UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for December, 2025: +0.30 deg. C

From Dr Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Blog

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

2025 was the 2nd warmest year (a distant 2nd behind 2024) in the 47-year satellite record

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2025 was +0.30 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the November, 2025 value of +0.43 deg. C. (In the following plot note that the 13-month centered-average trace [red curve] has now been updated after several months of not being updated).

The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through December 2025) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).

2025 Ended the Year as a Distant 2nd Warmest Behind 2024

The following plot shows the ranking of the 47 years in the UAH satellite temperature record, from the warmest year (2024) to the coolest (1985). As can be seen, 2024 really was an anomalously warm year, more than can be attributed to El Nino alone.

The next plot shows how our UAH LT yearly anomalies compare to those posted on the WeatherBell website (subscription required) for the surface air temperatures from NOAA’s Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS). There is pretty good correspondence between the two datasets, with LT having warm outliers during major El Ninos (especially 1987, 1998, 2010, and 2024). This behavior is due to extra heating of the troposphere (which LT measures) during El Nino by enhanced deep moist convection in the tropics when the tropical Pacific Ocean surface warms from reduced upwelling of cold water from below, an effect exaggerated by the several-month lag of tropospheric warming behind surface warming during El Nino:

The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 24 months (record highs are in red).

YEAR	MO	GLOBE	NHEM.	SHEM.	TROPIC	USA48	ARCTIC	AUST
2024	Jan	+0.80	+1.02	+0.57	+1.20	-0.19	+0.40	+1.12
2024	Feb	+0.88	+0.94	+0.81	+1.16	+1.31	+0.85	+1.16
2024	Mar	+0.88	+0.96	+0.80	+1.25	+0.22	+1.05	+1.34
2024	Apr	+0.94	+1.12	+0.76	+1.15	+0.86	+0.88	+0.54
2024	May	+0.77	+0.77	+0.78	+1.20	+0.04	+0.20	+0.52
2024	June	+0.69	+0.78	+0.60	+0.85	+1.36	+0.63	+0.91
2024	July	+0.73	+0.86	+0.61	+0.96	+0.44	+0.56	-0.07
2024	Aug	+0.75	+0.81	+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	+1.89	+0.81	+1.09
2024	Nov	+0.64	+0.87	+0.40	+0.53	+1.11	+0.79	+1.00
2024	Dec	+0.61	+0.75	+0.47	+0.52	+1.41	+1.12	+1.54
2025	Jan	+0.45	+0.70	+0.21	+0.24	-1.07	+0.74	+0.48
2025	Feb	+0.50	+0.55	+0.45	+0.26	+1.03	+2.10	+0.87
2025	Mar	+0.57	+0.73	+0.41	+0.40	+1.24	+1.23	+1.20
2025	Apr	+0.61	+0.76	+0.46	+0.36	+0.81	+0.85	+1.21
2025	May	+0.50	+0.45	+0.55	+0.30	+0.15	+0.75	+0.98
2025	June	+0.48	+0.48	+0.47	+0.30	+0.80	+0.05	+0.39
2025	July	+0.36	+0.49	+0.23	+0.45	+0.32	+0.40	+0.53
2025	Aug	+0.39	+0.39	+0.39	+0.16	-0.06	+0.82	+0.11
2025	Sep	+0.53	+0.56	+0.49	+0.35	+0.38	+0.77	+0.30
2025	Oct	+0.53	+0.52	+0.55	+0.24	+1.12	+1.42	+1.67
2025	Nov	+0.43	+0.59	+0.27	+0.24	+1.32	+0.78	+0.36
2026	Dec	+0.30	+0.45	+0.15	+0.19	+2.10	+0.32	+0.38

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for December, 2025 as well as a global map of the 2025 anomalies 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:

5 9 votes

Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

226 Comments

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Scissor

January 5, 2026 2:05 pm

I felt it.

Jeff Alberts

Reply to Scissor

January 5, 2026 5:16 pm

Yay! Another update for the Imaginary Number.

Krishna Gans

January 5, 2026 2:06 pm

A nice drop 👍 🤗

Max More

January 5, 2026 2:07 pm

That should be Dec 2025 at the bottom of the table.

bnice2000

January 5, 2026 2:33 pm

How much lower will it go, I wonder

Guess the climate yappers will have to wait for the next El Nino. 😉

ResourceGuy

Reply to bnice2000

January 5, 2026 6:58 pm

Or super el nino

Keitho

Editor

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 1:37 am

Or Hunga-Tonga.

bnice2000

Reply to Keitho

January 6, 2026 3:08 am

Is the HT volcano still rumbling away ?? Not sure where to find out.

ToldYouSo

Reply to Keitho

January 6, 2026 8:09 am

Not sure if that was meant to be a sarcastic statement or not, but in any event there is this:

From the above article:
“. . . global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2025 was +0.30 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, . . .”

That means the December 2025 anomaly is actually 0.1°C lower than the previous January 2020 peak value (+0.4°C) in the running 13-month centered average anomaly trending. This is within the typical range of UAH reported month-to-month variability.

Can we now admit that that effects of the January 2022 Hunga-Tonga volcano eruption are now over, assuming that that eruption actually caused ANY significant perturbations to Earth’s atmospheric temperatures beginning January 2022?

So much for the HT eruption and injection of “massive amounts of water” into the stratosphere causing a global warming trend that many asserted would last five years or longer.

Westfieldmike

Reply to ToldYouSo

January 6, 2026 11:16 am

It did cause massive rainfall events.

ToldYouSo

Reply to Westfieldmike

January 6, 2026 2:06 pm

Got any scientific paper that you care to cite that supports that claim?

LT3

Reply to ToldYouSo

January 7, 2026 3:23 am

The data clearly shows that the Lower Stratosphere on average contains much more water vapor than before the H2 eruption. We are still under the effects, but the effects are subsiding. ENSO perturbations appear to be primary forcing at this climatic juncture.

The Quasi-biennial Oscillation (QBO) MLS Water

kalsel3294

January 5, 2026 2:39 pm

Why is it that the table listing the various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 24 months (record highs in red) shows that the record highs are in the early part of the calendar year, the warmest period for the Southern Hemisphere, but the coolest period for the Northern Hemisphere?
For us in the Southern Hemisphere I would like to see the UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Updatealso presented comparing each of the hemispheres.

Bindidon

Reply to kalsel3294

January 5, 2026 4:13 pm

kalsel3294

The numbers posted for UAH are all anomalies with annual cycle removal; you thus don’t see the seasonal differences in these numbers.

The reason for the SH anomalies to be lower than the NH anomalies is due to the fact that SH is dominated by oceans while NH is dominated by land masses.

Please look at the trends at the end of

https://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt

kalsel3294

Reply to Bindidon

January 5, 2026 4:37 pm

I was expecting that if the warming was being reflected more in rising minimum temperatures then that would be reflected in the corresponding seasonal readings in each hemisphere.
I have long understood the reason for the difference in each hemisphere but not why it is not reflected in the policies developed by the politicians in the SH.

bdgwx

Reply to kalsel3294

January 5, 2026 5:20 pm

When you say minimum temperature do you mean the diurnal minimum or the seasonal minimum? Either way the warming is more pronounced during both the diurnal and seasonal minimum so I’m not sure it would matter either way in the context of your post. One possible explanation for the deviation between your expectation and the UAH TLT anomalies is the location of the observation. The diurnal and seasonal bias of the warming is most pronounced near the surface. The effect is attenuated higher up where UAH TLT observations are focused.

-4

kalsel3294

Reply to bdgwx

January 5, 2026 6:43 pm

I was thinking with regards to location as SH vs NH.

John Power

Reply to kalsel3294

January 6, 2026 2:49 pm

“Why is it that the table listing the various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 24 months (record highs in red) shows that the record highs are in the early part of the calendar year, the warmest period for the Southern Hemisphere, but the coolest period for the Northern Hemisphere?”

Good spotting! It is a real physical phenomenon that is caused by the Earth reaching the point in its orbit which is closest to the Sun (its ‘perigee’) a little after January 1st in each year. This is also the point where the solar radiation impinging on the Earth reaches its greatest intensity. It is not dependent on Earth’s internal relationship between Northern and Southern hemispheres, as it is caused primarily by the Earth’s location in its slightly elliptical orbit. Though this is not to say that it doesn’t have different effects and consequences for the Northern and Southern hemispheres, of course.

Bryan A

January 5, 2026 3:05 pm

2025 was the 2nd warmest year (a distant 2nd behind 2024) in the 47-year satellite record

Must be the averaged year because the 2025 Peak was below both the 2016 peal and the 1998 peak as well as 2024.

bnice2000

Reply to Bryan A

January 5, 2026 4:41 pm

Yep, the El Nino effect was very persistent, I suspect something to do with the HT eruption WV…

…. hence yearly averages were higher over a 3 year period.

Climate yappers love El Nino events, because they also affect surface temperatures.

But El Ninos are nothing to do with CO2 or any other human causation.

(graph explanation… El Ninos adjusted to start of year = 0 on horizontal axis, and same anomaly at start of El Nino event)

You can see that the 2023/4/5 El Nino started earlier and lasted a lot longer, but the peak was basically the same as the 1998 El Nino.

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Bryan A

January 6, 2026 7:15 am

13 month running averages.

Nick Stokes

January 5, 2026 3:06 pm

TempLS surface anomaly average also put 2025 in second place, behind 2024 and about tied with 2023, but well ahead of 2020 or 2016. The relatively cool December brought it down.

-22

bnice2000

Reply to Nick Stokes

January 5, 2026 3:31 pm

Patchy in the NH from the wobbly jet stream / vortex

And remember, GHCN is based on unfit for purpose, and “adjusted” surface sites.

All the atmospheric warming in 2023, 24 was from the El Nino event which is now nearly subsided, hence cooling since mid 2024.

No evidence of any human caused warming.

johnesm

Reply to Nick Stokes

January 5, 2026 3:50 pm

Once again, the Northern Hemisphere extratropical landmasses in winter win the positive-anomaly award. Clearly, we need to ban fossil fuels and destroy capitalism in order to survive this onslaught of tepid weather.

Leon de Boer

Reply to johnesm

January 5, 2026 7:48 pm

If that is how the warming is going to transpire we clearly need more of it because it’s landing in the right places.

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Nick Stokes

January 6, 2026 7:17 am

Averages of averages of averages.

(Tmax + Tmin)/2 is not the temperature average anywhere on a rotating sphere.

ToldYouSo

Reply to Nick Stokes

January 6, 2026 8:55 am

I find it very strange that the contour plot of GHCNV4+ERSSTv5 temperature anomalies across the global for the month of December show that the land temperatures of South America along the equator have the same temperature anomaly (within 0.4 °C, indicated by white color) as is the anomaly over the Atlantic Ocean along the equator and that is also the same anomaly as indicated from the Indian Ocean along the equator from Africa to near Indonesia.

In fact for an anomaly base that averages 29 years of data (1991–2020), the odds of all those regions being within ± 0.2 °C of the 29 year-average for a single month are so low as to lead me to conclude the plot is GIGO.

This is further confirmed by the very many regions encompassing both land and sea areas that show the “same” temperature anomalies (color codes for 0.3, 0.5 or 1.0 °C, positive or negative, temperature spans) with smooth contours crossing the land-ocean interfaces. This stinks of massive data “smoothing” (aka, data manipulation) for those that understand how the heat capacity between land and ocean water typically results in temperature differences between the two due to thermal lag times.

Yeah, GIGO.

Jim Gorman

Reply to ToldYouSo

January 6, 2026 11:16 am

Yeah, GIGO.

Amen!

Funny how anomalies can be quoted to 1/1000ths of a degree, but graphs never show that resolution.

Willis posted a thread some time back that showed N Africa quite differently.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/12/18/a-spherical-cow-climate-model-that-actually-works/

-3

Nick Stokes

Reply to ToldYouSo

January 6, 2026 12:29 pm

“I find it very strange…”

Here is the UAH plot for November 2025. A month earlier, and lower resolution. But it can certainly happen.

ToldYouSo

Reply to Nick Stokes

January 6, 2026 2:26 pm

Well, it appears you did not look at the much more course contour resolution scale of the UAH plot compared to the GHCNV4+ERSSTv5 . . . the white color range for the UAH plot covers an anomaly span of 1 °C, whereas as I previously noted the white color range for the GHCNV4+ERSSTv5 plot covers an anomaly span of 0.4 °C. Huge difference (in terms of anomaly values).

Also, it’s curious that you chose to present a UAH plot for November temperature anomalies instead of one for December for direct comparison to the December GHCNV4+ERSSTv5 plot of temperature anomalies . . . perhaps I digress, perhaps not.

Finally, there is the substantial difference between combined land and sea surface temperatures/anomalies (i.e., GHCNV4+ERSSTv5 data) and lower troposphere air temperatures/anomalies (UAH data), resulting mostly from the heat capacities (thermal inertias) of the respective media being measured . . . but maybe you don’t consider that fact to be relevant.

Nick Stokes

Reply to ToldYouSo

January 6, 2026 3:01 pm

November is the latest they have. I noted the lower resolution. But all I’m showing is that what you find strange can actually happen.

Ron

January 5, 2026 3:09 pm

It appears from the chart that for most of 2025 the monthly temperature anomalies have been decreasing. The monthly C02 concentration in the atmosphere has steadily increased in 2025 from 425 ppm in December 2024 to 427 ppm in December 2025. This appears to be the exact opposite as proposed by AGW theory!

bdgwx

Reply to Ron

January 5, 2026 4:28 pm

This is what AGW theory predicted. The observations through 2025 are consistent with the theory.

-23

Jeff Alberts

Reply to bdgwx

January 5, 2026 5:18 pm

The theory of what, exactly? The theory that says every change is bad and caused by humans?

bdgwx

Reply to Jeff Alberts

January 5, 2026 5:29 pm

No. I’m talking about the theory that says atmospheric temperatures are driven by the net effect of all factors acting on the atmosphere.

-15

JonasM

Reply to bdgwx

January 5, 2026 6:21 pm

That’s not a theory. That’s a tautology.

Phil R

Reply to JonasM

January 6, 2026 4:49 am

you shouldn’t use those big words when talking with warmunists. Goes right over their heads.

AlanJ

Reply to JonasM

January 6, 2026 6:44 am

That is a fair critique. AGW theory is a mechanistic theory of radiative forcing and feedbacks that predicts specific spatial, vertical, and temporal warming patterns from increased anthropogenic greenhouse gases, bdgwx is rightly pointing out that observations are consistent with these predicted patterns.

Neutral1966

Reply to AlanJ

January 6, 2026 8:32 am

True!…… But do you not contemplate the possibility that you could be adding 1+1 = 2.5?
IE, just because CO2 is rising plus temperature is rising does that necessarily have to mean it equals catastrophic climate change?

AlanJ

Reply to Neutral1966

January 6, 2026 8:44 am

Sure, in that it’s a multifaceted problem that extends beyond scientific inquiry. Science can tell us what is happening (patterns of observed change like rising surface temperature and cooling stratosphere), provide a model, or theory, to explain why (radiative greenhouse effect from anthropogenic CO2 emissions), and let us use that model to anticipate potential future states (projections). It doesn’t tell us how we should feel about those future states, or what we want to do about them.

Jim Gorman

Reply to AlanJ

January 6, 2026 9:57 am

Science can tell us what is happening
provide a model, or theory, to explain why

The “why” is is the problem. Without a validated model, any projections are like saying a 50% chance of rain. I can flip a coin and be as accurate!

AlanJ

Reply to Jim Gorman

January 6, 2026 10:03 am

Observations consistent with predictions validate the theory, as bdgwx points out.

Jim Gorman

Reply to AlanJ

January 6, 2026 12:56 pm

Observations consistent with predictions validate the theory, as bdgwx points out.

In order to validate a theory one must have experimental data showing a mathematical functional relationship. A correlation between two time series is not functional relationship. I could graph postal rates vs time and get a good validation too.

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
Richard P. Feynman

You need to up your game.

AlanJ

Reply to Jim Gorman

January 6, 2026 1:14 pm

I agree that correlation alone does not establish causation, and I have not argued otherwise. Climate theory is not validated by correlating CO2 and temperature time series, but by applying experimentally validated physics like radiative transfer, thermodynamics, and fluid dynamics to the atmosphere. These frameworks yield quantitative, testable predictions (e.g., spectral changes in outgoing radiation, tropospheric warming with stratospheric cooling, ocean heat uptake). When observations repeatedly match these predictions across independent lines of evidence, confidence in the theory increases.

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to AlanJ

January 6, 2026 1:12 pm

Hindcasting models to match past data will of course create the false perception the models are accurate.

I’m not bad. I’m just drawn that way.

TheFinalNail

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

January 6, 2026 4:54 pm

The forecast and hindcast periods are clearly set out in the models.

The forecast (projections) have proved skilful, though they’ll never admit that fact here.

-1

Neutral1966

Reply to AlanJ

January 6, 2026 1:23 pm

Ok, I get that…. fair point!
However, what I’m trying to point out is that, while observations show warming alongside a rise in a trace gas, and a theory that has that gas being the cause of the warming, how do we know it’s not just a red herring, leading to the wrong conclusion?
The earth was once thought to be flat and that water courses were fed by vast underground lakes. Anyone who claimed otherwise was a heretic. With such a complex system as climate(s), which change over time anyway, how can anyone be convinced of any theory that claims to cause warming beyond what is natural climate change?
I understand that some of the computer models have predicted warming but can those same models produce accurate results of past climate? Surely that’s the acid test?

AlanJ

Reply to Neutral1966

January 6, 2026 3:38 pm

Science does not offer immutable truths, but models judged by explanatory power, predictive skill, and consistency with independent evidence. That is true for climate science as it is for plate tectonics or ocean circulation.

CO2 is not treated as causal merely because it correlates with warming. Its role follows from experimentally validated radiative transfer physics, which predicts specific, testable outcomes beyond surface temperature, such as stratospheric cooling, changes in outgoing longwave radiation spectra, and increasing ocean heat content. These fingerprints are observed, which sharply limits alternative explanations.

Climate models use the same physical equations to project future climate and to hindcast past climate. When run with natural forcings alone they fail to reproduce recent warming. When anthropogenic forcings are included they succeed within uncertainty. That does not make the theory immune to revision, but it leaves little room for fundamentally different causes.

sherro01

Reply to AlanJ

January 7, 2026 2:42 am

No, Alan J,
That is only partially correct. It deals with the first part of an allegedly important process of heat generation involving CO2. You have to complete the story by adding what happens to that heat. You have a twofold choice – either it builds up or it gets carried away as other heat does. The main evidence supporting a buildup is a slight increase in global temperature, mainly from historic weather stations a metre or so above the ground, mixed with assorted ocean T measurements all combined and adjusted by eminently contestable subjective guesswork and a veneer of respectability created by activists more often than scientists. It is under 1deg C over the last 130 years or so, with an inexplicable jump up in year 2024 and has downs as well as ups. Possibly, pending realistic uncertainty estimation.
Missing from the story is why there are many suggestions from the longer past where temperatures of earthly materials seem not to correlate well, if at all, with estimated CO2 levels in the air. The story is not settled. Geoff S

Neutral1966

Reply to AlanJ

January 7, 2026 3:49 am

Thanks for your detailed explanation. I’m aware of the points that you make. I’m very interested though in your view that there’s “little room for fundamentally different causes”. I think there’s a lot of debate about this, although not in the mainstream. Nevertheless, there are some highly qualified atmospheric scientists, who disagree with this conclusion. My understanding is also that computer models don’t perform particularly well in hindcasting, when using the same “physical equations” and data that are used to predict future climate?

bdgwx

Reply to Neutral1966

January 6, 2026 5:23 pm

I’m not talking about catastrophic climate change. I’m talking about UAH TLT observations. Keep in mind that the model I present above is not sufficient on its own to prove that CO2 is a cause of the warming. What the model does is falsify the hypothesis that there is no correlation between CO2 and UAH TLT temperatures and helps people visualize how many factors can superimpose to produce the jerky up-down temperature pattern on short time scales while simultaneously producing an upward trend on long time scales.

-2

Jim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

January 6, 2026 5:40 pm

What the model does is falsify the hypothesis that there is no correlation between CO2 and UAH TLT temperatures

The model proves nothing other than you can derive a series of terms that curve fits to the correlation. There is no experimental data to validate the model or the coefficients being used.

Show us how your model predicts the Little Ice Age and it’s length.

What you are doing is nothing more than creating a French Curve drawing tool. That lets one match small sections of data points quite well but fails as you proceed forward or backward in time

Eldrosion

Reply to Jim Gorman

January 6, 2026 6:32 pm

Your comment suggests that you haven’t read AlanJ’s reply to your earlier comment:

“Climate theory is not validated by correlating CO2 and temperature time series, but by applying experimentally validated physics like radiative transfer, thermodynamics, and fluid dynamics to the atmosphere.”

paul courtney

Reply to JonasM

January 6, 2026 12:52 pm

Mr. M: Perfect! It gets even better when AlanJ restates the tautology, with a few more words, and can’t see himself in the mirror.

bnice2000

Reply to bdgwx

January 5, 2026 7:05 pm

Yet you forgot the main warming effect, absorbed solar radiation.

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to bdgwx

January 6, 2026 7:21 am

“I’m talking about the theory that says atmospheric temperatures are driven by the net effect of all factors acting on the atmosphere.”

That is contrary to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) conjecture, which blames all warming on human activities, especially those that inject CO2 into the atmosphere.

Graemethecat

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

January 6, 2026 10:00 am

It’s interesting to note that the Warmunists have abandoned the old hypothesis whereby CO2 is the control knob in favour of a much weaker one in which the gas merely plays some rrole in temperature. Needless to say, the latter hypothesis is completely unfalsifiable.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Graemethecat

January 6, 2026 1:07 pm

These guys are using linear regression on a time series to “validate” a conjecture. What a joke.

Climate science needs to start a time series analysis. First differences need to be taken to start a stationary trend and to remove auto-correlation. Then run a stats program to remove seasonality. That provides a nice stationary trend where one can start modeling different combinations of variables to obtain a functional relationship that will accurately predict temperatures.

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Graemethecat

January 6, 2026 1:12 pm

Except for the suicidal drive to Net Zero to save the planet falsifies your statement.

bnice2000

Reply to bdgwx

January 5, 2026 7:05 pm

Where is the large increase in absorbed solar radiation..

You seem to have forgotten it. ! 😉

E. Schaffer

Reply to bdgwx

January 5, 2026 9:32 pm

It is just that the theory is inconsistent!

https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/how-to-flip-the-sign-on-feedbacks

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to E. Schaffer

January 6, 2026 7:22 am

It is not a theory. It is a conjecture supported by models. Given a lack of experimental data, it barely rates as a hypothesis.

ToldYouSo

Reply to E. Schaffer

January 6, 2026 9:22 am

I’m particularly interested in knowing the meaning of the terms (and the physical units) of:
— “ENSOlag5”
— “ERFvolcanic”
— “ERFanthro”
— “TSIanom”
in the equation (model) being used to make the mathematical calculations that bdgwx so proudly fronts as “AGW theory” with the graph he presented in his above comment and equation given on the top left . . . understanding that a proper scientific “theory” is much more than a single equation, such a E=m*c^2.

Neither curve fitting nor hindcasting qualify as a theory.

bdgwx

Reply to ToldYouSo

January 6, 2026 5:38 pm

ENSOlag5 is the ENSO index from 5 months prior.

ERFvolcanic is the effective radiative force of volcanic aerosols.

ERFanthro is the effective radiative force of anthropogenic aerosols.

TSIanom is the total solar irradiance anomaly.

It is not a theory. It is a model. Specifically it is a very simple model that explains or predicts UAH TLT values.

The purpose of this model is to 1) predict what UAH TLT will report before they report it, 2) falsify the hypothesis that there is no correlation between CO2 and UAH TLT values and 3) help people visualize how many factors can act together to create the jerky up-down behavior of UAH TLT on short time scales while simultaneously creating an upward trend on long time scales.

Michael Flynn

Reply to bdgwx

January 6, 2026 12:10 am

This is what AGW theory predicted.

No such theory exists. Feel free to provide details of this “theory”, if you believe it exists.

If you can’t, feel free to feel extremely foolish.

bdgwx

Reply to Ron

January 5, 2026 5:27 pm

It might be helpful to know what modern climate science theory predicts. It predicts that it is the net effect of all factors acting on the atmosphere that drives its temperature. This means that we cannot just look at CO2 or any other factor alone. We have to consider all of the other factors as well. When you do this what you observe is that while CO2 dominates the long term trend as part of its incrementally small but monotonically increasing influence it is dwarfed by the powerful but transient cyclic process in the short term. The most influential of these factors is the ENSO cycle and volcanic eruptions. Said in other way the jerky up-down behavior with an upward slant you see in the UAH TLT plot is what happens when you superimpose short term variability onto a long term trend.

-26

Mike

Reply to bdgwx

January 5, 2026 6:15 pm

It might be helpful to know what modern climate science theory predicts. It predicts that it is the net effect of all factors acting on the atmosphere that drives its temperature.

Some ”prediction”! Do you actually read what you write?

Leon de Boer

Reply to bdgwx

January 5, 2026 7:58 pm

Not sure who you are parroting that from but whoever said that is on the special needs spectrum.

Try rephrasing what you parroted in your own words and see if it makes sense.

bdgwx

Reply to Leon de Boer

January 7, 2026 2:51 am

Those are my own words.

bnice2000

Reply to bdgwx

January 5, 2026 8:26 pm

“It predicts that it is the net effect of all factors acting on the atmosphere that drives its temperature”

Where is the big increase in absorbed solar radiation. ??

Did you know that the whole UAH data can be explained by changes in tropical cloud cover !

ToldYouSo

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 10:13 am

“Did you know that the whole UAH data can be explained by changes in tropical cloud cover !”

NOT if one recognizes that most atmospheric scientists/meteorologists do not know if increases in total areal cloud coverage over Earth (including latitudes away from the tropics) result in net global warming or net global cooling.

Beside that, it simply isn’t reasonable to assert that month-to-month changes in global cloud coverage can account for UAH satellite-derived GLAT month-to-month changes of as much as +0.4°C/-0.3°C seen randomly in the UAH data.

Maybe month-to-month changes in GLOBAL atmospheric humidity (TPW) can be a substantial factor, but tropical clouds alone? . . . DOUBTFUL.

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 1:15 pm

Point: Change the cloud cover, change the incident solar EM radiation on the atmosphere and surfaces below the clouds.

Phil R

Reply to bdgwx

January 6, 2026 4:50 am

It might be helpful to know what postmodern climate science theory predicts.

FIFY.

Graemethecat

Reply to bdgwx

January 6, 2026 10:01 am

Unfalsifiable nonsense.

bdgwx

Reply to Graemethecat

January 6, 2026 5:17 pm

It is easy to falsify. Consider one and only factor and see if it explains all of the variation in the data. If it does not then you have falsified the lone factor hypothesis.

KevinM

Reply to bdgwx

January 6, 2026 10:44 am

Argument would make sense if I had not been subjected to Al Gore standing on a lift platform waving his pointer at a rising temperature line.

doonman

Reply to bdgwx

January 6, 2026 10:52 am

We have to consider all of the other factors as well.

Let us know when you complete the list.

ToldYouSo

Reply to doonman

January 6, 2026 11:11 am

. . . and please include on that list the “unknown unknowns” . . . tip-of-the-hat to Donald Rumsfeld for admitting to such in his 2002 press briefing.

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Ron

January 6, 2026 7:18 am

It’s all that “trapped heat” that is causing the temperatures to go down.

TheFinalNail

Reply to Ron

January 6, 2026 7:42 am

The monthly C02 concentration in the atmosphere has steadily increased in 2025 from 425 ppm in December 2024 to 427 ppm in December 2025. This appears to be the exact opposite as proposed by AGW theory!

Shows how appearances can be deceptive. The long-term underlying warming trend in UAH_TLT continued this year.

Yes, if you take just the last 12-months, Jan-Dec 2025, in isolation then you get a cooling trend equal to -1.43 C per decade. Likewise, if you take just the 12-months, Jan-Dec 2023, in isolation then you get a warming trend of +10.1 C per decade.

Clearly, 12-month periods are not reliable indicators of long-term trends.

The complete UAH_TLT data now run from Dec 1979 to Dec 2025. The linear warming rate in UAH up to the start of 2025 (Dec 1979 to Dec 2024) was +0.15C per decade, which works out at a total warming, up to that point, of +0.70C.

If you now add the 2025 values to the full UAH_TLT data (so, Dec 1979-Dec 2025), the warming rate has increased to +0.16 C per decade, with the total warming now standing at +0.74 C per decade.

That continued underlying warming is consistent with AGW theory.

-1

TheFinalNail

Reply to TheFinalNail

January 6, 2026 7:43 am

…with the total warming now standing at +0.74 C per decade.

Should read “… with the total warming now standing at +0.74 C” (not +0.74 C ‘per decade’, sorry!)

-1

Jim Gorman

Reply to TheFinalNail

January 6, 2026 11:41 am

That continued underlying warming is consistent with AGW theory.

So give us the functional relationship that connects CO2 to temperature. It should have the form of “T = a(pCO2) + z”.

TheFinalNail

Reply to Jim Gorman

January 6, 2026 3:54 pm

What has this got to do with the simple observation re the continued long-term warming in UAH?

Are you trying to misdirect from a fact that you find uncomfortable?

-1

Graemethecat

Reply to TheFinalNail

January 6, 2026 12:47 pm

Why was there global cooling between 1940 and 1980? CO2 was rising linearly during this time.

TheFinalNail

Reply to Graemethecat

January 6, 2026 4:00 pm

Again, what has this got to do with the observation that the long-term warming trend in UAH continued during 2025, despite the cooling over the past 12-months?

Are you guys incapable of answering a question without asking a different one?

-3

Graemethecat

Reply to TheFinalNail

January 7, 2026 1:02 am

How do you know current warming has ANYTHING to do with CO2?

You explain the 40 years of mid-century cooling.

Oh, you can’t.

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to TheFinalNail

January 6, 2026 1:17 pm

It can not be called the AGW “theory” until the null hypothesis test is defined.

TheFinalNail

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

January 6, 2026 4:01 pm

It was actually Ron who brought the subject of AGW theory into the conversation, so I’m not sure why you didn’t direct your question to him.

-1

Bellman

January 5, 2026 3:16 pm

Only the 6th warmest December, first time this year a month has been outside the top 4.

1 2023 0.74
 2 2024 0.61
 3 2019 0.43
 4 2015 0.35
 5 2017 0.31
 6 2025 0.30
 7 2003 0.26
 8 1987 0.25
 9 2021 0.22
 10 2016 0.16

-15

Bellman

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 3:27 pm

Warmest December in the USA, though a small area has a lot of variability.

-17

Bellman

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 3:31 pm

In fact it was the second warmest year in the US (in the UAH record, starting in 1979).

-15

johnesm

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 3:38 pm

North America had an unusually stubborn omega block over the middle of the continent for a while.

TheFinalNail

Reply to johnesm

January 6, 2026 4:07 pm

Was it the first “unusually stubborn omega block” to occur over North America in December since 1979? If not, funny how it set a new record.

Also, how would a single transient climate phenomenon in one month explain a long-term, statistically significant warming trend of +0.2 C per decade over a region in a period spanning 48-years, as the UAH USA48 data show?

-1

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 4:04 pm

We have already seen that apart from a slight step at the 2016 El Nino, neither UAH48 or USCRN show any warming at all since 2005..

Maybe this latest El Nino will give a slight step through 2023-25, time will tell.

But no sign of any human caused warming.

Bellman

Reply to bnice2000

January 5, 2026 5:05 pm

“We have already seen that apart from a slight step at the 2016 El Nino, neither UAH48 or USCRN show any warming at all since 2005..”

Stop guessing and provide some evidence.

2016 was cooler than 2015.

El Niños do not produce a perminent “step” up. Not globally, and certainly not in the US.

The trend in UAH for the US since 2005 is 0.34 ± 0.22°C / decade.

Between 2005 and 2015 it’s 0.10 ± 0.66°C / decade.

Since 2015 it’s 0.25 ± 0.58°C / decade.

There is no way you can tell from those short trend lines that there was any significant step up, let alone that it is the cause of the overall warming trend.

-18

Bellman

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 5:09 pm

Here’s a graph of USA48 with the overall trend since 1979.

I’d love to know what statistically significant evidence you can provide that this is anything other than a linear rise in temperatures, with a large amount of annual variation.

-16

Bryan A

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 6:19 pm

Hmmm interesting graph. It shows an increase in the anomaly from -0.55° to +0.7° between 1979 and 2025 which is 1.25° increase. (°C-°F?)
If it’s °C and it was colder back in the 1920s then we’ve already breached the magical mystical 1.5°C tipping point and obviously the world climate has tipped in favor of stupidity.

Bellman

Reply to Bryan A

January 5, 2026 7:31 pm

They are in °C. Sorry, should have put that on the y-axis.

“…then we’ve already breached the magical mystical 1.5°C tipping point…”

That’s for global temperatures. And you can’t just compare two years. The trend is about 0.19°C / decade, so a bit less than 0.9°C over the last four and a half decades in the US.

-12

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 8:21 pm

The trend in UAH exist ONLY because of non-human-caused El Nino events.

There is no evidence of any human caused warming… period.

Bellman

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 4:52 am

Is that what you believe? Why have you never mentioned it before?

Clyde Spencer

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 6:29 pm

Are your anomalies derived from a baseline annual average, or a comparison of the averages for the same months?

Bellman

Reply to Clyde Spencer

January 5, 2026 7:25 pm

They are just the average of the monthly anomalies, taken straight from the UAH area file.

-11

Phil R

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 4:59 am

So they are not, in fact, temperatures at all.

Bellman

Reply to Phil R

January 6, 2026 5:24 am

Anaomalies are temperature minus a base value. In this case the base value is the annual average temperature over the 1991-2020 period. There is zero difference between a trend based on annual anomalies and one based on annual average temperatures

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 7:27 am

“Anaomalies are temperature minus a base value.”

So a 1 C anomaly from a 0 C base value has the same impact as a 1 C anomaly from a 30 C baseline.

T^4

Bellman

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

January 6, 2026 7:33 am

Not what I said.

-2

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 1:19 pm

It was implied.

Bellman

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

January 6, 2026 2:46 pm

No, it’s what you inferred.

Not sure how you managed that from me pointing out that an anomaly is a temperature minus a base value – but some people seem determined to misunderstand everything they read.

-1

Jim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 8:10 am

There is zero difference between a trend based on annual anomalies and one based on annual average temperatures

That isn’t true. Monthly anomalies are based upon an individual stations baseline temperature rather than a common global baseline. The trends can vary tremendously between anomales and absolute temperatures in an average.

The other problem with anomalies is the retention of non-significant digits. There is no problem with carrying an extra digit throughout calculations, but the final answer should be done with the correct number of significant digits.

A measurement with resolution of 1/10ths of a degree should not be quoted with resolution of 1/100ths. One simply can not know the correct value of each measurement to the 1/100ths. Consequently, there can be no substantive evidence for extending the final answer to that resolution.

karlomonte

Reply to Jim Gorman

January 6, 2026 8:18 am

A measurement with resolution of 1/10ths of a degree should not be quoted with resolution of 1/100ths. One simply can not know the correct value of each measurement to the 1/100ths. Consequently, there can be no substantive evidence for extending the final answer to that resolution.

Climate trendology “maths” claims it is justified, but then whine (a lot) when reality is pointed out.

-3

Bellman

Reply to Jim Gorman

January 6, 2026 8:46 am

“Monthly anomalies are based upon an individual stations baseline temperature rather than a common global baseline.”

There are no stations. And this is an annual average.

“The other problem with anomalies is the retention of non-significant digits.”

Stop prematurely rounding values, then there ia no problem.

“One simply can not know the correct value of each measurement to the 1/100ths.”

Who cares? What difference do you think it will make to the trend? And if it does make a difference, why would you assumr the rounded values are more accurate than the unrounded values?

-1

Jim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 11:26 am

There are no stations. And this is an annual average.

So it uses a common global baseline to find an anomaly for what regions?

Stop prematurely rounding values, then there ia no problem.

Did you not read my post.

There is no problem with carrying an extra digit throughout calculations, but the final answer should be done with the correct number of significant digits.
Who cares? What difference do you think it will make to the trend?

That very adequately reflects both your knowledge of and your opinion of physical science.

Bellman

Reply to Jim Gorman

January 6, 2026 1:07 pm

“So it uses a common global baseline to find an anomaly for what regions?”

How long wil you keep this up before you actually figure out how anomalies work?

The base figure is uniques gor each location and time of year.

“That very adequately reflects both your knowledge of and your opinion of physical science.”

Thanks. Maybe you should try to understand the point, rather thinking physics is about blindly following style guides.

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 6:58 pm

UAh has zero warming from 1980-1997, then zero warming from 2001-2015, then cooling from 2017 to 2023.4

The only warming comes at those El Nino events that you HAVE TO USE to get a trend. !

You still haven’t provided any evidence of human caused warming in the UAH data. !

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 1:21 pm

There is also the sun.

TheFinalNail

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

January 6, 2026 4:11 pm

There is also the sun.

Dang! We forgot about the Sun. Scientists: it’s the Sun!

It’s so clear now.

Back to the blackboard …

-1

Bellman

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 3:06 pm

“Ah has zero warming from 1980-1997”

Actual warming rate is 0.08 ± 0.12°C / decade

“then zero warming from 2001-2015”

0.01 ± 0.13°C / decade

Though why start 2 years after the El Niño, from 1999-2015 it’s

0.06 ± 0.11°C / decade

“then cooling from 2017 to 2023.4”

Talk about cherry picking. I’ll just take this from 2017 – 2022

-0.11 ± 0.54°C / decade

What should be obvious is that all these short term trends have massive uncertainties, caused by the variability of the annual data, and the short periods. In fact all of the trends contain the current underlying rate of warming 0.16 ± 0.04°C / decade, within their confidence interval. Hence none of them show a significant departure from a long term trend.

And that’s before you take into account the known effects from ENSO conditions. See my linear regression else where, which shows that these “zero” warming trends are pretty much what you would expect, just from combining CO2 and ENSO.

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 7:17 pm

UAH showing near zero trend periods.

El Ninos spike + step events provide the ONLY WARMING. !!

TheFinalNail

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 4:16 pm

UAH showing near zero trend periods.
El Ninos spike + step events provide the ONLY WARMING. !!

Lol! Very shouty, isn’t he?

This is the ‘Magic ENSO’ of nicey’s fevered imagination. The oscillation that only ever warms and never cools global temperatures.

(I know, if it did that then it wouldn’t be an ‘oscillation’. Somebody needs to tell nicey about the cooling half. In fact, don’t bother; he’ll only get shoutier.)

Sunsettommy

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 12:47 am

He said since 2005, thus your chart is dishonest.

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Sunsettommy

January 6, 2026 7:28 am

2005 does not meet the 30 year climate definition currently in vogue.

Bellman

Reply to Sunsettommy

January 6, 2026 3:07 pm

“He said since 2005, thus your chart is dishonest.”

Only if you failed to read everything I said, and failed to understand the point.

Phil R

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 4:55 am

The statistically significant evidence is that the plot does not show temperature. Therefore, it is absolutely NOT a linear rise in temperature.

Bellman

Reply to Phil R

January 6, 2026 5:19 am

What do you think it’s showing, if not temperature? It’s the annual average anomaly. That’s going to have exactly the same trend as the annual average temperature.

-1

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 7:30 am

“It’s the annual average anomaly. That’s going to have exactly the same trend as the annual average temperature.”

Nope.

TheFinalNail

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

January 6, 2026 10:49 am

Nope

“Ignorence more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge…”

Charles Darwin

-1

Graemethecat

Reply to TheFinalNail

January 6, 2026 12:55 pm

If you and Bellend really think meteorological temperatures can be quoted to 2 or 3 decimal places you are completely ignorant of Physics and Metrology and have nothing to contribute.

Bellman

Reply to Graemethecat

January 6, 2026 1:02 pm

This whole article is quoting monthly anomalies to 2 decimal places. If you think Dr Spencer is ignorant of Physics, why don’t you take it up with him, or the admin of this website?

Graemethecat

Reply to Bellman

January 7, 2026 1:15 am

I place far more faith In actual, measured temperature series from defined locations than I do in “averaged” worldwide anomalies.

TheFinalNail

Reply to Graemethecat

January 6, 2026 3:51 pm

You appear to be completely ignorant of the concept of averaging.

Graemethecat

Reply to TheFinalNail

January 7, 2026 1:08 am

Only someone with no understanding of Physics thinks temperatures can be averaged.

Graemethecat

Reply to TheFinalNail

January 7, 2026 1:24 am

Yep, I am indeed proudly ignorant of the concept of averaging temperatures, in the same way I am ignorant of Astrology.

The concept of “average” temperatures is unique to Climate “Science”. It certainly does not exist in Chemistry or Physics.

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to TheFinalNail

January 6, 2026 1:22 pm

Your motto cross stitched into throw pillows on your bed.

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 6:55 pm

Evidence in the graph. Two zero trend periods either side of a slight step

Provides some evidence of human caused warming. .. or don’t. !!

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 9:06 pm

Denying the existence of the 2016 El Nino now…

How much of a “climate denier” are you !!

“Between 2005 and 2015 it’s 0.10 ± 0.66°C / decade.
Since 2015 it’s 0.25 ± 0.58°C / decade.”

Thanks for showing the insignificant trends…. doing well. 🙂

Since 2015.. so you are using the 2023-25 El Nino…

… and you still can’t get a significant trend. !! 🙂

Bellman

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 4:50 am

“Denying the existence of the 2016 El Nino now…”

And you are back to just lying now.

“Thanks for showing the insignificant trends…. doing well.”

Thos insignificant trends are the ones you are using to claim an El Niño step.

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 11:49 am

A step is not a trend.

Those insignificant trend you showed are either side of the El Ninos..

And shows there is no warming form most of the USCRN record.. well done.

If you look at the zero trends on the chart below,

before the 2016 El Nino, the zero trend line in USCRN sits at 0.0ºC

after the El Nino it sits at about 0.5ºC

That is a step, and accounts for all the warming in the whole record.

-1

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 9:08 pm

“El Niños do not produce a perminent “step” up.”

Strong El Ninos do.

Bob Tisdale showed this very convincingly.

And it is very obvious in the UAH data.

johnesm

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 6:55 am

I would also add that for perhaps the first 15 years or so, the UAH data got very influenced by two major volcanic eruptions. Then, the great 1997-98 El Niño arrived. To get a better idea of what’s happening in the MSU data, you need to begin the trend after the end of the century..

Jeff Alberts

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 5:22 pm

As much as I don’t think single lines representing large areas are meaningful, warmer is better.

Bellman

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 5:48 pm

Here is my updated annual model based on a liner regression involving CO2, ENSO conditions and AOD.

The red line is the predicted value for each year, the dots are the actual annual anomalies, and the grey ribbon is the 95% prediction interval.

It doesn’t prove much, but does demonstrate that there is no need to invoke step changes or pauses.

-11

Mike

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 6:19 pm

Here is my updated annual model based on a liner regression involving CO2, ENSO conditions and AOD.

Lol.

bnice2000

Reply to Mike

January 5, 2026 7:00 pm

He forgot the absorbed solar radiation..

DELIBERATELY ignoring the major warming cause.

It funny, if it weren’t so sad.

Bellman

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 4:35 am

“DELIBERATELY ignoring the major warming cause.”

You claimed El Niños were the major warming cause.

Clyde Spencer

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 6:31 pm

Are ENSO conditions a driver or the result of temperature changes?

Bellman

Reply to Clyde Spencer

January 5, 2026 7:24 pm

I’d say whatever causes the oscillation, causes a temporary change in global temperatures.

-11

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 8:19 pm

Did you know that those El Nino events are the only warming in the UAH atmospheric data.!!

Bellman

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 4:40 am

No I don’t know that.

Maybe you need to repeat the claim a few more hundrd times, or use more explanation marks, before I’m pursuaded.

-1

TheFinalNail

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 4:59 pm

Maybe you need to repeat the claim a few more hundrd times, or use more explanation marks, before I’m pursuaded.

A couple more CAPITALS would also help persuade!!!!!!!!

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 9:00 pm

No, the El Nino events cause a spike then step.. the only warming in the UAH data.

El Nino events are NOT an oscillation., they are a build-up and release.

Bellman

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 4:45 am

“El Nino events are NOT an oscillation”

What do you think the ‘O’ stands for in ENSO?

“they are a build-up and release.”

A release if what? You seem to think there is an infinite sipply of energy in the sea, that can keep being released onto the surface. And that all the energy released then just stays there.

-1

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 3:30 pm

ENSO is a semi-erratic cycle… ENSO value is an indicator.

El Nino is a energy discharge event.

Sad that you don’t understand the difference. !!
—

“You seem to think there is an infinite sipply of energy in the sea”

Yes, there is a constant supply of energy to the oceans..

Its called THE SUN !!

Leon de Boer

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 8:03 pm

Plot inverse of US president popularity as decided by the Guardian paper on the graph .. I recon it will be a pretty good match 🙂

So is the warming causing unpopular presidents or unpopular presidents causing the warming?

See you said:
I’d say whatever causes the oscillation, causes a temporary change in global temperatures.

You basically admitted you have a correlation but no idea if the two things are even connected. … so basically you know nothing.

Orson Olson

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 8:37 am

Measurement doesn’t “invoke” anything. Your surmise neglects the fact that two-thirds of all ACO2 has been released in this century. Yet, averages STILL result in a continuous linear rise in temperature. If ACO2 causes this, then it is an oddly weakening forcing, as shown by recent decades.

Mike

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 6:16 pm

Blah, f**’n blah, f**k’n blah.

doonman

Reply to Mike

January 6, 2026 10:59 am

That’s a pretty succinct synopsis since we have to consider all of the other factors as well.

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 4:00 pm

Mind you, December is basically mid-winter. 😉

Good fortune smiles on the US. ! 🙂

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 7:33 am

No. December is not mid-winter. Sorry.

bnice2000

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

January 6, 2026 11:57 am

One month before.. close enough 🙂

Bryan A

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 6:12 pm

Warmest Dec in the US? Damn cold warmest if you ask me. We haven’t been over 55 throughout most of December and have been almost nonstop daily rain since mid December (around the 20th) with many highs only in the 40s. California has been Damn Cold Warmest if you ask me.

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 7:24 am

Coldest December in over a decade in Maryland.

-1

Bellman

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

January 6, 2026 9:52 am

There was a big north south divide in North America.

Bryan A

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 1:09 pm

And I’m in California…under that Big Red Zone where its been Damn Cold all month long in December. January has started off as a carbon copy of December.

-2

Bellman

Reply to Bryan A

January 6, 2026 2:19 pm

“And I’m in California…under that Big Red Zone where its been Damn Cold all month long in December.”

Then you need to take it up with UAH. I can’t say if your experience of your local temperatures are accurate or not – but that did get me thinking about the CRN data. So I compared each of the Californian stations for December against the past average. Not every site his active for the same period, but they each have at least 16 years of data.

This is only meant to be a rough and ready check, just to see if anywhere was unusually cold.

ID LOCATION TAvg Anomaly
4222 Redding 9.8 3.4
53139 Stovepipe Wells 14.1 2.2
53150 Yosemite Village 8.1 4.9
53151 Fallbrook 15.7 2.8
53152 Santa Barbara 13.5 2.0
93243 Merced 8.3 1.0
93245 Bodega 10.2 0.2
All stations were above average, though Bodega, only slightly.

Bellman

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 2:28 pm

Here are the graphs for each station.

Two stations are down on the previous couple of years, two set a record this year, and the rest are close to a record.

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 1:24 pm

But CO2 is well mixed and CO2 “traps heat” so there should not be that. Hmmmm….

Eldrosion

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

January 6, 2026 2:13 pm

“But CO2 is well mixed and CO2 “traps heat” so there should not be that.”

When you say “that,” are you referring to the Earth’s monthly weather?

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 3:33 pm

Yes, it was a strong and persistent El Nino event..

Nearly gone now though.

TheFinalNail

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 4:31 pm

Yes, it was a strong and persistent El Nino event..
Nearly gone now though.

The last El Nino ended in spring 2024. Nearly two years ago.

Are you hearing voices?

Zig Zag Wanderer

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 5:26 pm

Only the 6th warmest December, first time this year a month has been outside the top 4.

Say that it’s cooling without saying that it’s cooling….

Because it’s impossible for some to admit that it’s cooling, even while it’s cooling! I can’t forget Phil Jones having to admit that there hadn’t been any statically relevant warming for 30 years. That was painful for him.

Since then, of course, the alarmists have been able to convince a disturbing number of people that not only can we calculate the temperature of the Earth to a hundredth of a K, with no error margin whatsoever, but that such differences actually mean something!

Bellman

Reply to Zig Zag Wanderer

January 5, 2026 6:00 pm

“Say that it’s cooling without saying that it’s cooling….”

OK. How about it’s getting less warm. Will that do?

“Because it’s impossible for some to admit that it’s cooling, even while it’s cooling!”

Who on earth doesn’t think it’s been cooling sine the peak in 2024?

“That was painful for him.”

Not half as painful as all the idiots demonstrating that they don’t know what statistically significant means.

“…not only can we calculate the temperature of the Earth to a hundredth of a K, with no error margin whatsoever, but that such differences actually mean something!”

If you don’t think it means anything, why are you so keen to admit it’s cooling?

-11

Mike

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 6:21 pm

OK. How about it’s getting less warm. Will that do?

No. It’s cooling.

bnice2000

Reply to Mike

January 5, 2026 7:02 pm

Has been cooling for the last 3000 years +..

What we have now, is a minor blip just above the coldest period in 10,000 years.

Bellman

Reply to Mike

January 5, 2026 7:04 pm

You said I wasn’t allowed to say it’s cooling.

-9

Eldrosion

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 7:13 pm

One would never guess these arguments / comments were coming from a site that advertises itself as “the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change.”

-13

bnice2000

Reply to Eldrosion

January 5, 2026 8:18 pm

Yep, there are some really stupid AGW believers that troll the site. !

Not one of them has been able to provided any measured scientific evidence that human released CO2 causes warming.

Nor have they been able to show any human-caused warming in the UAH atmospheric data.

Eldrosion

Reply to bnice2000

January 6, 2026 5:23 am

Coming from the person who believes there was an El Nino in 2025:

“Since 2015.. so you are using the 2023-25 El Nino…”

bnice2000

Reply to Eldrosion

January 6, 2026 11:59 am

So you don’t believe the effect of the El Nino was still hanging about in 2025..

“there are some really stupid AGW believers that troll the site. !”

-2

Michael Flynn

Reply to Eldrosion

January 6, 2026 12:14 am

Maybe the site has the most views because it allows various points of view?

I know you believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter, and you are allowed to express that opinion, no matter how ridiculous it is.

Mike

Reply to Bellman

January 5, 2026 8:30 pm

You shouldn’t be allowed to say anything.

TheFinalNail

Reply to Zig Zag Wanderer

January 6, 2026 4:35 pm

Say that it’s cooling without saying that it’s cooling….
Because it’s impossible for some to admit that it’s cooling, even while it’s cooling!

But it’s not cooling. Not even in UAH. Saying “it’s cooling” because of a few months’ data following a big El Nino ignores the long-term warming, which has continued through 2025, even in UAH.

Sunsettommy

Reply to Bellman

January 6, 2026 12:46 am

Oh dam, that is terrible news!

-1

Harold Pierce

January 5, 2026 3:45 pm

It is of little consequence if the world warms up a one or two degrees because for many region of the earth there will always long cold and snowy winters like in Canada where I live. The temperature in Yellowknife, NWT is a bone-chilling -31° C.

Bindidon

Reply to Harold Pierce

January 5, 2026 4:23 pm

In Oimyakon, East Siberia, the have -47 °C right now.

But…

all the extreme temperatures in highest resp. lowest latitudes are a minor quantity compared to the rest, because of Earth’s spherical shape;
what matters is not that temperature measured a some moment but the temperature trend over a longer period.

Jeff Alberts

Reply to Bindidon

January 5, 2026 5:23 pm

And you won’t know that from a single line on a graph. At any rate, warmer is better.

Eldrosion

Reply to Harold Pierce

January 5, 2026 7:21 pm

When compared to January 1947, −31C looks almost balmy:

According to Environment and Climate Change Canada, Yellowknife has the sunniest summer in the country, averaging 1,034 hours from June to August.[46] The lowest temperature ever recorded in Yellowknife was −51.2 °C (−60.2 °F) on 31 January 1947

-10

Harold Pierce

Reply to Eldrosion

January 5, 2026 8:43 pm

About a week or so ago, the temperature in the Yukon plunged to -55° C. Since gold just hit $4500 per ounce, the miner will be flocking to the gold fields.

BTW: There is no such phenomena as climate change.

Eldrosion

Reply to Harold Pierce

January 6, 2026 5:19 am

-55°C is impressive, but not that impressive.

“In the depths of February 1947, a forgotten village carved its name into the coldest pages of North American history.

Snag, Yukon—a speck on the map with a scattering of Indigenous families, trappers, and weather station workers—became the epicenter of something extraordinary.

The air that night fell to -83°F (-63.9°C). Not just frigid. Historic.”

https://www.facebook.com/groups/stunningworlds/posts/1262557912313835/

Jim Gorman

Reply to Eldrosion

January 6, 2026 8:25 am

Yellowknife has the sunniest summer in the country, averaging 1,034 hours from June to August.

You really know nothing about radiative heat transfer do you? The hours are basically irrelevant. The angle of incidence is what controls how much heat is absorbed.

Eldrosion

Reply to Jim Gorman

January 6, 2026 9:26 am

My comment wasn’t meant to relate to the concept of radiative heat transfer.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Eldrosion

January 6, 2026 9:59 am

Then why refer to the hours of sunlight?

Eldrosion

Reply to Eldrosion

January 6, 2026 9:24 am

Source – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowknife

Bindidon

Reply to Harold Pierce

January 6, 2026 12:09 pm

GHCN daily raw data for Yellow Knife (of course originating from Environment Canada):

CA002204200 NT_YELLOWKNIFE_HYDRO__________ 1947 1 31 -53.9 (°C)
CA002204200 NT_YELLOWKNIFE_HYDRO__________ 1947 2 4 -53.9
CA002204200 NT_YELLOWKNIFE_HYDRO__________ 1947 2 1 -53.3
CA002204200 NT_YELLOWKNIFE_HYDRO__________ 1990 1 28 -52.0
CA002204200 NT_YELLOWKNIFE_HYDRO__________ 1947 2 3 -51.7
CA002204100 NT_YELLOWKNIFE_A______________ 1947 1 31 -51.2
*
And my answers to

1. ” And you won’t know that from a single line on a graph. … “

Of course I don’t, as I never did…

Absols

Anoms

2. ” … At any rate, warmer is better. “

Trends in °C / decade:

Absols

1943-2023: 0.6 ± 0.2
1979-2023: 1.0 ± 0.5

Anoms

1943-2023: 0.6 ± 0.05
1979-2023: 0.9 ± 0.11

*
I’m quite sure that who writes such a sentence doesn’t live in a corner with such warming rates, let alone in Irak or Iran, where similar rates apply, but with highest summer temperatures way above 50 °C…

Bryan A

Reply to Bindidon

January 6, 2026 1:13 pm

Yep Canada’s been warming ever since that great Mile Thick Laurentide Ice Sheet witch covered >90% of the area began melting some 19,000 years ago

-2

Eldrosion

Reply to Bryan A

January 6, 2026 1:48 pm

Yes, and if the current rate of warming persists (0.9C/decade – 1979-2023), NWT will have warmed an additional ~4.5C in 50 years. Quite the ice age recovery.

Graemethecat

Reply to Bindidon

January 7, 2026 1:36 am

That’s most interesting – to my eye it looks as though most or all of the warming has been in T min rather than Tmax, which is indicative of UHI.

bdgwx

January 5, 2026 4:21 pm

The new Monckton Pause extends to 34 months starting in 2023/03. The average of this pause is 0.59 C. The previous Monckton Pause started in 2014/06. It lasted 107 months and had an average of 0.21 C. That makes this pause 0.38 C higher than the previous one.

+0.156 ± 0.039 C.decade-1 k=2 is the trend from 1979/01 to 2025/12 covering 564 values.

+0.027 ± 0.010 C.decade-2 k=2 is the acceleration of the trend.

My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/03 update was 0.43 ± 0.16 C k=2.

My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/04 update was 0.47 ± 0.14 C k=2.

My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/05 update was 0.46 ± 0.11 C k=2.

My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/06 update was 0.47 ± 0.10 C k=2.

My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/07 update was 0.46 ± 0.08 C k=2.

My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/08 update was 0.46 ± 0.06 C k=2.

My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/09 update was 0.48 ± 0.05 C k=2.

My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/10 update was 0.49 ± 0.03 C k=2.

My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/11 update was 0.48 ± 0.02 C k=2.

The actual value reported by UAH for 2025 is 0.47 C.

-10

Harold Pierce

Reply to bdgwx

January 5, 2026 5:19 pm

To make the degree symbol “°”, do the following if your OS is MS:

Depress and lock the “Num Lock key”Depress and hold down the “Alt” keyEnter “0176” on Num Key PadRelease the “Alt” key and “°” will appear.Why do we need to know all this “useless information”?

Bryan A

Reply to Harold Pierce

January 6, 2026 1:23 pm

I happen to have one on my Kindle keyboard °. Along with hundreds of emojis 🍩 ⛄ ✨ 😘 😊 🇻🇪 over 1300 emojis. Just can’t process excel spreadsheets into useful graphs on it.

Jeff Alberts

Reply to bdgwx

January 5, 2026 5:24 pm

I’m MEELLLTINGGGGG!

Zig Zag Wanderer

Reply to bdgwx

January 5, 2026 5:36 pm

Although the temperature is apparently now lower than in 1998, and indeed lower than in 1988. Funny, that.

I have absolutely no idea why you think any pause only goes back to 2023, but I’m sure it makes sense to you.

bdgwx

Reply to Zig Zag Wanderer

January 5, 2026 6:11 pm

The pause is based on Christopher Monckton’s methodology.

-3

bnice2000

Reply to bdgwx

January 5, 2026 7:03 pm

Yes, the 2023 El Nino broke the cooling trend from 2017…

…. just like the 2016 and 1998 El Ninos broke the zero trend periods before them.

Michael Flynn

Reply to bdgwx

January 6, 2026 12:21 am

The pause is based on Christopher Monckton’s methodology.

Maybe that’s why you called it the Monckton Pause? Temperatures are what they are. Some silly people believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter – maybe they also believe that the magical properties of CO2 “pause” from time time.

What is your opinion?

Bryan A

Reply to Michael Flynn

January 6, 2026 1:25 pm

It’s the Pause that Refreshes

TheFinalNail

Reply to Michael Flynn

January 6, 2026 4:46 pm

Maybe that’s why you called it the Monckton Pause?

Ya think?!

bdgwx makes a good point. At least twice, and over two separate periods, this site has entertained a stream of nonsensical posts from Christopher Monckton claiming that global warming had stopped.

The first one he based on RSS satellite data, despite RSS themselves stating that their data, at that time, contained a known cooling bias.

The second one was based on UAH satellite data and started (I think) around 2016. That fell apart, inevitably, as global warming continued, even in UAH.

Several posters here, including me, made numerous counter-posts explaining that this was cherry-picking; that the underlying trend had barely changed and predicting that Monckton’s posts would dry up as soon as it became clear that warming was ongoing.

That’s exactly what happened – both times.

Who knows if WUWT will allow Monckton to make them look ridiculous for a third time?

Jim Gorman

Reply to TheFinalNail

January 6, 2026 5:24 pm

At least twice, and over two separate periods, this site has entertained a stream of nonsensical posts from Christopher Monckton claiming that global warming had stopped.

You are so full of crap. Monckton attempted to show two things.

One, that the water vapor feedback was an erroneous conjecture. Neither you nor anyone else has shown the math whereby the loop gain can exceed “1” without additional energy from the power supply. The sun is the only power into the system. Positive feedback can only obtain power by subtracting power from the output. Running that power around the system can only result in the gain of 1. Show us the math that refutes this with a limited power supply.

Two, remember that the conjecture of AGW at the time was that CO2 was THE control knob. Increase the CO2 and the temperature will increase. There were people rejecting the observation that temperature increases occured prior to CO2 increasing. In the face of “pauses in temperature” while CO2 continues it’s relentless increase leads to the theory that there is a complicated process.

Funny how the “control knob” theory has collapsed into what Monckton postulated, that is, CO2 is not the control knob.

If you admit that CO2 is not the control knob, then guess what? You just agreed with Monckton.

TheFinalNail

Reply to Jim Gorman

January 6, 2026 5:36 pm

Monckton attempted to show two things.

Monckton attempted to show one thing, twice. He twice attempted to suggest that global warming had stopped. He was wrong both times.

Again, what is all this arm-waving stuff about CO2 and ‘control knobs’ when the subject is simply about two failed pronouncements re the end of global warming?

Why do you find it impossible to stick to the matter at hand?

Bellman

Reply to Jim Gorman

January 6, 2026 7:02 pm

Do you have any example of Monckton talked about a control knob in relation to his pauses? I’ve double checked a few, and all he seems to claim is that the pause demonstrates there has been less warming than predicted, not that this shows that CO2 is not the control knob.

If that was his hypothesis, then how exactly does the pause demonstrate that CO2 is not the main control knob over recent decades? It’s just an analogy, not a theory, but it’s a reasonable one. What it does not say, is that every months temperature has to be in lock step with CO2, just that the natural variation you see, such as from El Niños or La Niñas, are temporary and not something we can control.

Cherry picking a short period where there is a cooling trend will always be possible, as will picking a period where there is a much faster rate of warming. None of this demonstrates any significant departure from the role of CO2.

Graemethecat

Reply to Bellman

January 7, 2026 1:39 am

You really consider the 40 years of cooling from 1940 to 1980 to be a short period?

Brian.

January 5, 2026 5:23 pm

The last gasp of Hunga Tonga?

Richard M

Reply to Brian.

January 5, 2026 7:48 pm

Not sure if we have completely recovered yet. It may take yet another year. However, I think most of the effect was in clouds so keep an eye on the clouds. They allowed more ocean warming from the sun and that is now fading away slowly but surely.

As a result the cooling tread will likely continue into 2026 and beyond. (or until the next El Nino).

bnice2000

Reply to Richard M

January 6, 2026 3:06 am

“(or until the next El Nino)”

Precisely. !

Bryan A

Reply to Richard M

January 6, 2026 1:26 pm

Clouds and cleaning up atmospheric particulates from the late 1970s … About when temperatures began to really rise.

TheFinalNail

Reply to Brian.

January 6, 2026 4:26 pm

The last gasp of Hunga Tonga?

The last gasp of people blaming Honga Tonga?

Clyde Spencer

January 5, 2026 6:16 pm

Roy, the year is wrong for the December (2025) row.

conrad ziefle

January 5, 2026 10:19 pm

The deviation from the average of the period 1991-2020. But don’t we have satellite data back to 1970, and recorded data as far back as the 1800s? Do you throw away old data every time you find a more accurate way of measuring? The old data is information. The period 1991-2020 is too short to be meaningful. The period from 1850 to 2020 is too short, but at least it is more. Ice core data shows that temperature can go counter to its long term tread for even 1000 years. Example, a 1000-year warming trend in a hundred thousand year glaciation period.

jgorline

January 6, 2026 1:23 am

2023-2025: Hunga Tonga. 2026: Trending lower.

Nicholas Schroeder

January 6, 2026 7:37 am

+0.016 C/year.
Noise in the data.
Cherry picking high temperature weather does not a global trend make.

TheFinalNail

Reply to Nicholas Schroeder

January 6, 2026 5:21 pm

+0.016 C/year.
Noise in the data.

Over 48 years it’s statistically significant. So emphatically not “noise in the data”

Westfieldmike

January 6, 2026 11:14 am

Satellites measure ground temperature, the correct temperature is 2 metres above ground. The ground is much hotter.
It’s not possible to calculate the temperature of a planet. It’s a fairy story.

Michael Flynn

Reply to Westfieldmike

January 6, 2026 5:15 pm

The ground is much hotter.

And on occasion, much colder. Hence low level inversions at night, and radiation frost. People have been making ice in desert regions where air temperatures remained above freezing for thousands of years. Practical physics at work.

It’s not possible to calculate the temperature of a planet.

I agree. The presence of liquid water and solid rock show the planet has cooled over time. That seems obvious to everyone except ignorant and gullible “climate scientists” and their wild-eyed supporters.

Nick Stokes

Reply to Westfieldmike

January 6, 2026 8:30 pm

“It’s not possible to calculate the temperature of a planet.”

They don’t, They calculate, as here, the global average anomaly.

TheFinalNail

January 6, 2026 4:24 pm

2025 Ended the Year as a Distant 2nd Warmest Behind 2024

I guess that’s one way of admitting, through gritted teeth, that the past two years were the warmest on your record, Dr S!

You have to phrase it diplomatically like that though, otherwise the crazies will get upset.

Mike

Reply to TheFinalNail

January 6, 2026 4:42 pm

It takes time for the temp to fall from such a peak, therefore it is natural that ’25 would still be warm.
To use that in itself as a sign of continued warming from 1980 is beyond stupid. The cooling rate now is exactly the same as the warming rate going into ’24. You continue to show what a political fool you are.