Hi Dominique, thanks for the kindest words of support!
It is indeed difficult to imagine—because we’ve never lived through anything like this before. The maps, the coastlines, the weather patterns we take for granted are shifting beneath us. But the hardest thing to grasp isn’t the scale of change—it’s the speed. What once took centuries now happens in years, sometimes months. And the gap between “impossible” and “inevitable” keeps getting smaller.
The politics have turned away from accepting a massive mismanagement of our home - earth - and now has turned to a different orientation of managing the way far to many human by acquiring wealth and power concentrated in a few who can maintain their superiority by force . They are fools planning for a future that can not possibly benefit any life , even their progeny .
The idea of survival of the fittest might play out on a very large stage in the next hundred years on a much more hostile planet .
Hi, there Richard! Thanks for adding valuable insights to the conversation.
The politics of climate inaction aren’t about ignorance—they’re about control. Wealth and power are being hoarded by those who act as if they can insulate themselves from a collapsing world. But no amount of money will stop the food from running out, the water from drying up, or the climate from turning lethal.
The real “fittest” won’t be those with the most wealth—it’ll be those who can adapt, cooperate, and rebuild on a planet that’s turning against us.
Than you for this Ricky. The mantra I keep repeating is "Hotter than expected. Sooner than expected". Nonlinear change is quite correct. I'm glad you bring to everyone's attention the key role atmospheric rivers play. Hope you are safe
Your point is well taken, Sue—too much of the conversation has focused on stopping the inevitable rather than preparing for it. But adaptation has limits, and Antarctica is a stark reminder of that. Ice sheets don’t adapt; they collapse. Coastlines don’t adapt; they disappear. The scale and speed of these changes mean we’re not just playing catch-up—we’re sprinting toward a wall. The lesson from Canute wasn’t about accepting fate; it was about understanding power. Ours lies in mitigation and adaptation, not surrender.
It is we who must adapt though Ricky, not the environment: that will do what it will. We cannot even know what it will do as soon as next year, let alone predict decades ahead; all we can do is react and adapt to the new situation. To be honest, I suspect it will mean humanity all trying to move to higher ground and nearer the equator. I am happy to be proven wrong. Indeed, I hope I am.
Thanks, Ricky, and your pain is palpable. Those of us who live close to Gaia are in great pain and every breath Our Mad King (wannabe) Donald draws gives more and more pain, as he promotes his fossil fuel fellow billionaires and cares not in the least for the world he is sending the Muskrat's and his own children and grandchildren into, a world on fire, only buffered from the entire planetary surface from bursting into flames by the melting ice, all 1.2 trillion tons a year, 3.3 billion tons per day, not counting the melting permafrost. Greenland lost 156 +/- 22 Gt between 9-22 and 8-23, where each pound of melting ice is absorbing 144 BTUs of heat energy, so even the melting ice is not able to prevent the 0.2 degC annual global surface temp increase occurring right now. If this trend continues on the same trajectory (C3S), it has been on for 30 mos ( 2 1/2 yrs), then, ice or no ice, we may see 3 degC by 2032, and fireball earth at 6 degC above the 1991-2020 baseline by 2047, the year any child unfortunate enough to be born today (108,000 net) will turn 22yo, or already be dead from heat exhaustion. You and I are not alone, but most gotta lota catchin'up to do. Will they be pissed when they figure out how screwed the billionaire class has made them? Eat the billionaires, cooked rare or barbecued, it won't matter in 22 yrs., when only barbecued will be available. Gregg
Gregg, as always, I appreciate the depth and urgency in your comment—it’s clear you’ve done the math, and the picture it paints is nothing short of terrifying. The relentless march of melting ice, rising temperatures, and unchecked fossil fuel expansion isn’t some distant catastrophe; it’s unfolding in real time, yet the world remains in collective denial.
What’s infuriating is how the billionaire class—who’ve profited off this destruction—continue to insulate themselves, both literally and metaphorically, while the rest of humanity faces the consequences. Will the masses wake up before it’s too late? And if they do, what will they do with that anger? That’s the question that keeps me up at night.
Antarctica’s unraveling tends to get buried under more immediate crises, but the consequences of this "Great Un-Freezing" will reach every coastline. And while AI dominates headlines, it won’t stop the ice from melting—or the seas from rising.
Your roar is heard,Greg, but resignation won’t change the course we’re on. Yes, the universe is indifferent, and Earth will outlive us—but that doesn’t mean we get a free pass to accelerate our own downfall. The ice doesn’t care, but coastal cities will. The glaciers won’t weep, but the people who depend on them for water will. This isn’t about saving the planet—it’s about whether we can live on it.
Are you aware of "Arctic Amplification"? If you are then you know it has an evil twin, "Antarctic Amplification". Both of these forms of "Polar Amplification" have been predicted since the very first General Climate Models in the mid-70's.
Our planet is really divided into two "different" worlds. The land dominated NH and the ocean dominated SH. This has consequences in how the amplification manifests and how LONG it lasts.
In the NH about 38% of the HEAT/ENERGY starting at the equator reaches the "High Arctic" polar zone. The Latitudinal Equator to Pole Temperature Gradient curve is fairly shallow with the difference between the two points being about -45°C of change as you move to the pole.
In the SH almost NONE of the HEAT/ENERGY starting at the equator reaches the "High Antarctic" polar zone. The Latitudinal Equator to Pole Temperature Gradient curve is steep with the difference between the two points being about -80°C of change as you move to the pole.
The amplifier for the NH is between 3X to 4X overall warming. Overall the High Arctic has warmed +4°C since 1979, parts of Siberia have warmed +8°C
The amplifier for the SH is about 2X overall warming. The fact that we seeing reports of +3°C of warming in the Antarctic validates that we have indeed breached +1.5°C of planetary warming.
The South Pole warms about HALF as fast as the North Pole, BUT stays warm for about TWICE as long.
BECAUSE.
HEAT flows from the Tropics to the Poles and ACCUMULATES there.
The effect of ACCUMULATION is AMPLIFICATION.
As this HEAT builds up and warms the poles the LEtPTG curves "flatten" and get shallower. That has MAJOR consequences for the entire Climate System. As David Rind of GISS said in this 1998 paper.
Latitudinal temperature gradients and climate change.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 103, NO. D6, PAGES 5943-5971, MARCH 27, 1998
How variable is the latitudinal temperature gradient with climate change?”
“This question is second in importance only to the question of overall climate sensitivity. Our current inability to answer it affects everything from understanding past climate variations, and paleoclimate proxies, to projections of regional effects of future greenhouse warming [Rind, 1995].”
At the +6°C of warming we are "locking in" the NP will warm about +30°C.
The SP will warm about +45°C.
That's where we are heading by the beginning of the 22nd century.
Richard, I’m deeply grateful for your insights—your work has shaped my understanding of climate science, and it’s an honor to have you engage with my article.
You're absolutely right to highlight Arctic and Antarctic Amplification as the twin forces reshaping our climate in distinct but equally devastating ways. While my central concern has been Antarctica, I’ve also been closely following Arctic developments (https://open.substack.com/pub/rickylanusse/p/are-we-only-3-years-away-from-the?r=271e6q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false), precisely because of what you lay out so clearly—the accumulated impact of Polar Amplification. The stark contrast between heat distribution in the NH and SH is one of the most overlooked aspects of climate change. While the Arctic’s rapid warming steals headlines, the slow-burning consequences of Antarctic Amplification are no less alarming, especially considering its delayed but prolonged impact on global climate stability.
The Latitudinal Equator to Pole Temperature Gradient shift is a crucial point. Flattening these gradients doesn't just mean polar regions heat up—it fundamentally disrupts the entire atmospheric and oceanic circulation, dismantling the very systems that have regulated Earth’s climate for millennia. The implications for jet streams, storm tracks, and monsoons are staggering.
Your mention of David Rind’s work is particularly relevant. That 1998 paper laid the foundation for understanding how shifts in temperature gradients shape everything from extreme weather to oceanic overturning, yet its urgency is still widely underappreciated in policy discussions. The reality that we are now breaching +1.5°C and accelerating toward the scenarios outlined in that research should be sounding alarms far louder than they are.
The projected +30°C at the North Pole and +45°C at the South Pole by the next century isn’t just an abstract warning—it’s a planetary transformation on a scale we’ve never experienced. We are destabilizing the very fabric of life-supporting systems, and yet the world remains fixated on incremental policy tweaks.
Thank you for bringing this depth to the conversation. Your voice in this space has been invaluable, and I truly appreciate you taking the time to share these critical insights.
Thank you for your work. It's so difficult to imagine what this will really mean for us, isn't it?
Hi Dominique, thanks for the kindest words of support!
It is indeed difficult to imagine—because we’ve never lived through anything like this before. The maps, the coastlines, the weather patterns we take for granted are shifting beneath us. But the hardest thing to grasp isn’t the scale of change—it’s the speed. What once took centuries now happens in years, sometimes months. And the gap between “impossible” and “inevitable” keeps getting smaller.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
The politics have turned away from accepting a massive mismanagement of our home - earth - and now has turned to a different orientation of managing the way far to many human by acquiring wealth and power concentrated in a few who can maintain their superiority by force . They are fools planning for a future that can not possibly benefit any life , even their progeny .
The idea of survival of the fittest might play out on a very large stage in the next hundred years on a much more hostile planet .
Hi, there Richard! Thanks for adding valuable insights to the conversation.
The politics of climate inaction aren’t about ignorance—they’re about control. Wealth and power are being hoarded by those who act as if they can insulate themselves from a collapsing world. But no amount of money will stop the food from running out, the water from drying up, or the climate from turning lethal.
The real “fittest” won’t be those with the most wealth—it’ll be those who can adapt, cooperate, and rebuild on a planet that’s turning against us.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
Than you for this Ricky. The mantra I keep repeating is "Hotter than expected. Sooner than expected". Nonlinear change is quite correct. I'm glad you bring to everyone's attention the key role atmospheric rivers play. Hope you are safe
As always, Michael, I trully appreciate your insight.
"Hotter than expected. Sooner than expected" definitely sums up the brutal reality we’re facing—models struggle to keep pace with the speed of change.
The Antarctic system isn't just responding to warming; it's amplifying it, and atmospheric rivers are a prime example of that accelerating feedback.
Hope recovery is well overdue! Stay sharp!
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
Adaptation is key. For too long we have imagined we could stop it. Perhaps we could have learned from Canute? History rhymes.
Your point is well taken, Sue—too much of the conversation has focused on stopping the inevitable rather than preparing for it. But adaptation has limits, and Antarctica is a stark reminder of that. Ice sheets don’t adapt; they collapse. Coastlines don’t adapt; they disappear. The scale and speed of these changes mean we’re not just playing catch-up—we’re sprinting toward a wall. The lesson from Canute wasn’t about accepting fate; it was about understanding power. Ours lies in mitigation and adaptation, not surrender.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
It is we who must adapt though Ricky, not the environment: that will do what it will. We cannot even know what it will do as soon as next year, let alone predict decades ahead; all we can do is react and adapt to the new situation. To be honest, I suspect it will mean humanity all trying to move to higher ground and nearer the equator. I am happy to be proven wrong. Indeed, I hope I am.
Thanks, Ricky, and your pain is palpable. Those of us who live close to Gaia are in great pain and every breath Our Mad King (wannabe) Donald draws gives more and more pain, as he promotes his fossil fuel fellow billionaires and cares not in the least for the world he is sending the Muskrat's and his own children and grandchildren into, a world on fire, only buffered from the entire planetary surface from bursting into flames by the melting ice, all 1.2 trillion tons a year, 3.3 billion tons per day, not counting the melting permafrost. Greenland lost 156 +/- 22 Gt between 9-22 and 8-23, where each pound of melting ice is absorbing 144 BTUs of heat energy, so even the melting ice is not able to prevent the 0.2 degC annual global surface temp increase occurring right now. If this trend continues on the same trajectory (C3S), it has been on for 30 mos ( 2 1/2 yrs), then, ice or no ice, we may see 3 degC by 2032, and fireball earth at 6 degC above the 1991-2020 baseline by 2047, the year any child unfortunate enough to be born today (108,000 net) will turn 22yo, or already be dead from heat exhaustion. You and I are not alone, but most gotta lota catchin'up to do. Will they be pissed when they figure out how screwed the billionaire class has made them? Eat the billionaires, cooked rare or barbecued, it won't matter in 22 yrs., when only barbecued will be available. Gregg
Gregg, as always, I appreciate the depth and urgency in your comment—it’s clear you’ve done the math, and the picture it paints is nothing short of terrifying. The relentless march of melting ice, rising temperatures, and unchecked fossil fuel expansion isn’t some distant catastrophe; it’s unfolding in real time, yet the world remains in collective denial.
What’s infuriating is how the billionaire class—who’ve profited off this destruction—continue to insulate themselves, both literally and metaphorically, while the rest of humanity faces the consequences. Will the masses wake up before it’s too late? And if they do, what will they do with that anger? That’s the question that keeps me up at night.
Appreciate your fire, Gregg.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky.
Amazing insight and information most of us are clueless about as we barrel down the A.I freight train
Glad you found it insightful, AK!
Antarctica’s unraveling tends to get buried under more immediate crises, but the consequences of this "Great Un-Freezing" will reach every coastline. And while AI dominates headlines, it won’t stop the ice from melting—or the seas from rising.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
that is true Ricky. That is the real world. while many of us are focusing on the artificial/fake. Going to be an exciting time.
The reality is terrifying and I will be the Mouse that Roared. Gaia doesnt care about this lowly life form, man and someday the sun will burn out.
Your roar is heard,Greg, but resignation won’t change the course we’re on. Yes, the universe is indifferent, and Earth will outlive us—but that doesn’t mean we get a free pass to accelerate our own downfall. The ice doesn’t care, but coastal cities will. The glaciers won’t weep, but the people who depend on them for water will. This isn’t about saving the planet—it’s about whether we can live on it.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
It feels so weird accepting that this can't really be stopped anymore. Screw greed.
Screw greed indeed, Leonard...
Are you aware of "Arctic Amplification"? If you are then you know it has an evil twin, "Antarctic Amplification". Both of these forms of "Polar Amplification" have been predicted since the very first General Climate Models in the mid-70's.
Our planet is really divided into two "different" worlds. The land dominated NH and the ocean dominated SH. This has consequences in how the amplification manifests and how LONG it lasts.
In the NH about 38% of the HEAT/ENERGY starting at the equator reaches the "High Arctic" polar zone. The Latitudinal Equator to Pole Temperature Gradient curve is fairly shallow with the difference between the two points being about -45°C of change as you move to the pole.
In the SH almost NONE of the HEAT/ENERGY starting at the equator reaches the "High Antarctic" polar zone. The Latitudinal Equator to Pole Temperature Gradient curve is steep with the difference between the two points being about -80°C of change as you move to the pole.
The amplifier for the NH is between 3X to 4X overall warming. Overall the High Arctic has warmed +4°C since 1979, parts of Siberia have warmed +8°C
The amplifier for the SH is about 2X overall warming. The fact that we seeing reports of +3°C of warming in the Antarctic validates that we have indeed breached +1.5°C of planetary warming.
The South Pole warms about HALF as fast as the North Pole, BUT stays warm for about TWICE as long.
BECAUSE.
HEAT flows from the Tropics to the Poles and ACCUMULATES there.
The effect of ACCUMULATION is AMPLIFICATION.
As this HEAT builds up and warms the poles the LEtPTG curves "flatten" and get shallower. That has MAJOR consequences for the entire Climate System. As David Rind of GISS said in this 1998 paper.
Latitudinal temperature gradients and climate change.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 103, NO. D6, PAGES 5943-5971, MARCH 27, 1998
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/97JD03649
How variable is the latitudinal temperature gradient with climate change?”
“This question is second in importance only to the question of overall climate sensitivity. Our current inability to answer it affects everything from understanding past climate variations, and paleoclimate proxies, to projections of regional effects of future greenhouse warming [Rind, 1995].”
At the +6°C of warming we are "locking in" the NP will warm about +30°C.
The SP will warm about +45°C.
That's where we are heading by the beginning of the 22nd century.
Richard, I’m deeply grateful for your insights—your work has shaped my understanding of climate science, and it’s an honor to have you engage with my article.
You're absolutely right to highlight Arctic and Antarctic Amplification as the twin forces reshaping our climate in distinct but equally devastating ways. While my central concern has been Antarctica, I’ve also been closely following Arctic developments (https://open.substack.com/pub/rickylanusse/p/are-we-only-3-years-away-from-the?r=271e6q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false), precisely because of what you lay out so clearly—the accumulated impact of Polar Amplification. The stark contrast between heat distribution in the NH and SH is one of the most overlooked aspects of climate change. While the Arctic’s rapid warming steals headlines, the slow-burning consequences of Antarctic Amplification are no less alarming, especially considering its delayed but prolonged impact on global climate stability.
The Latitudinal Equator to Pole Temperature Gradient shift is a crucial point. Flattening these gradients doesn't just mean polar regions heat up—it fundamentally disrupts the entire atmospheric and oceanic circulation, dismantling the very systems that have regulated Earth’s climate for millennia. The implications for jet streams, storm tracks, and monsoons are staggering.
Your mention of David Rind’s work is particularly relevant. That 1998 paper laid the foundation for understanding how shifts in temperature gradients shape everything from extreme weather to oceanic overturning, yet its urgency is still widely underappreciated in policy discussions. The reality that we are now breaching +1.5°C and accelerating toward the scenarios outlined in that research should be sounding alarms far louder than they are.
The projected +30°C at the North Pole and +45°C at the South Pole by the next century isn’t just an abstract warning—it’s a planetary transformation on a scale we’ve never experienced. We are destabilizing the very fabric of life-supporting systems, and yet the world remains fixated on incremental policy tweaks.
Thank you for bringing this depth to the conversation. Your voice in this space has been invaluable, and I truly appreciate you taking the time to share these critical insights.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
And when the ice melts, all sorts of previously hidden things appear from underneath.
Such as these statues and ancient ruins:
https://vesavanhatupa.substack.com/p/ancient-ruins-antarctica-daniels
:D