Forty Years Ago, The Polar Vortex Was Caused By Global Cooling

Experts say the polar vortex is caused by global warming and disappearing ice, but forty years ago they said it was caused by global cooling and expanding ice.

ScreenHunter_1369 Jul. 28 07.31

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa’s drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest’s recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

TIME Magazine Archive Article — Another Ice Age? — Jun. 24, 1974


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Forty Years Ago, The Polar Vortex Was Caused By Global Cooling

  1. MrX says:

    I asked several people this on reddit once about how scientists thought all these things were caused by global cooling. Now, it’s global warming. Why should we believe them now. I always get back the same answer. That they know more today than they did back then. Seems they don’t see the irony.

    • rah says:

      Hell, now they have far better satellite data over the pole and for weather and they still can’t get it right. So where is the proof that “they know more today than they did back then”? In their recent Article Time claimed “1. Sea ice is vanishing from the Arctic, which leaves behind dark open ocean water.” When we know here that the arctic ice extent has been growing as has the percentage of multi-year old ice.

  2. tom0mason says:

    Now was that because of ‘Catastrophic Climate Dynamism™’ or ‘Anthroprogenic Hyperactive Climate Dynamism©’? I forget which.

  3. darrylb says:

    There may be a small increase in the signal from increased CO2, but if one fully understands all that is involved, it is obvious the signal is quite small compared to internal variability and various solar effects. It is amazing that avoidance of solar (and other astronomical effects) irradiance is happening and it becomes obvious that considering it would weaken the AGW alarms.
    When I bring up the fact (to climate scientists) that the greatest atmospheric change with increased CO2 is really kinetic absorption in the lower altitudes I receive mostly bewildered responses and some dismissal due to complete ignorance. It has been discussed on thus blog with Ms Combs (obviously an accomplished chemist)
    The science is generally correct in nature, but missing much, especially the history of water vapor and clouds at various altitudes. So much of what the in crowd does is simply a swag.

    • shazaam says:

      No offense intended to the real climate scientists out there, yet when I was in college (early 80’s) the earth-sciences students were mainly those that couldn’t survive a hard sciences or engineering curriculum. Mostly it was a lack of math ability.

      Thus many companies hired engineers for critical automation programming as most computer science graduates were ignorant of the physics of the devices or processes they were developing software for. Government agencies were generally not so careful. Which may explain much about the stellar predictive track record of the climate models…. (yeah, /sarc)

  4. omanuel says:

    “Top-down consensus science” generated many unexpected and illogical “scientific observations” in response to real observations after the UN was formed in OCT 1945 as Stalin’s prize for emerging victorious from unreported CHAOS and FEAR of worldwide nuclear annihilation in AUG-SEPT 1945:

    “Aston’s WARNING (12 Dec 1922); CHAOS and FEAR (August 1945),”

    • omanuel says:

      One of the first and most illogical responses from consensus scientists appeared at the Annual Spring AGU meeting in Washington, DC in April 1956:

      A highly regarded former faculty member of Japan’s Imperial University of Tokyo – the nuclear geo-chemist Paul Kazuo Kuroda – used information published in US text-books of nuclear reactor engineering to show that “nuclear fires” burned spontaneously on Earth as recently as two billion years ago.

      Kuroda’s report was publicly denounced at the 1956 AGU meeting and publication of his calculations was limited to a single page document in the Journal of Chemical Physics 25, p. 781 (Oct 1956).

      Click to access Kuroda%201956.pdf

      Sixteen years later in 1972, the French Atomic Energy Commission confirmed Kuroda’s calculations. French scientists discovered the fossil remains of natural nuclear reactors that had burned spontaneously in the uranium ore at the Oklo Mine, near Franceville, in the Republic of Gabon.

      Kuroda’s academic grandson that later discovered evidence of natural nuclear reactors in cores on planets – Dr. J. Marvin Herndon – tells the story:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s