Arctic News

Wednesday, February 4, 2026

Horrific temperature anomalies forecast over Arctic Ocean

Antarctic sea ice

The combination image below shows Antarctic sea ice thickness and concentration by the University of Bremen (left and center) and concentration by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (right) on February 5, 2026. The NSIDC image also shows the median Antarctic sea ice edge 1981-2010 highlighted in orange.

Loss of Antarctic sea ice can result in strong loss of global albedo, due to the size of Antarctic sea ice and its proximity to the Equator.

Arctic sea ice

Arctic sea ice volume is at a record low for the time of year, as it has been for well over a year. The above image shows Arctic sea ice volume through February 6, 2026.

The next El Niño

[ click on images to enlarge ]

Moving from the bottom of a La Niña to the peak of a strong El Niño can in itself make a difference of more than 0.5°C, as discussed in an earlier post.

The image on the right, adapted from NOAA, shows Niño-3.4 region temperature anomalies and forecasts.

The image below, adapted from NOAA, shows that La Niña conditions have been present for most periods (18 out of 19) dating back to the May-June-July 2024 period.

The image on the right, adapted from NOAA and from an earlier post, shows ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) probabilities, with El Niño (red bar) emerging in the course of 2026.

The combination image below, adapted from ECMWF, shows the ENSO anomalies and forecasts for developments through February 2027 in Niño3.4 (left panel) and in Niño1+2 (right panel), indicating that the next El Niño will emerge and strengthen in the course of 2026.

The image below shows a temperature anomaly forecast, adapted from tropicaltidbits.com, valid for November 2026, with anomalies at the top end of the scale (13°C) showing up over most of the Arctic Ocean.

Dangers downplayed

There are many ways used to downplay the dangers. One way is to mask the full wrath of temperature rise by using a recent base from which the temperature rise is calculated. While pre-historic obviously refers to times before the Industrial Revolution started, the IPCC decided to downplay the dangers of crossing the Paris Agreement thresholds by using a more recent base.

As illustrated by the above Eliot Jacobson image that uses a 3-year running mean, the temperature has meanwhile crossed the 1.5°C threshold and reached 1.53°C even when using an 1850-1900 base.

As the EPA animation on the right illustrates, a relatively small rise in average temperature can result in a lot more hot and extremely hot weather.

The three images underneath, from the IPCC, show the effect on extreme temperatures when (a) the mean temperature increases, (b) the variance increases, and (c) when both the mean and variance increase for a normal distribution of temperature.

Another way used to downplay the dangers is by averaging out peak impact, i.e. the most destructive impact. Averaging out peaks can be done by looking at large areas with a low resolution. As an example, land-only temperatures are rising faster than ocean temperatures. Since most people live on land, it's crucial to report the full temperature peaks on land, rather than the global average.

Yet another way used to downplay the dangers is by averaging the temperature rise out over long periods of time. How can the thresholds set at the Paris Agreement best be measured? Is a threshold deemed to be crossed when the anomaly from pre-industrial crosses the threshold for a month, or for a year, or for a decade?

Averaging out over a long period can be used to downplay the dangers in efforts to effectively grant polluters a long grace period during which they can continue to pollute.

Uncertainty is often pointed at as an excuse to downplay the dangers, but even in case there is uncertainty, downplaying the dangers constitutes a violation of the crucial precautionary principle, as illustrated by the cartoon below.

An engineer building a bridge will calculate the load it must handle by looking at how many heavy trucks could be on the bridge simultaneously (PEAK traffic), rather than by averaging the weight of all vehicles crossing the bridge over 30 years.
Caption and image by Sam Carana, image is from earlier post.

Will life soon disappear?

Furthermore, drawing linear trends can mask recent or near-future acceleration that may strengthen over the years. Moreover, crossing tripping points can result in huge abrupt changes. A recent study warns about States and financial bodies using modelling that ignores shocks from extreme weather and climate tipping points.

Warnings are further illustrated by the image below that features a gradually accelerating decline in biodiversity (red line) and infrastructure growth over time followed by imminent and abrupt infrastructure decline (grey line). The image warns that a false focus can cause imminent or ongoing collapse to be ignored.

[ click on images to enlarge, image is discussed on facebook ]

Ultimately, economic projections fail because they focus on money, global GDP, and similar constructs, ignoring the damage occurring to the soil, water, atmosphere and the very conditions that sustain life. Increasingly unlivable conditions result from a failure to correct this false focus, from a refusal to accept that what's really important is disappearing, indeed that life itself is disappearing before our own eyes.

Climate Emergency Declaration

The situation is dire and unacceptably dangerous, and the precautionary principle necessitates rapid, comprehensive and effective action to reduce the damage and to improve the outlook, where needed in combination with a Climate Emergency Declaration, as described in posts such as in this 2022 post and this 2025 post, and as discussed in the Climate Plan group.

Links

• NSIDC - Sea Ice Today
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today

• University of Bremen - sea ice concentration and thickness
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/start

• Danish Meteorological Institute - Arctic sea ice volume and thickness
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php

• Tropicaltidbits.com
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com
image discussed on facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10163809174829679

• NOAA - ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions (pdf)
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
discussed on facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10163809174829679

• NOAA - ENSO Alert System Status (pdf)

https://cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf

• NOAA - ENSO Alert System Status

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml

• NOAA - Relative Oceanic Niño Index (RONI): Historical El Niño / La Niña episodes
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso/roni
discussed on facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10163817526189679

• ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) - Niño Plumes
https://charts.ecmwf.int/products/seasonal_system5_nino_annual_plumes
discussed on facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/permalink/10163819996829679

• Greenhouse gas rising
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2026/01/greenhouse-gas-rising.html

• The threat of seafloor methane eruptions
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2025/11/the-threat-of-seafloor-methane-eruptions.html

• Transforming Society
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/10/transforming-society.html

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Climate Emergency Declaration
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climate-emergency-declaration.html

Sunday, February 1, 2026

Is SSP5-8.5 the worst-case scenario?

SSP5-8.5

SSP5-8.5 is one of a number of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP). It is a scenario in which radiative forcing would be 8.5 W/m⁻² in 2100. The image on the right shows the IPCC projection of the temperature rise in 2081–2100 relative to 1850–1900 corresponding with a SPP5-8.5 scenario (from IPCC AR6 WG11 SPM).

The image below, created by Peter Carter, Climate Emergency Institute, shows the WMO's averaged 2025 global temperature increase of 1.44°C on top of IPCC AR6 WG1 Figure 4.02 (a), illustrating that the WMO rise of 1.44°C for 2025 is spot on the SSP5-8.5 projection (in dark red).

SSP5-8.5 is often said to be a "worst-case" scenario, but as illustrated by the image below, current temperatures are on track or even exceeding SSP5-8.5 projections, given that the rise in 2024 was 1.55°C and 2025 resembled a La Niña year. So, has the IPCC been downplaying the danger? It sure makes one wonder whether SSP5-8.5 is the worst-case scenario. Indeed, Business As Usual (BAU) may turn out to be even worse, so let's have a closer look at what the outlook for some of the worst-case scenarios could be.

A further image by Peter Carter is added below.

How much could temperatures rise?

The image below, adapted from ClimateReanalyzer, shows the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) for the SSP5-8.5 scenario pointing at a temperature rise of 1.661°C in February 2025, of 4.388°C in February 2083 and of 5.163°C in February 2100, when using a 1901-2000 base (temperatures will be higher when a genuinely pre-industrial base is used).

The map below shows the CMIP6 SSP5-8.5 rise versus 1881-1920 in February 2100. The map shows that the temperature rise in areas on land (where most people live) could be as much as 8°C higher in Feb 2100 in the SSP585 model.

The map warns that temperatures over large parts of the Arctic may be as much as 20°C higher than 1881-1920 in February 2100. This would suggest that by 2100 the snow and ice cover in the Arctic will have declined dramatically and that huge amounts of greenhouse gases will likely have been released from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean and from thawing terrestrial permafrost, with huge albedo changes as well as loss of the latent heat buffer, further accelerating the temperature rise over the years. There are further contributors to a rapid and potentially huge temperature rise, so the SSP5-8.5 model may severely underestimate the temperature rise. Indeed, the SSP5-8.5 model may not be the worst-case scenario.

CMIP6 SSP5-8.5 can be used to project temperature rises beyond 2100, as illustrated by the image below, from an earlier post and from a 2016 paper by Brian O'Neill et al.

In the above analysis, CO₂ emissions keep rising in CMIP6 SSP5-8.5 to about 35 GtC in 2100, to fall gradually after 2100 (a), while atmospheric CO₂ concentrations keep rising and remain at levels higher than 2000 ppm beyond 2250 (b), while radiative forcing (RF) rises to and remains at 12.5 W/m⁻² (c) and global mean temperature change rises to 8°C in 2300 (d).

[ from earlier post, click on images to enlarge ]

Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) can be used to convert RF into °C temperature change. ECS in IPCC AR6 is 3, i.e. lower than in CMIP models. A study led by James Hansen concludes the IPCC ECS is too low and suggests to use 1.2°C per W/m⁻², which in a 8.5 W/m⁻² scenario would correspond with a 10.2°C temperature anomaly in 2100. Hansen et al. add that equilibrium global warming for today’s GHG amount is 10°C, which is reduced to 8°C by today’s human-made aerosols.

A 2020 analysis by Jorgen Randers et al. (image on the right) points out that, even if all greenhouse gas emissions by people could stop immediately and even if the temperature anomaly could fall to 0.5°C above pre-industrial, greenhouse gas levels would start rising again after 2150 and keep rising for centuries to come.

The image on the right is created with content from a study by Christina Schädel et al. The study concludes that permafrost fires and thaw will release 231 Gt CO₂e (63 Gt C) for each degree Celsius rise in temperature from a 389-691 Gt pool of carbon. By comparison, the total emissions by people is now about 55 Gt CO₂e.

In other words, the danger is even more menacing when including the full wrath of rising temperatures in the Arctic, i.e. including the impact of permafrost fires and permafrost thaw, and the impact of destabilizing sediments at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean resulting in eruptions of huge amounts of methane, as well as the impact of albedo loss and loss of the latent heat buffer of declining sea ice and permafrost, all of which comes on top of existing global emissions.

How fast could temperatures rise?

Next to the size of the temperature change, the rate of change is also important. Large changes did take place in prehistoric times, but they typically did take a long time to evolve. The current temperature rise looks set to be huge and also looks set to be rising at accelerating speed, dwarfing anything seen in previous extinction events. The image below, from an earlier post, shows extinction rates and temperature changes for the five major extinction events (grey vertical lines).

The image and quote below also featured in an earlier post by Andrew Glikson.

“The paleoclimate record shouts to us that, far from being self-stabilizing, the Earth's climate
system is an ornery beast which overreacts even to small nudges” (Wally Broecker)

[ from an earlier post ]

The image below further illustrates that temperatures may currently be rising much faster than they ever did in history.

[ from earlier post ]

Contributors to a potentially huge temperature rise

[ see the Extinction page ]

The bar-chart on the right conceptually dates back to 2016, when analysis of contributions concluded they could add up to a potentially huge rise in temperature in the near future. The bar-chart includes an 8°C rise when CO₂e levels cross 1200 ppm (CO₂ emissions peak at 130Gt before 2100 and concentrations stay above 2000 ppm from 2350 in the O'Neil analysis, while methane and N₂O emissions keep rising beyond 2100 in RCP8.5).

The image below uses NASA Land-only temperature anomalies versus 1880-1920, illustrating that temperature could rise more rapidly than SSP5-8.5 suggests. The image illustrates that the 1.5°C threshold was crossed for temperatures on land since 2015, when politicians pledged (at the Paris Agreement) to take efforts to prevent a rise of more than 1.5°C from pre-industrial from occurring.

Note that this 1880-1920 base is not pre-industrial; temperature anomalies can be higher when using a genuinely pre-industrial base.

The image below has a polynomial trend added that points at 3°C getting crossed on land in early 2027.

As discussed, crossing 3°C on land is important, since most people live on land and there are indications that such a rise will cause many species (including humans) to go extinct.

Meanwhile, the 3-year running average for the mean rate of atmospheric CO₂ growth through January 2026 broke 8.00 ppm per 3 years, reaching a new record high growth rate of 8.06 ppm per 3 years, as illustrated by the Eliot Jacobson image below.

Below are 14 contributors to a potentially huge temperature rise:

1. High and rising greenhouse gas concentrations

2. Earth Energy Imbalance rapid and accelerating rise
3. Rapid and accelerating decline in Earth Albedo
- Sea ice decline
- Snow and ice cover on land decline
- The aerosol masking effect getting reduced
- Lower clouds reflectivity decline
4. Further feedback kicking in with accelerating ferocity
- Water vapor feedback
- Ocean stratification, acidification and hypoxia (dead zones)
- Polar amplification of the temperature rise

- Jet Stream distortion and more extreme weather events
- Sea currents such as AMOC and SMOC slowing down
- Decline in the capacity of oceans and land to take up CO₂ and heat
5. Thinning of sea ice resulting in loss of the ability to consume incoming ocean heat
6. More fuel getting burned worldwide
7. Worldwide rise in agricultural emissions
8. Depletion of soil moisture and water from lakes, rivers and aquifers
9. Deforestation, loss of soil carbon and associated emissions

- Forest fires increase

- Trees becoming more vulnerable to droughts, fires, pests and diseases

- More trees cut and burned to create pasture, for construction and energy use

- Increase in ozone due to storms and lightning
10. Loss of wildlife and biodiversity
11. Pollution of water and soil

- Oil spills on sea, infrastructure collapse on land

- Pesticides, agricultural chemicals, etc.

- Plastic and PFAS contamination

- Flooding and fires in urban areas (waste, toxic substances from warehouses, etc.)

- Pollution from military activities
12. Politicians hardly take environmental and climate action
13. Many media focus on selling consumables instead of on climate action
14. Meanwhile, a new El Niño may emerge in the course of 2026

While each of these points is alarming in itself, they can also amplify each other and together they can cause a dramatic and rapid temperature rise, as discussed in a recent post and as illustrated and supported by the rapidly rising polynomial trend in the image below, which is based on many years of historic data and which adds further weight to important warnings.

[ Image from earlier post, also discussed on facebook ]

When could humans go extinct?

As the likeliness of a huge and accelerating temperature rise, the severity of its impact, and the ubiquity and the imminence with which it will strike all become more apparent and manifest—the more sobering it is to realize that a mere 3°C rise will likely suffice to cause human extinction.

A 2018 study (by Strona & Bradshaw) indicates that most life on Earth will disappear with a 5°C rise. What does this mean for humans?

Terrestrial vertebrates are more in danger than many other species, since they depend on numerous other species for food. Humans are terrestrial vertebrates and humans are also large warm-blooded mammals with high metabolic rates, thus requiring more habitat. It also takes a long time for humans to reach maturity. Additionally, humans have become addicted to processed food, fossil fuels, plastic, etc. Furthermore, humans require large amounts of fresh water, including for sweating when temperatures rise. A 3°C rise may therefore suffice to cause humans to disappear, as illustrated by the image below.

[ from earlier post ]

Climate Emergency Declaration

The situation is dire and unacceptably dangerous, and the precautionary principle necessitates rapid, comprehensive and effective action to reduce the damage and to improve the outlook, where needed in combination with a Climate Emergency Declaration, as described in posts such as in this 2022 post and this 2025 post, and as discussed in the Climate Plan group.

Links

• Climate Emergency Institute
https://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com
image discussed on facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10163795386309679

https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10163807449809679

• WMO confirms 2025 was one of warmest years on record
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2025-was-one-of-warmest-years-record

• WMO confirms 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above pre-industrial level
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2024-warmest-year-record-about-155degc-above-pre-industrial-level

• IPCC AR6 WG1 Figure 4.2 (a)
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-4/figure-4-2

• Understanding Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs)

https://climatedata.ca/resource/understanding-shared-socio-economic-pathways-ssps

• CMIP6 and Shared Socio-economic Pathways overview

https://climate-scenarios.canada.ca/?page=cmip6-overview-notes

• Climate Reanalyzer
https://climatereanalyzer.org

• The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 - by Brian O'Neill et al. (2016)
https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/9/3461/2016

• Is CMIP6 SSP585 the worst-case scenario? (2024 post)

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2024/05/is-cmip6-ssp585-the-worst-case-scenario.html

• Greenhouse gas rising

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2026/01/greenhouse-gas-rising.html

• Permafrost and wildfire carbon emissions indicate need for additional action to keep Paris Agreement temperature goals within reach - by Christina Schädel et al.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-026-03189-5

discussed on Facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10163804667894679

• The climate change runaway chain reaction-like process - by Andrew Glikson
Amplifying feedbacks leading to accelerated planetary temperatures

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-climate-change-runaway-chain-reaction-like-process.html

Friday, January 23, 2026

Extreme weather events

Temperatures in the United States

As illustrated by the above image, adapted from a NOAA forecast, a massive winter storm is forecast to hit much of the U.S. (forecast valid through January 26, 2026).

The above image, adapted from ClimateReanalyzer, shows that temperature anomalies as low as -45°F (-25°C) are forecast to hit Texas on January 24, 2026.

The above image, adapted from ClimateReanalyzer, shows that temperatures as low as 9°F (-12.78°C) are forecast to hit Texas on January 24, 2026.

The above image, adapted from nullschool.net, shows temperatures as low as -0.8°F (-18.12°C) forecast to hit Kansas on January 24, 20026 (at the green circle).

Temperatures in Russia

The image below shows that, on January 26, 2026, temperatures in Russia were as low as -52°F (-46.6°C) at a location in Russia at 63.5°N (green circle). This is well outside of the Arctic Circle, which is at 66°3'N. Within the Arctic Circle, sunlight is absent on the winter solstice.

As temperatures keep rising, many feedbacks are striking with increasing vigor, resulting in higher temperature anomalies at the Arctic (polar amplification), resulting in more cold air descending deeper outside of the Arctic Circle (Jet Stream distortion), and resulting in more massive snowfall (7% more water in the air for each 1°C rise in temperature).

Jet Stream distortion and further feedbacks

For some, the cold weather forecasts may raise questions as to how this can happen, given the overwhelming scientific evidence that global temperatures are rising as a result of activities by people.

The image below may be helpful when responding to such questions. The image shows Wind + Instantaneous Wind Power Density at 250 hPa, at an altitude where the Jet Stream is strong. The image illustrates that, because temperatures over continents are low in the Northern Hemisphere at this time of year while sea surface temperature are high due to global warming, there is a strong difference between temperatures over land and temperatures over the ocean. This strong temperature difference strengthens the speed of latitudinal winds, i.e. the prevailing wind patterns that are moving east-west across Earth, driven by solar heating differences and the Coriolis effect.

[ click on images to enlarge ]

The above image shows a wind speed of 377 km/h and a Wind Power Density of 206.8 kW/m² at 250 hPa at the green circle off the coast of Japan. Furthermore, polar amplification narrows the temperature difference between the Equator and the poles, which distorts the path of the Jet Stream, resulting in circular wind patterns at higher altitudes North.

The Jet Stream used to keep cold air in the Arctic, separated from warmer air at lower latitudes. A distorted Jet Stream causes the Arctic to heat up strongly, while lower latitudes get colder, as illustrated by the image below, showing the temperature anomaly on January 24, 2026, 18z. This has been coined the 'open doors' feedback, it's like the door of the freezer is left open.

The combination image below shows images adapted from Copernicus. The image on the left shows temperature anomalies at the bottom end of the scale over parts of North America and Russia on January 24, 2026, while temperature anomalies are at the top end of the scale over much of the Arctic. The image on the right shows absolute temperatures on January 24, 2025, further illustrating to what extent cold air has descended from the Arctic over the continents.

The image below shows the temperature anomaly (left) and the minimum temperature (right) on January 25, 2026, with images adapted from ClimateReanalyzer.

The combination image below further illustrates the situation on January 26, 2026. Jet Stream distortion occurs due to a narrowing of the temperature difference between the Equator and the poles, and due to a stronger temperature difference between oceans and continents. This can cause the Jet Stream to form Omega patterns and even go circular. Further feedbacks that can amplify the situation include more water vapor in the air, which can come with strong precipitation.

[ click on images to enlarge ]

The image on the left shows wind and surface temperatures; very low temperatures show up over land (Russia, Canada, Greenland), much lower than temperatures over the Arctic Ocean. The image at the center shows wind and sea surface temperature anomalies (SSTA). High SSTA show up off the east coast of Asia and off the east coast of North America. The image on the right shows wind patterns at 250 hPa, which corresponds with a Jet Stream altitude of approximately 10,500 m. A location (48°N,57°W) is highlighted by the green circle on each of the images, on at the image on the right the wind there reaches a speed of 399 km/h (or 248 mph).

The image below shows the 2025 temperature anomaly versus 1951-1980 (NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis v1). The highest anomalies show up at the poles, reflecting polar amplification of the temperature rise, caused by decline of the snow and ice cover and by further feedbacks.

[ from earlier post ]

The global temperature rise comes with many feedbacks, including more water vapor in the atmosphere, polar amplification of the temperature rise and distortion of the Jet Stream, which can at times result in unusually low temperatures over continents in the Northern Hemisphere.

Importantly, distortion of the Jet Stream can at times also result in large amounts of ocean heat getting carried into the Arctic Ocean, abruptly heating up the water of the Arctic Ocean and threatening to destabilize methane hydrates contained in sediments at the seafloor, resulting in huge methane eruptions.

Links

• The threat of seafloor methane eruptions
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2025/11/the-threat-of-seafloor-methane-eruptions.html

• Feedbacks in the Arctic
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/feedbacks.html

• Water Vapor Feedback
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2024/09/water-vapor-feedback.html

• Jet Stream
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/jet-stream.html

• Opening further Doorways to Doom
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/08/opening-further-doorways-to-doom.html

• NOAA - weather forecasts
https://graphical.weather.gov

• Trump Mocks Climate Change Concerns Ahead of Historic Winter Storm. Here’s Why That’s Wrong
https://time.com/7357480/trump-winter-storm-fern-climate-change

• Wild Weather Swings
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2025/12/wild-weather-swings.html

• Extreme weather gets more extreme
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2025/08/extreme-weather-gets-more-extreme.html

• Copernicus
https://pulse.climate.copernicus.eu

• Climate Reanalyzer
https://climatereanalyzer.org

• nullschool.net

https://earth.nullschool.net

• Transforming Society
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/10/transforming-society.html

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Climate Emergency Declaration
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climate-emergency-declaration.html

Saturday, January 10, 2026

Greenhouse gas rising

Utqiaġvik (formerly Barrow), Alaska Greenhouse gas concentrations recorded at Utqiaġvik (formerly Barrow), Alaska, are very high and rising. Below is a compilation of four images adapted from images issued by NOAA on January 22, 2026. The images show carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) concentrations recorded at the Barrow Atmospheric Baseline Observatory (BRW), a NOAA facility located near Utqiaġvik (formerly Barrow), Alaska, at 71.32 degrees North latitude.

Mauna Loa, Hawaii

Below is a compilation of four images adapted from images issued by NOAA on January 22, 2026. The images show carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) concentrations recorded at the Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO), a NOAA station at Hawaii, at 19.54° N latitude.

Earth Energy Imbalance

Rising greenhouse gas concentrations alone do not sufficiently convey how dangerous the situation is. As illustrated by the image below, the Earth Energy Imbalance has risen strongly over the years. The image, by Eliot Jacobson, shows the net difference between incoming solar energy and heat radiated out by the planet through October 2025.

The rise in the Earth Energy Imbalance is caused by - among other things - a rise in the heat trapped by high (and rising) greenhouse gas concentrations and a decline in the Earth albedo (reflectivity).

Earth Albedo

The image below, by Eliot Jacobson, shows the 36-month running average for the Earth's albedo through November 2025, when albedo was 28.682%, a fall of 0.65% from 2003. According to a 2005 NASA article, a 1% fall in Earth’s albedo would have a climate effect of 1.7 W m⁻², roughly equal to the climate effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the time (1.66 W m⁻²).

Decline in the Earth albedo is caused by - among other things - decline of sea ice.

Sea ice decline

The combination image below shows Antarctic sea ice thickness and concentration by the University of Bremen (left and center) and concentration by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (right) on January 26, 2026. The NSIDC image also shows the median Antarctic sea ice edge 1981-2010 highlighted in orange.

Decline of Antarctic sea ice and of the snow and ice cover over Antarctica contributes to elevation of the global temperature that can be expected to persist at least through September 2026, when Arctic sea ice typically reaches its minimum extent and area.

Arctic sea ice decline is illustrated by the images below. Arctic sea ice extent was 1.42 million km² lower than 1981-2010 on January 24, 2026, the lowest area on record for the time of year and a deviation from 1981-2010 of -3.12σ.

Arctic sea ice area was 0.99 million km² lower than 1981-2010 on January 23, 2026, the lowest area on record for the time of year and a deviation from 1981-2010 of -3.45σ.

The above images show anomalies through January 23, 2026. The year 2026 is highlighted in black. Furthermore, the year 2025 is highlighted in purple and the year 2012 is highlighted in blue; Arctic sea ice reached a record low in September 2012.

Arctic sea ice has also become very thin. Arctic sea ice volume is at a record low for the time of year, it has been at a record daily low for well over a year. The image below shows Arctic sea ice volume through January 27, 2026.

This means that less of the heat entering the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean can get consumed in the process of melting the sea ice and more of the heat will instead elevate the temperature of the water of the Arctic ocean, threatening to destabilize sediments that contain methane and to cause eruption of huge amounts of methane from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean.

Further feedbacks

[ from earlier post ]

Snow and ice cover decline is one of many feedbacks of the temperature rise. Further feedbacks include a rise in water vapor in the atmosphere, a decline in the reflectivity of lower clouds and a decline of the capacity of oceans and land to take up carbon dioxide and heat.

The image on the right illustrates how the temperature rise can cause oceans to take up less heat, resulting in more heat remaining in the atmosphere.

In addition to these feedbacks, more fuel getting burned and reductions in the aerosol masking effect can further elevate temperatures dramatically in 2026.

[ click on images to enlarge ]

El Niño

Furthermore, El Niño may emerge in the course of 2026. This alone can dramatically elevate temperatures.

NOAA advises that La Niña is present at the moment and that there is a 75% chance of a transition to ENSO-neutral during January-March 2026, as illustrated by the image on the right. ENSO-neutral is likely through at least Northern Hemisphere late spring 2026.

The image on the right, adapted from NOAA and from an earlier post, shows ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) probabilities, with El Niño (red bar) emerging in the course of 2026.

The image below, adapted from ECMWF, shows the ENSO anomalies and forecasts for developments through November 2026 in Niño3.4 (left panel) and in Niño1+2 (right panel), indicating that the next El Niño will emerge and strengthen in the course of 2026.

[ from earlier post ]

Temperatures

The image below shows the 2025 temperature anomaly versus 1951-1980 (NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis v1). The highest anomalies show up at the poles, reflecting polar amplification of the temperature rise, caused by decline of the snow and ice cover and by further feedbacks.

The image below with NASA Land-Only annual anomalies with respect to 1880-1912 shows a rise of about 0.6°C from 2022 to 2026, much of which can be attributed to El Niño. The image also shows that 1.5°C was crossed for all years from 2015 through 2025 (black squares).

[ from earlier post ]

In the above image, a Lowess 3-year smoothing trend (red line) indicates that 2°C was crossed on land after 2022 (in 2023, 2024 and 2025) and that 3°C may get crossed on land soon, as early as in 2031 if this trend continues (dashed extension). Note that this 1880-1912 base is not pre-industrial. Temperature anomalies can be even higher when a genuinely pre-industrial base is used.

The above image is similar, it uses an 1880-1920 base and shows that the 1.5°C threshold was crossed for temperatures on land since 2015, when politicians pledged at the Paris Agreement to take efforts to prevent a global 1.5°C rise from occurring. Note that this 1880-1920 base is also not a pre-industrial base. Temperature anomalies can be even higher when a genuinely pre-industrial base is used.

The image has a polynomial trend added that points at 3°C getting crossed on land in early 2027. Crossing 3°C on land is important, since most people live on land and there are indications that such a rise will cause many species (including humans) to go extinct.

Failure to warn, failure to act

The science community, the IPCC, the UN, politicians and national governments have all failed to convey the seriousness of the threat of rising temperatures. That conclusion seems obvious, yet they keep refusing to call for, let alone to take appropriate action. There are some notable exceptions, but the sad conclusion is that in general they have failed and - even worse - they refuse to admit their failure.

UN secretary-general António Guterres has pointed at the need for “a credible global response plan to get us on track” regarding the international goal of limiting the global temperature rise. “The science demands action, the law commands it,” Guterres said, referring to an international court of justice ruling. “The economics compel it and people are calling for it.”

Yet, the very approach of leaving it up to the UN to "identify and resolve" problems by negotiating international consensus on carbon budgets, net-zero targets and offsets is a delusion. It's a diversion fabricated and advocated by polluters to delay climate action and to enable those very polluters to keep polluting for decades to come. Instead, Arctic-news has for many years identified the problems and has pointed out how to improve the situation.

Climate Emergency Declaration