From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Blog
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2025 was +0.58 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up from the February, 2025 anomaly of +0.50 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through March 2025) remains at +0.15 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 15 months (record highs are in red).
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.58 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.95 | +0.81 | +1.17 | +1.31 | +0.86 | +1.16 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.26 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.76 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 |
| 2024 | May | +0.78 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.05 | +0.20 | +0.53 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.37 | +0.64 | +0.91 |
| 2024 | July | +0.74 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.97 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.76 | +0.82 | +0.69 | +0.74 | +0.40 | +0.88 | +1.75 |
| 2024 | Sep | +0.81 | +1.04 | +0.58 | +0.82 | +1.31 | +1.48 | +0.98 |
| 2024 | Oct | +0.75 | +0.89 | +0.60 | +0.63 | +1.90 | +0.81 | +1.09 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.87 | +0.41 | +0.53 | +1.12 | +0.79 | +1.00 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.62 | +0.76 | +0.48 | +0.52 | +1.42 | +1.12 | +1.54 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.45 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.06 | +0.74 | +0.48 |
| 2025 | Feb | +0.50 | +0.55 | +0.45 | +0.26 | +1.04 | +2.10 | +0.87 |
| 2025 | Mar | +0.58 | +0.74 | +0.41 | +0.40 | +1.25 | +1.23 | +1.20 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for March, 2025, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Warmer than I expected, and still little sign of temperatures returning to pre 2023 levels.
The 3rd warmest March on record. Close to March 2016.
Here’s the warmest March anomalies for UAH.
Hee is my unofficial contour map using the UAH gridded data.
and the same but using a gradient fill.
My simple forecast based on linear regression from the first three months a linear trend over time, predicts 2025 will be 0.45 +/- 0.17C. That gives a 60% chance of being the second warmest year on record, but with a reasonable chance it could drop down a few places.
However, given the unusual nature of temperatures recently, I won’t be putting money on it.
Do you have any historical evidence to show that your simple forecast has any predictive value at all?
I seriously doubt it. You can’t predict a highly variable data series from three months of data. In fact your own results show that. A 60% chance of being warmest on record? So 40% chance of not? So pretty close to a coin flip? Your model hasn’t a clue is what that says.
Bellman can speak for himself on the exact details, but generally speaking the answer to your question is yes. To assess the predictive value of a model we test it against observations. This is how we know the uncertainty of a prediction. This uncertainty is a measure of the model’s predictive value. That’s not say it is the only measure of predictive value, but it is the most common.
The issue is 2 fold: 1: the problems concerning observations ie, surface temperature measurement technology and the anomalies involved and 2: the models derived from the inferences between satellite and those surface temp ( + balloon) measurements.
I would like to see the experiment run under the same conditions as to ascertain its value. So, i would start by using only direct surface temperatures using the same tech, pref outside urban areas. And only use the most reliable category stations..
Bellman and I sometimes provide predictions for surface based datasets and assess the skill of those predictions by back testing them against surface observations like you suggested. It’s just that this article is about UAH which is a satellite based dataset so we backed test the prediction against UAH satellite observations.
Fair enough. I see this whole system as a roughshot ride as i consider the idea of a global average tropospheric temperature as problematic at the outset.
But it is nice to be able to play around with the variables to see how they compare. I just wouldnt put any trust in them..
“Do you have any historical evidence to show that your simple forecast has any predictive value at all?”
A good question. I haven’t really done any serious testing, as it’s just for fun, but I’ve been doing this for several years and generally find the results are within the 95% prediction interval. The big exception being 2023.
So I though I’d rerun the forecasts based on data from March for the previous 10 years. This is using the current version of UAH.
2023 was the main failure – which I think is useful as it illustrates that something unexpected was happening that year.
“A 60% chance of being warmest on record?”
No. A 60% chance of being 2nd warmest. There’s virtually no possibility of it being warmer than 2024.
“So pretty close to a coin flip?”
Yes, because the prediction is very close to 2023. Could be warmer, could be cooler.
But as I said, I’m cautious about how accurate this will be, given the weird nature of the climate at the moment. At present this year is starting off looking like an El Niño year, whereas it’s supposed to be heading for a La Niña.
There are several unusual situations showing up in the oceans. Situations I haven’t seen before. For example, the PWP is very cold during La Nina conditions. Wasn’t a La Nina supposed to be pushing warmer waters into the PWP?
Cold waters also showing up off the North African coast.
Cold water off the western US coast (not unusual) but moving all the way into Nino 3.4 areas.
What does it mean? Maybe nothing, or maybe we are seeing a phase change in the 60 year cycle. That would definitely put a kink in any future predictions.
Notice how the El Nino warming has basically cleared from the tropics.
Just a patch in the far north over Greenland still left.
Pity the stratospheric H2O charts only go to 75N so we can’t see how much of the HT WV is still over those upper latitudes.
Still lovin’ those unexplained, relatively high frequency, synchronized, oscillations of about 1 ppm magnitude showing up from 75N to 75S in the last eight months of 2024 and even in the southern hemisphere in February and March of this year!
I could insert something here about data credibility, but why bother since the contour graph otherwise looks so pretty.
P.S. Anybody know if NOAA started using AI to process satellite data starting around, oh, mid-February 2024 or so?
Here is my surface measured map, baseline 1991-2020:
Here’s the UAH data using the same scale.
Unfit for purpose surface stations.
And where do the data for the SH oceans come from?
They are FAKE, made-up from models and agendas, just like the rest of GISS data.
Surprisingly patchy for a ‘well-mixed’ gas
It’s showing lower troposphere anomalies – not “a gas”.
Aren’t these anomalies of temperature as a result of greenhouse gasses with CO2 supposedly the elephant with his toes on the scales?
If so and it is well-mixed (as we are constantly told) why such variation?
CO2 isn’t the only thing modulating the temperature in the troposphere.
Many here seem to have no concept of the atmosphere being separate from a gas that is a constituent.
CO2 is well-mixed, but it doesn’t control the atmosphere’s movement/mixing.
That is done via the deltaT between the tropics and poles, and the Earth’s rotation largely.
Then into the mix comes SSTs and topography/geography.
That the GHE of a non-condensing gas affects the planetary average temp in no way means that it affects its movement.
That I have to explain this beggars belief.
“CO2 is well-mixed, but it doesn’t control the atmosphere’s movement/mixing.”
No evidence it has any effect on the atmosphere whatsoever.
“That I have to explain this beggars belief.”
… then please feel free to shut up and give your over inflated ego a day off.
He’s not wrong. John in Oz’s argument is a corollary to the fallacy of affirming a disjunct. Just because CO2 does not cause ALL of the changes in temperature does not mean that it cannot cause SOME of the changes. It would be like implying that just because cancer cannot explain ALL deaths it therefore cannot cause SOME deaths. The former is no less absurd than the later. It beggars belief that anyone could possibly not understand this concept.
If it isn’t causing all of the warming, then it can’t be causing all of the ECS either. Tell us how much CO2 contributes.
For the lurkers…
ECS is a metric quantifying the magnitude of the effect of one and only one factor as if it were acting alone. Saying that the ECS of CO2 cannot arise as a result of CO2 is like saying that death caused by cancer cannot be the result of cancer. The former is as equally absurd as the later.
All of the factors coalesce into a total ECS. You are doing nothing but dissembling.
What percentage of the total ECS is the contribution from CO2?
“What percentage of the total ECS is the contribution from CO2?”
100%. You really don’t understand anything. Read bdg again:
“ECS is a metric quantifying the magnitude of the effect of one and only one factor as if it were acting alone.”
It is defined as warming cused by doubling CO2. Not any other warming.
“It is defined as warming cused by doubling CO2. Not any other warming.”
CO2 may be the only factor that is changed in the climate models but that does *NOT* mean that CO2 is the only factor affecting ECS even if it is the only thing changed.
There are a whole host of feedback processes that affect the overall ECS value, both positive and negative feedbacks. Some driven by CO2 and some not.
if you don’t factor in what those cause to happen to the ECS then you are just producing garbage out from garbage in.
Well, your whole statement is absurd as your analogy doesnt fly.
You don’t think cancer had anything to do with the 600,000 people in the US who died from cancer in 2024?
Wrong inference. Please try again..or read my post again.
I’m responding to this exchange.
The analogy I used was regarding deaths caused by cancer.
If this wasn’t what you were referring then perhaps you can clarify exactly what you think is absurd.
Fair enough. Maybe i was too harsh. But let me clarify why i thought it was an absurd analogy. First, all the ideas about Co2 and temperatures in the atmosphere are speculative and hypothesised. They cannot harden or reliably equated. There is no ‘chance’ or reliable statistical analysis possible because the nature of the system does not allow it. Given that fact the analogy with cancer breaks down at the start as we can crunch the numbers on cancer in relation to the population, who gets it, age, when, ‘lifestyle’ choices, hospital numbers etc. These numbers are real and measurable.
Now, there IS an issue w cancer ie the statement that ‘smoking causes cancer’ which is wrong because not everyone who smokes gets cancer. However, statisticians will point out that the likelyhood ( chance) of getting cancer highly increases when smoking.
This cannot be done with Co2 and the atmosphere.
I hope i have made myself clear and look forward to your reply..
It is true that is hypothesized. That’s what science does. What isn’t true is that it is speculative because the hypothesis has been tested for falsification. No experiment has ever falsified the hypothesized that CO2 impedes the transmission of energy in the infrared spectrum especially near the peak at15 um. Nor has any experiment falsified that the hypothesis that the 14-16 um band is a significant component of terrestrial radiation. Nor has any experiment falsified the 1st law of thermodynamics via ΔE = Ein – Eout or that temperature is related to energy via ΔT = ΔE/(m*c).
This fallacy is so common it has a name. Hasty Generalization.
Just because factor F doesn’t always result in outcome O does not mean that F cannot be casually linked to O.
For example, the statement “Brian got into a car wreck. Brian did not die. Therefore car wrecks cannot cause death.” is an example of a hasty generalization because the evidence strong supports the casual link between car wrecks and death.
The argument from the Gorman’s is that if CO2 cannot explain ALL aspects of the observations then it therefore cannot explain ANY aspect of the observations.
This argument is composed of two fallacies. Strawman Fallacy and Reduction Fallacy. The strawman fallacy occurs because the argument that CO2 must explain ALL aspects of the observations for CO2 to be casually linked to those observations is argument of their own creation. The reduction fallacy occurs because the this argument assume that there can only ever be a single cause for those observations.
“The argument from the Gorman’s is that if CO2 cannot explain ALL aspects of the observations then it therefore cannot explain ANY aspect of the observations.”
Stop putting words in people’s mouths! Your reading comprehension skills are totally lacking so you always fail at telling people what they said.
No one is claiming that CO2 must explain everything or it explains nothing.
If you combine two signals of different frequencies and amplitudes then the composite will not be a simple sum of the amplitudes at the peak. It will be something less and the signal with the largest amplitude will dominate what the peak is.
You and CAGW advocates would have us believe that CO2 is that dominate factor determining the maximum value. It gets even more complicated if the number of signals are greater than two with each one having a different frequency and amplitude.
Climate science, as usual, wants to ignore this complexity and just propagate the meme that CO2 *is* the dominant factor in determining climate even though there isn’t a known functional relationship between CO2 and temperature.
If it were easy the biosphere wouldn’t be a chaotic, non-linear systems that resists being predictable. Climate science just assumes that everything is easy.
I’m not putting words in your mouth. You and brother are doing that all on your own.
Here is an example where the reduction fallacy is implicitly employed.
“A functional relationship between CO2 and temperature would allow you to calculate the temperature at the top of the Eiffel Tower on Nov 22, 2023 by assuming a CO2 concentration and calculating the resultant temperature.”
Are here are a couple of examples where the reduction fallacy is explicitly employed.
“CO2 is not a control knob for temperature if temps don’t increase along with increasing CO2.“
“The problem is that climate science is making an assumption that “CO2 vs time” and “Temperature vs time” correlation somehow result in a decision that CO2 CAUSES TEMPERATURE. Any variance from this correlation absolutely ruins the consensus that CO2 causes temperature. The greenies will have a hemorrhage if this happens.“
So if you and your brother don’t actually belief the argument you put forth in this respect then you and your brother are doing everything you possibly can to convince the WUWT community otherwise. For what purpose…I have no idea.
“I’m not putting words in your mouth. You and brother are doing that all on your own.”
Yeah, right. That’s why you never use quotation marks I guess. You just make it up as you go along!
“So if you and your brother don’t actually belief the argument you put forth in this respect then you and your brother are doing everything you possibly can to convince the WUWT community otherwise. For what purpose…I have no idea.”
Of course you are caught being unable to refute either assertion. Reduced to just whining. Typical for you.
Let me make sure I have this straight so I’m not accused of “putting words people’s mouths”. Are you saying that the words you and/or your brother used and which appear in the posts here, here, and here, which WUWT says were authored by you and Jim and which I put in quotation marks, are actually my words?
NO! You can’t even keep straight what you post yourself!
bdgwx: “The argument from the Gorman’s is that if CO2 cannot explain ALL aspects of the observations then it therefore cannot explain ANY aspect of the observations.””
You have yet to link to a posting of mine or of Jim’s that say this.
It’s *NOT* the first time you’ve done this – just make stuff up with no actual link. This is *NOT* the first time I’ve called you out for doing this in other threads ether.
Like Willis says, if you are going to “say what someone says” then provide the actual quote using quotation marks that you are addressing.
I provided 3 links and put your and or your brother’s words in quotes.
I think I see what is going on here. You’re gaslighting me.
“I provided 3 links and put your and or your brother’s words in quotes.”
As if those were the only three of my posts you responded to using my quotes instead your own words as mine.
Who do you think you are fooling?
No gaslighting. Stop using words like “Gorman’s say” and actually use quotes.
They aren’t my words. I don’t believe that “Any variance from this correlation absolutely ruins the consensus that CO2 causes temperature.” or that “CO2 is not a control knob for temperature if temps don’t increase along with increasing CO2.“ so I wouldn’t say or even insinuate it.
I did use quotes. This seems to have triggered you even more. It’s not my intent to upset you here.
BTW…I’m not trying to rub your nose in your own words here either. I am assuming that what you write is what you believe. So if you don’t believe what you said or have since changed your mind then now is the time to tell me. Otherwise I don’t really have a choice but to accept that you believe in the reductionist view that if CO2 cannot explain all of the temperature changes then it cannot explain any of the changes.
You did NOT quote what I said about the subject at hand. You said: “Gormans say” snd then put words in our mouth. All you are doing now is trying to convince everyone that you *did* quote me. YOU DIDN’T. Period. Exclamation point.
I literally quoted you and/or your brothers own words and provided the links. Are you denying that you and/or your brother said “Any variance from this correlation absolutely ruins the consensus that CO2 causes temperature.“ and “CO2 is not a control knob for temperature if temps don’t increase along with increasing CO2.“
If you and/or your brother didn’t say this then fair enough. I can help you work with the WUWT administrators to figure out why WUWT lists you and/or your brother as the author of these statements.
I’m pretty confident that they don’t need convincing. Anyone who bothers to track this discussion can see clearly that I did, in fact, quote you and/or your brother…multiple times.
Speaking of the subject at hand. Do you or do you not believe the statements made by you and/or your brother which I put in double-quotes and provided links?
Stop lying. You said: “Gormans say” and then put down YOUR words not ours.
You said: “The argument from the Gorman’s is that if CO2 cannot explain ALL aspects of the observations then it therefore cannot explain ANY aspect of the observations.”
You provided NO quotes where either of us has said this – and you still haven’t.
I described your position. Notice that I did not put my words in quotes and played them as you or your brother’s words or in any way indicated that those were you or your brother’s exact words. What I did was indicate that the argument was presented by you and/or your brother. Which, according to WUWT, is true.
And just to be clear the position I’m talking about is the reduction fallacy in which it is argued that if a factor does not explain ALL aspects of the observations then it cannot explain ANY aspect of the observations.
The statement “Any variance from this correlation absolutely ruins the consensus that CO2 causes temperature.” is a reduction and is equivalent to saying that if X does not explain ALL aspects of the observations then X cannot explain ANY aspect.
The statement “CO2 is not a control knob for temperature if temps don’t increase along with increasing CO2.“ is a reduction and is equivalent to saying that if X does not explain ALL aspects of the observations then X cannot explain ANY aspect.
Let me make sure I have this straight.
Is it your position that I never posted the quotes “Any variance from this correlation absolutely ruins the consensus that CO2 causes temperature.” and “CO2 is not a control knob for temperature if temps don’t increase along with increasing CO2.“?
Is it your position that you or your brother never said “Any variance from this correlation absolutely ruins the consensus that CO2 causes temperature.” and “CO2 is not a control knob for temperature if temps don’t increase along with increasing CO2.“?
Is it your position that you disagree with the quotes “Any variance from this correlation absolutely ruins the consensus that CO2 causes temperature.” and “CO2 is not a control knob for temperature if temps don’t increase along with increasing CO2.“?
“I described your position.”
NO, you described what YOU *think* my position is. No quotes. You do this *all* the time. It’s an easy argumentative fallacy to fall into.
All the rest of your post is noise.
“Is it your position that you or your brother never said “Any variance from this correlation absolutely ruins the consensus that CO2 causes temperature.” and “CO2 is not a control knob for temperature if temps don’t increase along with increasing CO2.“?”
Neither of those is untrue. It may sound like nit-picking but the usual claim by you and the CAGW advodates is that CO2 is *the* control knob for temperature. Not “one of a multiple control knobs”. This is proven by the focus on reducing only CO2 and not any of the other factors. How often do we see a correlation study of H2O vs temperature from you or anyone else? Or clouds vs temperature? Or *anything* vs temperature besides CO2?
If you want to reduce “warming” then why not focus on reducing H2O in the atmosphere? Because it would be hard? Because it might have a deleterious impact on the biosphere? How is that any different than CO2?
Then my summary of your position is correct. That is a reductionist argument. Those statements by you and/or your brother is an argument that if CO2 cannot explain ALL aspects of the observations then it cannot explain ANY aspect of the observations. You just used different words.
I have never once claimed that. In fact, I have always maintained that CO2 is A control knob; not THE control knob.
In fact, I stated exactly this about 3.5 years ago when I first explained it to you and/or your brother. And this isn’t an isolated discussion. It has been a repeated and recurring theme with you and/or your brother.
Don’t think the irony of you accusing me of 1) lying and 2) misquoting you (both of which are completely unfounded) while you grossly misrepresent my position went unnoticed.
Just so we’re clear. I don’t want to get into some I-said-you-said war with you. If my understanding of your position is wrong then all you need to do is clarify your position so that I understand it instead of accusing me of things I didn’t do.
This is why you need to provide actual quotations and not *YOUR* interpretation.
“Those statements by you and/or your brother is an argument that if CO2 cannot explain ALL aspects of the observations then it cannot explain ANY aspect of the observations. You just used different words.”
That is *NOT* what the quote links you gave actually say. It is *YOUR* interpretation that you are putting in my mouth.
:I have always maintained that CO2 is A control knob; not THE control knob.”
Except you *NEVER* discuss the other factors that are control knobs or discuss the functional relationship that must exist between all the factors. All you ever address is CO2. Your many posts on the correlation between CO2 growth and the temperature growth of the climate models stand as mute evidence of this. So does your dismissal of several decades-long pauses in temperature rise while CO2 growth continues.
Why don’t you take this opportunity and surprise us with at least a minimal list of the other control factors and their functional relationship to temperature. And then explain how temperature is a proper metric for climate even when two locations with similar temperatures can have vastly different climates.
I read just fine. “one and only one factor as if it were acting alone.” means there are other factors that affect the overall ECS. You are just dissembling now, as usual.
And it is telling that 1. you won’t admit that and, 2. that you don’t know what percentage CO2 is of the overall ECS.
Climate sensitivity is affected by feedback processes, both positive and negative, that exist in the system. Those processes can be affected by CO2 and thus become drivers of the ECS in their own right. Or they may not have any dependence on CO2 at all.
In other words you can’t consider CO2 by itself as if it is acting alone. it *can’t* be acting alone.
The percentage contribution of CO2 to the 2xCO2 ECS is 100%.
The percentage contribution of CH4 to the 2xCH4 ECS is 100%.
The percentage contribution of TSI to the 1.01xTSI ECS is 100%.
These are all examples of analysis involving a single factor scenario. This is not a statement that CO2, CH4, TSI, or any other factor can only act alone. It’s only a statement that IF they act alone then each will have an effect estimated by the ECS specific to that factor. Each factor has its own ECS estimate.
If you want to analyze what happens when multiple factors are in play simultaneous you have to use a different methodology.
Reminder…I’m responding to your statement “If it isn’t causing all of the warming, then it can’t be causing all of the ECS either. Tell us how much CO2 contributes.” which demonstrates a confusion on what ECS (as it is used be scientists) is meant to communicate.
Again…2xCO2 ECS is defined as the warming caused by doubling CO2 and only doubling CO2. Therefore CO2’s contribution to it is 100%…by definition.
If you don’t like the definition of ECS then fine. Just say, “I don’t like the words scientists used to describe the warming caused by a doubling CO2 and only a doubling of CO2.” and then we discuss your ideas for better wording.
“If you want to analyze what happens when multiple factors are in play simultaneous you have to use a different methodology.”
Why? What “different” methodology?
Isn’t the total ECS what you really need to know?
Knowing what the various factors cause if only they are applicable by themselves is meaningless. Does the ECS change caused by CH4 increase or decrease the ECS caused by CO2? And on and on and on ….
If you don’t know what the total ECS change is the just say so.
There is no evidence that CO2 has caused ANY warming.
Given the total lack of evidence, any suggestion it does is just nonsense based on nothing.
Exactly.
There is no evidence CO2 is modulating the atmospheric temperatures at all.
The problem is that: Co2= warming is exactly the kind of attribution people often criticise others for. The irony here is clear. If your only proof is a set of equations which underlying assumptions can (and should) be questioned it relies on attribution. Im ok w that. Im also ok with: ‘ i guess’. Im not ok w stating this is based on settled science or even physics principles.
For comparison here’s my map using ERA data for March 2025.
When was the hottest March before we had reliable global temperature measurements before 1920?
I’ll give you a clue.
We don’t know.
So you’re hottest March evaaaahhhh is barely a blink of the eye in human existence.
He didn’t say it was the hottest March ever.
He said it was the 3rd warmest March in the UAH record.
And he is factually correct.
Pay attention, Redge.
Cherry-picking to suit a narrative is still a lie by omission.
Pay attention, TFN.
FAR cooler than nearly all the last 10,000 years.
Here’s the graph of March Anomalies
Yawnnnn…. It has become boring Bellman.
The world is doing fine.
And still absolutely zero evidence of any human causation.
Seeing as how it’s 20F below normal here in Boulder, I’d prefer a little more warming, but I suppose the cold and snow kept some of the riff raff away from their protesting Musk and Trump.
The new Monckton Pause starts in 2023/06 and is 21 months. The average of this pause is 0.70 C which is 0.49 C higher than the average of the previous pause of 0.21 C which lasted 107 months starting in 2014/06. The trend since the beginning of this previous pause is +0.37 C.decade-1.
My prediction for 2025 is 0.43 ± 0.16 C based on the following model. This means that 2025 will likely be in the top 5 warmest years in the period with a good chance of it being ranked 2nd despite the waning La Nina.
April 2024 Tongan Top of 0.94 C is liable to be the high for this decade, barring another such eruption.
Your previous predictions haven’t panned out so well. That doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t be right this time though. Either way we’ll revisit this prediction in 2030.
Which ones do you have in mind? Presumably not the one about how long it would take all the Tongan water to leave the stratosphere.
In July of 2023: “June anomaly was 0.38 C, up from 0.37 in May. El Niño effect should continue warming the air, but the downtrend from 2016 should remain intact.”
2 months later a new record of +0.90 C was reported breaking the previous record of +0.71 C in 2016. The trend since 2016 is +0.39 C.decade-1.
In January 2024: “As water from the Tonga eruption leases the stratosphere, global average temperature should continue dropping.”
Over the next 4 months UAH reported consecutive increases culminating in the v6.0 record of +1.05 C..
Obviously there is no causal link between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures.
Still plenty of extra H2O in the stratosphere… only just starting to dissipate…
… or are you saying that extra H2O doesn’t slow cooling from the transient El Nino effect, thus destroying the whole AGW fantasy.
Hmmm . . . I thought your earlier claims in earlier articles discussing HT volcano-injected water vapor, supported by colorful Aura MLS contour plots of stratospheric water vapor concentrations, were that the claimed HT-injected water in the stratosphere started dissipating around June 2023 . . . at least that’s what’s the Aura MLS contour plot you posted above on April 5, 2025 1:31 pm shows. That would be, ummmm, about 21 months ago.
El Ninos, from solar input and possibly ocean seismic…. The only warming.
No sign of any human caused atmospheric warming.
Now that statement is very funny (calling it a “Monckton Pause”) in additional to being just plain wrong. Examining the graph that you yourself posted, I see that from June 2023 thru August 2024 (the first 14 of the 21 months interval you referenced) the UAH 13-month rolling average line, in blue, has a total anomaly variation of about 0.35 deg-C around the interval average of about 0.70 deg-C, reflecting a total variation of about 50% over those 14 months. You call that a “pause”?
Ridiculous!
It is a nod is the person who devised the methodology. Christopher Monckton.
I doubled checked the 21 month figure. It looks right to me. What length do you get when using the Monckton method?
No. I do not.
I agree. So next time Monckton posts one of us ridiculous pause update articles on WUWT will help Bellman, Nick, TFN, myself, and others explain to him why it is ridiculous?
Oh No! The Planet Has a Fever! It’s gonna die! We’re all gonna die! Oh Woe is me.
/sarc
OMG! 0.15 C/decade warming during a portion of the upswing of a global warming/cooling cyclical temperature fluctuation phenomenon. This is following the Little Ice Age, the coldest period of the Holocene Interglacial, and the 1970s that had the coldest temperatures of the 20th and 21st Centuries. [Women, children and minorities will die off first from existential climate change.]
We left the Little Ice Age, and are still in the “Little Moist Greenhouse” from the HT eruption.
Somebody please ring a bell when temperatures all around the world get higher than they’ve ever been before, when there was no air-conditioning.
Bell man?
Surface measured temperatures also showed a small rise (0.04°C warmer than February). It was there the second warmest March in the record, after 2024.
And that comes off the heels of a -0.6 ONI La Nina.
There you go exaggerating again Nick.
I make it only 0.0328C warmer than Feb.
And absolutely zero evidence that human CO2 has anything to do with it.
Another 0.04°C of averaged averages and we’ll all be cooked!
Yeah, but was it the second warmest March 17 14:27 GMT temperature “in the record, after 2024”?
/sarc
If these figures are averages, why do most of the comments read as if it only relates to maximum temps?
E.g.,
‘The 3rd warmest March on record’
‘That gives a 60% chance of being the second warmest year on record’
‘ring a bell when temperatures all around the world get higher than they’ve ever been before’
If the minimum temperature rises so does the average. The maximum temp could be falling but one would never know if only looking at averages.
Scissor would be happy if the minimum and/or maximum were higher
‘Seeing as how it’s 20F below normal here in Boulder, I’d prefer a little more warming’
‘Seeing as how it’s 20F below normal here in Boulder, I’d prefer a little more warming’
I’d be happy if Colorado returned to deep Pleistocene conditions if it meant all of the California leftists left the state.
And (Max-Min)/2 is a very poor way to determine a meaningful “average” temperature.over a 24 hour period. Even averaging hourly reading would give a much better representation of a daily temperature. Especially in higher latitudes.
Data from one of the most pristine long term sites in the world (Valentia) shows that the “hourly average” in red, is generally a bit higher than the max/min average (blue).
Blue data also shows that the 1930s was the warmest decade, certainly warmer on average than the decade 2010-2020
And again ….
Because Valentia’s temperatures are almost entirely controlled by the SST of the Atlantic, from which it’s prevailing wind blows 90% of the time.
https://www.pleanala.ie/publicaccess/EIAR-NIS/303592/BnaM%20Derryadd%20Wind%20Farm%20Planning%20Application_Jan%2019_ABP/BnaM%20Derryadd%20Wind%20Farm_Vol%20III%20Appendices/Appendix%2012.2_Mullingar%20Aerodrome%20Wind%20Rose.pdf
The “bump” inthe graph is that displayed by the global temperaure series and is becasue both the AMO and the PDO where in their +ve (warm) phase at the same time (the only time in instrumental history that this has been so).
The dip after is also evident in the world ave temp series, and is becasue of the increased aerosols outputted by us after ramp-up of industry after WW2.
Thanks for showing that Valentia is representative of the general region, being untainted by urban expansion and site degradation.
Valentia is a far better site than anything from the UK.
The Met Office and its totally incompetent officers have allowed the situation to develop where a large proportion of its surface sites are totally unfit for “climate” work.
But they still choose to use that data from JUNK stations because it is all they have left.
As for the aerosol conjecture.. there is good data for SO2 and for temperature over the USA.
From 1980.. 174ppb to 1998… 89ppb , (a decrease of 14.7 million tons)
UAH USA48 shows no warming.
SO2 dropped from 79ppb in 2005 to 24ppb in 2015..( a decrease of 8.1 million tons) so to less than 1/3.
According to USCRN and UAH USA48 there was no warming.
The SO2 cooling conjecture is not supported by measured evidence.
Furthermore, GISP shows SO2 increasing rapidly from about 1850.
And the world got warmer.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/
The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century
The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. The mid-century cooling can be seen in this NASA/GISS animation, which shows temperature variation from the annual mean for the period from 1880 through 2006. The warmest temperatures are in red.
Climate models that take into account only natural factors, such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions, do not reproduce 20th century temperatures very well. If, however, the models include human emissions, including greenhouse gases and aerosols, they accurately reproduce the 1940 to 1970 dip in temperatures.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021JD035476
“Decadal running means of mean simulated (CMIP6) and observed (ngGEBA) all-sky SSR anomalies between 1961 and 2014 averaged over ngGEBA stations in four regions: Multi-model mean CMIP6 in boldface and ngGEBA in lightface. Gray lines are decadal running means of each model run included. The anomalies are computed by averaging the initial 5 years of the running mean timeseries (this average is printed after ”from” in the legend items), and subtracting this mean value from each subsequent time step. Included in the computation is a CMIP6 historical all-forcing simulation”
Since daytime temps follow a sine wave pattern and nighttime temps follow an exponential decay, averaging hourly readings doesn’t give a very good result either. The average value of a sine wave is about .64 * maxvalue. The average value of an exponential decay is about 1/decay-rate. The decay rate for nighttime temps is related to T^x (the effective radiation intensity for a non-blackbody).
Even averaging these averages doesn’t really tell you what is going on. Climate science seems to always reduce things to such a simple level that they are useless. E.g. they assume that temperature is a good proxy for heat. The unstated assumption in this is that everyplace on the globe has the same humidity and pressure. To climate science Las Vegas and Miami have exactly the same climate because their temperatures are similar.
If they can’t do enthalpy (which takes into consideration temperature, pressure, and humidity) then they should start using degree-day values. These aren’t averages of hourly temperatures but a straight addition of values over/under a set point. It similar to what agricultural science does in determining heat accumulation for use in predicting crop harvests.
They’re not even averages. They are averages subtracted from averages. Not sure exactly what they represent but they apparently prove that the end of the world is nigh.