From last winter’s polar vortex to this week’s heat wave, Chicagoans have experienced several degrees of uncomfortableness in a few short months.

We weather the extreme weather well enough, thanks to a lot of practice, and tend to think of ourselves as a hardy bunch that shrugs off the bitter cold or sweltering heat because we’re Chicagoans.

It’s a small price to pay for living in the world’s greatest city, so we persevere and wear our rugged exteriors on our sleeves like a badge of honor.

But this latest experience under the Heat Dome had me wondering whether it’s time to accept that, down deep, we’re really weather wimps. We don’t want to leave the house when the wind chill is below zero or the heat index is over 90. We love our central heating and air conditioning, despite our gritty reputation.

There’s nothing wrong with admitting you prefer comfort over extreme cold or heat, even as we’ve been typecast as a city that loves our “Bears Weather,” a holdover from a few cold-weather wins during the Super Bowl season 40 years ago.

This year has seen a cold spring turn into a hot summer almost overnight. Wrigley Field was a sweat box over the weekend, with an umpire and a Seattle Mariners pitcher leaving Saturday’s game because of the heat.

It was less worrisome Monday at Rate Field, where the White Sox took on the Arizona Diamondbacks with the sun down, but I still felt for Sox players taking infield practice, remembering former first baseman John Kruk’s clubhouse rant in 1995 when manager Terry Bevington ordered pregame infield practice during a similar heat wave.The only way for fans to escape Monday was to hit the showers, and a long line of kids waited to jump into the left-field shower during the game, gleefully soaking themselves while the Sox got pummeled 10-0.

Climate change has brought more tropical weather than ever to Midwestern cities, and despite what the stable genius and his administration want to believe, it’s not going to reverse course anytime soon.

That’s why it’s imperative for future White Sox owner Justin Ishbia to rip up the current renderings of the proposed ballpark in the South Loop and commission an architect to draw up a new one with a retractable roof.

When Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf outlined his long-term succession plan last month, he in effect handed the stadium issue to Ishbia, who figures to own the controlling stake in the team by 2030 or so — just in time for a new ballpark to open, assuming he’s open to paying for most or all of it with his $4.3 billion.

Reinsdorf’s search for public funding for a new park is toast, so if Ishbia doesn’t do it, the Sox will either have to readjust their lease at Rate Field or move. Sox fans deserve better, but they seldom get what they want.

The Sox last year gave us a look at how a new ballpark would look at The 78, and the renderings received rave reviews. Everything looked cool. But the idea of making the public build the Sox yet another ballpark — after they messed up with an antiseptic stadium with a steep upper deck that is now closed off during most weekday games — was a deal breaker.

If the Sox are realistic, they would admit most of their fans go to games only when the team is winning, and even then they usually wait until the weather is tolerable. A retractable roof, like the ones built by the Milwaukee Brewers, Houston Astros and Texas Rangers, would fix one of those problems. A new owner in Ishbia might fix both.

Would Sox fans accept a retractable dome? A former player told me once they got used to it, they’d love it.

“Every new ballpark constructed should have a (retractable) roof,” he said. “Not just because it’s too hot but for concerts and events in the winter to make it pay off.”

Before Monday’s game, I asked rookie pitcher Grant Taylor, who played in the jungle-like humidity at LSU, what he thought of the Sox moving into a retractable-dome ballpark down the line. Taylor had just experienced two such parks in Houston and Toronto.

“I thought that was cool in Toronto,” he said of the Rogers Centre. “I liked it better with the roof open, but yeah. When we were in Houston it was raining one of those days, and it was so nice to put the dome over (the field) and still play baseball.

“That’s huge. You look at the St. Louis series (in Chicago) when we had to cancel a game and then have to use all of our relief arms in a doubleheader the next day. I think it would be pretty sweet. I prefer a stadium that’s open on a good day, but if it’s raining or 100 degrees outside, it’s nice to have a dome.”

The Cubs will have to live with future heat issues at Wrigley Field, the second-oldest ballpark behind Fenway Park. The Rickettses have invested heavily in renovations, but a roof is not part of their long-term vision.

But it’s not too late for the Sox to understand this concept of climate change and its effect on games. The Rangers owners came to the conclusion that a roof was necessary in their oppressive heat and left a perfectly suitable ballpark that opened in 1994 — three years after the Sox moved into new Comiskey Park — to enjoy the air-conditioned comforts of Globe Life Field.

As we sweat away the summer, imagine walking out of 98-degree heat and into a 72-degree, climate-controlled ballpark to watch the Sox play.

It’s not as crazy as you’d think.

Now they just have to figure out the winning part.