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

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

If the models were physically comprehensive they would be converging over time! The fact that they are not converging means they are *NOT* skillful at anything other than data matching past data.



“Radiative forcing from CO2 does not “generate” heat; it reduces the rate at which Earth loses energy to space.”

This is just one prime example of the garbage assumptions in climate science.

Radiative loss to space goes up by T^4 while temperature only goes up by T. The earth loses heat at a HIGHER rate when the temperature goes up. If the temp goes from 100K to 102K the radiative heat loss goes from k100^4 to k102^4. That’s an INCREASE in heat loss compared to the increase in temperature.

“it accumulates primarily in the oceans, with smaller fractions warming the atmosphere, land, and melting ice.”

Heat does *NOT* accumulate over the long term. It simply can *NOT* do so. The earth exists inside a practically infinite heat sink at 0K – space. Gradients change to force an equilibrium. E.g. more heat gets transported to the poles and the heat loss over the long term goes UP to drive Earth back to a balance.

“the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature”

There is also a horizontal component to atmospheric temperature. Why did you not include that?

What you are describing is a GRADIENT, not a stable average temperature. Gradients exist where there is heat being transported driving toward equilibrium. As temperature differences increase, the slope of the gradient increases to move more heat. One end of that gradient is ALWAYS space at a practical temperature of 0K when it comes to the Earth’s biosphere.

“Short-term variability and individual years do not contradict the long-term energy imbalance.”

There is *NO* long term energy imbalance. If such a thing existed, Earth would be a molten rock today. The truth is that the long-term imbalance is with SPACE – and the gradient between the earth’s temperature and space ensures that COOLING over the long-term is going to happen.

“Paleoclimate does not test whether CO2 “always” controls temperature, but whether its radiative effect operates as expected within a given climate state.”

There is no such thing as a “climate state”. There are only temperature gradient fields – always changing and always driving toward equilibrium.

It’s not even obvious that climate science recognizes that the earth is a more efficient radiator of heat than the sun is as a heater. Only a few points on Earth are orthogonal to the sun’s rays at any point in time. Yet EVERY SINGLE POINT on earth is orthogonal to space all the time. The earth radiates to space at 100% efficiency with no cosine loss due to angle of incidence while the sun only heats the earth at a 68% efficiency due to angle of incidence loss. The earth doesn’t *have* to radiate with the same intensity to space as the intensity received from the sun in order to lose all the heat supplied by the sun.

All you have done here is quote myths and unstated assumptions made by climate science – all to fool the rubes that have not even a basic understanding of thermodynamics. Based on what you’ve stated here its a miracle that every car on the road today doesn’t see its engine melt from “accumulation of heat” – be in liquid-cooled or air-cooled!

“In climate science, a “climate state” does not mean a static or unchanging system. It means a statistically steady regime in which the distributions of temperature, circulation, and energy fluxes are bounded and evolve around a mean under given boundary conditions. “

“statistically steady” is not the same as “static or unchanging”?

Did you actually read this before you hit post?

“General circulation models explicitly solve time-dependent differential equations for radiative transfer, fluid flow, and thermodynamics on a rotating sphere with spatially and temporally varying forcing. Averages are diagnostic tools, not assumptions about stasis.”

And you try to equate radiative transfer of heat with conduction of heat.

Again, as Planck plainly states: “Radiation of heat, however, is in itself entirely independent of the temperature of the medium through which it passes.”

All you and climate science have is “co2 acts like the insulation in your house walls”. Thermodynamic garbage.

“Dynamic systems are not rendered unanalyzable because they lack a fixed point.”

No one is saying that at all! What is being said is that dynamic systems have to be analyzed using functional relationships with a time factor, not as a single point in time!

If you heat something up it will radiate more heat – and as the heat loss goes up its temperature goes back down! It doesn’t go up and stay there!

“If the claim is that a time-evolving system cannot be described statistically, then that objection applies equally to turbulence, weather prediction, ocean circulation, and most of modern engineering. “

Oh, more and more malarky! Why do you think that even today, weather predictions more than 24 hours ahead have significant uncertainty? Why do you think that new aircraft HAVE TO BE WIND TUNNEL TESTED in order to insure safety? Why do you think so many tests of new rockets FAIL? What do you think the purpose of engineering prototypes is?

I just love looking at tomorrow’s weather forecast saying there is a 50% chance of rain! Really? That also means that there is a 50% chance it WON’T rain! So how do you choose? Flip a coin? How many times does a 25% chance of rain tomorrow actually turn into RAIN?

You are as bad as bellman in assuming that the MEAN is *always* the outcome of a probability distribution!

“You’re conflating several basic concepts in thermodynamics and radiative physics in a way that leads to incorrect conclusions.”

I’m not conflating ANYTHING. I gave you the math. Heat loss goes UP by T^4 while T only goes up linearly. Refute that if you can. It means your assertion that CO2 means less heat loss is just garbage. No amount of word salad from you can fix that.

“Radiative forcing is not a claim that Earth stops losing heat, but that changing atmospheric opacity alters the temperature at which radiative equilibrium is achieved. “

More word salad! What does up is the slope of the gradient – and as the heat loss drives toward equilibrium, i.e. lowering the temperature at start of the gradient, the slope of the gradient decreases again

I didn’t say that radiative forcing *stops* the Earth from losing heat. That’s just a strawman you’ve made up to argue with. What I *said* was that the slope of the gradient goes up which results in a larger heat loss per unit time per S-B. Your assertion is that the gradient goes *DOWN* resulting in less heat loss to space. It’s a garbage meme not based in reality.

“A higher equilibrium temperature is entirely consistent with increased radiative loss at the top of the atmosphere. “

Another bit of evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t know who is feeding you this garbage but it is WRONG.

THERE IS NO EQUILIBRIUM temperature that goes higher. A higher temperature means MORE heat loss which, in turn, means LOWER TEMPERATURE! There is an ever changing gradient between the earth and space. There is no “equilibrium” at a higher temperature.

The only way the equilibrium temperature can go higher is if there is more heat put into the system – but there is *NO* additional source of heat. There is only the sun. And there is only space sucking away that heat intercepted by the earth.

“Energy accumulation in the climate system does not mean indefinite heat storage or runaway warming. It means a small, persistent imbalance between absorbed solar energy and emitted infrared radiation,”

More garbage! Any imbalance between absorbed solar energy and emitted infrared radiation will be corrected by a higher T^4 radiation from the increased temperature- i.e. heat loss goes UP until the temperature of the earth retreats to where the heat radiated by the earth equals the heat input from the sun!

Your assertion REQUIRES indefinite additional heat storage – that’s the only thing that can result in a permanent rise in the temperature of the earth. It’s either that or an unknown additional heat source, that is invisible to the rest of physical science, is somehow injecting additional heat into the system.

“Gradients, transport, and feedbacks are not alternatives to climate states; they are the processes that define them.”

Malarky! You cannot define a “state” in a time dependent, continually changing system. You can only define how that time dependent, continually changing system changes. A sine wave has no “state”. You can measure its value at a particular point in time but that doesn’t define its “state”. Its state is defined by its period and amplitude, both time functions that are continually changing.

When the temperature of the earth goes up its radiation goes up as well, by T^4. As that radiation results in the loss of energy its temperature goes down. You can’t describe a “state” for that, all you can do is lay out a functional relationship for the ever changing gradients.

There are three basic equations that need to be investigated for radiative heat loss by the thermodynamic system known as the Earth.

I_e is the radiation intensity from the surface of the earth. I_s is the radiation intensity from the sun. 0.68 is the average absorption of the sun’s insolation due to the angle of incidence. “I” equals emissivity times S-B constant times T^4. T^4 is a time-based functional relationship. When integrated over dt the actual heat loss becomes a T^5 function. The actual heat loss goes up by the 5th power as temperature goes up linearly.

A. ∫ I_e dA dt = ∫ 0.68 * I_s dA dt

B. ∫ I_e dA dt ≤ ∫ 0.68 * I_s dA dt

C. ∫ I_e dA dt ≥ ∫ 0.68 * I_s dA dt

“A” represents the equilibrium point of a two-body system consisting of the sun and the earth. Since every point on the Earth radiates orthogonally to space all the time there is no cosine factor involved. Since the earth radiates to space 24 hours per day, the total heat loss period for I_e is 24 hours and that becomes the integral interval for dt. Since the sun only shines on a point on the surface of the earth about 12 hours per day, the dt interval for I_s is only 12 hours.

“B” represents a situation where the radiation intensity of the earth when integrated over time and area is less than the radiation intensity being received over time and area. That causes an increase in the amount of heat retained by the earth which, in turn, causes an increase in the temperature of the earth. This increase in temperature thus increases the radiation intensity from the surface of the earth which acts as a negative feedback causing higher heat loss (by a factor of T^5) which drives the temperature back down to equilibrium. AlanJ would like his cake and to eat it also by saying that heat retained goes up but isn’t permanent but still causes the average temperature to go up. The piece missing is that it also drives the average heat loss up which, again, is a negative feedback driving temperature back down.

“C” represents a situation where the radiation intensity of the earth when integrated over time and area is more than the radiation intensity being received from the sun when integrated over time and area. This represents the action of a three-body system consisting of the earth, the sun, and space with a net heat loss to space and thus the temperature of the surface of the earth goes down. If the input from the sun is considered to be a constant over time and area then it has no way to “force” the temperature of the earth to a higher value, there is no way to push back to equilibrium. The temperature of the earth will drop to a point where the heat loss gradient equals the heat gain gradient from the sun.

Bottom line? You simply can’t equate the radiation intensity out from the earth at the top of the atmosphere with the radiation intensity in from the sun at the top of the atmosphere. The time intervals involved for the heat loss and heat gain are different and thus a lower radiation intensity out can lose as much heat as a higher radiation intensity in can generate.

Using “average” radiation intensity in and out doesn’t fix this. First, the heat loss temperature curve is not linear, it is a T^5 function. The average heat loss is *NOT* at the midpoint temperature. Second, the heat input at the top of the atmosphere is *not* the amount of heat absorbed because of the angle of incidence over the spherical earth. The average TOA sun insolation does not represent the total heat absorbed by the earth and averaging doesn’t fix this.

Summary:

1. Heat loss is not linearly related to temperature
2. The average temperature change for 270K to 271K is 0.4%. The average radiation intensity change for 270K to 271K is almost twice that, about 0.8%. The average heat loss (using T^5) will be an even greater percentage.
3. Since the earth radiates orthogonally to space 24hrs per day while the sun only shines tangentially for 12 hours per day, the earth doesn’t have to radiate at the same intensity level as the incoming radiation intensity to lose all the heat the sun inputs into the system. Thus, comparing radiation intensity out to radiation intensity in is comparing apples and oranges when it comes to heat loss and thus temperature.
4. According to Planck, the radiation intensity from an object is only based on its temperature and not on the temperature of the surrounding medium. Thus a warming atmosphere does not affect the radiation intensity from the surface of the earth, only the temperature of the earth affects the radiation intensity from the surface of the earth. If conduction from the atmosphere to the earth is minimal then so will the effect of the atmosphere on the earth’s radiation intensity be minimal.

“First, no one in climate science equates surface radiation intensity directly with incoming solar radiation intensity. “

Really? What is the 1360 value that is used for comparison with outgoing radiation?

From ceres.larc.nasa.gov: “Despite recent improvements in satellite instrument calibration and the algorithms used to determine CERES SW and LW outgoing TOA radiative fluxes, a sizeable imbalance still persists in the average global net radiation at the TOA (or Earth energy imbalance; EEI). For example, using the most recent CERES Edition 3 Instrument calibration improvements, the SYN1deg_Edition3 net TOA flux imbalance is3.4 W m2 , much larger than the expected mean range of0.5–1.0 W m2 (von Schuckmann et al., 2016). Constraining the absolute value of EEI from satellite measurements is extremely challenging. EEI is a small residual of incoming and outgoing TOA fluxes that are two orders-of-magnitude larger. Achieving a 50% uncertainty in EEI would require the total outgoing radiation (SW plus LW TOA fluxes) to be known to 0.2 W m2 or 0.06%, roughly an order-of-magnitude more accurate than present-day ERB sensors. The bias in EEI from CERES is problematic in applications that use ERB data for climate model evaluation, estimations of the Earth’s annual global mean energy budget, and studies that infer meridional heat transports. Another limitation that is problematic for studies requiring clear-sky TOA fluxes is the presence of data gaps in monthly mean clear-sky TOA flux maps owing to a lack of cloud-free CERES footprints within 1 1 regions as identified by imager data” (bolding mine, tpg)

What in Pete’s name do you think the words “global net radiation at the TOA” mean?

“The energy balance is evaluated at the top of the atmosphere, not at the surface”

Where do you think the outgoing radiation at the TOA comes from? A magic portal into another dimension?

It isn’t the radiative flux balance that is important, it is the heat loss generated by those fluxes that *matters*.

This article doesn’t even seem to understand that the outgoing flux doesn’t *have* to equal the incoming flux in order for the net heat loss over the diurnal cycle to be equal! You don’t seem to grasp that simple concept either!

“ In equilibrium problems, temperature is the variable being solved for, not integrated over an arbitrary time path. “

You just continue to show the idiocy of climate science. Temperature is not *heat*. It is the HEAT balance that is important. Temperature is just the average kinetic energy of a set of molecules. Heat is the transport of energy from one place to another. They are *NOT* the same and neither you or climate science seem to be able to understand that simple fact.

Heat is measured in joules, a measure of energy. It is an EXTENSIVE property. Temperature is measured in degrees. It is an INTENSIVE property. A cup of water at 100F has the same temperature as a bathtub of water at 100F but there is FAR MORE energy in the bathtub than in the cup! You simply cannot measure energy by measuring temperature!

Radiative flux is a carrier for energy. It is joules per sec-meter^2. You *have* to integrate the flux over the area receiving the flux and over the amount of time the flux illuminates that area IN ORDER TO FIND THE HEAT that has been transported! joules/sec-m^2 multiplied by m^2 gives you the total joules per second being transported. Multiply joules per second by the interval of time the transport occurs gives you the total joules that have been transported!

Temperature does *NOT* include mass, length, time, or energy in its dimension. It is an independent base SI dimension all by itself.

Again, one more time, it is the HEAT BALANCE that is important. It is the amount of heat injected into the Earth’s biosphere that is important and which must be accounted for using thermodynamics.

The outgoing radiative flux from the earth’s surface CAN BE SMALLER than the incoming radiative flux to the earth’s surface AND STILL BALANCE THE HEAT EQUATION because the outgoing radiative flux exists during the entire diurnal cycle while the incoming radiative flux only lasts for part of the diurnal cycle.

A car travelling at 1 mile per minute for one minute covers one mile. A car travelling at 0.5 mile per minute for two minutes covers one mile. The distances balance. Heat transport is EXACTLY the same. An incoming radiative flux of 1 joule/sec-m^2 that lasts for 10 seconds while illuminating 1 m^2 transports 10 joules of heat. An outgoing radiative flux of 0.5 joules/sec-m^2 that lasts for 20 seconds also transports 10 joules of heat. The two fluxes do *NOT* have to be equal to transport the same amount of heat.

“First, the “1360 W/m^2” value is not compared directly to outgoing longwave radiation. It is the solar flux normal to the Sun at Earth’s orbit. Before any comparison is made, that flux is geometrically distributed over a rotating sphere and reduced by reflection. “

Word salad you’ve derived from the objections made to your original assertions. You”ve made NO mention of time in anything you’ve asserted. E.g.: “hey compute incoming solar radiation separately for each grid cell, at each time step, accounting for latitude, longitude, season, time of day, orbital parameters, and rotation. The cosine dependence is handled locally, not averaged away.”

Not a single word about emission *from* the surface being integrated over the diurnal cycle!

“t is identifying the boundary across which energy leaves the Earth system. All surface and atmospheric processes ultimately manifest as radiation escaping to space. That is why TOA is the correct accounting surface for conservation of energy. It is not a shortcut; it is a control volume.”

Just more word salad! Exactly what difference does it make *where* the accounting is done? The radiation has to be integrated over the entire boundary used. Radiation is considered using *solid* angles, i.e. sterradians, that accounts from the spread of the radiation as it travels. If climate science handled this properly IT WOULDN’T MATTER where you define the boundary to be. The same total energy would be transported across the boundary whether it is at a distance defined as a zero point or 1km lower than the zero point or 1km higher than the zero point!

All you’ve done here is to try and justify the climate science garbage that heat gets *TRAPPED* by CO2 – i.e. it is permanently retained heat energy. So you have to define the measurement boundary to be outside of that volume in which the heat is “TRAPPED”.

As I said, that is GARBAGE! If totally violates Planck’s description of how reflected heat is handled using compensation. That reflected heat energy does *NOT* get trapped, it just gets sent back out again!

If the sun stopped shining tomorrow climate *science* would say that the permanently trapped heat from CO2 would keep the earth warm!

“Third, your repeated emphasis on time integration does not contradict climate theory. The Stefan-Boltzmann relationship already describes power, which is energy per unit time. Equilibrium is defined by the condition that, when integrated over area and time, the total energy entering the Earth system equals the total energy leaving it. Climate science does not require instantaneous fluxes to be equal at every moment or location. It requires equality of the integrated energy flows. That is exactly what is being evaluated.”

And yet you have *NEVER* asserted that climate science integrates the flux over time in order to find the total energy that has been transported. All you ever mention is adding up the flux over an entire whole surface to find an “average” flux. That still leaves you with joules/sec and not joules! It’s why you and climate science always talk about an imbalance in the FLUX and not in the energy in/out! There is no way to determine the actual energy balance from just knowing the W/m^2!

“They are the reason the global balance is computed as an area- and time-integrated quantity rather than a local comparison. “

Then why do you and climate science INSIST on continuing to talk about an imbalance in the FLUX instead of an imbalance in the energy flows? If you actually integrated over area and time then you wouldn’t even have joules/sec-m^2, you would have JOULES all by itself.

Come on, be honest, WHAT IS THE TOTAL ENERGY IMBALANCE AT THE TOA OVER THE DIURNAL CYCLE IN JOULES?????? Do you know?

“Finally, none of this implies that temperature is being used as a proxy for energy without regard to mass or time. Temperature is used because, through well-established physical laws, it determines radiative emission.”

Temperature determines the FLUX INTENSITY of the radiative emission. It does *NOT* determine total energy transport! You can’t even get this one correct.

All you have done in your reply is to take all the criticisms that have been put forth and said: “Well climate science considers all of these factors”. And then returned to talking about flux intensity instead of total energy transport.

“I’m very interested though in your view that there’s “little room for fundamentally different causes”. “

If what AlanJ is offering was true then all of the models included in the “ensemble” of models would be converging with their projections. The fact that they have diverged over time is a prime indicator that the physics involved in the models are 1. not completely understood, 2. not complete (unknown unknown’s), and 3. are not experimentally validated as a functional whole. The fact that so many things have to be parameterized means that they can *NOT* be validated experimentally!