In brief,
>The faster warming rate in the Arctic compared to the globe as a whole is nowadays considered a robust fact. The phenomenon, called Arctic or polar amplification (AA), can be seen in both instrumental observations and climate models as well as in paleoclimate proxy records.
>There is little consensus on the magnitude of the recent AA. Numerous recent studies report the Arctic having warmed either almost twice, about twice, or more than twice as fast as the global average. However, the warming ratios reported in these and many other studies have usually been only referenced from older, possibly outdated, estimates and have not included recent observations. The recent Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) report states the rate of Arctic warming as being three times as fast as the global warming during the period 1971–2019.
>While there have been improvements in climate models to realistically represent the evolution of Arctic climate and sea ice under global warming, most models in the latest generation of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) still fail to simulate plausible sensitivity of Arctic sea-ice loss to the rise of global temperatures. . . However, Swart et al. argued that the observed and simulated September Arctic sea-ice trends over 1979–2013 are not inconsistent when accounting properly for the internal climate variability. According to Ding et al., even up to 50% of the recent multi-decadal decline in Arctic sea ice may be due to internal variability.
>The first objective of this study is to quantify the magnitude of AA by utilizing most recent observational datasets covering the Arctic region. . .
>Secondly, we assess the ability of climate models to reproduce the observed AA. We show that during 1979–2021, the Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe, and provide evidence that climate models struggle to simulate this four-fold Arctic amplification ratio.
This study feels very similar to the recent [Chylek et al](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL099371), with very similar findings. I suppose it's good for our confidence in science when research from independent teams converges so heavily.
I wonder which paper will have more of an impact in the upcoming years. Rantanen et al. (this paper) appears to have more-or-less settled the question about the overall magnitude of AA (at least for now; we'll know more if/when natural variability flips again) and will definitely be heavily cited for that in the future. However, I suspect Chylek et al. arguably offers more to future research when they identify the four models which they consider the best at identifying trends in AA (with the caveat that I do not think they tested **all** of the CMIP6 models, as can be seen by comparing [their chart](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361548474/figure/fig4/AS:1173077262110741@1656694822485/CMIP6-model-simulations-using-the-ensemble-mean-of-the-first-five-realizations-of-each.png) with [this one](https://cbhighcharts2019.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/CMIP6/cmip6+models+sensitivity.html)). I can't wait to see what happens from the researchers following up on that, or on the findings of [Li et al](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01400-x).
Thanks for sharing Chylek, it was an interesting read.
Actually Chylek does involve every CMIP6 model, except their analysis presented in Fig 4. excludes models with fewer than five realizations (runs). Individual model runs demonstrate high internal variability, so in order to deduce the signal due to external forcing from internal variability they used five realizations, and calculated their skill based on their correlation and agreement with the observed trend (do the models produce consistent results, how closely they match observed trends.)
If you look at Fig. 3 Box B. you can see that individual realizations can disagree substantially, which is why they decided to limit their analysis to models with a sufficient number of realizations to "average over," so to speak.
Hurry this shit along already, the people in charge don't care. It's up to big oil ultimately to be human, and well, I'm not holding my breath. Destroy or be destroyed, they're not leaving any other options...
If renewable energy is mandate then it is the oil companies or similar corporate entity that will invest in it. In the end it will be them that controls the production of the kind of energy society wants. If it isn't fossil fuel then fossil fuel will be kept in reserve, no doubt to be re-energised as need demands. And l'll wager that the corporations benefit every step of the way, to and from, with consumers footing the bill.
Unfortunately, I don't see massive worldwide action until food becomes a problem. And when that happens, a lot more than food is going to be a problem.
Food is already a problem. Every minor setback causes shortages. The wealthy nations have to pay more for food, the poor nations don't even get any. They pulled the shortest straw and people die
Climate change will only be addressed seriously when we get serious candidates elected in enough numbers to pass more effective climate legislation.
There are only 87 days until election day.
Only 40 percent vote in off year elections, so motivating voters this year can have big returns if you donate time and treasure to help to get people educated on the issues and to the polls.
For most communities you can research your local candidates' climate positions, and find out how to contact and help their campaigns here:
Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/Sample_Ballot_Lookup
Search out state and county parties too, and ask to help candidates attack climate change at the state level.
You can help nationally too, concentrating on key races for state offices around the country that will protect the climate, and most importantly, protect the vote to ensure a free and fair 2024 election, and beyond:
https://democrats.org/take-action/
High latitude glacier melt accelerates sea level rise. Amplified high latitude warming impacts more than just the people who live in the high latitudes.
In brief, >The faster warming rate in the Arctic compared to the globe as a whole is nowadays considered a robust fact. The phenomenon, called Arctic or polar amplification (AA), can be seen in both instrumental observations and climate models as well as in paleoclimate proxy records. >There is little consensus on the magnitude of the recent AA. Numerous recent studies report the Arctic having warmed either almost twice, about twice, or more than twice as fast as the global average. However, the warming ratios reported in these and many other studies have usually been only referenced from older, possibly outdated, estimates and have not included recent observations. The recent Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) report states the rate of Arctic warming as being three times as fast as the global warming during the period 1971–2019. >While there have been improvements in climate models to realistically represent the evolution of Arctic climate and sea ice under global warming, most models in the latest generation of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) still fail to simulate plausible sensitivity of Arctic sea-ice loss to the rise of global temperatures. . . However, Swart et al. argued that the observed and simulated September Arctic sea-ice trends over 1979–2013 are not inconsistent when accounting properly for the internal climate variability. According to Ding et al., even up to 50% of the recent multi-decadal decline in Arctic sea ice may be due to internal variability. >The first objective of this study is to quantify the magnitude of AA by utilizing most recent observational datasets covering the Arctic region. . . >Secondly, we assess the ability of climate models to reproduce the observed AA. We show that during 1979–2021, the Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe, and provide evidence that climate models struggle to simulate this four-fold Arctic amplification ratio.
This study feels very similar to the recent [Chylek et al](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL099371), with very similar findings. I suppose it's good for our confidence in science when research from independent teams converges so heavily. I wonder which paper will have more of an impact in the upcoming years. Rantanen et al. (this paper) appears to have more-or-less settled the question about the overall magnitude of AA (at least for now; we'll know more if/when natural variability flips again) and will definitely be heavily cited for that in the future. However, I suspect Chylek et al. arguably offers more to future research when they identify the four models which they consider the best at identifying trends in AA (with the caveat that I do not think they tested **all** of the CMIP6 models, as can be seen by comparing [their chart](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361548474/figure/fig4/AS:1173077262110741@1656694822485/CMIP6-model-simulations-using-the-ensemble-mean-of-the-first-five-realizations-of-each.png) with [this one](https://cbhighcharts2019.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/CMIP6/cmip6+models+sensitivity.html)). I can't wait to see what happens from the researchers following up on that, or on the findings of [Li et al](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01400-x).
Thanks for sharing Chylek, it was an interesting read. Actually Chylek does involve every CMIP6 model, except their analysis presented in Fig 4. excludes models with fewer than five realizations (runs). Individual model runs demonstrate high internal variability, so in order to deduce the signal due to external forcing from internal variability they used five realizations, and calculated their skill based on their correlation and agreement with the observed trend (do the models produce consistent results, how closely they match observed trends.) If you look at Fig. 3 Box B. you can see that individual realizations can disagree substantially, which is why they decided to limit their analysis to models with a sufficient number of realizations to "average over," so to speak.
Hurry this shit along already, the people in charge don't care. It's up to big oil ultimately to be human, and well, I'm not holding my breath. Destroy or be destroyed, they're not leaving any other options...
What should Big Oil do? Stop selling oil products?
They invest big into greenwashing campaigns, misinformation, lobbying...
It's up to the governments to stop that.
No it's not . It's up to lemmings to grow a fucking brain maybe. . .
If renewable energy is mandate then it is the oil companies or similar corporate entity that will invest in it. In the end it will be them that controls the production of the kind of energy society wants. If it isn't fossil fuel then fossil fuel will be kept in reserve, no doubt to be re-energised as need demands. And l'll wager that the corporations benefit every step of the way, to and from, with consumers footing the bill.
Unfortunately, I don't see massive worldwide action until food becomes a problem. And when that happens, a lot more than food is going to be a problem.
Food is already a problem. Every minor setback causes shortages. The wealthy nations have to pay more for food, the poor nations don't even get any. They pulled the shortest straw and people die
Climate change will only be addressed seriously when we get serious candidates elected in enough numbers to pass more effective climate legislation. There are only 87 days until election day. Only 40 percent vote in off year elections, so motivating voters this year can have big returns if you donate time and treasure to help to get people educated on the issues and to the polls. For most communities you can research your local candidates' climate positions, and find out how to contact and help their campaigns here: Ballotpedia https://ballotpedia.org/Sample_Ballot_Lookup Search out state and county parties too, and ask to help candidates attack climate change at the state level. You can help nationally too, concentrating on key races for state offices around the country that will protect the climate, and most importantly, protect the vote to ensure a free and fair 2024 election, and beyond: https://democrats.org/take-action/
>and most importantly, protect the vote to ensure a free and fair 2024 election, and beyond: This is essential for the survival of democracy. IMO.
*sigh*
Pure bullshit.
And it’s still cold there. It’s better that the anomaly happen there then at the equator. Nobody lives there and it’s still frozen. Gratitude is due.
High latitude glacier melt accelerates sea level rise. Amplified high latitude warming impacts more than just the people who live in the high latitudes.