lols@jopoYou didn't happen to notice cooling (with aerosols)...

lols

@jopo
You didn't happen to notice cooling (with aerosols) from 1940 to 1970, and warming (with increasing CO2 and reduced aerosols) from 1970 to 2000?
So it isn't surprising or contradictory to me to see a changing impact on the polar vortex over those two different periods.

It's nice you are posting IPCC science reports for a change. But I am not sure what your point is.

Also you are referring to a 2007 AR4 paragraph. I am referring to 2018 peer reviewed science that is commented on by a climate research scientist, Jennifer Francis, in the article she wrote for the Conversation. In which article she refers to both her work and other published scientific papers. And that recent science she refers to comments on observed behaviour of the polar vortex and the jet stream in more recent (and warmer) times than your pre-2007 IPCC papers cover.
Again, there is no contradiction in the different findings in different periods with differing conditions; cooling, warming, and warmer periods.

Francis' work and the other references she links in her article investigate the cause of the recent observed weakening and wobbling. Whether her and the other supporting papers pass the test of time is moot. We'll see. And she acknowledges that uncertainty in her article.
But again, I see no contradiction between her recent work and the earlier IPCC comments.

You can leave out the 'conman' and 'fraud' BS by the way.

@Tee47
Both The Conversation articles are written by a climate scientist with published, peer reviewed papers on the polar vortex, who also links to other science papers in the article.
So your suggestion that "there is no peer reviewed info on the conversation" is totally false.

I don't have an issue with the QBO/solar linkages to the polar vortex that you point out. As jopo has in the past iirc.
But that relationship does not exclude further impacts on the vortex, and more powerful impacts, from the arctic warming faster than the rest of the planet, as expected by greenhouse gas warming. And that relationship with greenhouse gas warming is what the number of papers linked in the Conversation article suggest.

NASA is providing a brief laymans summary on the polar vortex. I don't think you should expect to find detailed scientific references there.