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 9, 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 11, 2026.

Until now, Arctic sea ice volume for each day in 2026 has been lower than on comparable days for any previous year on record. The 2026 curve (black) is moving down, steeper than it did in 2024 (dark blue), even though an El Niño started early 2024 and continued until early 2025 (light blue). Arctic temperatures are terrifying and some temperature forecasts are horrendous (images below). Arctic temperatures have been rising, despite the move from an El Niño into the current La Niña over the past few years. Making the outlook even more dire, an El Niño is on the way.

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 alone can make a difference of more than 0.5°C, as discussed in an earlier post.

The images on the right and below are adapted from NOAA. The image on the right shows Niño-3.4 region temperature anomalies and forecasts. The image below shows that La Niña conditions have been present for most periods (18 out of 19) dating back to the May-June-July 2024 period.

[ click on images to enlarge ]

The image on the right, adapted from NOAA, shows ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) probabilities for the Niño3.4 region (5°N-5°S,120°W-170°W) relative sea surface temperature index, 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.

IPCC downplays Arctic temperature anomaly

The image below shows a horrendous 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.

Sadly, the dangers are downplayed in many ways. One way the full wrath of temperature rise is all too often masked is through the use of a too recent base from which the temperature rise is calculated, and then to pretend that it was pre-industrial. Pre-historic obviously and by definition refers to times before the Industrial Revolution started, yet the IPCC seeks to downplay the dangers of crossing the Paris Agreement thresholds by using a more recent base, adding the excuse that it "approximates" pre-industrial.

As illustrated by the Eliot Jacobson image below, which 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.

The image below shows rising annual Arctic temperature anomalies versus 1951-1980, with a peak occurring in 2016, which was a strong El Niño year, while temperatures have been rising over the past few years, despite the move from an El Niño into the current La Niña.

The image below shows the January 2026 temperature anomaly versus 1951-1980, with the highest anomalies showing up over the Arctic, due to sea ice loss and increasingly extreme weather events resulting from distortion of the Jet Stream, which also contributed to low temperatures in parts of the U.S. and Russia. Feedbacks in the Arctic and the horrendous rise of Arctic temperatures is all too often masked by a focus on long-term global averages.

The image below shows the NASA January 2026 temperature anomaly versus 1951-1980.

On the image below, the NASA Land Only temperature anomaly with respect to 1880-1890 (not pre-industrial) through January 2026 shows the 1.5°C threshold crossed for all months since 2022 (black squares connected by black lines). The Lowess 3-year smoothing trend (red line) indicates that the 2°C threshold was crossed since 2022 and that 3°C may get crossed soon on land (where most people live), in 2029 if this trend continues (dashed extension).

The image below shows NASA annual temperature anomalies (land-only) compared to 1880-1920 with a trend added that points at 3°C getting crossed in 2027.

[ from earlier post ]

Both the SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6 scenarios required methane emissions to have fallen since 2015. Even for SSP2-4.5, in which 2°C does get crossed, methane emissions would need to fall.

However, there was record growth in methane concentration in 2021 and while there was a bit of a slowdown in the following years, growth in methane concentration has picked up pace again recently, as illustrated by the image below.

The magenta-colored trend in the image below points at methane more than doubling by 2043.

The above images depict horrendous dangers, and the IPCC has yet to respond.

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?

[ from earlier post ]

The image on the right uses content from a study by Christina Schädel et al, which concludes that permafrost fires and thaw will release 63 Gt C for each degree Celsius rise in temperature from a 389-691 Gt pool of permafrost carbon.

That 63 Gt C would translate into 231 Gt CO₂ if only CO₂ gets released. By comparison, the total annual human emissions are now about 55 Gt CO₂e and NOAA calculates that the atmosphere has changed from 1750 to 2024 by 539 CO₂e due to people's greenhouse gas emissions.

Importantly, some of the carbon will be released in the form of methane and CO₂e is much higher for releases in the form of methane than for carbon dioxide, especially when a high multiplier is used to calculate methane's CO₂e. Even worse, releases from submarine permafrost would come mostly in the form of methane.

The danger is even more menacing when looking at how fast temperatures are rising in the Arctic and when including more feedbacks, i.e. not only the impact of permafrost fires and permafrost thaw, but also the impact of destabilizing sediments at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean resulting in eruptions of huge amounts of methane, on top of the impact of albedo loss and loss of the latent heat buffer of declining sea ice and permafrost.

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.

In the video below, Guy McPherson discusses problems forests have in adapting to rising temperatures, illustrating the dangers.

Indeed, temperatures are rising too fast for forests to adapt by moving to higher latitudes. It takes centuries for tree populations to adapt—far too slow to keep pace with today’s rapidly warming. Merely planting trees may not help much if the soil lacks ectomycorrhizal fungi, a recent study points out. Also adding biochar to the soil may help, but there currently isn't much government support - support should preferably come in the form of local feebates.

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

• NASA - Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

• Coupled, decoupled, and abrupt responses of vegetation to climate across timescales - by David Fastovich et al.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adr6700
discussed on facebook at:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10163832954534679

• Climate mismatches with ectomycorrhizal fungi contribute to migration lag in North American tree range shifts - by Michael Van Nuland et al.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2308811121
discussed on facebook at:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10163832955574679

• Science Snippets: Linking Plants with Soil - video by Guy McPherson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TNxF9o2aTk

• Biochar - group on facebook

https://www.facebook.com/groups/biochar

• 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.

[ from earlier post, click on images to enlarge ]

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).

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 above 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.

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.