Lower Troposphere Temperature

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for June, 2026: +0.46 deg. C

1 day ago
Guest Blogger
115 Comments

From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Blog

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2026 was +0.46 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, which is down from the May, 2026 value of +0.53 deg. C.

The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through June 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 30 months (record highs are in red).

YearMonGlobeNHemSHemTropicUS48ArcticAust.Can.
2024Jan+0.80+1.02+0.57+1.20-0.19+0.40+1.12+0.97
2024Feb+0.88+0.94+0.81+1.16+1.31+0.85+1.16+2.45
2024Mar+0.88+0.96+0.80+1.25+0.22+1.05+1.34+1.12
2024Apr+0.94+1.12+0.76+1.15+0.86+0.88+0.54+1.39
2024May+0.77+0.77+0.78+1.20+0.04+0.20+0.52+0.67
2024June+0.69+0.78+0.60+0.85+1.36+0.63+0.91+0.19
2024July+0.73+0.86+0.61+0.96+0.44+0.56-0.07+1.15
2024Aug+0.75+0.81+0.69+0.74+0.40+0.88+1.75+1.36
2024Sep+0.81+1.04+0.58+0.82+1.31+1.48+0.98
2024Oct+0.75+0.89+0.60+0.63+1.89+0.81+1.09+0.89
2024Nov+0.64+0.87+0.40+0.53+1.11+0.79+1.00+1.61
2024Dec+0.61+0.75+0.47+0.52+1.41+1.12+1.54+1.65
2025Jan+0.45+0.70+0.21+0.24-1.07+0.74+0.48+1.04
2025Feb+0.50+0.55+0.45+0.26+1.03+2.10+0.87-0.35
2025Mar+0.57+0.73+0.41+0.40+1.24+1.23+1.20+0.80
2025Apr+0.61+0.76+0.46+0.36+0.81+0.85+1.21+0.45
2025May+0.50+0.45+0.55+0.30+0.15+0.75+0.98+0.81
2025June+0.48+0.48+0.47+0.30+0.80+0.05+0.39-0.22
2025July+0.36+0.49+0.23+0.45+0.32+0.40+0.53-0.23
2025Aug+0.39+0.39+0.39+0.16-0.06+0.82+0.11+0.62
2025Sep+0.53+0.56+0.49+0.35+0.38+0.77+0.30+2.44
2025Oct+0.53+0.52+0.55+0.24+1.12+1.42+1.67+2.59
2025Nov+0.43+0.59+0.27+0.24+1.32+0.78+0.36+1.47
2025Dec+0.30+0.45+0.15+0.19+2.10+0.32+0.37-1.86
2026Jan+0.35+0.51+0.19+0.09+0.30+1.40+0.95+1.17
2026Feb+0.39+0.54+0.23+0.03+1.91-0.48+0.73+0.32
2026Mar+0.38+0.33+0.42+0.07+3.74-0.48+1.14-3.17
2026Apr+0.39+0.43+0.34+0.23+1.20+0.30+0.70-0.89
2026May+0.53+0.46+0.60+0.58+0.21+0.34+0.10+0.21
2026June+0.46+0.54+0.38+0.57+0.64+1.01+0.38+0.99
YearMonGlobeNHemSHemTropicUS48ArcticAust.Can.

Time Series Plots for USA48, Canada, and Australia

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for June, 2026 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here. John officially retired yesterday, July 1, 2026, but will continue working as a part-time employee of UAH.

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:

Lower Troposphere

Mid-Troposphere

Tropopause

Lower Stratosphere

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
By subscribing, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of service.
4.5 8 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
Register
115 Comments
Fraizer
July 2, 2026 2:15 pm

Here comes the crazies.

Angels, pins, some assembly required.

8
bnice2000
Reply to  Fraizer
July 2, 2026 2:53 pm

All that ranting and raving over a small bulge of badly measured warmth over an insignificant island off the coast of Europe.

But the global atmospheric temperature drops. 😉

4
Eldrosion
Reply to  bnice2000
July 2, 2026 8:54 pm

It was quite a bit larger than that:

comment image

“But the global atmospheric temperature drops.”

Will the Gormans challenge this by arguing that the uncertainty is too large to allow for a meaningful detection?

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/fossil-fuel-emissions-have-rapidly-worsened-european-heatwaves-in-just-a-few-decades/

0
Dave Andrews
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 6:08 am

Roger Pielke identifies three tricks used by WWA in their attribution studies – mathematical sloppiness, assuming the the conclusion the study seeks to prove and ignoring the evidence.

Why should anyone pay attention to them?

6
TheFinalNail
Reply to  bnice2000
July 3, 2026 12:37 am

But the global atmospheric temperature drops.

bnice2000 doesn’t understand anomalies, episode 1,000 and counting …

-10
Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 3, 2026 7:11 am

You don’t understand anomalies either. They should be weighted according to variance before averaging. But we never even see variance values for anything from climate science. Why should we believe anything from climate science if they can’t even do the simple stuff correctly?

4
TheFinalNail
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 3, 2026 4:44 pm

Roy Spencer calculates and publishes these anomalies. Take it up with him if you don’t like his methods.

1
Jim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 3, 2026 11:00 am

bnice2000 doesn’t understand anomalies

Who appointed you the prosecutor, judge and jury for determining who understands what? Show us your bona fides with photos of your degrees. Someone must have seen your resume to have appointed you to this position!

4
TheFinalNail
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 3, 2026 4:43 pm

You don’t need to be clever or specially ‘appointed’ to know that an anomaly for June being lower than one for May doesn’t indicate that “the global atmospheric temperature drop[ped]” between May and June, do you?

You would think that anyone with even a scant knowledge of the matter would know that monthly anomalies refer to the temperatures of each month respectively.

A lower anomaly in June than in May does not indicate that absolute temperatures dropped between June and May.

I would suggest that intelligence or degrees are not required for a person acquainted with the concept of anomalies understand this.

It would appear that bnice200 is not a person acquainted with the concept of anomalies, as his comment amply demonstrates.

0
JohnC
Reply to  bnice2000
July 3, 2026 12:42 am

What insignificant island off the coast of Europe? Jersey? Guernsey? Alderney? Sark? Ireland? Isle of Man? Lundy? The outer Hebrides? The inner Hebrides? The Isle of Wight? The Shetlands? Anglesey? The U.K. is not just one island any more than Hawaii is one island (which, don’t forget has the flag of a foreign “insignificant island” included on its state flag). You do realise that “The star spangled banner” is set to the tune of a drinking song from an insignificant island off the coast of Europe. Happy quarter of a millennium birthday for tomorrow.

4
ToldYouSo
Reply to  bnice2000
July 3, 2026 8:29 am

“But the global atmospheric temperature drops.”

No, only UAH’s mathematical calculation of GLAT declined by a reported difference of 0.07 deg C between May and June of 2026.

No scientist worth the name—professional or amateur—really believes that GLAT (emphasis on “global”) can be measured/empirically established to a resolution of 0.01 deg C . . . let alone to an accuracy of even +/- 0.5 deg C.

Even the UAH team admits the absolute calibration accuracy of individual, raw MSU (Microwave Sounding Unit) sensors on the various spacecraft they use for deriving their published monthly “global” and “regional” data is only about 1 deg C.

On top of this, there are all the adjustments needed to convert from instrument radiometric (microwave) data to equivalent temperature, such as:
— the physical equations used to convert EM frequency (energy) to average grey-body temperature considering the range of actual emissivities of the “lower atmosphere” as affected by factors such as cloud coverage, atmospheric TPW content, dust and aerosols and snow and rain particles, variation of “lower atmosphere” depth with latitude, and slant range variation with each MSU scan,
— inter-satellite calibration (bias corrections for unavoidable MSU-to-MSU calibration differences),
— diurnal drift (local time correction),
— orbital decay (altitude correction), and
— instrument body temperature effects.

Why am I not surprised that UAH consistently refuses to state their own calculation for the overall accuracy of their asserted monthly values of GLAT?

“Test all things; hold fast what is good.”

— The Bible, 1 Thessalonians 5:21

2
karlomonte
Reply to  ToldYouSo
July 3, 2026 12:09 pm

Excellent summary:

No scientist worth the name—professional or amateur—really believes that GLAT (emphasis on “global”) can be measured/empirically established to a resolution of 0.01 deg C . . . let alone to an accuracy of even +/- 0.5 deg C.

Even the UAH team admits the absolute calibration accuracy of individual, raw MSU (Microwave Sounding Unit) sensors on the various spacecraft they use for deriving their published monthly “global” and “regional” data is only about 1 deg C.

Yet they record (and report) raw temperature data with a resolution of 10mK…

-2
bdgwx
Reply to  ToldYouSo
July 3, 2026 2:33 pm

Why am I not surprised that UAH consistently refuses to state their own calculation for the overall accuracy of their asserted monthly values of GLAT?

[Christy et al. 2006]

1
Sweet Old Bob
July 2, 2026 2:41 pm

Well …. it is hot here in Kansas ….

but it was 20 F hotter in 1936 …

16
pillageidiot
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
July 2, 2026 3:39 pm

“but it was 20 F hotter in 1936 …”

20 degrees cooler over a 90 year period?

Based on this data, my complex global computer model just indicated that it will be below freezing in Kansas for the high temperatures during July in a mere 360 years.

P.S. Please send me another $10,000,000 so I can keep performing this important research!

9
bnice2000
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
July 2, 2026 4:11 pm

For USA reference… max temps per state. Courtesy Chris Martz.

US-maxtemps
4
Eldrosion
Reply to  bnice2000
July 2, 2026 8:28 pm

Why do skeptics always highlight summer maximum temperatures? Why not winter minimum temperatures?

comment image

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tmin/3/2/1895-2026

-3
PCman999
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 2, 2026 10:50 pm

No, it’s the climate crazies that call-out every heat wave as the end of the world.

True skeptics cheer the rising winter minimums because extreme cold deaths outweigh extreme heat deaths roughly 10:1 all over the world, even in places known for extreme heat like India. Rising winter minimums save lives.

9
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 5:28 am

Why not winter minimum temperatures?

  • Longer growing seasons.
  • More food.
  • Less energy used to warm.
  • Better environment to live in.

Can you think of things to complain about with higher minimum temperatures?

4
Phil R
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 9:21 am

The difference, which you will never understand, is that bnice2000 showed actual temperature measurements. And you won’t understand this comment either…

6
TheFinalNail
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
July 3, 2026 2:55 am

Well …. it is hot here in Kansas ….

but it was 20 F hotter in 1936 …

Isn’t if funny how no one here questions the validity of manually-recorded thermometer readings from the 1930s (even though we know for certain that, in many cases, they contain spurious warming caused by ‘time of observation‘ and other biases)?

Yet these same people will fight tooth and nail over the validity of 1/100th of a degree recorded by an electrical sensor at a modern automatic weather station IF it dares to threaten a warm record reported back in the 1930s!

-3
Jim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 3, 2026 6:28 am

Isn’t if funny how no one here questions the validity of manually-recorded thermometer readings from the 1930s 

LIG thermometer measurement uncertainty is obviously higher than newer and better measurement devices. Nobody disputes that. The uncertainty ranges from ±2°F to ±4°F.

they contain spurious warming caused by ‘time of observation‘ and other biases

You use the term “bias” incorrectly. Measurement bias can only be confirmed by calibration because it is a systematic error that is constant on all readings. There is no way to determine measurement bias from decades ago. Measurement bias is dealt with at the time of measurement by including a “correction” determined from calibration. For measurements from 100 years ago, too late, so sad, too bad!

The bias you are describing is that temperatures from long ago do not connect nicely to those measured with newer measurement devices. If you are not familiar with various technological advancements in changing the values being measured, then you don’t understand how entirely accurate and calibrated devices from 100 years ago can have different responses and values than those from newer devices.

The problem with “bias” corrections done because the values differ is that you cannot separate accuracy from simple device differences. Corrections to make data series align and that are done from guesses and assumptions are not scientific. Microclimates change, shelters change, land use changes, devices are moved, trees grow that modify winds.

If the data is not usable in the form it was originally recorded, from a scientific standpoint, it should be declared not fit for purpose and discarded. Not fit for purpose is used when a measurement result fails to meet the accuracy, uncertainty, or performance requirements defined for its intended use. It means the measurement cannot legitimately support the decision, model, or specification it is supposed to inform and should not be used.

I have read the papers that propose to discover the bias corrections needed to make past data equivalent to current measures. They all start with the assumption that modification of recorded information is a fine and dandy procedure in order to create a long data series. They all fail to deal substantially with why the data series are different. They all fail to deal with measurement uncertainty and how it is increased by this process and operate under the assumption that the propagation of uncertainty reduces uncertainty when averaging. Total scientific mumbo jumbo.

5
ToldYouSo
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 3, 2026 8:38 am

“The uncertainty ranges from ±2°F to ±4°F.”

Errrrrr . . . that actually appears to be an uncertainty-of-uncertainty range. 😉

1
Jim Gorman
Reply to  ToldYouSo
July 3, 2026 10:44 am

Device and microclimate range in general. Individual stations should fit into that range with some at the low end and some at the high end. It is why averaging stations and assuming, as climate science and the warmists here do, that uncertainty disappears is total ignorance of measurements.

2
TheFinalNail
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 3, 2026 4:48 pm

There is no way to determine measurement bias from decades ago. 

Then you should write a rebuttal to the peer reviewed paper I linked to, since they describe one clearly.

0
Mark Whitney
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 3, 2026 6:59 am

What is questioned is the validity of claims that anything measured now is unprecedented, or that it is in any way a crisis. It is also questioned whether human emissions of CO2 are a major, or more absurdly, the sole cause of the alleged warming.

It is clear that surface measurements were, and remain, unsuitable for the purpose of making the comparisons and inflicting the policies demanded by the alarmist faith.

7
Anthony Banton
Reply to  Mark Whitney
July 3, 2026 8:48 am

“It is clear that surface measurements were, and remain, unsuitable for the purpose of making the comparisons and inflicting the policies demanded by the alarmist faith.”

Then how about satellite measurements?

comment image

-6
Phil R
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 3, 2026 9:32 am

The only measurements that have any meaning are the surface measurements, in the sense that they are what directly affect people on a daily and seasonal basis. It’s the abuse of the surface measurements by the climate hysterics to predict some kind of absurd apocalypse that is being questioned.

4
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 3, 2026 10:51 am

Then how about satellite measurements?

The satellite temperatures you are seeing are of the “lower troposphere”. That is a considerably different measurement than surface temperature at 2m.

3
Mark Whitney
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 3, 2026 4:42 pm

They are useful for what they are–measurements of tropospheric temperatures. Perhaps in a few decades they will be useful to inform more than interest. They cannot be used to compare to the past, and they are no more valid for informing policy.

1
Whetten Robert L
July 2, 2026 2:43 pm

Ah, this makes 570 months running for this marvelous product of the era of satellite-based instruments. The UAH-LT record is a monument of terrible beauty, standing out like a volcanic island arising from a sea of confusion.

8
Eldrosion
Reply to  Whetten Robert L
July 2, 2026 8:16 pm

I agree. It doesn’t appear to be bolstering the skeptic case at the current moment however.

1
PCman999
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 2, 2026 10:57 pm

It does bolster the skeptics who have yet to see evidence of the climate-aggeddon that the econazis go on about.

The gentle warming of under 2°C per century experienced so far in the modern instrument era is a boon to civilization. The world is greener and the granaries full. Enjoy it while it lasts because uncontested science research says we’re due for a significant downturn, back to Little Ice Age.

12
TheFinalNail
Reply to  PCman999
July 3, 2026 12:39 am

Enjoy it while it lasts because uncontested science research says we’re due for a significant downturn, back to Little Ice Age.

Any fear of a link to this “uncontested” evidence?

-4
Jim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 3, 2026 6:37 am

Any fear of a link to this “uncontested” evidence?

Asking others to do research to support your question of whether evidence exists is a troll practice to generate hits. Do your own research.

Even NASA recognizes that the earth experiences ice ages. Those consist of glaciation and interglacials. We are currently about 12k years into the current interglacial. CO2 will have to be damned powerful to offset the cooling of the next glaciation.

5
ToldYouSo
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 3, 2026 9:01 am

“Even NASA recognizes that the earth experiences ice ages.”

Yes, and even NASA acknowledges that Earth has had about 10 consecutive glacial/interglacial cycles, all averaging to a cycle period of about 100,000 years, over the last million or so years of Earth’s climate history.

About the first third of each cycle, starting at the low point, is related to warming, while the remaining two-thirds is related to cooling and relatively briefs periods of ~constant temperature transition between the two overall trends.

So, discounting relatively brief up/down excursions that always happen within these major cycles (such as the documented Little Ice Age during the current Holocene warming and documented Dansgaard–Oeschger events), paleoclimatology history indicates that our current interglacial (“warm”) period should last about 33,000 years, yet were are only about 13,000 years into such.

1
Sonicsuns
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 3, 2026 3:19 pm

Asking people to back up their assertions with evidence is completely fair. PCman999 claims to have uncontested evidence. If that’s true, it shouldn’t be hard to post a link to this evidence.

The phrase “Do your own research” is often used to mean “Do my research for me” and/or “Believe what I tell you because I said so”

0
TheFinalNail
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 3, 2026 4:53 pm

Asking others to do research to support your question of whether evidence exists is a troll practice to generate hits. Do your own research.

In case you missed it, I was asking someone who said they had, “… uncontested science research… ” to say that, “… we’re due for a significant downturn, back to Little Ice Age.”

So I wasn’t asking anyone to do research, I was asking the person making the claim to supply a link to his, “… uncontested science…”. No such link has yet appeared, to no one’s surprise….

1
Anthony Banton
Reply to  PCman999
July 3, 2026 3:45 am

“uncontested science research says we’re due for a significant downturn, back to Little Ice Age.”

Ah, guessing that’s Valentina Zharkova ….

Correction: “uncontested” as in here.
A self-fulfilling prophecy.

“RETRACTED ARTICLE: Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

-4
bdgwx
Reply to  PCman999
July 3, 2026 7:29 am

Enjoy it while it lasts because uncontested science research says we’re due for a significant downturn, back to Little Ice Age.

Can you post a link to several of these “uncontested” research studies saying we are going back to the Little Ice Age? I would like to review them.

-4
aussiecol
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 4:00 pm

What goes up, must come down… simple analogy of the Earth’s climate history.

0
Mark Whitney
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 7:08 am

It doesn’t affect it in any way. The record in question began at the end of a cool period popularly touted at the time as a possible return to the ice age. No one is skeptical that it has warmed a bit since then. The skepticism is directed at the cause(s) and the insistent hype that it constitutes a crisis and a justification for draconian policy.

5
Eldrosion
Reply to  Mark Whitney
July 3, 2026 9:16 am

It’s more than a bit of warming, Mark.

-5
Mark Whitney
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 5:05 pm

No, it isn’t. By the best data available, it seems to have warmed a degree Celsius or so since the end of the Little Ice Age, the coolest period of the last 10,000 years, and by all accounts a particularly unpleasant climatic episode for much of the Northern Hemisphere.
The video is quaint, but it describes nothing more than changes in heat distribution. The Arctic seems to serve the purpose of a sort of thermostat/heat transfer zone. Ice comes and goes.

None of it constitutes anything particularly alarming, and certainly nothing to call a crisis. Now, if the planet suddenly stopped changing, that might be something to get yer knickers in a bunch over!

-1
bdgwx
Reply to  Mark Whitney
July 3, 2026 1:27 pm

No one is skeptical that it has warmed a bit since then.

You can’t think of even a single person that is skeptical that the Earth has warmed?

0
Mark Whitney
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 4:45 pm

No. How much, why, and on what timescale are subjects of debate. I can think of no one who insists the planet has remained the same temperature.

0
sherro01
Reply to  Mark Whitney
July 3, 2026 1:34 pm

Mark,
So what is the “cause” of the alleged T increase since 1979 when these UAH reports started?
What is the mechanism? Is it cloud cover, or change in total precipitatable water, or areas of polar ice change or improvements in instruments, or what else?
Next question: if global average temperature wanders outside the brackets of past temperatures, what triggers feedback type corrections to return it to the fold? Is there a God watching, or is there a known meteorological thermostat, or do we simply not know?
There is a variety of Rumsfeld style unknown unknowns that make it extremely dangerous for political decisions like Control Knob CO2 leading to net zero and subsidies for electric cars and brainwashing of school children.
Future generations will excoriate us for accepting garbage as gospel.
Geoff S

2
Mark Whitney
Reply to  sherro01
July 3, 2026 4:55 pm

Who knows, to all of the above? I tend to consider the planet, taken as a whole, to be relatively stable by default within a remarkably narrow range of conditions despite some rather remarkable perturbations. If that were not the case, I do not think we would be here to knock the subject about.

One cannot even be certain what future generations will think of the whole thing, if there will be any around to ponder it, or if they will have maintained a level of prosperity to waste time doing so. Humans are definitely far less stable than the planet.

0
Nicholas Schroeder
July 2, 2026 2:47 pm

+0.75 C over 37 years or 0.02 C per year.
Hardly a trend of terror.

10
johndglobal
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
July 2, 2026 3:20 pm

Err – 570 months is 47.5 years not 37 surely?

5
Mr.
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
July 2, 2026 5:56 pm

Yeah, so is all this graphing telling our UFO Aliens tourists to now expect 16C on any given spot they may land on Earth instead of the 15C they would have experienced back in 1979?

Maybe this a cunning plan by the UN / WEF to deter the forthcoming Alien invasion?

(if it works, Hollywood will be sooo pissed off. I will too. I loved those B-grade aliens sci-fi movies at the 1950s Saturday afternoon picture shows. 🙂 )

5
PCman999
Reply to  Mr.
July 2, 2026 11:01 pm

I wonder how much of the 16°C vs 15°C is due to the newer stations added in, and outlier, edge events (like a warm spell near one temperature station representative of all Antarctica, -80 vs -90).

2
TheFinalNail
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
July 3, 2026 12:50 am

+0.75 C over 37 years or 0.02 C per year.

Hardly a trend of terror.

Yet a trend which is the same as that found in all the surface data sets, within statistical margins, and one that this site and others spent years telling people didn’t even exist.

Now that it’s impossible to deny, not least because over the past 20 years UAH, darling dataset of the ‘skeptics’, has been warming slightly faster than NASA_GISS, suddenly the tone changes from, “it’s not happening” to, “yes, it’s happening; but it doesn’t matter!“

I think phase 3 of denialism is, “Ok, it is happening and it does matter; but we can’t do anything about it, so let’s just keep giving fossil fuel companies more money anyway!”

-11
Anthony Banton
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 3, 2026 3:49 am

Don’t forget, they’ve still got “UHI” and “Junk stations”. Oh, and it’s SW that is clearing clouds”.
That last thing is true but it is part of the feedback of the GHE.

-5
Bellman
July 2, 2026 4:22 pm

Third warmest June, and mean the last three years have been the three warmest June’s since at least 1979.

Warmest Junes according to UAH are now.

 2024 0.69
 2025 0.47
 2026 0.46
 1998 0.44
 2019 0.34
 2023 0.30
 2020 0.29
 2016 0.21
 1991 0.18
 2010 0.18
 2015 0.18
-9
Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
July 2, 2026 4:25 pm

Assuming an uncertainty of 0.1°C, it would be reasonable to assume that 2024 holds the record, but it’s a 3 way fight between 1998, 2025 and 2026, for 2nd place.

-1
Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
July 2, 2026 5:19 pm

A Monte Carlo run, again assuming a monthly standard uncertainty of 0.1 gives the following percentages for each Rank for June 2026 – that is the probability that this June is the warmest June, second warmest June etc.

 Rank Percent
    1     4.0
    2    28.0
    3    25.9
    4    19.4
    5    11.0
    6     5.8
    7     3.0
    8     1.5
    9     0.7
   10     0.3
   11     0.2
   12     0.1
   13     0.1

I’m surprised there’s as much as a 4% chance this could have been the warmest June, but the assumed uncertainties for UAH are quite large.

-3
Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
July 2, 2026 5:31 pm

Here’s the probability of which year had the warmest June. This run increased 2026’s odds slightly.

 Year Percent
 2024    87.6
 2025     4.8
 2026     4.2
 1998     2.9
 2019     0.3
 2020     0.1
 2023     0.1
-5
bnice2000
Reply to  Bellman
July 2, 2026 4:50 pm

The El Nino event that started mid 2023 has been a strong and protracted one..

Has it fully decayed yet.. who knows !

4
Eldrosion
Reply to  bnice2000
July 2, 2026 5:47 pm

Facts are futile with these people.

https://cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso/roni/

-5
bnice2000
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 2, 2026 7:29 pm

Your ignorance of the difference between an El Nino event…

… and the El Nino phase of ENSO.. highlighted yet again.. Well done.

4
Eldrosion
Reply to  bnice2000
July 2, 2026 8:06 pm

During bnice’s version of La Nina, cooler sea surface temperatures somehow supply just as much water vapor to the atmosphere, producing the same lower tropospheric warming as El Niño. Fascinating.

-2
bnice2000
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 2, 2026 9:03 pm

Your lack of understanding of what an El Nino event does…

… is quite hilarious. 🙂

Thanks for the laugh. 🙂

stop-digging
3
Anthony Banton
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 3:54 am

As I have often told him – he proposes a 1st LoT busting concept.
IOW: His cognitive dissonance has invented FREE energy!
Bless, what psychology does to protect the mind’s equilibrium.

-3
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 3, 2026 6:46 am

As I have often told him – he proposes a 1st LoT busting concept.

You have yet to show how water vapor warms the lower troposphere. You do realize that latent heat is not sensible therefore not measurable, right?

5
Anthony Banton
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 3, 2026 8:26 am

That has nothing to do with what I said.

-4
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 6:43 am

water vapor to the atmosphere, producing the same lower tropospheric warming 

Water vapor does not warm the lower troposphere. Much of the heat contained in water vapor is latent heat that is not sensible. When water vapor evaporates, it does so at the current temperature of the surface and effectively cools the surface.

4
Eldrosion
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 3, 2026 8:50 am

“Water vapor does not warm the lower troposphere.”

Yes, it does. By condensation.

With respect to the surface, you’re correct though.

From Dr. Spencer:

“A Note on These Tropospheric Temperature Anomalies vs. Surface Temperature Anomalies

It has been a while since I have discussed the main reason why our global monthly satellite-based tropospheric temperature anomalies can sometimes differ by quite a lot from the global monthly surface temperature anomalies. A good example is the last 2 months. In April, our +0.39 deg. C anomaly was statistically identical to the +0.38 deg. C surface temperature anomaly from the NOAA Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS, which I take from WeatherBell.com maps). But then last month (May) the CDAS anomaly went down slightly (+ 0.34 deg. C), while our UAH anomaly went up considerably (+0.53 deg. C). These month-to-month fluctuations in the relationship between surface and tropospheric temperature changes are almost certainly dominated by fluctuations in moist convective heat transfer from the surface to the free troposphere. When there is a burst of extra convection (usually in the tropics), it cools the surface and warms the free troposphere more than normal, which is probably what happened last month (May).”

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2026-0-53-deg-c/

-4
Eldrosion
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 9:34 am

Condensation –> latent heat release

-5
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 10:47 am

Condensation –> latent heat release

Condensation occurs at night when the dew point is reached by the atmosphere. It is not a major driver of temperature over most of the earth.

4
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 11:07 am

When there is a burst of extra convection (usually in the tropics), it cools the surface and warms the free troposphere more than normal, which is probably what happened last month (May).”

You don’t even know what this means do you? Where does precipitation take place in the free troposphere? Condensation is at the boundary between surface and atmosphere. Two different processes, two different results.

4
PCman999
Reply to  Bellman
July 2, 2026 11:09 pm

Thank goodness! 3rd warmest is awesome – would hate it to be the 3rd coldest, as cold kills more people than hot, roughly 7-10 times more over the world. The last few warmish years have meant bumper crops, and global prosperity is proportional to warmth.

5
Eldrosion
Reply to  PCman999
July 2, 2026 11:21 pm

“would hate it to be the 3rd coldest”

Clearly some do hate it. The skepticulzzz hoping global temperatures will cool, even though greenhouse gases like CO₂ have produced a massive positive energy imbalance that persists and continues to increase.

-6
sherro01
July 2, 2026 11:32 pm

For some years I would add an Australian perspective comment to these monthly WUWT articles. The original Roy Spencer blog has several rusted on sad people.
These perspectives stopped a few months ago because I could not see a feature interesting enough. Today, I would like to suggest that UAH Australia anomalies potentially show a climate change expressed as a cessation of earlier, periodic sharp, symmetric peak excursions in the hot direction. The last 2 1/2 years or so that looks more like a noisy random walk, with several hot excursions that do not look like the classic 1998 peak that first filled some of our minds as typical.
But then, much the same could be said for Canada, in a different hemisphere.Canada had a sharp 2020 hot that Australia did not, so there are differences. Also, Canada has deep cooling excursions in those 2 1/2 years, Australia not. US48, different again. it makes some sense to interpret Nth & Sth hemis separately, because combining them might cancel out some seasonal features.
Overall, there are two many different regional patterns to allow prognostication.
So, Geoff S is hibernating for a few more months before commenting on our regional UAH observations.
Thank you again, Dr Roy, for your brilliant contribution of this technique and for including Canada, US 48 and Australia graphs.
Geoff S

8
Eldrosion
Reply to  sherro01
July 2, 2026 11:56 pm

“had a sharp 2020 hot that Australia did not”

It depends on how you define “sharp hot.” Arguably, the entire globe is significantly hotter than it would have been without AGW.

-14
Graemethecat
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 12:25 am

How do you know the warming is anthropogenic? You don’t.

13
altipueri
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 2:24 am

Warming of 5 to 15 degrees c in less than 50 years is quite common:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Dansgaard-Oeschger-event

Among the surprises that have emerged from analyses of oxygen isotopes in ice cores (long cylinders of ice collected by drilling through glaciers and ice sheets) has been the recognition of very sudden, short-lived climate changes. Ice core records in samples extracted from Greenland, Antarctica, Canada’s Arctic Archipelago, and high mountain glaciers in South America show that these climate changes have been large, very rapid, and globally synchronous. Over a period of a few years to a few decades, average temperatures have shifted by up to half of the temperature differences seen between the Pleistocene ice ages and their interglacial periods—that is, as much as 5–15 °C (9–27 °F). Although some scientists note that there may have been up to 25 D-O events during the most recent 120,000 years, detailed analyses of the most accurately dated Greenland ice cores show that 13 D-O events occurred between 11,600 and 45,000 years ago, with an average periodicity of 1,470 years. This regular occurrence has led to the suggestion of a 1,500-year cycle of climate change.

7
Eldrosion
Reply to  altipueri
July 3, 2026 2:28 am

From your link:

“Evidence of Dansgaard-Oeschger events is primarily observed in and around the North Atlantic Ocean, specifically in Greenland ice cores.”

So, Greenland and not the globe.

Polar regions naturally experience much larger climate variability than the global average. Greenland warming by 5–15°C over a few decades is not equivalent to global mean temperature changing by 5–15°C over the same period.

Not to mention these events occurred during the last glacial period, when massive Northern Hemisphere ice sheets and much lower atmospheric CO2 created a climate state very different from today’s.

-6
altipueri
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 6:22 am

Well there aren’t any ice cores to drill on the equator are there?

Natural variation is much greater than seen by a couple of human life spans.

There is no climate crisis.

6
Phil.
Reply to  altipueri
July 3, 2026 8:44 am

Well there is one on Mt Kilimanjaro which is at 3ºN

0
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 6:54 am

You seem to be saying that all proxies are only applicable to the local areas from which they come. That would even cover temperatures too I suspect. Taking an unusual hot spell in Great Britian and averaging with a cooler temperature in Brazil would show global warming, right?

The logic behind your assertion escapes me.

5
Eldrosion
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 3, 2026 9:10 am

“Taking an unusual hot spell in Great Britian and averaging with a cooler temperature in Brazil would show global warming, right?”

No.

-3
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 10:37 am

So you agree, averaging temperatures whether from a proxy or a thermometer is meaningless.

3
Eldrosion
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 3, 2026 12:34 pm

No.

I simply disagree that averaging a warm anomaly in Great Britain with a cool anomaly in Brazil would somehow demonstrate global warming.

At most, it would describe the average temperature anomaly of those two locations over whatever time interval you’re referring to.

What color is the sky in your reality? It must be fascinating living in a world where Brazil and Great Britain apparently represent the entire planet.

-4
bnice2000
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 12:52 pm

The entire plant has cooled slightly in June, and a whole lot over the last two years.

Must be CO2. !

1
Eldrosion
Reply to  bnice2000
July 3, 2026 1:23 pm

I like apples.

-2
Phil R
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 9:46 am

Since there is no such thing as a global mean temperature your comment is meaningless.

And thanks for pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that the climate is very different between when continental ice sheets are present and when they’re not. No other commenter on this site could have known that without you pointing it out.

3
bdgwx
Reply to  Phil R
July 3, 2026 1:01 pm

Since there is no such thing as a global mean temperature your comment is meaningless.

UAH says the global mean TL temperature for June was 264.64 K.

-1
karlomonte
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 2:06 pm

To five significant digits … does this tell you anything?

-2
Bellman
Reply to  karlomonte
July 3, 2026 2:36 pm

Write it as -8.51°C, then it’s only three significant figures. Much more acceptable.

0
karlomonte
Reply to  Bellman
July 3, 2026 4:42 pm

The UAH uses absolute temperatures (as they should) — 10 mK out of 264 K requires a precision of 0.004%; that you can’t see how absurd it is to get this level out of microwave radiance measurements is just another indication of your lack of any real metrology experience.

-1
Phil R
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 2:59 pm

There’s no such thing as “climate” either. You can comment on that if you want.

1
Eldrosion
Reply to  Phil R
July 3, 2026 3:18 pm

“There’s no such thing as “climate” either.”

Anthony Watts thinks there is.

-3
TheFinalNail
Reply to  sherro01
July 3, 2026 2:31 am

The last 2 1/2 years or so that looks more like a noisy random walk, with several hot excursions that do not look like the classic 1998 peak that first filled some of our minds as typical.

I looked at the rolling centred 30-year decadal trends in UAH_AUS (Dec 1978-Jun 2026) and found they had an average warming rate of +0.19 (+/- 0.02 1SD) C/dec over the full period. That 30-year trend has never fallen below +0.14 nor exceeded +0.23 C/dec (to two decimal places).

The most recent 30-year period (Jul 1996-Jun 2026) is currently on the high end at +0.23 C/dec; still, this looks like a fairly consistent long-term pattern of warming rather than a series of short-term “random walks”.

Screenshot-2026-07-03-102954
-2
Tim Gorman
Reply to  sherro01
July 3, 2026 7:36 am

“it makes some sense to interpret Nth & Sth hemis separately, because combining them might cancel out some seasonal features.”

What you are describing is a multi-modal distribution when all the data is combined into a global data set. The mean of a multi-modal distribution is usually considered to be useless. The five statistics books I have here all say that with a multi-modal distribution the modes should be analyzed separately. It’s the only way to pinpoint changes that affect the mean.

The differing variances are a clue that different processes are involved in each grouping. Different processes can, many times, indicate different means exist thus making the data multi-modal. You can compensate for differing variances using various weighting techniques. Not so for differing means.

I can’t find where climate science uses weighting by variance groupings to calculate an average. Can anyone point to where this is done for UAH?

(note: different variances imply different measurement uncertainty for the mean. Smaller variances are considered to be more accurate and should be weighted more heavily than larger variance groups.)

5
bdgwx
July 3, 2026 6:50 am

The new Monckton Pause extends to 42 months starting in 2023/01. The average of this pause is 0.54 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 0.33 C higher than the previous one.

+0.157 ± 0.037 C.decade-1 k=2 is the trend from 1979/01 to 2026/06 covering 570 values.

+0.026 ± 0.009 C.decade-2 k=2 is the acceleration of the trend.

-5
bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 6:58 am

comment image

-3
bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 7:08 am

The IRI ENSO ensemble forecast page is undergoing changes. They removed the data table so I have to eyeball the graph. It looks like they are starting to switch things over to RONI though so I’m hoping they’ll bring back the data table once that is complete.

Anyway, there have been no excursions outside the expectation envelop recently with UAH TLT behaving pretty much inline with expectation. We should continue to expect a general increase in temperature as the El Nino takes hold and UAH TLT starts responding later this year.

-2
bnice2000
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 12:54 pm

You use CO2 , without any proof that CO2 causes warming, and totally neglect the increase in absorbed solar radiation.

You chart is meaningless.

3
karlomonte
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 7:15 am

The milli-Kelvin “error bars” return…

2
bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 7:16 am

The Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is running close to +1.5 W.m-2. Given the high EEI expect UAH TLT values to generally push higher at a rate faster than the overall trend from 1979. Since the start of Monckton’s previous pause in 2014 the trend has been +0.33 C.decade-1.

comment image

-5
Eldrosion
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 9:04 am

Really concerning.

And the Earth still has to equilibrate. It can’t fully do that while atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise. As long as net CO2 emissions remain positive, the climate system is still being pushed away from equilibrium.

It will probably continue warming for a very long time.

-6
bdgwx
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 12:57 pm

Assuming a modest 0.5 C per W.m-2 sensitivity means we have 0.7 C of warming in the pipeline without any additional forcing applied. The consilience of evidence says that the sensitivity is probably higher than 0.5 C per W.m-2.

-3
bnice2000
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 3, 2026 1:01 pm

CO2 makes absolutely no measurable difference to movement of energy in the atmosphere.

Any tiny mythical or theoretical radiative effect is totally dwarfed by energy movement by bulk air movement.

2
Eldrosion
Reply to  bnice2000
July 3, 2026 1:29 pm

Yes, it does. CO2 absorbs and emits IR, including back toward the surface.

And no. Bulk air movement doesn’t eliminate the role of radiation. Convection and latent heat transfer redistribute energy within the atmosphere, but they require a material medium. Radiation is the only mechanism by which the Earth can exchange heat with space. Ultimately, all the energy the Earth gains from the Sun must leave via infrared radiation.

-3
ToldYouSo
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 10:15 am

“The Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is running close to +1.5 W.m-2.”

Given that:

a) the surface-averaged solar insolation for Earth (given for TOA) is about 340 W/m^2, and

b) the TOA solar insolation varies by about 6.9% (or 23.5 W/m^2) just due to Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun, and

c) our best science today can establish change in total Earth cloud coverage (realized as a change in Earth’s total albedo) at any given time only to an accuracy of about +/- 2%, equivalent to +/- 6.8 W/m^2, and

d) the chart that you presented above, covering less that 30 years of data, shows unexplained, rapid (occurring over four or fewer months) monthly anomaly variations of up to 3.3 W/m^2 ,

it is ridiculous for anyone to claim knowing an actual EEI to a value of 1.5 W/m^2.

Of course, anyone can claim the ability to calculate such a numerical value, but that is something altogether different from reality.

6
Jim Gorman
Reply to  ToldYouSo
July 3, 2026 10:31 am

Not only that but attribute the difference in radiation at TOA only to CO2 is a bridge too far. The oceans store much more heat than the atmosphere ever could. Any heat that is stored in the oceans will of course cause less out, than put in. The time spans for storage can far exceed any averages being calculated.

3
bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 3, 2026 1:42 pm

I’m curious…how do you feel about that 340 W.m-2 value? I’m asking because you and your brother said it was 552 W.m-2 and so I expected you to take issue with it.

Oh BTW…insolation is an intensive property. Do you still maintain that being an intensive property any average would be useless and meaningless? If so how do you reconcile your position above?

-3
Eldrosion
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 1:49 pm

“ If so how do you reconcile your position above?”

He probably can’t.

-3
Phil R
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 3, 2026 3:03 pm

Jim, if they didn’t build a bridge too far they couldn’t get to the other side of the apocalypse.

0
bdgwx
Reply to  ToldYouSo
July 3, 2026 12:47 pm

CERES uncertainty is between 0.2 and 0.5 W.m-2 depending on the time period. [Loeb et al. 2018] [Loeb et al. 2022] [Loeb et al. 2024] In-situ measurements are closer to 0.1 W.m-2. [Schuckmann et al. 2020]

-3
karlomonte
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 10:27 am

No uncertainty limits in graph: D-minus.

1
bnice2000
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 12:57 pm

Great match to absorbed solar radiation..

Well done. You finally figured it out.

absorbed-solar-radiation
2
bnice2000
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 1:04 pm

The real cause of this century’s warming is solar radiation.

CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Absorbed-solar-radiation-increases-due-to-downward-trends-in-cloud-cover-drive-2000-to-2022-warming-Loeb-2024
3
Phil R
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2026 3:01 pm

Hmmm…and average of an average of an average. If you keep going, you could make it a straight line.

1
wpdiscuz   wpDiscuz

Related Posts

Lower Troposphere Temperature

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for May, 2026: +0.53 deg. C

1 month ago
Guest Blogger
Lower Troposphere Temperature

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for April, 2026: +0.39 deg. C

2 months ago
Guest Blogger
Lower Troposphere Temperature

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for March, 2026: +0.38 deg. C

3 months ago
Guest Blogger
Lower Troposphere Temperature

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for February, 2026: +0.39 deg. C

4 months ago
Guest Blogger