Periodic Polar Vortexes

 Recently our national weather news has been filled with meteorological superlatives. We cannot say we weren’t forewarned about the unusual weather which descended upon the US in late January 2026. We have experienced an unusual dose of winter woes, ranging from snow, to sleet, to freezing rain, to wind. This plethora of weather events has brought with it miseries ranging from frozen water pipes, vehicle accidents, flight cancellations and power failures, not to mention human discomfort, injury, and even death. As of this writing citizen human deaths have risen to 34 and counting. 

The United States has endured the most protracted stretch of cold weather in several years. The public tunes in to media weather reports for an explanation. An important term has been introduced to our weather-aware public in the last several decades. It is called the POLAR VORTEX, a feature of the divinely created weather system operating on our planet for thousands of years.

Before discussing specific details of our recent weather woes, we cite several  scripture references from the Old Testament. The Book of Job possesses fascinating scientific insights concerning creation events, behavior of living things, and events from the world of nature, including weather phenomena. This OT book is filled with up to date commentary on scientific issues in a piece of divinely inspired literature composed about 3500 years ago.

Following are two insightful meteorological passages from the Book of Job. They both relate to winter blasts of extremely cold air. 

By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad water are frozen fast (Job 37:10-11 ESV).  From whose womb did the ice come forth, and who has given birth to the frost of heaven? The waters become hard like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen

(Job 38:29-30 ESV).

The destructive winter blasts of January 2026 and several thousand years ago were caused by manifestations of the polar vortex, described initially by scientists in 1853. We copy a paragraph from our 2/17/19 post dealing with Planet Earth’s two polar vortexes:

“There are two types of polar vortexes: tropospheric and stratospheric. Both vortexes consist of air circulating west to east, but differ in their size. Earth’s troposphere is the zone of Earth’s atmosphere where virtually all weather occurs. It hugs the Earth’s surface, ascending to various heights—highest at the equator (12 mi) but not as high at the poles (4 mi). Earth’s stratosphere rests atop the troposphere. Its temperature begins to rise as altitude increases. On occasion, various phenomena contribute to SSW (sudden stratospheric warming) at high latitudes around the poles. As a result the stratospheric polar vortex weakens, sending intensely cold air masses southward. The weaker the stratospheric polar vortex, the more likely we will receive a heavy dose of uncommon and intense cold. Truly intense stratospheric polar vortexes strike the US rarely, perhaps every few years.”

It is ironic that sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) triggers intense cooling at other locations on our planet! This mystery is studied by an army of weather scientists. In addition to the stratospheric polar vortex which was largely responsible for our recent intensely cold weather, other, more familiar weather phenomena made the event even more intense. These phenomena are called the polar jet streams. We might say that an additional polar vortex—the tropospheric polar vortex—locates the jet streams. These moving air streams locate wam/cold and dry/moist air masses and cause them to move. Our changeable yet beneficial weather systems owe their existence to jet streams. “Then I will give you rain in its season, the land shall yield its produce, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit”  (Leviticus 26:4 ESV).

Job 37-38 refers to other weather wonders such as snow, lightning, and thunder from the dialog between Elihu and God Himself. These verses highlight humanity’s lack of knowledge concerning meteorological wonders which sustain life on Planet Earth.

We sympathize with media meteorologists who attempt to explain not only pleasant, beneficial weather, but also the complexities of unpleasant events such as the tropospheric polar vortex. 

We close with a devotional passage from Rev. 4:11:

“Worthy are you our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.” (ESV)

   

  

  

Responding to Skeptics

 

Several years prior to our Science/Faith blog’s inception in 2007, your blog author emailed many secular scholars and columnists concerning the viability of our Christian faith and its inherent belief system. My family history supplied a strong affirmation of the truth of the Christian faith and respect for scientific truth. I have retained a large file of emails I wrote to scholars in the academic world and many of the responses they offered in return. The email exchanges served as inspiration for me. Many of the respondents remarked that they valued the dialog and were pleased their readers responded.

We advocate that Christians become pro-active in communicating our faith to fellow citizens, even those who do not operate on our theological wavelength. Hugh Ross, founder of the organization Reasons to Believe, encourages Christians to “Always be ready” to give a defense of our faith: The Apostle Peter counsels, “…But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; but do it with gentleness and respect…” (I Peter 3:15 ESV)

One of the columnists we cited in our opening paragraph was fond of making critical and controversial statements in his writing. I responded to him with my personal commentary, especially when the columnist attacked the Christian faith and Christian leaders. This was an opportunity to put into practice the exhortation of the Apostle Peter (I Peter 3:15). Recently I re-discovered a folder containing copies of the two-way correspondence with this columnist. The packet contained thirty-five letters between us. Our communication continued for three years. 

The columnist expressed bold doubts about a number of issues related to the Christian faith. He felt the Bible contained much “hearsay evidence” concerning the ministry of Jesus Christ and wondered why God’s Son did not produce an autobiography. He questioned how the truth of Christ’s mission is communicated to us in the 21st century. He doubted the inerrancy of Scripture—its factual information and its divine inspiration. He perceived the Bible as an all-too-human production.

My response was “When I was young I believed the Christian gospel…..As I got older I studied a range of apologetic sources on Christianity, along with a rather broad study of science topics…..The Christianity came first, the science knowledge later…..The objective science training I received helped me avoid the ‘company line’ that science and theology are separate realms.” The link between faith and science was established in my mind several years before we formally launched our Science/Faith blog in 2007.  

The Bible makes extraordinary claims concerning miracles. Such claims demand extraordinary evidence. The problem arises when someone insists that hearsay evidence concerning miracles is always unreliable. 

Doubts about the existence of God are difficult to refute. Ultimately, when skeptics insist on evidence of a particular kind we may not be able to offer the type of proof they demand. For example, God created all things (the heavens and the earth) in the beginning. But who created God, my friend queried?  Other questions he raised related to historic Christian colonialism, the Crusades, and other “holy wars” waged in the name of God. He also questioned my belief in divine creationism instead of evolution.

The exchange with the newspaper columnist was generally pleasant and civil. In retrospect, we were able to reinforce the belief that science and faith are allies, not enemies. As we defend this principle, we must do so with gentleness and respect.