Arctic News: methane

Showing posts with label methane. Show all posts

Friday, March 6, 2026

Clouds Tipping Point

Clouds Tipping Point

The PBS Terra video below features the clouds tipping point, as also discussed in a recent post at the ArcticNews group.

The video mentions the 2019 analysis by Tapio Schneider that stratocumulus cloud decks become unstable and break up into scattered clouds when CO₂ levels rise above 1200 ppm, resulting in an abrupt additional temperature rise of 8°C (14°F), as discussed at the Clouds Tipping Point page.

The SSP5-8.5 pathway (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway, used by the IPCC), corresponding with a radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m⁻² in 2100, projects CO₂ concentration rises to levels as high 2206.4 ppm in the year 2250, i.e. well above 1200 ppm, as illustrated by the image below, from a 2020 study led by Malte Meinshausen. So, how much temperature rise could this cause?

SSP5-8.5 is often said to be a "worst-case" scenario, yet current developments may even exceed SSP5-8.5 projections, as discussed in an earlier post. The image below features in IPCC AR6 WG1 SPM. The total warming of the IPCC pathways (panel b) is dominated by CO₂ emissions that keep growing steadily in SSP5-8.5, while the maximum temperature rise stays well below 6°C.

Is this in conflict with the additional 8°C rise when the Clouds Tipping Point gets crossed? Let's analyze this. Importantly, the Clouds Tipping Points is at 1200 CO₂e, with contributions not only from CO₂, but also from methane, water vapor, etc.

[ from earlier post ]

Reductions in methane emissions can strongly reduce the total CO₂e, given methane's high Global Warming Potential (GWP). Could reductions in methane emissions keep the total CO₂e below 1200 ppm? In both the SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6 pathways, methane emissions would fall after 2015, and methane emissions would also fall over time for SSP2-4.5, in which 2°C does get crossed, and for SSP5-8.5.

So, if the impact of methane is high and if methane emissions would strongly decline, could it be possible that 1200 CO₂e wouldn't get crossed? Conversely though, if growth in methane emissions continues, this can strongly push up the total CO₂e, as occurs in SSP3-7.0, but in that pathway there are less CO₂ emissions and less reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions.

Anyway, what happened after 2015, the year when politicians pledged at the Paris Agreement to take efforts to limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C? Lo and behold, methane emissions kept rising after 2015! There was record growth in methane concentrations in 2021, after which there was a bit of a slowdown in growth during the following years, but growth in methane concentration picked up pace again recently, as illustrated by the image below, from an earlier post.

So, it appears again that SSP5-8.5 isn't the "worst-case scenario" in more than one way. An even worse case scenario would see strong emissions of both CO₂ and methane. Once more, it appears that politicians and collaborating scientists have been downplaying the temperature rise that is about to unfold. The IPCC produced a special report, called Global Warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways and the report's pathways don't seem to make sense in many ways, as also discussed in an earlier post.

The image below is also from that earlier post. The image depicts an alternative pathway in which methane concentrations grow in line with the added magenta-colored trend that points at methane more than doubling by 2043. Such developments should have been included, at least in the margin of uncertainty, i.e. as a potential development.

The above text and images describe and depict horrendous dangers, yet the IPCC remains silent, refusing to warn people about the dangers and refusing to recommend effective policy pathways. Note that methane is only one of the contributors to a potentially horrific rise in temperature in the Arctic.

Such developments were discussed in a 2021 post that featured the image below, with the caption that a 5 Gt burst of seafloor methane would double the methane in the atmosphere and could instantly raise CO₂e level to above 1200 ppm, thus triggering the cloud feedback (panel top right). Even with far less methane, levels of further pollutants could rise and feedbacks could strengthen, while sulfate cooling could end, and a 18.44°C rise (from pre-industrial) could occur by 2026 (left panel).

How appropriate is the use of a multiplier of 200 to convert the impact of methane in parts per million (ppm) methane to ppm CO₂e? After all, carbon dioxide equivalence (CO₂e) was introduced by politicians in the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997 and uses a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of greenhouse gases over a 100-year horizon to calculate their carbon dioxide equivalence. Is GWP a tool behind specific politics? How much sense does it make to calculate methane's GWP over 100 years, given that methane's atmospheric perturbation lifetime is less than 12 years and methane has its highest impact immediately after it enters the atmosphere? What multiplier should be used to calculate the impact of an extra 5 Gt of methane?

The image on the right, from an earlier post, shows trends based on IPCC AR6 GWP values pointing at a GWP for methane of 150 for a 9-year horizon and pointing at an even higher GWP for a shorter horizon.

A short horizon makes sense when calculating the immediate impact of, say, a 5 Gt burst of methane from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean.

There are other ways to calculate the impact, e.g. one can also look at radiative forcing. It makes sense to also take into account the indirect impact of methane, as done in the image below. The image conceptually dates back to 2019 when the analysis by Tapio Schneider et al. was published, hence the use of radiative forcing from the IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM report that was published in 2013.

The image below shows three blocks each of about 400 ppm CO₂e, adding up to 1200 ppm CO₂e. The bottom block (purple) represents the CO₂ present in the atmosphere, i.e. on May 9, 2013, CO₂ surpassed 400 ppm at Mauna Loa. It is noted that extra CO₂ has less impact as its abundance grows, whereas extra CH₄ has a stronger impact.

The block in the middle (dark red) shows the methane already in the atmosphere, with the note that IPCC AR5 gives CH₄ an impact of 0.97 W/m⁻² (see top of image), or 57.74% of the impact of about 400 ppm CO₂. Yet, the impact of methane could rise to 400 ppm CO₂e, for reasons described in the following paragraph.

The spectral band where most heat is trapped by CO₂ is more saturated than the band where most heat is trapped by CH₄. The impact of additional CH₄ will increase as its abundance grows, whereas the impact of additional CO₂ will decrease as abundance grows. Abrupt eruptions of 5 Gt of seafloor CH₄ will cause hydroxyl depletion. Since there is already very little hydroxyl present over the Arctic, large eruptions of CH₄ from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean would strongly increase the lifetime of CH₄ there, trigger feedbacks and increase its global warming impact. The warming impact of an extra 5 Gt of CH₄ could therefore approach the impact of the CO₂ that was in the atmosphere on May 9, 2013, and this would not only apply to the methane that is added by such eruptions, but it would also increase the impact of CH₄ already present in the atmosphere.

The block of 400 ppm CO₂e at the top of the bar (red) represents an extra 5 Gt of CH₄ resulting from a burst of methane erupting from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean. Some of the methane arising from the seafloor will be broken down in the water by microbes, but many of the seas in the Arctic Ocean are very shallow and when large amounts of methane erupt in the form of plumes and move at high speed through the water column, only a small part of the methane can be broken down on its way up through the water column. Anyway, the point is that 5 Gt of methane abruptly entering the atmosphere could have an immediate impact of 400 ppm CO₂e which would also raise the impact of the block of existing CH₄ to 400 ppm CO₂e.

Jointly, the three blocks each of 400 ppm CO₂e add up to 1200 ppm CO₂e, i.e. the tipping point where stratocumulus decks start to disappear abruptly, resulting in an additional temperature rise of 8°C. Even when CO₂ levels are lowered again after the stratocumulus breakup, the stratocumulus decks only reform once the CO₂ levels drop below 300 ppm, as discussed at the Clouds Tipping Point page.

Historic growth in methane concentrations

Historic records could have given a stronger warning than the IPCC pathways. Methane has historically risen faster than CO₂. As illustrated by the image on the right, based on IPCC and WMO data, and from an earlier post, methane in 2024 was 266% of what it was in 1750, whereas CO₂ in 2024 was 152% of what it was in 1750.

In fact, the rise in emission by people had already started well before 1750. Thousands of years ago emissions started to grow in agriculture, herding of animals and associated deforestation, as illustrated by the combination image below, adopted from Ruddiman et al. (2015).

Thousands of years ago, methane concentrations were as low as 550 ppb, while CO₂ concentrations were as low as 260 ppm. So, methane in 2024 was 335% of what it was thousands of years ago, whereas CO₂ in 2024 was 163% of what it was thousands of years ago. In other words, methane concentrations have risen twice as fast as CO₂ concentrations.

[ from earlier post ]

As discussed in earlier posts such as this one and this one, the IPCC keeps downplaying the dangers that we're facing, and one way the IPCC does so is by manipulating the outlook of CO₂, methane and sulfur dioxide emissions. Another way is to downplay the historic temperature rise, which is important, since a larger historic rise would also come with more water vapor in the air, a powerful greenhouse gas that causes a self-amplifying feedback further increasing the temperature rise.

Existential threat

So, are we facing an existential threat? The speed at which temperatures are rising is unprecedented in the historic record. Historically, people have been pushing up the temperature for thousands of years, due to deforestation and further activities by people.

[ image from Tierney et al (2025), also discussed at ArcticNews group ]

Activities by people have been pushing up the temperature from a genuinely pre-industrial base for thousands of years, maybe by more than 2°C, as illustrated by the bottom panels on the image below.

The above image, from an earlier post, illustrates that, in the Northern Hemisphere, 2025 was the third year in a row with temperature anomalies more than 1.5°C above 1951-1980 and much more when compared to pre-industrial, as discussed in the inset. Note also that El Niño wasn't elevating temperatures in 2025.

[ from the post When will humans go extinct? ]

A 3°C rise constitutes an important threshold, since humans will likely go extinct with such a rise. The top panel in the above image shows a potential 10°C rise, while we may already be more than 2°C above pre-industrial. A further 1°C can quickly be added due to the move from a La Niña into the next El Niño, albedo loss and further feedbacks such as extra water vapor as temperatures rise, seafloor methane eruptions, fires, collapse of society causing abrupt termination of the sulfur aerosol masking effect. If society collapses, greenhouse gases with a high GWP and long lifetime could be emitted as substances leak from warehouses, waste dump fires, etc. Furthermore, aerosols from sulfur dioxide could fall out of the air in a matter of weeks, all contributing to a rapid temperature rise.

The IPCC appears to have painted scenarios that are shrouded in dubious politics, rather than relating to best-available science and a realistic outlook on future developments. As an example, the speed in the projected decline in aerosols from sulfur dioxide in the various Shared Socioeconomic Pathways can make a huge difference.

How much could temperatures rise? James Hansen points out that equilibrium global warming for today’s GHG amount is 10°C, which is reduced to 8°C by today’s human-made aerosols. This 10°C rise is held back by oceans and ice acting as a buffer and by aerosols. How long would it take for a 10°C rise to unfold? Heat sinks could abruptly turn into sources, e.g. due to sea ice loss and changes in wind, soil and oceans such as ocean stratification.

Keep in mind that concentrations of greenhouse gases are still rising. Also keep in mind that the land-only temperature rise is higher than the global rise and most people live on land. Many people also live in areas where the rise is stronger than average during heatwaves and due to the Urban Heat Island effect. The conclusion is that humans are functionally extinct if temperatures keep rising. Importantly, changes in biodiversity can have terrible consequences, and much of this is ignored by the IPCC.

Biodiversity collapse

[ from: When Will We Die? ]

A 2025 analysis by David Fastivich et al. finds that, historically, vegetation responded at timescales from hundreds to tens of thousands of years, but not at timescales shorter than about 150 years. It takes centuries for tree populations to adapt - far too slow to keep pace with today’s rapidly warming world. Vegetation depends on the presence of a lot of things including healthy soil, microbes, moisture, nutrients and habitat.

A 2025 analysis led by Thiago Gonçalves-Souza concludes that species turnover does not rescue biodiversity in fragmented landscapes.

A 2018 study by Strona & Bradshaw indicates that most life on Earth will disappear with a 5°C rise (see box on the right). Humans, who depend on a lot of other species, will likely go extinct with a 3°C, as discussed in the earlier post When Will We Die?

Terrestrial vertebrates are more in danger than many other species, as they depend on numerous other species for food. Humans are terrestrial vertebrates and humans are large warm-blooded mammals with high metabolic rates, thus requiring more food and habitat. It also takes humans many years to reach maturity. 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 go extinct, as discussed in earlier posts such as this one and this one.

A 2025 analysis led by Joseph Williamson concludes that many species that live together appear to share remarkably similar thermal limits. That is to say, individuals of different species can tolerate temperatures up to similar points. This is deeply concerning as it suggests that, as ecosystems warm due to climate change, species will disappear from an ecosystem at the same time rather than gradually, resulting in sudden biodiversity loss. It also means that ecosystems may exhibit few symptoms of heat stress before a threshold of warming is passed and catastrophic losses occur. A 224 analysis by Michael Van Nuland et al. finds that tree symbioses with ectomycorrhizal fungi mean that they need to move together for successful migration.

In the video below, Guy McPherson explains that forests cannot keep up with the speed at which temperatures are rising.

Guy McPherson mentions the study by William Farfan-Rios et al. that finds that Amazonian and Andean tree communities are not tracking current climate warming. Further science snippets: The Amazon is also getting drier as deforestation shuts down atmospheric rivers. Thunderstorms are a major driver of tree death in tropical forests. Hot droughts cause catastrophic tree die-offs. Aboveground biomass in Australian tropical forests now a net carbon source.

Huge temperature rise

[ from the Extinction page ]

The image on the right illustrates how such dangers could be further amplified by the threat of war and collapse of centralized society.

As people seek to occupy the last few habitable areas left, many people may stop showing up for work, resulting in a rapid loss of the aerosol masking effect, as industries that now co-emit cooling aerosols (such as sulfates) come to a grinding halt. As it becomes harder to obtain food and fuel for cooking and heating, and as the grid shuts down due to conflicts, many people may start collecting and burning more wood, decimating the forests that are left and resulting in more emissions that further speed up the temperature rise.

As temperatures rise, huge fires could also break out not only in forests, peatlands and grassland, but also in urban areas (including backyards, landfills and buildings, in particular warehouses containing flammable materials, chemicals and fluorinated gases), further contributing to more emissions that speed up the temperature rise.

As the likeliness of further accelerating warming, the severity of its impact, and the ubiquity and the imminence with which it will strike all become more clear and manifest—the more sobering it is that, while a mere 3°C rise may suffice to cause human extinction, a much larger temperature rise may unfold abruptly, as illustrated by the bar-chart on the right.

The image below, from an earlier post, shows monthly data from May 2022 through May 2025, with a trend added that warns about 1200 parts per million (ppm) getting crossed in 2028.

As said, crossing the clouds tipping point at 1200 ppm CO₂ could - on its own - push temperatures up by 8°C globally, on top of the temperature rise caused by the forcing that resulted in the crossing of this tipping point. Moreover, the clouds tipping point is actually at 1200 ppm CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent), so when taking into account the impact of growth of other gases, strengthening feedbacks and further mechanisms, this tipping point could be crossed much earlier than in 2028, potentially as early as in 2026.

Methane in the atmosphere could be doubled within years if a trend unfolds as depicted in the image below, from an earlier post. A rapid rise is highlighted in the inset and reflected in the trend, which is based on January 2023-October 2024 methane data, as issued in February 2025.

[ Double the methane in March 2026? Image from earlier post, click on images to enlarge ]

A rise like the one depicted in the trend could eventuate as rising ocean heat destabilizes methane hydrates contained in sediments at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean. The temperature rise in the Arctic would accelerate since the methane would initially have a huge temperature impact over the Arctic and cause depletion of hydroxyl, of which there is very little in the atmosphere over the Arctic in the first place. Such a rise in methane would also dramatically increase concentrations of ozone in the troposphere and concentrations of water vapor in the stratosphere.

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

• Clouds feedback and tipping point

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/clouds-feedback.html

• Advances in Paleoclimate Data Assimilation - by Jessica Tierney et al. (2025)

https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-earth-032320-064209

discussed on Facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10163934412354679

• Coupled, decoupled, and abrupt responses of vegetation to climate across timescales - by David Fastivich et al. (2025)

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adr6700

discussed on facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10163832954534679

• Amazonian and Andean tree communities are not tracking current climate warming - by William Farfan-Rios et al. (2025)
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2425619122

• Clustered warming tolerances and the nonlinear risks of biodiversity loss on a warming planet - by Joseph Williamson et al. (2025)
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rstb/article/380/1917/20230321/109625/Clustered-warming-tolerances-and-the-nonlinear

• Climate mismatches with ectomycorrhizal fungi contribute to migration lag in North American tree range shifts - by Michael van Nuland et al. (2024)
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2308811121

discussed on facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10163832955574679

• Species turnover does not rescue biodiversity in fragmented landscapes - by Thiago Gonçalves-Souza et al. (2025)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08688-7
discussed on facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10162452301209679

• 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

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

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.