The effect unfortunately looks a lot different at the two poles, due in the one case to a nearly closed off circulation system and a strongly disrupted one on the other hand. I think it will be very difficult to achieve scientific precision. However, the greenhouse effect is categorically not warming the Antarctic, and it needs to be if the theory is to retain any credence.
It makes total sense that the two poles are slightly out of balance in their ability to lose and gain heat. Variability is then a function of the corrective process. And it appears that over the centuries, the Arctic tends to warm and the Antarctic tends to chill. As I posted earlier, this can be corrected by the expedient of injecting a larger mass than normal of cold Antarctic water into the Atlantic.
The last major injection took place in the fifteenth century, triggering the little ice age in Europe. What we do not understand is if this process is triggered by a warming Arctic in some manner or is just random. With our sparsity of knowledge, we see a likely direct connection from this one data point. Yet I am not sure that we can trace another such event since the Bronze Age. The Romans did grow grapes in England after all.
We really need to get a better handle on post Bronze Age climate. The cooling effect could actually be controlled by a normal low level pulsing of the currents that may cycle through several decades and is only rarely disturbed.
Without a corrective measure, I am certain that the Arctic will return to Bronze Age conditions, which we are swiftly approaching right now. Those conditions are inherently stable unless there is an injection of cold water into the South Atlantic.
Now you know why I am looking over my shoulder.