We know you’re tired of it. We’re tired of it. People pretend, and there is a certain majesty in winter scenes. But it’s late March and time for Spring to sproing. Instead “Arctic Weather Blast to Put Strain on Europe’s Energy Systems”. Why a strain? Did they really expect cold weather would never happen again? But it did and the only thing worse than a winter that won’t end is an energy grid purposely degraded so it can’t keep up.

According to Bloomberg:

“A blast of Arctic air will bring icy temperatures and low wind speeds to Europe over the next week, putting pressure on energy systems already struggling with depleted natural gas inventories. There are warnings for ice and snow across parts of the UK, France, Germany and Spain. The temperature in cities like London and Paris — which soared close to 20C (68F) last weekend — will dip below zero on Friday. That will push up power demand just as generation from solar and wind drop — a combination known as ‘Dunkelflaute.’”

Yup. That thing again.

Now in the real world people know winter is a tough slog. Thus a manufacturer of “tactical winter gear” emailed us in early March:

“Think winter’s over? Think again. The coldest months aren’t just about snowstorms – they’re about unpredictable rain, wind, and bitter nights that hit when you least expect them.”

For instance in early March when “A mega storm dumped more than a metre of snow on B.C. this weekend” including at the fabled Whistler ski resort. Where, yes, they were glad.

Nevertheless AP insists that “Most Americans who experienced severe winter weather see climate change at work, AP-NORC poll shows”. And if they do think so, they can thank the media who have told them so non-stop, then done a victory dance over it:

“About 8 in 10 U.S. adults say they have experienced some kind of extreme weather in recent years, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, with about half saying they’ve been personally affected by severe cold weather or severe winter storms. Among those saying severe cold was among the types of extreme weather they experienced, about three-quarters say climate change is at least a partial cause of those events — suggesting that many understand global warming can create an unstable atmosphere that allows cold air from the Arctic to escape farther south more often.”

Or that they think climate change means the climate changed, not that they’ve suddenly bought this trendy “polar vortex collapse”. (Naturally the story did not describe the poll questions.)

The polar vortex collapse is like totally in, man, having not been heard of until about a month ago. Britain’s Independent, via MSN, explains “Polar Vortex collapse set to send temperatures plunging in the US and Canada” and blames it on heat:

“A polar vortex collapse occurs when the layer between 10 and 50km above Earth’s surface warms up to 50 degrees in just two days – known as sudden stratospheric warming (SSW). This warming can weaken the polar vortex, causing cold Arctic air to move southwards and can lead to extreme weather conditions.”

Galloping right along with the herd of independent minds, Time tells you, also courtesy of MSN, “What to Know About the Polar Vortex Collapse”. Starting with the notion that just because it’s cold you shouldn’t think it’s not hot, delivered with a friendly pat on the head: “You could be forgiven for not noticing that last month was the planet's third warmest February on record.” And why? Gosh. It’s:

“because local temperatures plunged during the third week of February 2025, shattering records across the plains, the Gulf of Mexico, and the East Coast. Baker, Mont., saw a low of -22°F, its coldest day since 2009. Bismarck, N.D., fell to -39°F, six degrees from its all-time coldest day. The cause of the week-long deep freeze? A polar vortex collapse. Now, meteorologists are calling for another collapse in the middle of March, one that could plunge the U.S., Canada, and parts of Europe into a bitterly cold spell just days before the official arrival of spring. So what is a polar vortex collapse and why does it affect weather so dramatically?”

Local temperatures across the North American continent. Sort of like these famous cold snaps.

Sorry, did we say across North America? Silly us. Try most of the Northern Hemisphere, as another Independent story about, of all things, “Polar vortex collapse across UK could bring severe cold weather in March” explains that:

“The Met Office says the UK is highly likely to see a polar vortex collapse in March - the weather phenomenon responsible for 2018’s ‘Beast from the East’. A sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) was behind the bitter winter storm which struck Britain in March 2018, bringing heavy snow, ice and strong winds and leading to 17 deaths across the UK. Forecasters believe there is an 80 per cent chance of an SSW, which involves the rapid descent of cold air from the stratosphere known as a polar vortex collapse, occurring by the middle of the month. Professor Adam Scaife, the head of long-range forecasting at the Met Office, said: ‘This could lead to some impacts on weather in the UK toward the end of March. What those impacts might be will become clearer nearer the time.’ It comes as a recent warm spell is set to come to an end, with a sharp drop in temperatures expected next week as a band of rain introduces colder air as it moves southwards. Wintry showers are likely in northern and northeastern areas. Temperatures will drop below average by Tuesday, plunging as low as -4C overnight in rural Scotland as daytime maximum temperatures range between 5 to 8C. Wintry showers are ‘likely’ and accumulations of snow will largely remain in hilly areas, the Met Office said.”

Thus like most places, the UK now has warm spells vs cold snaps. As the Manchester Evening News put it, “Met Office verdict on UK cold snap after hottest day of the year thanks to ‘polar vortex collapse’”. Though the whole business could also be summarized as “Winter ain’t dead yet”, either in 2024-25 or generally. And now imagine writing this story without being obsessed with man-made climate change. It would say “Long cold winter continues in Britain; weather forecast unreliable”.

The Daily Mail almost got there. Under the highly original headline “Rare polar vortex collapse threatens to replace UK’s sunshine with frost and snow” it explained that:

“The UK has recorded the warmest day of the year so far, the Met Office has confirmed, with a high of 19.7°C in Lancashire. But the sunny skies and warm temperatures may not last much longer. Colder weather and spells of rain are expected to move across the United Kingdom this week. There’s also an 80% chance that a polar vortex could collapse later this month, forecasters said, bringing wintry conditions…. Last month, a polar vortex which dealt the most brutal winter to much of the US in recent years broke down, unleashing wintry conditions.”

They didn’t even do the heating thing, instead blurting out “This coming week, temperatures will drop below average after a pleasant weekend, with London seeing lows of 0C” almost as if people liked warmth.

The Independent stuck to the heat dunnit explanation:

“Known as sudden stratospheric warming, the process typically takes place ‘between 10km and 50km above the Earth’s surface’ – meaning the warming effect is not noticeable on the ground.”

To put it mildly. And Time explains that:

“More dramatic than a weakened vortex is a collapsing vortex. That occurs when a layer of Arctic air 10 to 30 miles above the surface warms by 50°F or more over a period of just two days, a phenomenon known as a sudden stratospheric warming (SSW). The SSW more powerfully weakens the polar vortex, slowing the spin that keeps frigid air at home in the Arctic and allowing it to spill southward.”

And what causes an SSW? Don’t ask us. We’re just explaining what you need to know. Mind you, to be fair, that piece does include this welcome passage:

“Whether climate change is playing a role in the twin collapses – with increasing global temperatures leading to rising stratospheric temperatures – is unclear. Meteorological records of stratospheric temperatures reach back only to the 1950s, making for a spotty dataset.”

They also do not know how long it will last or why, quoting a Weather Channel meteorologist that:

“Because there is typically a lag in how the near-surface atmosphere responds to the polar vortex, this would mean unusually cold temperatures affecting parts of North America and Eurasia at the end of March and beginning of April.”

They are however sure the planet is heating relentlessly. Just not whether it explains why it’s so cold you failed to notice.

We aren’t sure which side Stars Insider is even taking, other than the unoriginal, with the headline “Polar vortex reversal could extend winter into spring” on a piece starting:

“A significant disruption in the polar vortex is expected to bring a surge of Arctic air to the central and eastern United States in mid-March. This sudden stratospheric warming event weakens the polar vortex, allowing frigid air to push southward, potentially causing unseasonably cold temperatures and snowfall in unexpected regions. While many quickly attribute extreme winter weather to climate change, experts point to the polar vortex's instability as the driving force behind these dramatic shifts.”

But certain AP are not shy about being propagandists. That piece says as if it were uncontroversially a good thing that:

“Americans are catching on, said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, who credits a combination of media coverage, political leaders speaking up and public concerns that creates a ‘symbiotic relationship.’”

A symbiotic relationship between media and politicians, praised by activists. Great. And to think the audience is shrinking.

To suggest tunnel vision is surely not unfair when a story in Gizmodo informs us that:

“Greenland’s ice sheet is the second-largest ice cap on Earth, and because of the planet’s rising temperatures, it’s melting. Human-induced climate change is intensifying atmospheric rivers, but new research suggests their impact on Greenland’s ice sheet is more complex than once thought. A research pair has investigated the recent impact of an intense atmospheric river—a channel of water vapor that brings moisture and heat from warmer oceans to colder regions—on Greenland’s ice sheet. Unexpectedly, they found that this phenomenon deposited 16 billion tons of snow on Greenland, enough to temporarily slow its ice melt. As detailed in a study published March 3 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, atmospheric rivers might have a more positive impact than researchers had theorized.”

So a finding that Greenland’s ice cap is not melting doesn’t dent their certainty that it is, and wintery conditions are not evidence of wintery conditions. Or maybe it’s that it will melt in the future and the future is here so it’s melting now even if it’s not.