This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polar vortex article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sj.hws.arth.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 9 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mieleveronica, Westbrookholly.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
What does "large scale" mean? The size of a typical Kansas tornado, ten times as large, a hundred? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Since the role of CFCs and other factors is still uncertain, some references in this section would be useful. As would fair representation of research showing other factors influencing the ozone 'hole'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.210.61 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Technically Polar cyclones are the transitions of low pressure areas between Aleutian low and Icelandic low, as far as I can see. Some meteorologist may confirm this. Moved the Polar cylone in the template to the annual cyclones section as there is a clear annual rythm of changes with these. How they'll react to the disappearance of the arctic ice is still an unresolved question (ref to nasa image of the day (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=78808)
Disappointingly, recent (early January 2014) news reports [1] have gotten the polar vortex exactly backwards, saying it's strengthened (and that's the cause of the brutal cold experienced in the US). This may produce some invalid edits of this article.drh (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Headline: "Left Creates Polar Vortex to Make You Think Winter is Caused by Global Warming"
This is a long discussion with an Earth map added, discussing a lot about the media frenzy. Rush Limbaugh, like others, say they remember cold winters and walking to school in massive snow, uphill, both ways. :-) Rush Limbaugh is a student of global weather and expects there may be a three-day gap in the cold for Superbowl Sunday. Roy Spencer (scientist) is the EIB climatologist. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This part is based on a 2007 study which run 3 years and was published in 2011. Though the section should be updated, and contain current outline of research. Prokaryotes (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I've reached the reversion limit for this item, but apparently the Philadelphia News is calling the polar vortex a frigid twister. Trying to correlate a system 500+ mi/900+ km wide to a tornado is comical, at best. I have not found any reasonable source that calls the polar vortex anything outside of the polar vortex or circumpolar whirl, other than this news item. Has anyone else? If it helps, the article has other information wrong, like the all-time record low maximum for Philadelphia (which is 5f set in Feb 10 1899). The high was only 6f at Philadelphia in January 1994. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The general assumption.... I would have thought that wikipedia didn't work with assumptions, and had peer reviewed facts? 137.138.79.40 (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems this article needs a hatnote to 2014 North American cold wave. I added one, but it was removed here. Regardless of the actual connection, people searching for "polar vortex" will almost certainly be trying to find out more about the current cold wave. It doesn't matter whether there is an actual connection - hatnotes are often used with totally unrelated topics; they are not the same as "see also" links - this will help the reader. StAnselm (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion in this article as to the distinction between the polar vortex, a wintertime feature of the stratosphere, and transient wintertime extratropical low-pressure systems. The polar vortex is a cold, dense mass of air that typically situated over the polar region in the winter hemisphere and is bounded by the polar night jet[1]. From a terminology standpoint, the events of early January 2014 were a displacement of the polar vortex rather than the spontaneous formation of a polar vortex. The first sentence of this article "a" polar vortex, is thus misleading as it implies the polar vortex is a transient feature like a midlatitude storm, which it is not. This entire section of the introduction, for instance, is a description of a low-pressure system and not of the polar vortex and thus needs to be removed:
Can this distinction be made clear in this article? Both here and in the media the term "polar vortex" has been misused and has resulted in the sensationalization of the very specific scientific phrase. WavenumberThree (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
References
In November, 100 people were visiting this page per day. In January, the page reached an insane peak of viewership, which has not faded. Even during the past month, we're still getting about 500 views a day. I thank everyone that has worked to improve this article since January -- it's been quite the transformation. I don't think its very far from a GAN run. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Your article starts....A polar vortex is a persistent, large-scale cyclone that circles either of the planet's geographical poles.
To me this means the polar vortex circulates around the north pole on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays while on Tuesdays and Thursdays it circulates around the south pole. Sort of like the NYC parking bans.
Do I have it right?????
Arydberg (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This news article says that the same weather changes that bring frigid temperatures from the polar vortex into the Midwest and East Coast bring warmer temperatures to the West.
Is that correct? Worth adding to this topic?
http://kjzz.org/content/103485/cold-weather-back-east-causing-valleys-temperature-spike
68.3.67.38 (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not into this topic, so I wonder if polar cell and polar vortex are the same thing, or just related terms? Can anyone elaborate on this?--RoadTrain (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
They refer to 2 different but sometimes related things. The Polar cell refers to a meridional circulation, (i,e north/south), while the polar vortex is a mass of cold air that hovers over the pole and is kept there by the strong a zonal circulation (east/west) which goes around it. The link between them is that the polar jet is located at the boundary between the polar and Ferrel cells, and this is the major source of zonal momentum that helps create the cyclonic circulation around the polar vortex. Rfajber (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Polar vortex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion of rotation direction is ambiguous. Perhaps: "Consider an observer in outer space who is moving with the earth but not rotating. To him or her, both polar vortices rotate in the same direction as the earth's rotation. For such an observer over the north pole, the northern polar vortex rotates counterclockwise (a cyclone). For such an observer over the south pole, the southern polar vortex rotates clockwise."
This may be untrue, but I can't tell the true state of affairs from the description in the introduction. If you are looking at the face of an analogue clock, the hands move clockwise, but if the clock is transparent and you look from the back of the clock, the hands move counterclockwise. So whether something appears clockwise or counterclockwise depends on from where you view the motion. In addition whether or not the observer is co-rotating with the earth (as a ground-based observer would be) can affect the perception of the rotation. If there is super-rotation, a ground-based observer would still see the rotation as being in the same sense; but if the winds do not keep up with the earth's rotation, a ground-based observer would consider the winds to rotate in the opposite sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.66.189.2 (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Polar vortex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00212.1 Acccording to this article, there are TWO polar vortices, a Tropospheric and a Stratospheric. Maybe this article unifies them? This is confusing as I've seen in many places that there's two.
oops! This article also says that there's two: North Pole and South Pole. Given that almost half of americans believe in creationism, how to explain this?
Also, is the tropo PV the same as the Jet Stream? I've heard it said that the lower one IS the jet stream, my guess is that it's not. But, basically, they look exactly the same: meandering line circling the north pole... same direction, right? How high, how wide, how thick are the two? Do they overlap? I'm trying to get a 3D picture of what it looks like up there, and this is a big source of confusion. A diagram would be extremely helpful. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The article starts with the sentence "A polar vortex is an upper-level low-pressure area lying near one of the Earth's poles." However, we can read in the article about Saturn that the "Thermography has shown that Saturn's south pole has a warm polar vortex, the only known example of such a phenomenon in the Solar System". Therefore, this phenomen is not restricted to Earth.--81.217.18.39 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The polar vortex that exists in the stratosphere and troposphere at each pole are actually very different in structure, dynamics, seasonality, etc, I think this article needs to make clear distinctions between them. There's also a lot of confusion in the media about the difference between them so I think it's important. I am going to start by re-writing the introduction (currently working on it in my "sandbox"), and then clarify it throughout the article. I'm a bit new to wikipedia and it will be a big change so I hope I'm doing the right thing. Please note that currently (Feb 2020) the stratospheric polar vortex and the Arctic Oscillation is near-record strength, so there might be some current interest in this. I'd be keen for any advice for making major changes to a page, or criticism of any new stuff I add.
Ismoholtto (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Tclack88 (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC) To emphasize and stress the initial comment -- I have not found a source that mentions the tropospheric polar vortex rotates in the same direction as the stratospheric polar vortex. Wind near the surface moves toward the equator and from the coriolis force turns to the west, thus the polar easterlies. If you can clarify whether these are different and how, it would clear up both my confusion and that of the general reader.Tclack88 (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
This page could use some further recognition of the scientific controversy surrounding potential connections between the polar vortex and climate change. Some work such as [1] propose a connection between climate change and a weakened polar vortex and have garnered a lot of media attention. However, some more recent studies such as [2] do not support these connections. It would be helpful to find a review paper which summarizes the state of the current debate as a reference. The climate change section that exists could do a better job of summarizing the evidence against the connections, as well as better citing of literature while explaining the potential mechanisms. I hope to contribute to fleshing out this section in the coming weeks
Sjsmith757 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
References
If you hover over the link for "ozone hole"[85] in the end of the paragraph that talks about ozone depletion, itll say "global warming is fake (which obviously its not considering the years of research done on global warming)," followed by the normal article preview. I do not know how to fix this so I will raise awareness of it here. 192.58.125.30 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)