From Dr Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Blog
March 3rd, 2026 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2026 was +0.39 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up a little from the January, 2026 value of +0.35 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through February 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 26 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 |
| 2025 | Dec | +0.30 | +0.45 | +0.15 | +0.19 | +2.10 | +0.32 | +0.37 |
| 2026 | Jan | +0.35 | +0.51 | +0.19 | +0.09 | +0.30 | +1.40 | +0.95 |
| 2026 | Feb | +0.39 | +0.54 | +0.23 | +0.03 | +1.91 | -0.48 | +0.73 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for February, 2026 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:
I was expecting a drop but sadly a slight rise instead.
However, very interesting to see the Arctic hit slightly negative anomaly territory!
Just 0.04k, last step before boiling 🤗
There are Celsius units on the Celsius scale and there are Celsius units on the Kelvin scale. There is no such thang as “Kelvins” degrees or units or differences.
0.04 K is 0.04 Celsius degrees above abs zero.
Isn’t it a change in Temperature Departure from an average? In which case 0.04K is a 0.04C change in a departure from an average.
Which makes sense in a convoluted way.
You realised I wrote about the temperature difference, based on the article?
The drops which matter are from 88 in 2024 and 50 in 2025. The post Tongan eruption spike cooling continues apace. Back to the secular trend since 2007-12 Arctic sea ice bottom.
In fact, I’m not sure if I can even remember a month of negative anomaly on the UAH record since 2000 but I’m sure there must have been a few?
There have been whole years of negative anomalies since then!
Last was January 2023.
That was -0.07°C using the 1991-2020 base period.
Using the previous 1981-2010 average, the last negative anomaly was March 2012 at -0.04°C.
and
as compared to the above UAH chart using the 1991-2000 period average for the basis of establishing +/- anomalies: hmmmm, . . . so many “options” to choose from.
Also, Tropics continue on a cooling trend. An anomaly of +0.03, that’s way down from the +1.6 anomaly of early 2024.
I find it very interesting that the NH is up +0.54, sandwiched between a cooler Arctic and cooler Tropics.
Following from this, I do expect a cooler Spring, assuming El Ninõ doesn’t kick in too quickly.
Graphing the figures above gives negative trends for all areas other than the USA48
No need for you to “remember” . . . just look at the UAH GLAT anomaly chart near the top of the above article: see all the plotted points “since 2000” that have negative y-axis values? . . . those are the negative anomalies you are wondering about.
Note that the y-axis of that chart clearly defines the absolute value used to establish each monthly temperature anomaly value is referenced the “0.0 ” point being the average of GLAT from year 1991 thru 2000 in deg-C.
As for your statement ” . . . but I’m sure there must have been a few”: by my cursory count I see about 60 such points plotted since end-year 2000.
Good grief!
Why
A total NOTHING-BURGER.
A change of far less than measuring possibility.
CONUS was waaay above average last month, especially with the resilient ridge of high pressure that’s been squatting over the Western US since October. To La Niña: Don’t come around here no more…
February 2026 was the second-warmest ‘USA48’ February on record in UAH and winter (Dec-Jan-Feb) 2025-26 was by far the warmest winter on record in ‘USA48’.
UAH is often held up as the poster-child for ‘climate change is a hoax‘ here at WUWT.
With friends like UAH, who needs enemies?
6th warmest February
ERA5 shows that much of February was similar to last year, but there was a big drop in the last week caused.
Source: https://pulse.climate.copernicus.eu/
Here’s my map of February Anomalies.
Surprisingly UAH has this February as the 2nd warmest February for land.
And here’s the mean anomaly for Northern Hemisphere Winter.
The contrast between land and ocean this month is really striking.
An illustration of the deadly sin of reification.
Where did I say any of this was concrete? I was just pointing out the abstract figures supplied by Spencer and co showed a striking contrast.
Of course you think its “concrete”, otherwise you would not allocate hour-after-hour to making these plots.
When you present contour graphs and line graphs that mention anomalies without citing the based period average intervals for the zero-point of such anomalies—as YOU did in 3 out of 4 of your posts immediately above—you cannot logically show a striking contrast.
It’s more like apples and oranges.
I should have specified the base period, but given the context of this post it should be obvious what they are.
However the base period makes no difference to the “striking contrast”. The graph would be the same, just a slightly different y-axis scale.
Positive values versus negative values is not a “striking contrast”???
Who knew . . .
I thought it was obvious from the graph, but the contrast I was talking about was land being up by about a third of a degree on last year whilst the oceans were down by a similar amount.
Nothing to do with negative values. In fact both values are still positive.
Very interesting also, 6th warmest.
With both 2024 and 2025 in the top 5, I would have expected 2026 to be around about the same, which of course it is……
But, still cooling from the high point in 2024.
Is this a La Ninã influenced cooling trend or something else?
The La Nina was over before the end of 2024, so the peak lasted much longer and is unexplained by the IPCC and conventional academic sources. The peak was strongest in the Northern Hemisphere suggesting some phenomena was different there, maybe lower cloud cover or stratospheric interference compared to elsewhere?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq6qyjrq3e9o
Snap.
Central England Temperature series mean was 3.4C above average. The 6th warmest in the best part of 400 years.
6 of the 12 warmest Febs are 1998 or later.
And… the average minimum temperature in Feb 2026 CET tied with 2024 for top spot.
We’ll have to rename it Frost Free February.
That may have been true for Central England but I suspect most of Scotland was much closer to average, if not slightly below.
Best skiing season and general snow cover since 2021.
Of course, commercial skiing in 2021 was limited, not by lack of snow but by COVID.
And Highland Scotland, in particular, certainly wasn’t frost free in February.
According to UKMO, mean temperature for Scotland in February 2026 was +3.7C. That puts it well above average for February since the record starts (1884, +2.4C)
Even basing it on the 30-year UAH anomaly base period, 1991-2020 (+3.1C), then Feb 2026 was +0.6C warmer than average in Scotland.
You do know why 30 years was selected? 😉 Hint- it has nothing to do with the periodicity of climate. 😉
If you don’t like using the 30-year anomaly base, as recommended by the WMO and as used by UAH, etc, you could always use the whole data set. That would make the February 2026 anomaly even warmer for Scotland.
“The climate of Earth is not static; it’s a dynamic and ever-shifting tapestry woven from a myriad of natural cycles that shape our weather, environments, and ecosystems. Among the most compelling aspects of these climate cycles are their complex interactions and the profound consequences they bring about across various timelines—be it millennia, decades, or seasons. As we venture into understanding these phenomena, we will focus on significant cycles such as the Milankovitch cycles, the El Niño Southern Oscillation, and the La Niña phase, all of which contribute to the mercurial nature of Earth’s climate.”
https://biolecta.com/articles/understanding-earth-climate-cycles/
Myriad climate cycles out to 1,000 years. All have to be added algebraically, but let’s focus on 30 years. LOL.
What has this got to do with Scotland having slightly above average temperatures in February?
I’m really sorry but I don’t trust Met Office stats. Here where I stay, in Birnam, we’ve had 15 days of lying snow this winter, many of which were consecutive days. Often the BBC would claim the temperature to be several degrees above the temperature I record here. Even after day after day of frozen snow pack, the BBC would claim the temperature each of those days to be reaching several degrees above freezing. I presume the BBC gets its data from the Met Office? There’s no way on earth that the official temperature was anywhere near accurate during that period.
And I’m afraid you’re going to have to trust me on this one. I’m not on one side or the other here, and I don’t really push the theory that the Met office manipulates data. But they definitely got it wrong for where I live for much of the winter.
Moreover, the fact that we’ve had a pretty continuous snowpack above about 500m for 90% of the winter period, producing a very reasonable ski season, shows that my observations were not just a local phenomenon.
So, my conclusion is that I’m sorry, I don’t trust the Met O data for Scotland this February. Having said that, there has been a fairly distinctive north/south divide, with relatively colder conditions much more prevalent north of the Central Belt. This might explain at least to a degree, the difference between official data and my observations.
Notwithstanding all of this, Completely agree that UAH is still running extraordinarily high. That’s something that is clearly the elephant in the room currently, although I do expect it to continue on a downward trend.
When you wrote above “…I suspect most of Scotland was much closer to average, if not slightly below“, what temperature data set were you basing your “average” on?
Scotland as a whole was according to the Met Office 0.6c above the mean for Feb.
Of course we have to use some sort of baseline.
For me, an average winter temperature is determined by how long we have continuous and wide snow cover above 600m, because that’s what produces a reasonable ski season in Scotland. In order for this to happen, the temperature can’t rise much above freezing point for any length of time at that altitude.
Freezing level at 600m would normally translate to about 3.6c at sea level, so that’s what I would expect the average to be – there or thereabouts. Let’s round down to 3C, given that Scotland has a diverse landscape.
Given the the continuous snow level has been closer to 500m for most of the winter, I would have expected slightly colder than 3c.
According to the Met Office however, Scotland was 0.6c warmer than their own mean temperature of 3.7C for Feb. So, in summary, this confirms my suspicion that the Met Office is recording higher temperatures than are being observed. Although, I do see that even the Met Office statistics do show the divide I detailed earlier between Highland Scotland (average); and the rest of the region (slightly above average).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq6qyjrq3e9o
Really skillful how the BBC manages to turn this positive news about good skiing conditions into another AGW lecture.
Bottom line is, you simply don’t get a good ski season in Scotland without relatively colder temperatures for long periods, accompanied of course by the white stuff.
Every winter it snows heavily in the mountains of Scotland. But the difference this season, is that the snow that has fallen stayed and didn’t thaw rapidly within a few days. For snow to stay, close to freezing temperatures also need to stay. So, I stand by my original statement, at least in this instance….I don’t trust the Met Office data!
The UKMO average temperature for Scotland in February was 3.7C which is +0.6C warmer than the 30-year average (1991-2020) for February, which is 3.1C.
UKMO also subdivide Scotland into three regions; north, east and west. Scot Nth was 3.2C (+0.3C); Scot East was 3.6C (+0.8); and Scot West was 4.5C (+0.8).
Sounds like you’re basing your assessment of Scottish temperatures in February on the basis of conditions where you happen to live.
“Freezing level at 600m would normally translate to about 3.6c at sea level, so that’s what I would expect the average to be – there or thereabouts.”
If by that you are using a DALR then you are a bit out. It is normally taken to be 3C per 1000ft, and 600m is 1968ft.
So, no not 3.6C, rather 6C. But under slack winds and moist air the LR would be less than that.
Looking at the nearest Upper-air ascent (Lerwick, biased low due setup) the 2000ft temp was near or below 0C during those first 3 weeks and then +3 to +7C from the 22 to the 27th … so it seems that those 6 days biased the overall ave T for the month up from a good bit below ave to a little above.
I have looked also at archived data for T anom at 850mb (5000ft) and the first 3 weeks were broadly below normal at around -1/-2C (anom) and the last week was between +4 or +5C above normal, bar the 28th which was near normal.
So, also from that I would estimate that the overal monthy average was a little above normal – and 3.7C fits that.
Looking at the MetO map Birnam is v near the near ave demarcation – so I’d say 3C would be about right for there.
Still got at least 2 or 3 degrees C to go before we get back to the warmth that the world enjoyed during the Holocene Optimum.
Any fear of a citation for this?
A down-vote… but no citation.
It’s how it works at WUWT. Do not question the “myth-makers.”
Thereby demonstrating for all to see, how little you appear to have read—more importantly, to have understood—about what is commonly presented and discussed at the WUWT website and by it various commentors to articles.
Pity.
I’m sure there are studies which show a +2 or 3 C compared to today, but many recent studies show the optimum temperatures are similar to today. What confuses me is that the CO2 level was a lot lower during the optimum than today (almost half?), so I don’t know how this is even remotely possible.
Should be easy enough to find, then. I can’t find any studies that suggest global temperatures during the Holocene Optimum were “… at least 2 or 3 degrees C…” warmer than they are today.
Matter of fact, I asked Google’s AI tool how much warmer global temperatures during the Holocene Optimum were and got the following response:
Maybe you’ll have better luck?
It is a well-known fact but you are allergic to them which is why you never see it.
I have known that it was around 2 C warmer early in the Holocene 20 years ago.
Just not one anybody can produce any evidence for, apparently.
Can you post a link to a global temperature reconstruction that you trust which shows that it is 2 C warmer in the past relative to today?
The driver of the HCO was an increase of summer solar insolation in the high NH latitudes. And much. of that went to melting ice. The SH consequently had less solar insolation during that period.
The +2/+3C anomaly is for the northern high latitudes and NOT for the globe.
This from Andy May ….
Talking Heads.
Once In A Lifetime
“Same as it ever was, same as it ever was . . . “
What is that average number?
You do understand that a day in the fall, distance of the sun is the same, as a day in spring. March 3rd – Nov 6th. Yet earth is colder. Snow extend was above the 30 year average in February. The northern hemisphere average freezing line was below 45 degree latitude also in February. Which has earth half a degree colder on March 3rd, due to 5 million km2 more snow and sea ice extent, than on November 5th. Yet adjusted datasets have you believe earth, had it’s warmest years ever. If both days got same solar energy and earth was 1.5 degrees warmer, then snow and sea ice extent would be over 10 million km2 less than the current March 2nd value. You may not tell how warm this winter was, when extreme cold events, were reported in different low latitude areas.
Hmmm. Interesting thought. I am starting to study the insolation vs soil temperatures relation. The soil is a heat sink, storing heat from warmer months and releasing it in colder months. We need to bury service lines and foundations here about 3 ft deep to insure they don’t freeze or heave due to soil moisture freezing. That is a lot of heat being removed from the soil.
This is a seasonal effect that can cause problems when using time series to predict things.
Warmest winter (D-J-F) on record by a country mile for for ‘USA48’
Wow. A warming of 3.5C? And there are not millions dead? 😉
If it had been the coldest instead of the warmest winter on record for the US, I suspect WUWT would have made more of a fuss over it.
So you want 3.5C under the minimum. 😉
I just wonder why a US-based website that self-describes as ‘The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change‘ and which prominently features the UAH data set, wouldn’t be interested in highlighting a new US seasonal temperature record in UAH.
It’s a fair point!
Now that you have identified it, give your hypothesis of why. Is it due to CO2?
Well perhaps that is because there is no such thing as a “new US seasonal temperature record in the UAH (sic)“.
First off, the season of “winter” in Earth’s northern hemisphere is defined as inclusive of the months December, January and February.
UAH GLAT anomaly data for:
— Dec 2017 and Jan and Feb 2008 are -0.16, -0.36 and -0.29 deg-C, respectively, (average winter anomaly of -0.27 C) ,
— Dec 2024 and Jan and Feb 2025 are +0.61, +0.45 and +0.50 deg-C, respectively (average winter anomaly of 0.52 C),
— Dec 2025 and Jan and Feb 2026 are +0.30, +0.35 and +0.39 deg-C, respectively (average winter anomaly of 0.35 C).
(ref: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt )
So, one has to go back to the winter season of 2017-2008 to find the “seasonal low” record of UAH GLAT since CY2000
Similarly, one has to go back to the summer season of 2023 to find the “seasonal high” record of UAH GLAT since CY2000.
Do you intend to this to illustrate that is a bad thing? If so, give us your pros and cons as to why warmer winters are a bad thing
Posted by Willis E this AM, referenced a Briggs article about smoothing:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/03/stefani-on-the-sun-vs-co2-as-climate-drivers/#comment-4171202
“Do not smooth times series, you hockey puck!”
https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/195/
“What you can not, or should not, do is to first model/smooth the proxy data to produce fictional data and then try to model the fictional data and temperature. This trick will always—simply always—make you too certain of yourself and will lead you astray. Notice how the read fictional data looks a hell of a lot more structured than the real data and you’ll get the idea.”
As I continue my delve into time series, this is very appropriate. I am always amazed that none of the warmests ever, and I do mean ever, mention the analysis of time series data in a proper manner. It is always playing with the data to use linear regression that ignores stationarity, auto-correlation, and seasonality. If the warmests would apply even the simplest statistical treatments specified in time series analysis, I would faint.
Instead the search for correlation using linear regression has become the basic article of faith for showing how and why the earth is warming. It is used to justify changing data rather than not using it at all. It is used to ignore how uncertain temperature measurements truly are. The replication crisis in science doesn’t exist because simple averaging of disparate data solves everything.
The new Monckton Pause extends to 37 months starting in 2023/02. The average of this pause is 0.56 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 0.35 C higher than the previous one.
+0.156 ± 0.038 C.decade-1 k=2 is the trend from 1979/01 to 2026/02 covering 566 values.
+0.026 ± 0.010 C.decade-2 k=2 is the acceleration of the trend.
This is true.
We should expect warming to happen as series of troughs, crests and plateaux, where the crests and plateaux grow progressively high and the troughs increasingly swallow.
That makes sense in a scenario in which something is forcing the rise in temperature but with long-term variability overlaid. Anyone believing that the warming must be linear alongside rising CO2 is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Exactly. The pause-up-pause-up behavior is what you expect when you superimpose a long term trend with short term variation.
“The new Monckton Pause extends to 37 months starting in 2023/02.”
While I am OK with tables and lists of numbers I am a more “visual” person, often needing to go through the process of generating graphs to “get” what is happening with a given dataset / time-series.
After a few iterations I usually end up with a version in which the basic idea becomes “obvious” … to me, after having thought about it and tried several options that didn’t work …
I found the main “trick” was to remember that when calculating the “Monckton pause” length the purple “trend to the latest end-point” line needs to be “read” from right to left.
Attached is the graph I ended up with showing how to calculate a “Monckton pause” for the UAH LT (V6.1) dataset, updated with the February 2026 datapoint (to two decimal places / 2dp) in the ATL article.
.
“The previous Monckton Pause started in 2014/06. It lasted 107 months …”
That may have been true in the last WUWT article by CMoB on the subject … sometime in the second half of 2023 ? … but with the previous dataset (to January 2026, using the 3dp option) I had already managed to “squeeze out” a 111 month “previous Monckton Pause”, what I call “Pause 4”, by starting in April 2014 instead of June.
This doesn’t impact the fundamental concepts, but is an “interesting” observation about the counter-intuitive behaviour of trends with only “minor tweaks” to the data.
From this starting point one “obvious” question people ask is :
“What future values would it take to ‘merge’ the latest (37 month) Monckton pause with the previous one (2014 to 2023) ?”
To answer this purely speculative “projection” I set up a (very !) simple spreadsheet with two parameters :
1) an “initial rate of fall” and
2) a “lower limit”
Fixing the “rate of fall” parameter to half of the maximum (negative) rate of the latest data — i.e. the trend from February 2024 to February 2026 — I adjusted the “lower limit” so that the two pauses “merged” in December 2030 (“lower limit = 0.22”, which is actually just above the “Pause 4 average” value).
NB : In the real world “natural variability” would have the actual UAH dataset oscillating around this “projection”. No actual “weather related” dataset moves in straight lines.
As the “projection” plays out the trend line will “dip down”, until eventually the local minimum around October 2015 goes below zero (which actually occurs for the month of December 2015 in this particular scenario).
.
Note that I also added a “shifted” version of the UAH dataset to directly compare the effects of the 1997/8 El Nino (which starts my “Pause 3“, the pink line using the upper X-axis and shifted vertically by ~0.32°C) and 2023/4 (the sky-blue line) El Nino events on the lower troposphere.
This graph is unfortunately very “crowded / busy”, but I hope people find it either “interesting” (?) or “useful” (???) anyway.
As always your analysis are really good.
And yeah, the switch from version 6.0 to 6.1 changed the length of the previous Monckton pause.
The post-2024 temperature decline is beginning to look like an exponential decline, rather than the typical sinusoidal decline of past El Nino events. Exponential declines are associated with depletion, as in radioactive decay — or declining stratospheric water vapor.
I don’t know. I certainly don’t think we should ever blindly dismiss any agent known to have a causative mechanism for its influence. However, I’m not seeing any significant deviation from what one would expect from the current ENSO cycle. With each passing month it’s getting harder to defend the HT eruption as being the cause of the recent spike and drop in the UAH TLT values.
Depletion is something to think about. I am speaking of the greening effects on temperature. I have been reading ag science and environmental science papers and it is becoming a well known fact that greenery will lower temps not only within the growth but surrounding areas also. Additional greenery also provides more oxygen to the atmosphere. These are never discussed by warmists, only the demon CO2.
It’s now a race between unsustainable sovereign debt costs and the cyclical AMO downturn in temps. Hopefully media groups fail first along with UN and NY/Chicago budgets.
Any insight on what is happening with NOAAGlobalTemp?
The data access page at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/noaa-global-surface-temperature/v6/access/ still shows the links for December 2025 data, with January 15 2026 dates.
Climate at a Glance at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/tavg/1/0/1850-2026 is updated to January 2026, and attributes the data as “Global temperature anomaly data come from NOAA’s Global Surface Temperature Analysis (NOAAGlobalTemp)”. That attribution (Data Info) leads to https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/land-based-station/noaa-global-temp, which declares the current version as still “Current Version: 6.0.0”, but has links (which fail as Not Found) to Gridded and Time Series data which reference …/noaa-global-surface-temperature/v6.1/…
I reported this to NOAA eight days ago, without any response