Climate Change, the Jet Stream, and the Polar Vortex in the Media

News Media Assignment

Earth’s climate is changing.

The average global temperature has risen about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the last century. While some regions have experienced an increase in temperature greater than 1.5 degrees (the Arctic), others have experienced an increase in temperature less than 1.5 degrees (South America), and there are some regions that are actually cooling (near Antarctica). The earth as a whole though, is unquestionably warmer.

Climate change isn’t just about the temperature of the earth. A changing climate means an increase in frequency of extreme weather events. Just as temperature increases aren’t consistent everywhere, types of extreme weather events and their frequency are not consistent globally. Some regions are experiencing severe drought, while others are getting more rainfall than usual and experiencing severe floods. Some regions are enduring heat waves while others are enduring the polar vortex.

The polar vortex has always existed; it is not a new phenomenon. The polar vortex is a vast, persistent, low pressure system that resides over the poles. It exists because of a very fast flow of air that acts like a huge fence circling the globe, trapping the cold arctic air over the poles. The difference in temperature between the poles and the equator create the very fast flow of air known as the jet stream. The greater the temperature difference between the poles and the equator, the faster and more powerful the jet stream and the more likely the vortex is to stay over the poles. The smaller the temperature difference, the weaker the jet stream and the easier it is for the arctic air to slip southward.

Climate change, human-induced or not (though it most certainly is), has caused an increase of about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the Arctic; a much larger increase than anywhere else in the world (especially the equator). Because the Arctic is warming at a greater rate than the equator, the difference in their temperatures is decreasing. This is causing the polar vortex controlling jet stream to weaken and allow it to slip southward into the United States.

The polar vortex has received quite a bit of media attention in the last few months because of its lingering appearances in the U.S. Lots of media outlets all over the world have discussed it through many frames and in varying detail. Let’s take a look at how this environmental issue has been conveyed:

London, U.K - The Telegraph

The Telegraph is a British news company. On January 6th, 2014, The Telegraph published a story on the polar vortex written by reporter Harriet Alexander in its "U.S.A News" section.

The company also has a “Science” section, an “Earth” section, an “Environment” section, and a “Climate Change” section. I find it interesting that this was posted in the U.S.A. section instead of any of the others; almost like this is something that only America is dealing with, and that it’s not a global phenomenon (Earth); much less one that could impact the world (including London), or one having to do with science, the environment, or climate change.

How about the title: "What is a 'polar vortex'?" Polar vortex is in quotation marks like it’s a new term or concept that hasn’t been established or proven...yet science has proven that it is real.

In the article, Alexander calls the vortex a “rare climatic phenomena.” Well, it’s not rare at all, but at least she tied it in with climate. She goes on to say that it’s “rare for [a polar vortex] to swing as far as to affect densely-inhabited areas.” This, too, is incorrect as the polar vortex regularly dips south into Canada and the U.S. even before the climate began to rapidly change. What is so spectacular about this year’s appearance is the expanse of the dip, the amount of area that it covers in the U.S. and Canada.

Alexander also says that “winds sweep around the area at 100 mph, typically trapping the cold air in the Arctic. But when the polar vortex splits apart, it can fling the cold air far afield.”  Here, of course, she’s talking about the jet stream, but she doesn’t say that. Perhaps she’s trying to keep it simple for the layman audience, but it comes across uninformed (or maybe that’s just because of the incorrect information she’s already written). And how, exactly, does the polar vortex “split apart”? Why is it in the U.S. right now? While she’s on the right path, she doesn’t make a clear connection between the jet stream and the dipping of the polar vortex, and doesn’t mention climate change at all.

Alexander ends the story with a reassuring statement that temperature in the U.S. should begin to moderate itself shortly. And, while there was a photograph of someone crossing the street in a snowstorm, there were no charts, graphs, or visuals included in her story. Using such data-rich visuals would have helped give her story credibility. Speaking of credibility, Alexander did include statements from a National Weather Service meteorologist, The Weather Channel, and from Dr. Hammond of the BBC Weather Centre, and also mentioned “authorities,” and “experts.” Yet overall, I do not think her story did a great job of explaining the scientific facts behind polar vortices.

Germany - Spiegel

Der Spiegel is a weekly newsmagazine published in Hamburg, Germany. On January 9th, 2014, a story on the polar vortex was posted on Der Spiegel's "Travel" site in German; the translated title is “Record Cold in North America: Niagara Falls to Solidify.”
  

This article is about the polar vortex but with a Niagara Falls theme. Readers learn that the Falls are now partially frozen and that “the culprit is extreme cold.” "Culprit" is an interesting word typically used to describe someone or something guilty for a crime or misdeed. How dare winters be so normally cold! It’s not unusual for Niagara Falls to freeze. This article then says that the “culprit” is in fact a “gigantic arctic air turbulence -- also known as the Polar Vortex -- [that] has pushed into the southern United States.” This is pretty vague, it doesn’t describe what the polar vortex is or why it was able to push into the U.S. I think the reporter who wrote this story could have done a better job of explaining the scientific background on polar vortices.

The rest of the story mentions how cold temperatures the were this winter so far, records that were broken, and also talks about the Winter Festival of Lights at Niagara Falls. The story ends with a statement similar to The Telegraph’s, assuring readers that temperatures will climb back to "normal" soon. I suppose it makes sense for this article to be under the travel section as there really isn’t any science, just reporting how cold it is in the U.S. which would affect those thinking of traveling here.  

This article was accompanied by some photographs of the icy Falls, no charts, graphs, or statements from scientists or experts. There was no mention of the jet stream or climate change.

Canada - CBC News

CBC News is one of the bigger news networks in Canada. On March 1st, 2014, the network posted a video on the polar vortex, which featured a young, attractive meteorologist named Johanna Wagstaffe. The video was titled “Why Did Polar Vortex Slide South?”

Notice the title. Alexander titled her article “What is A ‘polar vortex’?”  “A polar vortex,” like it’s something that isn’t always there, and quotations because it’s not an established concept or something. Here it’s not “Why Did A Polar Vortex Slide South,” because it’s always present (perhaps not in the U.S., but it always exists in the poles). It’s much different than a hurricane. We say “there is A hurricane forming in the Atlantic,” but if there was always the same hurricane swirling off the east coast we’d ask “have you seen how big THE hurricane is today?” Here they don’t even say “the polar vortex,” just simply “polar vortex,” like it’s a known entity that’s always there. And there aren’t any quotations around polar vortex, because it’s not a new, unestablished term or concept. The title also uses the word “slide” to describe the movement of the vortex. Unlike the Spiegel article which accuses the polar vortex of being a “culprit” guilty of some crime, they’re merely reporting why the vortex did what it normally does.

Moving on from the title of the story, the meteorologist in the video is a woman; an attractive, young woman much nicer to look at than the stereotypical meteorologist, which are typically older, white males. She spoke matter-of-factly, but slightly informally, which made the video pleasing to listen to, and easy understand the information she was presenting.

In the video, Wagstaffe correctly explains what the polar vortex is (that it’s normal and persistent).  She also mentions that recent research has suggested a link between our changing climate and the jet stream. She then explains what the jet stream is and how it is related to the polar vortex, tying all three together. Viewers learn that a warming arctic is causing the jet stream to have a longer, meandering path, allowing the polar vortex and it’s arctic air to spill south. She says that while it’s “hard to link one season of extreme weather to an overall trend,” that “science linking extreme weather to climate change is becoming clearer.” Wagstaffe doesn’t explicitly say that climate change and the polar vortex are related; she doesn’t say why the Arctic is warming (because of climate change) or that we may have a part in causing it (greenhouse gas emissions).

Wagstaffe mentions scientists and research. She gives easy-to-understand metaphors (with accompanying video) for the jet stream’s behavior as she relates the typical jet stream to raging water that cuts a straight path (and keeps the polar vortex at the poles), and the weaker jet stream to a slow moving, meandering stream (allows vortex to slip south). There were visuals, graphics, and relatable images of snow covered people, all of which I think helped to convey her story.

United States - The Weather Channel

The Weather Channel is a television station and website that report local and national forecasts, extreme weather events, and weather and climate discussions. On January 9th, 2014 the website posted an article on polar vortices by Terrell Johnson in their “Environmental News” section, titled “Polar Vortex and Climate Change: Why Rush Limbaugh and Others Are Wrong.”
  

The title is very telling of the nature of this piece which is obviously one of retort. Rush Limbaugh is a very conservative radio talk show host, political commentator, and climate change skeptic. Johnson is interested in condemning Limbaugh’s accusations that the polar vortex is a hoax to cover up the “fact” that the earth isn’t warming, and that climate change isn’t really happening.

Johnson tells us that the polar vortex isn’t a new term and he we learn what the polar vortex is and its connection to the jet stream. We then learn about climate change and how it affects different parts of the globe, and how our experience with the extreme cold doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t happening. He says that “it’s important to point out that the United States makes up less than 2 percent of the Earth's surface. So even when we see heavy snow events and blasts of Arctic air like this week's, there are many parts of the world experiencing record heat, such as Australia.” He adds that “warming doesn't occur at the same rate worldwide. Some places, like the tropics, have warmed at a much slower pace than the higher latitudes, where warming has been most pronounced.”

Johnson included graphs, videos, and photographs in his article, which I think boosts his credibility.  Also included are statements from Dr. Jeff Masters from Weather Underground, and from the World Meteorological Organization. Johnson mentions the IPCC and the NOAA. After each section of his article, he includes links to websites where you can get more information about what you’ve just read, which I think is very helpful to readers.

South Africa - Department of Environmental Affairs

Climateaction.org is an informational website created by the Republic of South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs. This website is exactly as it seems; a place to get information about climate change.

It seems as though the main focus of the website's page on climate change is the phenomenon's political aspect. We learn about the Kyoto Protocol and all that it entails. We also learn about the UNFCCC and their conferences (the CoP). We learn that the next CoP will be held in South Africa, why it will be in South Africa, how it will be run, and what happens at one of these conferences.

Then the last ⅓ of the page is devoted to the science behind climate change. The page says “‘climate change’ refers to an ongoing trend of changes in the earth’s general weather conditions as a result of a rise in the average temperature of the earth’s surface.” It also says, “this rise in the average global temperature is due, primarily, to the increased concentration in the atmosphere of gases known as greenhouse gases (GHGs). Most GHGs occur naturally, but human activities, especially those associated with industrialisation, emit extra GHGs. These gases intensify a natural phenomenon called the 'greenhouse effect' by forming an insulating layer in the atmosphere that reduces the amount of the sun’s heat that radiates back into space and therefore has the effect of making the earth warmer.” Readers are clearly told what climate change is, why the climate is changing, and how we may have a part in it.

Readers are then give examples of how climate change can affect different regions. For example, “increases in the average global temperature,” “changes in average rainfall patterns, with some regions experiencing higher rainfall (e.g. Northern Europe) and other areas experiencing drying (e.g. the Sahel and Southern Africa),” “increased frequency of extreme weather events over many land areas.”

There is no mention of the polar vortex or jet stream on Climateaction.com's climate change page.

The rest of the page is about how to deal with a changing climate (climate resilience), and how to be more "green."

There is a slideshow of 5 photographs on top of the page, each showing a devastating picture of a consequence of climate change (flood, destroyed crops, drought, etc.). There are no charts, graphs, or mention of experts or scientists, but there are, however, links to relevant sites after each section of the page. I think these links are helpful in leading readers to relevant, useful climate change information.

Australia - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

                 Organization (CSIRO): Climate Response

CSIRO is Australia’s national science research agency and Climate Response is their site dedicated to climate change. Here is a link to a search I did on their web site in which I looked for anything related to the polar vortex. They’ve got nothin’. I did find, however, CISRO's biennial State of the Climate Report for 2014. This report is titled “State of the Climate Report 2014? It’s warmer.”  The explanation under the title says “CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology get together, crunch the numbers and release a definitive report on long term trends in Australia’s climate.”

The title of the report is almost sarcastic; “oh, you want to know about the climate? NEWS FLASH: IT’S WARMER!” And how about the explanation? Two important sounding groups get together to crunch numbers and release a definitive report; sounds pretty legit.

This report focuses on Australia’s climate. Readers learn that “Australia’s mean surface airtemperature has warmed by 0.9°C since 1910,” and that “over the past 15 years, the frequency of very warm months has increased fivefold and the frequency of very cool months has declined by around a third, compared to 1951–1980.” Readers also learn that “rainfall averaged across Australia has slightly increased since 1900, with a large increase in northwest Australia since 1970,” but that “autumn and early winter rainfall has mostly been below average in the southeast since 1990.” And that “the duration, frequency and intensity of heat waves have increased across large parts of Australia since 1950,” and “there has been an increase in extreme fire weather, and a longer fire season, across large parts of Australia since the 1970s.”

The report widens its scope toward the end where it discusses climate change as a concept; “it is extremely likely that dominant cause of recent warming is human induced greenhouse gas emissions and not a natural climate variability.”

So readers learn that there are more warm months and less cold months than usual, that some places are receiving more rain than others, that frequency and intensity of heat waves and fire weather have increased (extreme weather), and that we are responsible.

The report included data-filled visuals and scientific statements, which helped boost its credibility.

The Media

Corbett explains in Chapter 8 of Communicating Nature that “Environmental issues [...] are often highly scientific and technical, [... and journalists] lack the expertise to fully understand concepts.”  This is the case with Alexander’s article in The Telegraph. Alexander made a lot of incorrect statements and didn’t give the full picture. This also lead to Spiegel’s article to lack the “because” statements necessary to tell the whole story about why the falls were frozen.

Also according to Corbett, “news is, to a large degree, event-driven” and environmental news is no exception.  The polar vortex is in the media because it’s made some appearances in the U.S. If the Arctic wasn’t warming and the jet stream remained normal, then the polar vortex would only make it’s usual, occasional slide southward and we wouldn’t hear about it in the media. This is why the media from South Africa and Australia didn’t mention the polar vortex; it’s an event that hasn’t occurred there.

Though climate change is undeniable and our involvement in it is “very likely,” it’s still considered a debatable topic; especially in politics. Perhaps this is why the Canadian video left out the part about our involvement in climate change. Or maybe it’s because, as Corbett quotes Everett E. Dennis, “environmental journalism’s dilemma [is] dealing with a shrinking news hole while facing a growing need to tell a longer, complicated, and more in depth stor[y].” Perhaps there wasn’t enough time to add greenhouse gas emissions into the video.

The above news stories are clearly written from different perspectives, or frames. Most notable is Johnson’s frame in his article about Limbaugh. It’s clear just from the title that Johnson is using a challenger frame (Corbett), more specifically that of “unreason.” Corbett describes the unreason frame as “being taken advantage of, tricked or fooled, may point out opposition is uninformed or uneducated.” He did just that while shutting down Limbaugh’s accusation that the polar vortex is a hoax and that climate change isn’t real.  It’s interesting that I personally took on the same frame toward Alexander while analyzing her story.

My takeaway: There are notable variations throughout many countries’ media coverage of the climate change, the jet stream, and the polar vortex.

By Andrea Drollinger