
Several media outlets including National Public Radio (NPR) and Politico recently published stories lamenting “warnings” from climate scientists about the current state of global temperature. Politico published “Global warming reaches 1.4C after third-hottest year on record,” by Zia Weise, while NPR posted “Scientists call another near-record hot year a ‘warning shot’ from a shifting climate.” Both of these articles claim that the planet has effectively reached 1.4°C of warming above pre-industrial levels, with temperatures on the Earth accelerating along an unavoidable path toward breaching the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target, which will result in escalating risks and looming “tipping points.” While the data does demonstrate this spike in temperature, the framing of both articles is highly misleading, leading to a false conclusion not supported by other temperature datasets.
The Politico article states that “average global temperatures are now around 1.4C higher than during the pre-industrial era,” and warns that “passing 1.5C risks triggering so-called tipping points,” citing Copernicus Climate Change Service data and some comments from scientists suggesting that overshoot is now inevitable. It treats the 1.4°C figure as both climatically decisive and globally unprecedented.
The NPR article goes even further saying,
Rising global temperatures intensify heat waves and other extreme weather, endangering people and causing billions of dollars in damage. The weather monitoring teams warn that the 2025 temperature increase is a dangerous sign of worsening storms, heat, floods and fires.
Samantha Burgess, strategic climate lead of the Copernicus service, said the overwhelming culprit is clear: the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
“Climate change is happening. It’s here. It’s impacting everyone all around the world and it’s our fault,” Burgess told The Associated Press.”
What these outlets fail to tell readers is that Europe, with the longest and densest instrumental temperature records in the world, has already significantly exceeded 1.4°C of warming without experiencing the cascade of irreversible impacts long predicted at or near that threshold. See Figure 1 below.

Long before recent headlines, European temperature series showed regional warming above global averages, yet society, infrastructure, agriculture, and public health have all continued to improve.
The notion that 1.4°C or even brief excursions above 1.5°C represent a physical cliff is not supported by observational evidence. As Climate at a Glance explains in “Tipping Point: 1.5 Degrees Celsius Warming,” the 1.5°C number was a politically selected policy target, not a scientifically established threshold beyond which the climate system abruptly destabilizes. In fact, there is no evidence or data indicating any dangerous impacts from exceeding 1.5℃ or even 2.0℃ of warming above pre-industrial levels. Global average temperatures have been higher in the past during periods when human civilization flourished.
The article also glosses over a major short-term driver of the recent temperature spike: the January 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcanic eruption, which injected an unprecedented amount of water vapor directly into the stratosphere. Water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas, and multiple studies have noted that this injection temporarily increased Earth’s radiative forcing, contributing to unusually warm global temperatures in 2023–2025. Climate Realism has documented this effect and the media’s failure to account for it in coverage collected under its reporting on the Hunga Tonga eruption. As the excess stratospheric water vapor gradually dissipates, its warming influence is expected to decline, undermining claims that recent warming represents a new, permanent baseline driven solely by CO₂.
This is highly evident in Figure 2 below, with the accurate UAH satellite record showing the plunge clearly falling from a peak in early 2024, to end the year 2025 at just 0.3°C.

Politico/NPR’s heavy reliance on Copernicus data also deserves scrutiny. Copernicus’ flagship ERA5 temperature product is not a simple thermometer-based record. It is a reanalysis, combining sparse and uneven observations with climate models to infill vast regions of the globe, especially oceans and polar areas. Climate Realism has repeatedly pointed out that reanalysis datasets are model-heavy reconstructions, not direct measurements, and can amplify warming signals depending on model assumptions, a problem discussed across articles indexed at Climate Realism’s coverage of Copernicus and reanalysis datasets. Treating such outputs as precise, definitive indicators of long-term climate thresholds gives readers a false impression of precision and certainty.
The article further implies that each additional tenth of a degree inevitably brings more danger, yet it offers little observational evidence to support that claim. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), while often invoked rhetorically, is far more cautious in its actual findings, assigning low confidence to many asserted global trends in extremes and emphasizing regional variability and uncertainty. Long-term outcomes that matter most to people tell a different story. Climate at a Glance shows in “Deaths from Extreme Weather” that climate-related mortality has declined dramatically over the past century, even as temperatures have risen. That reality is difficult to reconcile with claims that the world is now entering an unprecedented danger zone.
What Politico/NPR ultimately present is a narrative built on short-term averages, model-influenced datasets, and policy-driven thresholds, while ignoring historical context, natural variability, and known transient factors such as volcanic water vapor. Briefly touching or approaching 1.4°C or even 1.5°C does not validate years of dire predictions, especially when those predictions have repeatedly failed to materialize in regions that have already experienced comparable warming.
By portraying a model-reconstructed temperature figure as proof that the world is on the brink of irreversible climate danger, both Politico and NPR are grossly misleading their readers by flatly misrepresenting the evidence about the true state of the climate based upon real-world data. Europe has already passed the threshold portrayed by NPR and Politico as tipping points for disaster and yet no catastrophic consequences have resulted. The recent spike in warming has identifiable short-term contributors and is now fading. The Copernicus temperature reanalysis are fictions of computer models, not direct measurements of temperature. With regards to the recent spike in temperature and “tipping points,” the mainstream media’s climate doom narrative is long on rhetoric, and short on proof – unsurprisingly, since hard data and historical evidence refutes claims of disaster.

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
If these mythical ‘tipping points’ existed, they would have been passed by warming for any reason. They haven’t, therefore they cannot exist.
I truly cannot believe that any intelligent, educated person could really believe otherwise.
For most of the planet, the supposed warming, if true, is a blessing.
By the way, in the late ’60s, one of my summer jobs was in a paper factory. For some of that time, I worked on a machine making Zig Zag rolling papers. 🙂
Much of any warming is due to urban/suburban heat islands, UHIs, such as the one stretching from Portland, Maine to Norfolk, Virginia, about 800 miles long and about 100 miles wide.
In 1850, most of that area was sparsely populated and forrested.
Now there are about 125 million people with lots of heat absorbing, modern detritus and practically no forests.
We need more CO2 ppm to increase fauna and flora, reduce desert areas, increase crop yields per acre to better feed 8 billion people.
We definitely do not need the suicidal IPCC hoax of a super-expensive, unaffordable Net Zero to reduce CO2 by 2050
When the Earth is this warm, we should definitely be wary of hitting a dangerous tipping point … to much colder temperatures!
There is no evidence in the record of feedbacks moving us to dangerously high temperatures. However, there is ample evidence of rapid transitions to dangerously cold temperatures.
Pleasant interglacials like we are blessed to live in now have only occured 18% of the time the last 2.5 Million years. There’s zero evidence CO2 could keep us from the next brutal ice age.
Since last year was the 3rd warmest year, that means that there were two years that were warmer. Since neither of those 2 years tripped any of these mythical tipping points, why should we fear continued warming?
Shouldn’t physics dictate if a “tipping point”1.5C temperature increase anywhere any time happens, then the climate goes into a temperature runaway? Physics does not work on averages, it works on instantaneous values.
“Several media outlets including National Public Radio (NPR)….”
When I drive, I often turn on NPR to hear what BS they’re pushing. And, always, 100% of the time, within 10 seconds, I hear “Trump” and something about how horrible he and his administration is. All day every day. The NPR station in Albany has got to be the farthest to the left of any. Run by the guy who started in decades ago- a political “scientist”, who, last time I checked was making about 300K from the station.
Media outlets. I see that they have given up trying to label themselves as being new outlets or journalists.
It was just as warm in the 1880’s, and 1930’s, as it is today.
There has been no temperature increase since the increase from the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800’s to the 1880’s. That is the only net temperature increase since the end of the Little Ice Age. The high temperature points from then to the present, the 1880’s, the 1930’s, 1998, 2016, and 2024, are all within a few tenths of a degree of each other. So, no real temperature increase has taken place in about 145 years.
What that means is that CO2 has no discernible effect on the temperatures of the Earth’s atmosphere, since no level of CO2 has managed to increase the temperature above the 1880’s baseline temperature, and CO2 did not prevent the large drops in temperatures after the 1880’s, and the 1930’s, where CO2 was increasing, yet the temperatures were cooling.
The written temperature records from around the world show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, and CO2 is a very minor player in all this. CO2 is insignificant as a focus for a world-wide crisis.
“CO2 did not prevent the large drops in temperatures after the 1880’s, and the 1930’s, where CO2 was increasing, yet the temperatures were cooling”.
Well it wouldn’t have done (*warmed*) Tom as It’s radiative forcing was all but cancelled out by atmopheric aerosol content during that time period. …
Credit Roy Spencer
In fact the radiative forcing from added GHGs did not properly outstrip the -ve anthro forcing of aerosols (+ several volcanic eruptions), until the 70’s, accelerating in the 90’s after Pinatubo and the enactment of clean air acts
You keep saying this…
“It was just as warm in the 1880’s, and 1930’s, as it is today.”
Are you trying to convince yourself as well as others on here?
Junk data again.. why do you bother..
Show us where the “globe” was measured from 1860-1920…
Why does basically all raw data from the around the globe show the 1930,40s warmer or as warm as the period from 2000-2020 ?
I am sure you are aware all line on the bottom chart are based on preadjusted GHCN data.
As for the top chart.. pure bogus speculation… it is from GISS after all.. the climate fakers
There is no evidence CO2 causes any warming at all, so the red line is totally bogus..
And the solar effects line is also totally bogus because it doesn’t take into account absorbed solar radiation.
“Junk data again.. why do you bother..”
Why bother?
To get your predictable reaction mr nice.
“Why does basically all raw data from the around the globe show the 1930,40s warmer or as warm as the period from 2000-2020 ?”
Simple.
It doesn’t.
If you think it does then post up a GLOBAL average mean temp series.
Also simple.
Or do what I expect you to do and repeat your parroted denialism again.
(in caps this time).
Ah, estimates are now proof positive. 😉
No, they are the best we can do. Nothing is proof +ve,
Because that’s life.
Should we give up on doing anything because science (any) is never “proof positive”?
Yes! Should we give up on any new energy of any kind because fusion energy is just around the corner? Is there proof positive that any additional warming is an existential threat to life on the planet?
You are as bad as the “sandwich” guys that used wonder around predicting the end of the world. Playing Chicken Little and using the Precautionary Principle as your guiding philosophy is a threat to mankind. The end is living in caves surviving on a day by day basis.
show us one, just one, acceptable study using actual data that shows any further warming is absolutely, without a doubt, a danger to life on this planet. I can show you studies that have attempted to use multi-disciplinary studies to show that the optimal temperature hasn’t even been reached yet. Let’s see you show some multi-disciplinary studies that show otherwise.
1930s were warmer in Kansas ….
https://mesonet.k-state.edu/climate/extremes/
haven’t even reached 120 F lately …
😉
121F in 1936
The response to this will be delayed, as much of the US is under a foot of fresh globull worming.
Let’s be honest. Much of the “Lower 48” has no snow and many places have less than 6 inches. The serious issue is cold and snow in places that are not accustomed to handling this weather. Little Rock’s temperature is 17°F (-8°C). Austin, TX is at 22°. Interior Washington State, 100 miles east of Seattle is warmer at 25°, and here it is planned for. Ten degrees in January is not unexpected.
Being honest, l’m gonna top out at about 18” in under 24 hours. This is an area that handles snow well, but this week is too cold for salt to work, and this runs from the plains up into New England. South of there is ice, 1/2” thick in Dallas.
It looks like this is going to be the deepest snowfall near Wright-Patterson AFB (OH) this year. Oh, yes. And it is pretty cold out too.
FYI: your snowfall is as much a result of the VV content in the higher atmosphere as it is from the v cold airctic plnge that lies under it. ….
NB: See how the bulk of the winds (right) are from the SW.
That is an atmospheric river that is carrying the WV that is falling to the surface through the lower cold. And sleet/freezing rain in a zone at the boundary and ahead.
The Atmos river got its WV from the Pacific.
See the winds back around to the NE in the cold air.
Meteorology.
You mean the WEATHER is turning COLD and delivering more snow… OK !!
Err, obviously !
However…..
More snow.
Also obviously comes from more WV.
And WV does not come from the Arctic.
It comes from the Oceans.
And warmer oceans evaporate more WV.
“Copernicus’ flagship ERA5 temperature product is not a simple thermometer-based record. It is a reanalysis, combining sparse and uneven observations with climate models to infill vast regions of the globe, especially oceans and polar areas.”
Good point about surface temperature representation in ERA5. But let’s also recognize that the bulk mass transport aspect of the ERA5 reanalysis model is a fair representation of the general circulation with its weather systems. This means that the large-scale winds, water vapor, surface atmospheric pressure, layer temperatures, and all the related energy computations are reasonable estimates for understanding the dynamics. It is based on the same modeling as for the good short-term weather forecasting of our present times.
This is why there is good justification for using the ERA5 “vertical integral of energy conversion” to demonstrate the vanishingly weak radiative influence of incremental CO2 on the climate system.
Shown here in a Youtube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDurP-4gVrY
And here.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Thank you for staying with me on this important point.
Again, a global average is meaningless.
I have been comparing long European temperature series and this is the result starting in 1780
Something went wrong with the image…
Funny how measured temperature never seem to remotely match what finally comes out of the “climate fabrication factory”, isn’t it 🙂
Ha, ha
What’s funny is that the graph has destroyed your LIA.
If you click on or near the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to contact the chart and return to Comments.
No! Really??
I post this comment for the benefit of new commers to this site.
People know how to use the internet. This type of thing has been in existence for decades. Just because YOU don’t know how to use it doesn’t mean everyone else doesn’t.
Thank you Harold, the preview looks horrible but the link is indeed ok.
And you can clearly see the effects of urban warming towards the end of the graph.
I wonder how the surface stations in these 5 cities that the measurements are based on, compare to what they were like in say 1900.
Now I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong.
But what happened there to the last part of the LIA?
Because it was in place through to the 1800’s”
”AI Overview
Yes, Europe was significantly colder in the 1800s compared to today, as the period marked the final phase of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from roughly 1300 to 1850. Winters were frequently severe, with average temperatures in Central Europe about 1.2°C lower than the 1961–1990 average. “
And 1816 was the year without a summer (due to another Volcanic*eruption in a chain that caused the LIA)
Curious!
*the massive April 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia*
And we see that once we passed WW2 and aerosols were cleaned out rising GHG’s were curiously parallel with rising temps.
Well 1815 is the coldest year of the graph and also 1794 when the river Rhine froze and the French army could march over the frizen water to Amsterdam
Funny how your graph shows a change about 1980. That is the start of installing automated stations in the U.S. If examined closely, the increase in Tavg is due to Tmin increasing along with winter temps being warmer.
1980 is also the start of smoke stack scrubbing, air is cleaner (less sulfate and ash) so more sunshine.
That would have been a VERY gradual change, not noticeable for decades.
Europe during the 1650-1950 period probably wasn’t representative of the climate of the region during the present interglacial. It was the Little Ice Age. Most of Europe is a low-elevation maritime peninsula of the Eurasian landmass that is bathed by Gulf Stream warmth. The frozen canals and rivers of the Low Countries and Britain are the anomaly, not the vineyards of Western Europe.
Until we convincingly exceed the Medieval warm period highs in steps up the long term trend since the Holocene Thermal Optimum is cooling.
Lets mot mince words, they are lying propagandists.
There’s ZERO evidence of harm outside of the perfectly normal extremes that characterize weather and climate which have been weaponized to fool the gullible. They completely ignore the benefits side of the equation which are substantial as opposed to their model based fantasies.
The 2022 Hunga-Tonga eruption had nothing to do with the ocean warming from 2022-2025, from which the UAH spike followed, as water vapor in the stratosphere cannot cause ocean warming.
The last time Anthony wrote up a similar claim I made these two points:
There was no stated mechanism between stratospheric water vapor and ocean warming.
There hasn’t even been a proper volumetric relative comparison between the amount of HT-injected water vapor versus the normally evaporated water from the ocean from 2022-2025.
Please enlighten us with facts, or if you can’t, please stop promoting this senseless propaganda.
Aside from that there have been multiple published articles stating 1.5°C was exceeded, ie, >1.4°C.
Water vapor is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. The spike following the eruption was far too steep (meaning, rapid and strong in magnitude) to represent anything from a long-term warming trend from CO2. It was an HT eruption-powered El Niño spike, and is now fading. The point of Anthony’s article is that such spikes are harmless, which is clearly true.
It doesn’t matter that WV>CO2 as a GHG, because no one has demonstrated how WV in the stratosphere or the troposphere could possibly warm the ocean. Someone could also claim much of the WV in the stratosphere dissipates to space rather than return to earth.
The El Niño spike followed the eruption by more than a year after. Why?
Everything makes more sense and is consistent with the past if you recognize the recent El Niño was like others before it, sunshine-fueled and also timely with respect to the tropical recharge-discharge history. It was going to happen regardless of HT and its water vapor.
In order to believe in the HT warming thesis you have to ignore reality and insert faith.
Similarly, I would ask you to explain why the 2024 spike is much wider (FWHM) than any similar El Nino spike during the satellite era.
Here is the 2024 spike, from Copernicus, showing it did exceed 1.5°C, and its width.
It is wider due to the ocean warming tremendously from absorbed solar radiation due to the triple-dip La Niña lower albedo, following the rise and fall of solar cycle #25 TSI, which happens to have been more powerful for longer duration than any other cycle in the instrumental TSI history.
That may also be an important factor. All I’m saying is that all of the above mentioned effects combined helped make this anomalous temperature spike, and Anthony Watts is correct in pointing it out, and that it isn’t something to be concerned about.
What I am saying is the ocean temperature increase cannot be traced to HT water vapor so there is no combined effect from HT with anything else. UAH followed SST normally after HT, like it had before.
It should be a big concern to wrongly mis-attribute the ocean warming.
Why does Copernicus look nothing like UAH data..
Is it based on dubious and adjusted surface data like GISS et al ?
UAH resembles their ±60° SST anomaly since 1995; and UAH lags the ocean by 3 months. GISS is unrelated, a non sequitor.
“It doesn’t matter that WV>CO2 as a GHG, because no one has demonstrated how WV in the stratosphere or the troposphere could possibly warm the ocean”
They have.
It’s just that you never take any notice.
One of them is Roy Spencer……
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/#:~:text=(This%20is%20a%20follow%2Dup,being%20mixed%20by%20the%20wind.
”I sometimes see the claim (usually in comments on a blog post) that infrared radiation cannot warm a water body, because IR only affects the skin surface of the water, and any extra heating would be lost through evaporation.
I have tried to point out that evaporation, too, only occurs at the skin of a water surface, yet it is a major source of heat loss for water bodies. It may be that sunlight is more efficient, Joule for Joule, than infrared due to the depth of penetration effect (many meters rather than microns). But I would say it pretty clear that any heat source (or heat sink) like evaporation which only affects the skin is going to affect the entire water body as well, especially one that is continually being mixed by the wind.”
More importantly perhaps, The Skin lyr is warmed by solar, thus the underlying water is colder.
So there is a deltaT that is the reverse of that needed to conduct heat from below to be able to radiate to the atmosphere.
(The temp gradient needs to be warmer to colder to space).
It doesn’t not warm the oceans.
It reduces the bulk water’s ability to radiate LWIR to space.
”The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation Elizabeth W. Wong, Peter J. Minnett”
You didn’t address how WV in the upper atmosphere warms the ocean.
Did you know world T2m is 6°C colder than world SST? The atmosphere doesn’t warm the ocean => it’s the other way around.
Dr. Spencer has also said as recently as this month that he thought the recent warming post-2000 was down to more sunshine & fewer clouds.
The Antarctic sea ice was almost certainly affected by the HT eruption.
The Southern Gyre goes right past the HT area on its way to the Antarctic.
Anyone who thinks that the HT eruption didn’t add significant amounts of energy to the ocean around it, including to the El Nino event, is not facing reality.
There is no established chain of evidence linking ocean warming to HT.
No one has even identified a local ocean warming effect let alone a downstream sea ice melting effect from HT.
Where is the evidence supporting your advocacy?
It is easier to make claims than back them up. There is insufficient effort being made to back up the varied claims associated with HT with good analysis and valid mechanisms.
Thanks Anthony.
From acquaintances, I have deduced that getting one’s news from NPR is “a tell” that they have internalized the climate-virus. Discussing such issues with them is a waste of time. I doubt I know anyone that gets info from Politico.
NPR et al. fail to note that the UAH lower-troposphere temperatures have been declining for about the last 20 months, not accelerating upward.
I don’t know how they manage it, but time and again, the Climate Caterwaulers manage to get everything exactly 100% backwards. It’s pretty amazing really. Is the slight warmup from the LIA bad? No, it’s actually good. We could use more of it. Is our added CO2 bad? No, it’s actually good. We could use more of it. Should we ban fossil fuels, and get rid of them? No, we should welcome them as the saviors they are, and continue searching for more. Is the weather extreme now, and getting worse? No. It is about the same now, just a bit milder. Are the children really not going to know what snow is? No, they will always know, and enjoy snow if they live in areas which typically get it. Should we be frightening children about a future climate we so-called adults fantasize about? Most certainly not. Should we be giving over our cash, lives, and freedom to an ideology claiming to be science? Hell no!
I’d love to see where they measured temperatures in Europe from 1750-1900.
And why the 1930s,40s being as warm or warmer than 2000-2020, doesn’t match any raw data from the most of the surrounding area.
Remember, Berkely Earth are renowned for making “adjustments” to junk and fake data, just to meet a desired end point
Come on, Anthony, you can do better than this. The volcano may have helped, but you don’t mention the 5th biggest El Nino in recorded history from 2023-2024. And your charts aren’t comparable. To get the 2 degrees C in figure 1, you had to start from the coldest point of the 1o-year average during the last century of the Little Ice Age. If you even take an eyeball median for that century, it’s only about 1.25 degrees or so. And then citing the 0.3 C from a baseline 150 years later?? Those are the kind of shenanigans we expect from the other side.
FYI, the first graph isn’t from Anthony, it is from the claimate scammers at Berkeley..
… and as shown by Hans, doesn’t represent any real temperatures.
Losing is an ugly thing and painful to watch.
If The Guardian, the BBC or the CBC didn’t jump on these details or exaggerations, it was a guarantee that NPR , PBS and the rest of the alarmist media outlets would. Haven’t we been hearing these doomsday stories for at least the last half-century now? And why do they always warn us about what’s going to happen because of a warming planet, but never what hasn’t happened over that period despite their previous warnings? So is it any wonder that people consistently disregard their narratives?
For a US temperature check, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/countries/united-states/average-temperature-by-year. The average Tmax and Tmin data from 1901 to 2024 is displayed in a long table. Here is the data for these two years:
Year——-Tmax——-Tmin——-Tavg Temperatures are ° C
2024——-16.8———4.3———10.5
1901——-14.9———1.6———-8.2
Change—+1.9——-+2.7——-+2.3
Tmax Range: 14.7°–16.8°
Tmin Range: 0.7°—4.3°
Although Tavg has exceeded the recommended 1.5° C limit, I don’t recall seeing on the TV recent reports of any climate catastrophes in the US.
NB: Be sure to check out: http://www.extremeweatherwatch.com. On the home page there are links in light blue to many sites around the world for the acquisition and display of weather and climate data. For cities use this format:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/city name. Enter the city name in lower case letters. If the city name is two words, connect these with a hyphen. At the end of the home page there is a list of options the acquisition and display data.
What was the “pre industrial era” temperature and how was it arrived at?
p.s. when will the ENSO Meter be making its return?
Since AR6, i.e. 2021/2, “Pre-Industrial (PI) temperature” = “The 1850-1900 average of your chosen GMST proxy / reanalysis product”.
Groups pretending they can calculate average (monthly) GMST anomalies back to (January) 1850 include BEST (Berkeley Earth), HadCRUT and NCEI (/ NOAA, start date pushed back from 1880 to 1850 in early 2023).
AR6 WG-I SPM, footnote [9] to paragraph A.1.2, at the bottom of page 5 proclaims that :
NB : I’ll come back to the “consistent with AR5” claim later.
More details are given in Cross-Chapter Box 2.3, “New Estimates of Global Warming to Date, and Key Implications”, on page 318 :
Note that the 0.1°C difference between “PI = 1750” and “PI = 1850-1900 average” values is basically considered as “insignificant” by the IPCC … which it is !
.
Way back in July 2017 I tried to figure out what the IPCC meant by the term “pre-industrial” in the AR5 WG-I assessment report (2013), and gave up after making the following notes.
Under Table 5.1, on page 389 you will find :
Section 7.5.1, on page 614, does indeed clearly state that :
NB : A specific year, not a range.
In section 7.5.3, on page 618, it clarifies that outside of the IPCC :
Note that section 8.1.2, on page 668, followed chapter 7’s usage (instead of chapter 5’s “1850 values”) :
Just to complicate things even more, the chapter 12 authors decided to use a third alternative for the “pre-industrial (PI)” temperature reference.
Looking at Figure 12.40, panel (b), on page 1100 : “PI temperature = 1980-1999 average – 0.5°C”
.
Unlike the inference the IPCC was trying to get readers to make in the AR6 report, AR5 was all over the place when it came to defining “precisely” what was meant by the term “pre-industrial temperature”.
.
.
Back here in January 2026 the figure in the Politico article linked to in the first paragraph of the ATL article would appear to support the idea that for most journalists, not just the IPCC, “PI = the 1850-1900 average”.
[ Screenshot of Politico figure added here … hopefully … ]
1850 was the year the first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania.
Coincidence?