellant”

  1. earlosatrun Says:

    Finally!! It’s finally cold. After years of wussy winters, we’re finally having a cold one. Oh, it’s nice. 🙂 I went for a lovely walk on Monday, and again on Tuesday, yesterday was a bit warmer than I’d have liked; only -25C. But Monday and Tuesday gave a nice bit of November weather. Ok, yah, it might have been a bit much for those poor souls who’ve forgotten what a real Canadian winter used to be like.

    The thing that disappoints me is that it’s not going to last.

    The thing that disturbs me is that the pole is ~20 degrees warmer than it is down here. That’s just not right. That’s one issue that your post didn’t stress, I did see the graphic that showed the estimate of how much warmer it is than the average. The sun’s not peaking over the horizon up there, so the pole isn’t being warmed by the sun.

    • otter17 Says:

      I think Peter used the analogy of the “refrigerator door being opened” during the last polar vortex event. This cold air moving southward is indeed an issue like the poles becoming warmer.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        JFC! Will you PLEASE STFU unless you have something of importance to say?

        “This cold air moving southward is indeed an issue like the poles becoming warmer” isn’t even coherent, never mind a real contribution.

        Your comments are far better informed than those of Tom Bates or Ron Voisin that we all too often find at the start of a thread (and which give it an immediate bad smell), but enough is enough. You don’t have to say “look at me” all the time to get our attention.

        • otter17 Says:

          Look, I and others that discuss various aspects of this issue have been very patient with you. I do not devolve into such insults over such minor issues, and I kindly ask that you extend the same courtesy.

          I shall look for the link concerning the analogy to the “refrigerator door” concerning what is happening to the Arctic region. The fact that cold air moves south like this is troubling for two reasons. First the ammunition it (falsely) gives to climate deniers, and the fact that the circulation patterns that help keep the Arctic cold are weakened, essentially allowing some mixing to occur. Apologies if my brief explanation before did not measure up to your standards. I have not been as time-constrained lately, but often I am, so that sometimes means more brevity than clarity.

          I figured that this might help earlosatrun find a previous reference brought to us by Peter that indeed focuses on both the warming in the Arctic and its link to the polar vortex. If you do not find that to be a contribution, then I suppose I shall instead engage in more productive discussion and tell folks to “JFC, PLZ STFU”.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “I and others that discuss various aspects of this issue have been very patient with you”, you say? You have now taken it upon yourself to speak for other Crockers? If you look at the “thumbs” that have been awarded to our exchanges on this and other threads, it would appear that “others” are not very interested in what you have to say or my responses. Your self-absorption is looking more like narcissism with every comment you post, and it does NOT contribute to the mission of Crock.

            You say you “shall look for the link concerning the analogy to the refrigerator door…”? WHY? Why must you continue to be such an obvious Doctor Obvious? I have to laugh at your snide “apologies” because your BRIEF explanations do “not measure up to my standards”, and I am rolling on the floor over “more brevity than clarity”. I have been trying to make some “productive” points to you about “brevity” and “clarity”, but you simply will not hear me, and that is what leads to “JFC, PLZ STFU”.

          • otter17 Says:

            I am hardly speaking for anybody else, but I have seen in my own opinion how others have been patient with you.

            How is it being a “Captain Obvious” to find a link to the references that Peter had found the last time the polar vortex occurred? I believe it addressed some of earlosatrun’s concern in the comment made above. Peter has, I recall, stressed the notion that the polar vortex doesn’t overshadow the notion that the Arctic is warming very substantially. In fact, the warming and the weakening of the circulation pattern looks to have an effect that links it with these events. Of course, it is just an explanation in more general terms, but it gets the idea across and furthers the discussion to the point of finding the research on it.

            Look, I make a brief comment that doesn’t fully capture the point, I catch heck for it. I explain with further detail, I catch heck for it. I say that I’ll find the link with the reference, why bother with that, catch heck for it. I just don’t know what to do with you other than just engage you as respectfully as I can muster in these situations where you are going off the rails. It doesn’t happen all the time, and I could only guess why. In respect for earlosatrun’s comment, I’m not engaging you any further here. Until next time.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Where to begin? I look at the inbox and see NINE comments by otter spread across two hours and 20 minutes and the FOUR most recent Crock posts. Thank you, otter, for offering more proof of the fact that you are indeed hijacking Crock and making it all about YOU with your inane comments and opinions and incessant childish whining about how I am abusing you. Have you not noticed that NO ONE but you, earlo, and grindy are visiting this thread? (Andrew DID try to distract you). That’s all DOG’s fault of course, because he is so RUDE, and has driven all the “civil” folks away. Just look at all the thumbs down DOG has gotten from a few others on top of the three of you! (None of whom have had the balls to actually engage).

            You are indeed “speaking for everybody else” here , and your long-winded and half-assed OPINIONS are what has this old dog barking. You say you have seen “how others have been patient with me”? CITATION, please. Who are these “others” and how have they shown “patience”. Your very “civil” insult may go over the heads of those who have not been insulted by experts as I have, but the implication that “others” have had to be “patient with me” plainly says that there is something “wrong” with me. You follow that up with ” I just don’t know what to do with you other than just engage you as respectfully as I can muster in these situations where you are going off the rails”. “Going off the rails?” and speaking of me as if I were a child? GFYS, otter!—-that’s all the respect your devious self-absorbed insulting little self deserves. And of course, the answer to you “could only guess why” we’re having this conflict has NOTHING to do with anything YOU have done, so you’re “not engaging me any further here”. (Until “next time”, because you will NOT be able to resist—-like Trump and his 3 AM tweets. it’s the nature of the beast)

        • earlosatrun Says:

          Fine, dude. You keep this site ‘pure’ and ‘holy’ with your policing of our opinions.

          I’ll go somewhere else to look for people who will be nicer about this subject.

          For all of Bates’ bullshit, I’d rather talk to him than you. Rudeoldguy.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Whoa, DUDE! What set you off? Did you think any of my comments were directed at you? They weren’t. I don’t recall that I’ve ever “policed” your opinions on Crock because I remember them to be generally based in fact and well-stated. Or are you taking offense at my suggestion that you “understated” the temperature anomaly and might want to look at the excellent and informative robertscribbler piece? Awfully thin-skinned of you, if that’s the case.

            I save my “policing” for people like Russell Cook, Dave Burton, Ron Voisin, and Adrian Vance, and hardly bother with that moron Bates except to insult him—-others focus on his science-ignorant BS. Otter has drawn my attention lately because he is an attention seeker, and what I’m engaged in with him is not “policing” either—-I’m an educator. I hope you calm down and rethink “going somewhere else to look for people who will be nicer about this subject”—-being “nice” has gotten us and will get us nowhere, and you won’t find a better site for your purposes than Crock.

            (And I’d be hugely embarrassed to have put this in writing to be archived forever—-“For all of Bates’ bullshit, I’d rather talk to him than you”. One should not let anger get the best of them).

          • otter17 Says:


            For what it is worth, here you are concerning one of the references Peter has made to a situation similar to this one. So, you make a good point to stress that just because ya’ll got an actual cold winter, it doesn’t give ammunition to a denial viewpoint because the Arctic is still far too hot.


            “The pattern is like having the refrigerator door open, cold air pours out of the arctic, and the fridge warms as milder air is drawn in.

            The Denialists are of course making the best they can of this, just as they did last year, when a similar situation applied.”

          • otter17 Says:

            Not to put words in earlosatrun’s mouth, but I suspect that this the type of stuff he is talking about… and you put it in the very next response.

            “And I’d be hugely embarrassed to have put this in writing to be archived forever”

            Look man, just treat people with respect.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Sorry, but what you ARE very clearly doing here IS putting words in earlosatrun’s mouth. You “suspect”? STFU and let earlo speak for himself—-It’s still not clear what I said that upset him, or if he mistook a comment I directed as someone else as being directed at him.

            I will repeat, anyone who says “For all of Bates’ bullshit, I’d rather talk to him than you” over what I said in this exchange has seriously misspoken and should be looking for the “retract or delete” button. I say that because any perceived “rudeness” on my part is far outweighed by Bates’ near-total worthlessness by any measure.

            “I’d be hugely embarrassed to have put this in writing to be archived forever” is a simple observation and IMO a statement of FACT, not something meant to be disrespectful. You, on the other hand, show great disrespect to Crockers and even to yourself with all your maundering, nattering, and whining. Your heart is in the right place re: climate change, and you do have an electrical engineer’s basic understanding of some of the disciplines needed to fully understand our planetary dilemma. Why don’t YOU show US some respect by taking to heart Dirty Harry’s advice, i.e., “A man’s got to know his limitations”.

      • grindupbaker Says:

        I just want to say that I find your “This cold air moving southward is indeed an issue like the poles becoming warmer” to be uncommonly coherent. I can see that the “smearing” of traditional temperature regimes of the mid- and high- northern latitudes might cause effects ranging from nuisance/costly to life-threatening both from warming at higher latitudes and from cooling at lower latitudes.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Thank you for this little bit of passive-aggressiveness, grind. I have noted little “shots” like this from you before, but they’ve been inconsequential and I’ve ignored them. I don’t come to Crock to seek your approval.

          Unfortunately, your feeble attempt to take a shot at me and lend support to otter has led you into the swamp a bit. UNCOMMONLY coherent, you say? And WTF is “smearing” of “traditional” temperature regimes? Human tribes have traditions, temperature regimes have data histories to analyze, and “smearing” is what children do with their finger paints. We all know what you’re trying to say, although the “might cause ” is changing to “likely are causing”.

          I will speak more to the coherence of otter’s remarks in a reply to one of his many other comments, but would ask you to examine the coherence of your comment here, particularly “….effects ranging from nuisance/costly to life-threatening both from warming at higher latitudes and from cooling at lower latitudes”—-sounds good but what does it mean?.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Rather than wait for otter’s “refrigerator door” revelations, you might want to look at this link. Saying that “the pole is ~20 degrees warmer than it is down here” actually understates the anomaly. From the link:

      “If a similar temperature departure happened in Gaithersburg, Maryland on December 8, it would produce 80 to 100 degree (F) readings”.


        • dumboldguy Says:

          It most surely IS your “revelation”—–by definition, “a surprising and previously unknown fact, especially one that is made known in a dramatic way”. I was using the word in a joking way, because a Crock piece from SIX years ago is certainly not a “revelation”, considering that THIS polar vortex piece and many other recent ones on Crock about the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets have carried our knowledge of what’s going on far beyond what we knew SIX freaking years ago (as does the scribbler piece I cited). It might be a “surprising and previously unknown fact” to you, but it’s not to the rest of us.

          Back to the question of the “coherence” of “This cold air moving southward is indeed an issue like the poles becoming warmer”. Did you mean to say polar REGIONS becoming warmer? The poles are, after all, just imaginary spots at the ends of the earth’s axis, and what the temperature is at each of them is meaningless. It’s the temperature changes over the broader polar areas that matters, and the changes in the Arctic have been far more extreme and worrisome than those in the Antarctic, and will likely have far more serious consequences over the short term (although the long term impact of the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is the real “coastal city killer”). In fact, many have made a case that it’s actually getting colder at the “south pole”, which may be a “revelation” for you since you seem to be unaware of that—look it up.

          At any rate, it’s a bit of a non sequitur to be conflating “cold air moving southward” with “the poles becoming warmer”. Cold air has always “moved south”, more often in the winter, and it’s called weather. It will become an “issue” only when it becomes extreme and we have waves of Siberian air repeatedly hitting us while warm air gets driven deep into the Arctic and Greenland and impacts the ice.

          I would direct you to the graph Torsten posted under comments on 12/6 on another Crock thread on Arctic sea ice—-you seem to have missed that one somehow.

          What do you think of it?

    • grindupbaker Says:

      I used to walk on the flood plain at night with Akita dog Bullet in deep snow at -35 degrees. Main reason I mention it is I’ve realized if people objects and somebody objects to them, eventually the comment will be 1 word wide and 500 lines high. It’ll look cute.

  2. grtrapp Says:

    Could you please make it possible to click on a “Share this message on Facebook & Twitter”, so your message can be shared quickly and efficiently without having to copy the URL and then go to Facebook and paste it in there, etc?

    Gene Trapp >

  3. grindupbaker Says:

    We just got ours Monday and more tonight Thursday. Our boss said the army will come if we’re all revolting like usual here on Burnaby Mountain over the Burrard Inlet. What he don’t know is we call the army in regular here whenever it snows, so it worked perfect.

  4. andrewfez Says:

    Off topic but Lamar Smith has a survey link on his web page that asks what Congress should focus on for 2017. Those inclined please click ‘other’ and fill out something along the lines of carbon reductions or clean energy expansion.


    It’s a little tricky to find because the survey is inside the box that cycles between several ‘rotating adverts’ so it takes a few moments to cycle through to show the survey link.

    • otter17 Says:

      Thanks for the tip. Hopefully this fits into the box.

      “Stop harassing scientists with your ridiculous subpoena powers just because you disagree with the outcome of a research paper”.

      • Too funny. In this polar vortex comment section, we have all of you fellows placing every bit of your faith in an Eric Holthaus Tweet, but the moment a single one of you says one thing which doesn’t meet the approval of commenter “dumboldguy”, you are dead meat in his eyes. If our friends “otter17” or “earlosatrun” REALLY want to get under “d.o.g.”‘s skin and be walloped with labels of “closet Trump-lover” or “closet climate denier”, all they have to do is challenge “d.o.g.” to precisely describe how he ‘polices’ me. All I’ve seen from that guy are accusations about wearing ball caps, being paid piecemeal to comment here, and other stuff bordering on 911Truther / ChemTrail / creationist conspiracy stuff. Not once has he actually lifted a finger to provide evidence backing any of that up or the large accusation that skeptics are bribed by illicit industry-sourced money to lie to the public. Not advisable for him to quit his day-hobby of berating people to become a cop.

        Meanwhile, friends, no need to place all your trust in in some Tweet about a bizarrely warm Arctic, you can check Arctic weather stations for yourselves. Too bad this site’s ( http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm ) clickable stations system stopped working, but you can still drop the names with the words “weather station” into Google searches for the current data. Bit of a chore, but nevertheless ……. As of the current time, for example, Grise Fiord, Nunavut Canada is showing -16°F, with a week forecast of temps ranging between -11 and -22. The Khatanga, Russia station shows -10°F. Cherskiy, Russia is right at 0°F now, nowhere close to Holthaus’ balmy Tweet temperature, and significantly subfreezing for the weekly data as well.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Heeeeeeere’s Russell, earning his denier whore’s dollar yet again. Note that he has again hacked the WordPress “thumbs” feature and given me a whole bunch of “downs” on some of my early comments, not bothering to think that this is a dying thread and that no one is looking at my comments closely enough to be upset by them. As usual, Russell is too freaking dumb to think things through and has again embarrassed himself with his over-eagerness to engage in a battle of wits while only half-armed. (And I wonder if his masters at Heartland ever look to see what a poor ROI they’re getting on Russell? All he does is come to Crock and figuratively defecate on the floor and throw some of it against the walls to distract us from the science that this site examines. Hmmmmm….Maybe that’s what they pay him for and think he’s doing a great job?).

          Russell again sings his one-note tune of “prove it”. (BTW, He once repeated “prove it” 29 times in a row in a comment on another blog). Along with no knowledge of science and its “proofs”, Russell has no knowledge of the legal aspects of the word either. If he did, he would know that he himself has confessed here and on his blog (GlobsOfS**TFiles—-don’t go there—-it’s toxic) all that we need to know. Perhaps he should get some training and experience with the law (as I have) so that he cn understand the meaning of Prima facie or “At first sight.” (i.e., self-evident; obvious). and the term “res ipse loquitur”, or “the thing speaks for itself”. We all know what you are, Russell, a climate change denial whore for fossil fuels, and the ONLY place we’ll discuss that with you is on your blog when you open it to outside comments. When are you going to do that again? 2043?

          And look at Russell getting all “sciency” on us and posting some cherry-picked data from THREE weather stations. THREE! Yeah, it’s WINTER, Russell, and it’s pretty damn cold in my driveway in VA. also. You moron! Don’t you realize that most deniers have long given up on the tactic of citing cherry picked LOCAL data and trying to make something globally significant out of it?

          • Dude.

            1) those double-digit up/down votes were already there when I arrived yesterday. Since you fully know how no hacking is involved in stacking votes, what proof does anyone have that you didn’t do that stuff yourself? Just askin.’
            2) Now you can’t even get your own count right about that “prove it” situation at (your own words) “a comment on another blog.” If this is so damaging, why not show your pals where it is? They’ll start thinking it is another of your conspiracy theories if you don’t.
            3) res ipsa loquitur – with an “a” there – “a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened.” This is injury law stuff. Try pulling it on me or anybody else you accuse of corruption in a courtroom evidentiary hearing, and you’ll be a laughingstock.
            4) When am I going to permit comments again at GelbspanFiles? I never permitted them in the first place. The question is, why do you ask questions based on false premises? You have an undeniable history of it here. But the deeper question is, why do you not enlighten folks right here at a friendly place having no restrictions on what you post, where you can lay out all the proof in the world of what exactly my lies are and precisely what work arrangements I operate under for specifically what amounts of money? Oops, forgot, you are barred from giving this information freely to your Crocks pals because I don’t permit comments at a blog you vehemently demand that they not look at. I can almost hear the eye-rolling from your Crocks pals over that cop-out.
            5) Cherrypicking 3 weather stations? Nossir, those were mere examples provided of a whole Arctic collection. Prove me wrong by listing out all the others across the Arctic that are right now tens of degrees above freezing. Nothing local about that. All eyes on you now.

            As I said before, this little Crocks echo chamber is not closed to outside readers. Are you proud of all the collective vitriol you’ve directed at me? I stand by the questions I pose to you, and it becomes readily obvious to outside readers that I’ve given you more than ample opportunity to defend what you say, with no inconsistency about that, either. You apparently wish nothing but ill will against me while I offer you advice on introspection that will set you free from an ideology that currently only brings you rage and despair. Think about it for a moment; if you so fervently want a bright climate future, why do you rail so hard against those who say – through mind-numbing levels of detail – that it will be just fine?

        • Torsten Says:

          Russell, do you still think the sea ice hasn’t received the global warming memo?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Thank you for posting the global sea ice graph. It has become one of my “go to” visuals when discussing the impacts of AGW with whores and morons like Russell, and I was going to add it to my next reply to Russell if he came back to this thread. He probably won’t, since his typical pattern is to come here, quickly throw out some ignorant horseshit, run to his fossil fuel masters to get paid., and then disappear for a few weeks.

            Do not expect any answer to your question, because Russell, like so many denier whores, does not know or “do” any science. I have asked him MANY times to comment on these two graphics—-he has NEVER acknowledged them in the slightest.

            My favorite because of the month-by-month data display—-perhaps better for more technically literate folks:

            Andy Lee’s great work—-more appropriate for getting the the general public’s attention:

            RUSSELL COOK! YOU MORON AND LYING POS! Step up and try to gain some some small measure of respect from Crockers by “doing science” and responding.

          • Sidestep. The premise is that hugely warm air centered over the Arctic region has pushed big areas of colder out and down onto us here. The Arctic weather stations currently totally contradict this notion. You don’t even apparently try to dispute this. Meanwhile, those who you criticize do not dispute Arctic sea ice loss, they dispute that the loss is primarily the result of human activity. Exactly what part of that do you not understand?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Sidestep indeed—-you’re good at that.

            “…hugely warm air centered over the Arctic region has pushed big areas of colder out and down onto us here…” WTF are you talking about, Russell?. The changes we have seen in atmospheric circulation over the past few years are a bit more complicated than that. Perhaps you need to review Rossby waves, jet streams. and atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns.

            And which Arctic weather stations “currently totally contradict” WHAT “notion”?. It’s laughable that you would say this in another comment:

            “Cherrypicking 3 weather stations? Nossir, those were mere examples provided of a whole Arctic collection. Prove me wrong by listing out ALL the others across the Arctic that are right now tens of degrees above freezing. Nothing local about that. All eyes on you now”. No, Russell, the eyes are on YOU, and you are crazier than hell to suggest that I should be the one to “list out all the others across the Arctic that are right now tens of degrees above freezing”. You cherry-picked, and what the temperature is at THREE places on a given day is meaningless. Look at the three graphic representations again to see what the LONG TERM GLOBAL TREND is.

            You say: “Those who you criticize do not dispute Arctic sea ice loss, they dispute that the loss is primarily the result of human activity. Exactly what part of that do you not understand?” I DO understand that deniers like you who depend on fossil fuel $$$ for their livelihood do NOT want to accept the overwhelming evidence that global warming is a direct result of our burning fossil fuels. I have asked you MANY times to respond to the graphs that Torsten and I have posted. If sea ice loss is not caused by AGW, what IS the cause?

          • Torsten Says:

            I didn’t really pay attention to Russell’s picking of temperatures for his December 14th post, where he wrote:

            “Cherskiy, Russia is right at 0°F now, nowhere close to Holthaus’ balmy Tweet temperature, and significantly subfreezing for the weekly data as well.”

            But on the 6th, Holthaus had written the following about weather expected on the 8th.:

            “Parts of the Russian Arctic will be around 60°F (33°C) warmer than normal on Thursday.

            Example: Chersky, Russia (normal high of -20°F)”

            And when I scroll back to the records for the 8th here:


            I see the temperature got up to 4C that day.

            Holthaus wrote that the normal for that date is -20F, which equals just a bit warmer than -29C. So the temperature for that location was indeed 33C warmer than normal.

            Russell, did you not understand the importance of the date of that forecast? You cast aspersions on the man’s tweet, and yet it is your own lack of diligence or competence that is the problem.

            Now, it took me some time to get to the bottom of this and I’m not about to waste any more on it. I think DOG’s points are correct on the other stuff.

            Russell, if AGW isn’t causing the ice extent values to be declining in accord with general predictions made as early as 1975 (but at faster rates than most models predict, reaching record lows today), then what do you and the rest of your buddies think is causing it? I notice there has been no crowing about sea ice “recovery” this year in the usual places. It seems to be warm enough that all I hear is crickets.

        • grindupbaker Says:

          My riveting comment in this polar vortex comment section preceded your riveting comment and was concerning some nice snow we just had and I didn’t use an Eric Holthaus Tweet for it because I’m very old and not technical and I don’t know what an Eric Holthaus Tweet is. That renders your comment factually incorrect from the get go.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: