UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for August, 2026: +0.68 deg. C

Milo

September 3, 2026 2:14 pm

El Niño kicking in, but still cooler than 2024.

2

Nick Stokes

Reply to Milo

September 3, 2026 2:31 pm

In Aug 2024, the El Niño had maxxed in April and was on the way down. A better comparison is with Aug 2023, when, as now, the El Niño was building. Then T was 0.61°C, now 0.68°C.

5

Mr.

Reply to Nick Stokes

September 3, 2026 3:27 pm

It’s nearly freezing everywhere now?
Almost down to zero?
Jeez, I’ll stop the air conditioner pumping away at 21C then.
(Lousy weather forecasts we’re getting on the tv now – too much color saturation!)

1

Phillip Chalmers

Reply to Mr.

September 3, 2026 5:01 pm

We are coming out of one of the most uncomfortable year for a decade, the entire summer was so cool we never once turned on our air-conditioners and the whole winter has been cold, overcast and rainy with surprisingly fewer frosts.
I am talking from the eastern mountain range just below the Qld/NSW border in Eastern Australia.

7

Tombstone Gabby

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

September 4, 2026 6:22 pm

The “New England Tableland” – a very pretty place to visit.

Me? Shotover Range, southwest of Rockhampton, September 1963. The creek was about 8″ deep, 20 feet across. Six inches of ice on both sides first thing in the morning. (Oil exploration, fly camp. I was a few years younger then.)

An ‘aside’: according to AEMO, at 1500hrs, August 4. 2026, electrical generation was 60% ‘renewables’.

0

leefor

Reply to Nick Stokes

September 3, 2026 10:14 pm

And Australia August 23 was +1.25, now +0.39. That’s cooler.
But I know it is supposed to be GLOBULL. 😉

1

Milo

Reply to Nick Stokes

September 4, 2026 12:45 pm

The prediction is for Super El Niño this year, as in 1998 and 2016.

-1

sherro01

Reply to Nick Stokes

September 4, 2026 3:32 pm

Nick,
Measurement uncertainty estimates were?
Geoff S

1

Nick Stokes

Reply to sherro01

September 4, 2026 4:15 pm

Geoff,
This is so mechanical and tiresome. If you are really concerned with uncertainty, take it up with Roy. They are his figures that WUWT is promoting here.

-3

karlomonte

Reply to Nick Stokes

September 4, 2026 9:48 pm

You misspelled “publishing”.

0

Eldrosion

Reply to karlomonte

September 4, 2026 9:50 pm

Would you like specific examples of Anthony Watts promoting UAH? I can provide them.

0

ToldYouSo

September 3, 2026 2:18 pm

Uh, oh . . . “global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2026 was +0.68 deg. C . . . up from the July, 2026 value of +0.48 deg. C”. That’s +0.20 deg-C in just one month . . . and please note that I’m honoring keeping the precision-of-measurement to the nearest .01 degree-C!

I’m telling you, it’s got to be all that stratospheric water injected by the January 2022 Hunga-Tonga eruption that’s finally showing up . . . again!

But wait, maybe it’s really just the onset of the dreaded, sure-to-be-catastrophic Super El Nino?

Or perhaps the direct result of so very few hurricanes-to-date in the Atlantic?

Or maybe, just maybe, it’s because we did finally break through the IPCC declared tipping point of exceeding pre-industrial global temperatures by 1.5 deg-C? The end is neigh.

Another possibility: the result of all those recent heat waves in Europe and North America (but then, is it cause or effect?)?

Maybe a warning sign that too many data centers are being put into operation around the planet too quickly?

So very many options to choose from!

6

TheFinalNail

Reply to ToldYouSo

September 4, 2026 12:04 am

… please note that I’m honoring keeping the precision-of-measurement to the nearest .01 degree-C!

Given that it’s an average of millions to billions of passive microwave radiometer observations, the level of precision is modest.

If you check any decent currency exchange site you’ll see figures quoted to four or five decimal places for any given moment on the basis of far less data.

-13

karlomonte

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 6:37 am

Numbers is numbers!

0

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 7:01 am

Money precision is not the same as scientific precision.

You know this. You are merely trolling.

Scientific notation makes it very, very clear that the computed result can not a precision no greater than the least precise value used in the computation.

1 + 2.1 = 3
1.0 + 2.1 = 3.1

3

ToldYouSo

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 7:26 am

“Given that it’s an average of millions to billions of passive microwave radiometer observations, the level of precision is modest.”

Gee, I never knew (even imagined) that precision-of-measurement was dependent on the number of measurements. You need to publish immediately on this statistical mathematics claim!

“If you check any decent currency exchange site you’ll see figures quoted to four or five decimal places for any given moment on the basis of far less data.”

You’re serious in claiming the precision used for currency values justifies the asserted precision of satellite-derived temperature measurements? Seriously??? Talk about apples-to-oranges!

In comparison, consider the following:
— The highest number of significant figures for a non-trivial measured physical constant is 12 to 13 significant figures, achieved by constants like the Rydberg constant and specific atomic transition frequencies (Ref [1] (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/497087/what-is-the-most-precise-physical-measurement-ever-performed ), [2] (https://chem-textbook.ucalgary.ca/version2/appendices/appendix-fundamental-physical-constants/ ), [3] (https://phys.org/news/2024-12-electron-energy-fundamental-constants.html )
— Fine-Structure Constant: Its inverse is measured to 12 significant figures (approximately 137.035999206) using rubidium atom interferometry and quantum electrodynamics
— Hydrogen Hyperfine Transition (21 cm line): Measured directly to about 13 significant figures (1420405751.7667 Hz)

Of course all of these examples of measurement precision are based on far, far less than “millions to billions” of measurements. That’s science for you.

ROTFL!

4

karlomonte

Reply to ToldYouSo

September 4, 2026 7:29 am

Gee, I never knew (even imagined) that precision-of-measurement was dependent on the number of measurements.

Another climastrologer/trendologist pushing the magic of averaging.

0

karlomonte

Reply to karlomonte

September 4, 2026 8:01 am

The climastrologer/trendologist being TFN, just to be sure.

1

Graemethecat

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 11:59 am

Precision is NOT accuracy.

2

Jim Gorman

Reply to Graemethecat

September 4, 2026 3:56 pm

I just can’t believe educated scientists let this type of mumbo jumbo go on in climate science. My professors would have chewed me up. The Challenger exploded because we didn’t take enough measurements. Bridges collapse because we don’t take enough measurements. The satellite that missed Mars entirely did so because we didn’t take enough measurements. LOL.

I could go on, but these folks simply don’t understand the epistemological difference between preciseness, accuracy, and resolution in measurement versus the statistical fantasy that more measurements allow one to put those real, physical measurement characteristics in the trash bin.

1

Jim Gorman

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 3:36 pm

Given that it’s an average of millions to billions of passive microwave radiometer observations, the level of precision is modest.

Precision describes how tightly repeated measurements cluster together. It reflects random variation — the small, unpredictable differences that occur even when measuring the same thing under the same conditions.

A highly precise instrument (note that means just one instrument, not several) gives nearly identical readings each time. An imprecise instrument produces a spread of values. Precision does not guarantee accuracy: an instrument can be consistently wrong but has high precision.

Precision matters because it determines how stable and repeatable your measurements are. Even without a full statistical treatment, recognizing the presence of random variation helps you understand why repeated readings differ and why no single measurement should be treated as exact.

Precision includes the following measurement processes:

repeatability (same operator, same conditions)
reproducibility (different operators, conditions)

Precision is important in assessing uncertainty that exists in a measurement. When measuring the same thing under the same conditions and you obtain consistent readings in the tenths digit, then the instrument is no doubt very precise at that resolution.

However, if the readings vary in the hundredths digit, it is not precise at that resolution. Variation in the hundredths digit indicates that the random component of uncertainty is at least one hundredth. Any readings of values beyond the hundredths digit are spurious and unknowable regardless of the number of readings being averaged.

The other two pieces of a measurement are accuracy and resolution.

You should be aware that comparing different instruments and their readings of different things does not allow one to add precision to readings. UAH does use different satellites and certainly measures different things. Your assertion that millions of readings being averaged can somehow change the characteristics of precision that an instrument has is folly.

If millions of readings being averaged can add decimal places to a measurement, then why do we need micrometers or laser measurements? A number of readings with a yardstick would suffice for most machine shops.

Here is a question for you. If averaging can add decimal places, what rule do you use to decide how many decimal places are too many?

2

sherro01

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 3:43 pm

Terminologically, precision relates to the spread of values about the mean, when as much as possible is kept constant.
Accuracy is the term for how close that mean is to the best determined expectation of that mean.
The key question here is “Is this reported temperature accurate?”
The answer at this time is that we do not know because there are no other methods of measurement that are comparable.
This is a “hard” science response. Geoff S

1

Whetten Robert L

September 3, 2026 2:22 pm

Thanks for that specification: Tropics as lying within ±20 degrees [N/S latitudes]
My early-morning-y’day post was error-filled, to which [we] must add, Es irrt der Mensch, solang man strebt [‘One errs, [only] as long as he strives’ — The Legend of Doktor Faustus — Goethe]
But this afternoon, being again clear-headed, I would like to share, with Drs. Spencer & Christy, the following brief Tropical-Topics-Transcriptions, enquiring for one Dr. A. Friend:

0. True or false — “If I was young enough, I would invest in a coconut palm farm on the north coast of Alaska”? Oops, that one was a pro-tip from an Investment Advisor, ‘Limited’-(LLC)-was-his-Name-Oh.

1. Your “Linear Trend +0.14 C per decade” label seems a bit high for the Tropical Lower Troposphere, as compared to the portrayal posted by R. Clutz ‘Observations from Radiosondes, 20 S – 20 N, 1979-2015)’, from which one may eyeball these stats (slopes)
+0.08 C (± 0.05) per decade (at ~850 mbar / 85 kPa)
+0.10 C (± 0.06) per decade (~70 kPa)
+0.12 C (± 0.06) … (~50 kPa)
…
+0.17 C (± 0.05) … (~32-kPa)
Could this difference (+0.14 C >> +0.08 C) reflect mainly the effective altitude zone of your thermometry (weighted twd mid / upper)?
2. Of course, that one (#1.) concerns primarily the legendary ‘Stability of the Tropical Lower Troposphere’, aka the (missing) Hot Spot (thermal runaway) evident in the output (predictions) of nearly every GCM run, especially the +0.50 C [±?!?] C per decade associated with the Manabe-Hansen et al. camps (Charney ’79 & ever-since) but moreover …* [Lost my train of thought here, must refer to notes*]
3. Is it true that your Satellite-based microwave spectrometers yield ‘meaningful’ readings ONLY during clear-sky (non-stormy) and / or nocturnal conditions? One recalls reading such a stipulation in your publications, and regret having to pose such a pesky question today.
(Always pleased to be directed to the relevant documentation.)
————
Gratefully-sincerely-&-respectfully yours,
— RLW
*P.S. [Recovered note – transcription for #2. above] One suspects that the IR-Catastrophe (‘HotSpot’) Problem (afflicting GCM parametrizers) is even worse, were that possible, in the Rainy Season of the Tropical Lower Troposphere. That within said limited (LTD) Zone & Season, the change is effectively null, ~ +0.01 C (±0.01) per decade, below +5-km altitude (> 55 kPa). Have inferred such insight from an ancient posted dialogue Spencer-Eschenbach. [Something also about diminishing lapse-rates associated thereunto]

0

RickWill

Reply to Whetten Robert L

September 3, 2026 3:20 pm

If the current El Nino persists, the Nino34 trend will turn positive for the satellite era. To June the trend was still minus but well within any measurement error of flat. No climate model can replicate a flat trend in the Nino34 region for the last 45 years.

Climate modellers maintain the belief that cloud parameterisation is useful. It avoids understanding the microphysics of atmospheric ice formation.

5

Whetten Robert L

Reply to RickWill

September 3, 2026 4:51 pm

Much obliged for this delightful factoid, as served with a source (link), beyond the UAH.
Also for this declaration: “No climate [GCM] model [has yielded] a flat [null] trend in the Nino34 region [over] the last 45 years.” ( +47 years now, post-Charney ), post
So, a (~zero) trend, or ~ –0.01 per decade, in the Satellite Era (c/2) for Region Niño3.4.
Region encompasses 120-170W and (-)5S to (+)5N, is that right?
So it serves as an excellent proxy for [the stability of] the tropical equatorial zone, despite (or because of) its proximity (exaggerated)to the Ring-of-Fire volcanic zone.
Proviso: Is it clear whether this applies ‘all the way up’ or only at / near sea-level / SST?
A reduction in ‘lapse rate’ (per J Bastardi)would require warming aloft (> +0.01 C/dec?)

Whereas Christy & Spencer specify their [equatorial] Tropics belt as (0,360) and within ±20 N/S, as compared to other conventions (± 22.5 N/S, or even ±30 N/S) … a vastly larger region that may include the wet-tropical highlands of E Africa & the lowlands of Amazonia, plus the Maritime Continent nearer to your home-base, no?

Please comment further, as you are able, and [until then], gratefully yours,
[the other] RW

0

Milo

Reply to RickWill

September 3, 2026 8:23 pm

It allows the effect of clouds to be whatever the modeler, ie computer gamer, wants it to be.

2

Whetten Robert L

Reply to RickWill

September 4, 2026 11:33 pm

the Niño3.4 trend … to June the trend was still minus but well within … error of flat [zero].

Speaking (as he does) from an observational meteorology stance, Mr Bastardi (Joe) of weatherbell.com has stated repeatedly that we are in an era of ‘permanent [La]Niña‘ (negative trends of temperature over time, in this prime ENSO region).

By which he means that successive positive (Niño) events start from an ever-declining baseline.

I think we can understand what his phrases mean — after all, he is pointing to charts (graphs) that should be publicly available for inspection — while still rejecting the implication …

… because it runs directly counter to the Satellite trends (which JB also highlights) for the TLT (tropics) more broadly, as captured by the second Figure presented by Spencer-Christy this week (above), in which …

… the slope (+0.14 C per decade) is clearly noted as positive, not nearly ‘flat [zero]’ much less negative / downtrending.

So it seems like another case of Why Temperature (as averaged & reported) is a Deceptive Metric, unless there’s some huge disjunction between the Zones sampled either in altitude-range, as questioned above, or lati- and longtitude, or both / all (3).

Most vexing is the hard-to-discern step or sequence in the averaging: at what stage are the implied subtractions of (against) seasonal or other norms.

‘Unsettled’ is the feeling one is left with from even the best reporting of trends.

Which is probably why they (reports) are followed by expert requests to ‘share the code’ or inspect-the-algorithm, not so much by intention to question or to repeat (recalculate) the results, but simply to determine whether one has (mis)understood what the writer has attempted to convey.

Struggling to know, am I making sense here, or does this also read like some *AI*-generated gibberish?

amgreatness.com/2026/09/04/great-writers-arent-obsolete-ai-makes-them-more-valuable-than-ever/

0

Bellman

September 3, 2026 2:26 pm

Second warmest August

1 2024 0.75 2 2026 0.68 3 2023 0.61 4 1998 0.39 5 2025 0.39 6 2016 0.32 7 2020 0.30 8 2017 0.29 9 2019 0.25 10 2022 0.24

Looking likely that 2026 will finish close to 2025 for annual average. Probably 2nd or 3rd warmest year on record.

-10

ToldYouSo

Reply to Bellman

September 3, 2026 2:43 pm

Needed correction: second warmest August since 1979, the start of UAH satellite-derived GLAT measurements/records.

Ummmmm . . . that would represent considering just 47 years (or 0.4%) of the last 12,000 or so years since Earth entered into to current Holocene interglacial period.

Please get back to me when you are willing to consider “the bigger picture”.

8

Bellman

Reply to ToldYouSo

September 3, 2026 3:24 pm

Credit people with a bit of intelligence. The post is about UAH data. You can probably guess that my comment was about UAH data.

If you have data that says exactly what the anomaly was during every month of the last 12000 years, then by all means tell us how this month ranked over that period.

The usefulness of UAH and the other data sets is that they tell us what is happening now and in the recent past.

-8

ToldYouSo

Reply to Bellman

September 3, 2026 3:47 pm

“You can probably guess that my comment was about UAH data.”

Hah! No need for me to guess as I specifically stated ” . . . second warmest August since 1979, the start of UAH satellite-derived GLAT measurements/records.“

But maybe you simply did not understand what that means? Seems to reinforce my comment about you missing “the big picture”.

BTW, it is a logical fallacy to state a position/point and then require another person to provide data to confirm/discredit your position beyond what you yourself stated. Debating 101.

7

Bellman

Reply to ToldYouSo

September 3, 2026 3:54 pm

“No need for me to guess…”

Why is everyone so literal minded. Let me rephrase my comment.

Most will probably assume that my comment was about UAH data.

-12

Phil R

Reply to Bellman

September 3, 2026 5:51 pm

The first rule of holes is, when you’re in one stop digging.

2

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 7:07 am

The language of science absolutely requires precise, concise definitions.

Using common/social language context derived definitions creates a serious signal to noise ratio problem in the communications.

Why is everyone so literal minded? Because it is proper in science and engineering to be so.

1

Phillip Chalmers

Reply to Bellman

September 3, 2026 5:08 pm

all who use “anomaly” are talking bullshit.
Normality is subjective, there is no evidence that the weather for the last 100 years is the optimal weather for the earth for all time.
Other words difference drop rise all do the job much better

5

Bellman

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

September 3, 2026 5:15 pm

“all who use “anomaly” are talking bullshit.”

Good to know your opinion on Dr Spencer.

1

JohnC

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 12:52 am

I must admit that using anomaly in these reports is itself an anomaly. An anomaly in data is a datum that unexpectedly stands out from the rest, like the datum labelled WOW in the SETI (?) data set.

1

Jim Gorman

Reply to JohnC

September 4, 2026 6:17 am

It is just some more evidence climate science bastardizing the traditional use of a physical concept. And, in this case, it is even bastardizing what statisticians define an anomaly to be.

1

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to JohnC

September 4, 2026 7:11 am

Correct. Using the delta between short time averages versus long term averages is not identifying anomalies.

This is another case of the Trans-Reality Lexicon hijacking a word and changing the useful meaning into something they can use to promote one side of a debate.

Common language is fluid. Language is STEM subjects requires concise definitions.

2

bdgwx

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

September 4, 2026 12:21 pm

This is another case of the Trans-Reality Lexicon hijacking a word and changing the useful meaning into something they can use to promote one side of a debate.

So your criticism of Dr. Spencer’s work boils down to the choice of words he uses to describe the product provided as opposed to the methods, procedures, and concepts in play?

I invite you to propose a new word that you find less offensive on Dr. Spencer’s blog. Who knows…maybe he’ll give you the time of day and hear you out.

2

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to bdgwx

September 4, 2026 1:39 pm

Just for the record, I was definitely not criticizing Dr. Spencer or anyone else.

I was commenting on the abuse of language.

1

Whetten Robert L

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

September 4, 2026 5:24 am

“anomaly” [as] talk-B.S.

Prefer ‘Deviation’ >> ‘Anomaly’, anytime anywhere.
It’s not just for Deviants; it’s for everyone, especially in Maths.
The verb ‘to deviate’ prompts the right question –
From what (Norm) does this Measure deviate?
cf. ‘deflect’, ‘differ’ or ‘differentiate’, ‘divert’, do ‘depart’ from the ‘norm’.
Plus ‘Anomalous’ sounds like ‘Anonymous’, being the enemy of trust.
‘A-Nom’ means ‘No-Name’, Name-Negated.
A-words in English had better have positive content: Ago, Apace, Afar, Away, Afoot, Aghast, (but maybe not) Adore & Abhor, Abjure
Bad practice phonetically (in Indo-European languages) to start with an “A-“, <=> “No-Ne-Nah-Nada-Null-&-Void, Negatory”
Examples (from a former life): The slippery slope from Nano[Nah-Noh]-Science to Non-Science to Non-Sense.

1

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Whetten Robert L

September 4, 2026 1:38 pm

Anomalies was chosen because of its association with abnormal.

1

Whetten Robert L

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

September 4, 2026 2:15 pm

Abnomaly. Anormally.
It’s all clear now!

0

Whetten Robert L

Reply to Whetten Robert L

September 4, 2026 11:49 pm

Sparta Nova 4: we checked that the common German verb zu ablenken (or abzulenken / lenken ab) indeed translates as ‘to distract, deflect, [or] divert’, so I see where your ‘Ab-‘ <=> ‘A-‘ association is coming from. Ab-normal as deviant , or diverted (away) from normal(cy)

0

Whetten Robert L

Reply to Bellman

September 3, 2026 5:30 pm

If you have … the anomaly in the last 12,000 years

Alright, we’ve checked the records that show: Just at -6 ka (six short millennia ago or halfway across your ‘12,000 years’ challenge) …

… Why, we can practically remember that day when [somewhere along coastal Thailand] Mother-Eve worked joyfully at the Eden-Gardens commune, fitting her first set of fig-leaf undies & sponge-sandals.

Besides & in the lagoon, & all around, it was a moist +28 celsius all that absolutely globally-averaged day, or [deviation aka anomaly] +9.00±0.01 degrees celsius (vs. +0.90 degrees today) on the UAH tropical-lower-troposphere scale, meaning she had to stay near the shady lagoon, most of the daytime hours, awaiting the gathering cloud-cover & its cooling showers.

“Good thing,” she consoled herself, “that we haven’t been evicted from this Garden-Paradise into the dry-barren-cold-world of thousands-years hence, …

… With the sea-level 10′ lower, and we’re out there exposed, earning our bread by the sweat of our brows under the blazing hot sun, then freezing in the dark all icy-winter-long, burning deadwood just to stay alive … bearing our children in pain, and all the rest!

Now then, where was that Tree-of-all-Knowledge-Climatical with its lovely ripe fruit? Ah, the serpents Manabe-Hansen will help me find it.”

And that, according to Prof F. Q. Gumpf, is what we can conclude, from best available records*, about how it actually was, back then & there at the Holocene-Climate-Optimum Yacht Club (proprietor: one Father-Adam, the mariner- & fisherman-extraordinaire).

*Seriously, the local cave’s stalactites & -mites, drip-drip-dripping at their isotopically differentiated rates, as modulated by the local temperature.

0

Whetten Robert L

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 3:45 pm

Let’s say there is a certain special person, not necessarily this diligent ‘Bellman’ fellow (who we believe exists) but perhaps the code ‘BM’ could serve for his a-NOM-ally de Guerre (War-Ally No-Name).
Anyway, he is a sincere ‘numbers-guy’, quite demanding both of details and of context, in every matter.
And so, this one fine day he demands that [we] state The Temperature of the Earth, at our choice of date & time. It goes something like this:

BM: If you have data that says exactly [the temperature (as deviation), at some point] during the last 12,000 years, then by all means tell us!

Us: Okay. At the surface of the Earth? How about now?
BM: Yes. And Yes.
Us: Okay, it’s 21-degrees Celsius, right here on Earth, right now.
BM: State your Source, with precision.
Us: Well, today, 3rd of Sept., it reads ~ 21.18 C, or about 70 F. That’s a deviation of +0.94 C over the ‘Climatology 1982 – 2010’ Average, for the Daily Sea-Surface Temperature (SST), over the range ±60 (N/S) in latitude.
BM: Why the Sea?
Us: It has a surface, it’s at sea-level.
BM: Why not Land?
Us: No thanks, not really; doesn’t flow much; so we never touch the stuff.
BM: Why not latitudes > |60| S/N?
Us: Sea Ice is a good insulator. It’s always -2 C below, i.e. at the actual Sea Surface, if that’s what you want.
BM: Sure. Correct for that.
Us: Alright, take 3.75 C off the 21.18 C, to obtain ~ 17.5 C ±, and leave be the deviation.
BM: That’s quite a rapid rate of change, +0.94 C over ~ 3 decades.
Us: If you say so. It’s certainly warming somewhere.
BM: What do you mean by that?
Us: Well, in the warm Tropical (Equatorial) Zone, latitude < |±30 N/S|, there’s been no change at all, always around ~ or a bit of cooling, 26.70 C down to 26.65 C, that’s -0.05 C per decade. Extra-Tropical, a big temperature increase, sure, on its yr-round avg. Polar, loads of heat (energy, or enthalpy) but zero temperature rise, zero sea-level rise.
BM: [Seems alarmed, for the first time] What?!?
Us: That’s how it works. Look it up under ‘Latent Heat-of-Fusion (melting)’
BM: Well, then, I shall certainly do so. Just one final question: What’s the ultimate future temperature of this so-called [checks notes] ‘SST’ measure?
Us: Future? Now that will cost you dearly [checks the ice-crystal ball]. Assuming we can green & irrigate the lands, and re-fertilize & unclog the seaways, then the Tropics should be around +29 C, year-around, the extra-tropics ~ +22 C, while each pole swings seasonally between -2 and +28 (avg. +13 C). Global average SST should work out to ~ 22 or 23 C, or ~ 72 F. Up about +5 C vs. the present-day ~ 17.5 C [Sotto voce: Just don’t say Return to the Eo-Cen-o-zöic-Optimum, Buddy!]
BM: Hah! That sounds to me like a Runaway Greenhouse Warming, a veritable Infrared Catastrophe straight into Hot-House-Hades! You are my Brother-in-Arms, indeed. Much obliged.
Us: Any time you like. Have a Nice Day, Mr. BM. And please deposit your cheque (my usual fee), at the door.

1

Mr.

Reply to Bellman

September 3, 2026 3:31 pm

Maybe where you are, certainly not where I am.
It’s been a goldilocks summer.

8

Bellman

Reply to Mr.

September 3, 2026 3:50 pm

It’s a global average – not “where I am”. We won’t know the exact pattern of the anomalies until the gridded data is uploaded.

As it happens though, it’s definitely been very hot “where I am” in Southern England.

-5

bnice2000

Reply to Bellman

September 3, 2026 4:12 pm

“As it happens though, it’s definitely been very hot “where I am” in Southern England.”

So you have had some fine warm WEATHER for a change..

Enjoy it while you can.

2

Phillip Chalmers

Reply to bnice2000

September 3, 2026 5:12 pm

and it has been quite unusually cold here where my farm is located

2

Mr.

Reply to Bellman

September 3, 2026 4:14 pm

“Very hot”?

I had a spell of high 30C days in London in 1990, and you Poms were staggering around like you were in 50C in the UAE in the desert outside Dubai (where I went next, and I’ll admit THAT was f’n HOT!)

But 35C – 39C? Enjoy!!

2

Eldrosion

Reply to Mr.

September 3, 2026 4:18 pm

Yes, we know you like to cherry-pick regional anomalies, weather, etc. and present them as though they cast doubt on global warming.

-7

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Eldrosion

September 4, 2026 7:14 am

Catnip.

We are laughing at you.

Your post is to ridiculous to warrant further comment.

0

Derg

Reply to Bellman

September 3, 2026 4:17 pm

Global average 😉

-1

Phillip Chalmers

Reply to Bellman

September 3, 2026 5:10 pm

global average is just as real and pertinent as unicorn

0

Bellman

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

September 3, 2026 5:23 pm

I’m always fascinated why people insist on pointing this out to me, rather than complain about these monthly articles which are all about global average anomalies.

If you really don’t like global averages, why not complain about the UAH data and this article, rather than objecting to me pointing out it’s a global average?

1

karlomonte

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 6:41 am

Because you propagate the fantasy, without qualms.

-5

Bellman

Reply to karlomonte

September 4, 2026 7:15 am

In what way do I propagate the global average?

WUWT is, according to its own heading “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”. It publishes UAH fantasy global anomaly averages every month, with the global figure appearing in the headline. Back in the day there were also monthly updates in WUWT about how long the “pause” in this fantasy global average was.

I on the other hand make a few posts in the comment section, referencing the same global anomalies, and you think I’m the one responsible for promoting the dubious UAH data.

4

karlomonte

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 7:32 am

In what way do I propagate the global average?

I think you need catnip now, how many posts to this thread have you already made with your charts attached…

WUWT is, according to its own heading

Find someone else to whine to, not interested.

-2

Bellman

Reply to karlomonte

September 4, 2026 8:13 am

“how many posts to this thread have you already made with your charts attached”

2.

“not interested”

Yes, that’s evident.

2

Phil R

Reply to Bellman

September 3, 2026 5:58 pm

“Where I am” is the only thing that counts. I don’t have to wait until the global average pattern of anomalies are gridded and uploaded to be told what to think.

0

Bellman

Reply to Bellman

September 3, 2026 5:56 pm

Here’s the graph of UAH anomalies for the month of August (from 1979 to 2026).

1

ToldYouSo

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 7:34 am

WOW! 47 years of data out of the 12,000 years or so since Earth entered into the current Holocene climate epoch.

So impressive . . . NOT!

-3

Bellman

Reply to ToldYouSo

September 4, 2026 8:37 am

Yet it was only a few years ago when everyone was obsessing over the last 6 or so years.

4

ToldYouSo

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 10:13 am

Are you justifying idiocy by pointing out worse idiocy?

-2

Bellman

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 3:33 pm

The grid data is now out. Here’s my map based on it. For the official version follow the link in the head post.

-1

Bellman

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 4:08 pm

Highest anomalies by country continue to be dominated by central and eastern Europe. Only exceptions in the top 20 are Eritrea and Bolivia.

 1 Croatia             2.17
 2 Bosnia and Herz.    2.13
 3 Slovenia            2.13
 4 Hungary             2.10
 5 Serbia              2.07
 6 Montenegro          2.06
 7 Austria             1.97
 8 Romania             1.91
 9 Slovakia            1.90
10 Switzerland         1.85
11 Kosovo              1.83
12 Italy               1.75
13 Albania             1.67
14 Bulgaria            1.65
15 Czechia             1.64
16 Tajikistan          1.61
17 Moldova             1.60
18 Eritrea             1.59
19 North Macedonia     1.52
20 Bolivia             1.51

Here are the 20 countries with the lowest anomalies. Only Uruguay and the Scandinavian countries had a below average August.

 1 Uruguay          -0.61
 2 Finland          -0.43
 3 Norway           -0.38
 4 Sweden           -0.28
 5 Estonia          -0.26
 6 Argentina         0.01
 7 Latvia            0.02
 8 Iceland           0.05
 9 Ireland           0.08
10 Zimbabwe          0.13
11 Mozambique        0.15
12 Madagascar        0.16
13 Fiji              0.17
14 Falkland Is.      0.19
15 Lithuania         0.21
16 Cyprus            0.21
17 Bahamas           0.22
18 Portugal          0.23
19 New Caledonia     0.25
20 United Kingdom    0.26

It’s surprising to see UAH put the UK as one of the lowest anomalies. The MO put the ground mean temperature at 1.4°C above the 1991-2020 average.

-1

Bellman

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 4:10 pm

According to my estimates a surprisingly large number (53) countries had a record warm August this year. (Records going back to 1979, if it isn’t obvious).

Bosnia and Herz., Brazil, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Rep., Chad, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Dem. Rep. Congo, Djibouti, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eq. Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Kosovo, Liberia, Malaysia, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Romania, Rwanda, S. Sudan, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Somaliland, Sudan, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Venezuela, and Yemen.

No country had a record cold August.

-1

Sunsettommy

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 7:54 pm

Yawnnnnn, Zzzzzzz.

1

TheFinalNail

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 12:22 am

The US had its warmest summer on record (UAH_TLT, 1979 start, for the sensitive).

US also set to have its warmest year on record, by a country mile (UAH…. etc,)

-4

Bellman

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 9:22 am

Good catch. Summer for USA48 averaged +0.89°C breaking the record set in 2024 of +0.73°C.

3

Bellman

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 10:00 am

Forget the above. I forgot the are data has been updated yet. This summer was 0.79°C for the USA48 according to UAH. Still a local record, but a lot cooler than I previously said.

Here’s the corrected graph. (Sorry it’s too late to edit my previous comment)

3

sherro01

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 3:57 pm

A prudent person would graph these values using only one place after the decimal. Also, lines showing the estimate of measurement uncertainty would be traditional. (And useful). Geoff S

1

Bellman

Reply to sherro01

September 4, 2026 4:23 pm

It’s amazing how much Dr Spencer is hated around here. First he’s talking BS as he uses anomalies, now he’s imprudent for not rounding his graphs to one tenth of a degree.

Putting uncertainty bars would be a better option, but as I have to keep pointing out UAH does not provide any uncertainty analysis. Note the lack of uncertainty bars in any of the stated figures or in the graph on this or any other post.

For some reason you never seem to object to that, it’s only when I post my amateurish graphs, you think it’s an issue.

-2

Bellman

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 4:29 pm

Maybe you would like to take up your accusations of imprudence with a certain Geoff S, who posted this

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-3920875

Not only no error bars on the anomalies, but no confidence interval on the trend, and the intercept stated to 4 decimal places.

0

ToldYouSo

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 4:43 pm

“It’s amazing how much Dr Spencer is hated around here.”

But beyond your mistaken assertion, it is TRULY AMAZING that anyone wanting to engage in rationale debate/discussion would mistake difference-of-opinion for the emotion of hate.

There’s an adage here . . . ah, yes . . . “Physician, heal thyself!”

1

Simon

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 1:07 pm

“US also set to have its warmest year on record, by a country mile (UAH…. etc,)”
That’s going to pose a problem for Tom whose favourite saying is to tell us the US was warmer in the past.

0

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 1:42 pm

Temperature is now measured in miles.

Copy that.

1

Jim Gorman

September 3, 2026 3:10 pm

I would like Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy to address how this El Nino temperature increase, especially in the tropics, illustrates a real “warming” (increased energy) of the globe from a thermodynamic standpoint.

My research into this phenomena shows that there is no new energy being added to the Pacific. Warming in the Pacific is due to warm water that has already been heated spreading from the western Pacific into the central and eastern Pacific. Averaging this wider area that now has a higher temperature simply raises the average yet doesn’t address the fact that the stored energy has not changed.

This makes temperature a very poor indicator of the total energy contained in the Pacific and of warming of the globe.. All this when there is no energy being added to the globe.

It is like putting a glob of peanut butter near the crust of a piece of bread. If you taste the other end, alas, no peanut butter. But, use a knife to spread the glob over the whole piece, voila, peanut butter everywhere without adding more.

8

Bellman

Reply to Jim Gorman

September 3, 2026 3:27 pm

“I would like Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy to address how this El Nino temperature increase, especially in the tropics, illustrates a real “warming” (increased energy) of the globe from a thermodynamic standpoint.”

Have you tried asking him, politely, on his own web site?

2

ToldYouSo

Reply to Jim Gorman

September 3, 2026 3:37 pm

Averaging this wider area that now has a higher temperature simply ~~raises the average yet doesn’t address the fact that the stored energy has not changed.~~ increases the amount of thermal energy being transferred into and retained by the lower atmosphere (which is the physical media-of-focus in the above article specific to UAH temperature data, NOT surface water/land temperatures).

Looking at it another way, Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy release data on atmospheric temperatures, not total, or even relative, terajoules of atmospheric energy . . . and for good reason.

“All this when there is no energy being added to the globe.”

Sorry, but the Sun’s radiation adds energy to the Earth’s thermodynamic system each and every second of every day.

-1

bnice2000

Reply to ToldYouSo

September 3, 2026 4:16 pm

If you look at the last two monthly maps.. you can see the general warming spreading out form the tropical Pacific.. ie.. an El Nino style bulge…

… so it is NOT caused by CO2, but by the increase in absorbed solar radiation into the tropical ocean..

There are of course the usual “warmer” and “cooler” patches around the NH due to the jet stream.

UK has been lucky enough to get some warm weather out of it.. other places around the NH have been decidedly cooler than “usual”

4

Tim Gorman

Reply to ToldYouSo

September 3, 2026 4:17 pm

And the earth radiates heat away every second of every day. As T gies up linearly from added heat, energy out goes up by T^4.

3

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

September 3, 2026 5:45 pm

You keep saying that, but never explain what you think it means.

Here’s T^4 on for T from 280K to 300K. It’s pretty close to linear.

2

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 7:18 am

Close, but no cigar.

-3

Bellman

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

September 4, 2026 7:31 am

That’s a relief. I really don’t want to take up smoking at my age.

5

Jim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 1:09 pm

Here is a better graph.

1

Bellman

Reply to Jim Gorman

September 4, 2026 1:14 pm

What is that supposed to show? What are your axis?

0

ToldYouSo

Reply to Jim Gorman

September 4, 2026 4:47 pm

Let’s see . . . X-axis is undefined . . . GREAT PLOT!

0

ToldYouSo

Reply to Tim Gorman

September 4, 2026 7:55 am

“As T gies (goes) up linearly from added heat, energy out goes up by T^4.”

Except for the non-linearity introduced by variations in global areal cloud coverage, except for the the non-linearity introduced by variations in water content (TPW) in the atmosphere, except for the non-linearity introduced by changes in Earth’s surface albedo due to changes in vegetative areal coverage and snow/ice areal coverage.

Also, since T is in absolute degrees, the IPCC-dreaded 1.5 deg-C rise against Earth’s current ~15 deg-C average global temperature amounts to the following calculated change in Earth’s energy output, using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and assuming everything else stays constant:
((273+15+1.5)/(273+15))^4 = 1.02, or a whopping 2% increase in outgoing Earth radiation power flux.

Man the lifeboats!

1

Phillip Chalmers

Reply to ToldYouSo

September 3, 2026 5:20 pm

about one third of the globe is basking in sunshine and two thirds of the globe is shedding energy into outer space at exactly the same time and almost always exactly the same amount.
There is NO STABLE state, there is NO NORMAL state – all is in flux, day and night, season by season, year by year

3

Anthony Banton

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

September 3, 2026 11:07 pm

Of course but, say, so is a pan of water being brought to the boil. at a macro level it proceeds to 100C (at SL) even though convection roils away and steam bubbles escape the surface.
Nothing is in a true constancy.
It’s just that to arrive at a direction of travel then science has to look at the bigger picture.

-1

ToldYouSo

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

September 4, 2026 8:05 am

“about one third of the globe is basking in sunshine and two thirds of the globe is shedding energy into outer space at exactly the same time and almost always exactly the same amount.”

Wrong. The whole of Earth is continuously emitting radiation (mostly LWIR) into outer space, day or night, as allowed by its average emissivity at TOA and its “atmospheric window” over that frequency range.

Also, please translate the word “basking” into something scientifically meaningful.

Finally, I never mentioned anything about Earth being in a stable state, either day-to-day or millennium-to-millennium.

1

Whetten Robert L

Reply to Jim Gorman

September 3, 2026 5:59 pm

no new energy being added to the Pacific [???]

Here’s how Dr Spencer answered, this very day (or was it last nite IDK), in response to somebody-asked-me-something-about-[the new energy in your peanut butter globule snacks]:
“If I was young enough, I would invest in a coconut palm farm on the north coast of Alaska”
— Dr Roy Spencer, last (un)seen driving NNW out of Nashville TN

Translation, for ye’all fatty-acid-illiterati who may be reading this:
“Wrong tropical nuts, dude! Coconut oil (coming from a true nut) is 100X healthier than Peanut [sic] Oil, the peanut (plant) being a tropical legume transplanted from equatorial Africa to the red Georgia clay by African laborers & such. Having worked a lifetime in Huntsville, Alabama, aka Rocket (Satellite) City – USA, I know my boiled Georgia peanuts better than anyone.”

0

TheFinalNail

Reply to Whetten Robert L

September 4, 2026 12:26 am

Yeah, I saw that comment.

Looks like even Roy is facing up to reality, at long last.

0

Whetten Robert L

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 5:59 am

even Roy is facing up to reality

Dear to-a-FinalNailhead-every-tool-is-a-Hammer,
get a grip, and give the Good Doctor credit for his fine sense of humor.
Visit soon the North Slope / Arctic Shoreline of Alaska, enjoy a few coconuts and drilling platforms, then report back to us on your findings.
You can do this!
— RLW-is-not-Anon

2

TheFinalNail

Reply to Jim Gorman

September 4, 2026 12:48 am

It is like putting a glob of peanut butter near the crust of a piece of bread. If you taste the other end, alas, no peanut butter. But, use a knife to spread the glob over the whole piece, voila, peanut butter everywhere without adding more.

How do you account for the long term warming trend, ocean and atmosphere, in every global data set if there’s no extra heat in the system?

Where’s the extra peanut butter coming from, to follow your analogy?

2

ToldYouSo

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 8:11 am

Back at ya:

How do you account for the long term cooling trends, ocean and atmosphere, in every global (proxy) data set that includes at least the last glacial interval if there’s no extra cooling in the system?

Careful not to slip on the “peanut butter”.

-3

Anthony Banton

Reply to ToldYouSo

September 4, 2026 9:17 am

Look up “Milankovitch cycles”.

You’ll find your “long term cooling trends” there.

0

ToldYouSo

Reply to Anthony Banton

September 4, 2026 10:33 am

Shucks! . . . and all along I have been informed that Milankovitch cycles and their resonances might explain BOTH the cooling of Earth that is responsible for Ice Ages and glacial intervals and the warming of Earth that is responsible for Hothouse Earth ages and interglacial intervals.

You know (or maybe not) . . . to the degree that Milankovitch cycles cause both increases and decreases to the rates at which solar energy is absorbed by Earth (as indicated by the graph that you yourself posted above).

Oh well . . . I guess it’s back to the drawing board for me and thousands of other scientists. /sarc

1

Anthony Banton

Reply to ToldYouSo

September 4, 2026 11:29 am

Yes, this scientist (Meteorologist) certainly does know that, but thanks anyway.

0

Jim Gorman

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 11:38 am

How do you account for the long term warming trend, ocean and atmosphere, in every global data set if there’s no extra heat in the system?

There is no “extra” heat being introduced into the system. That would be global warming. What is occurring is conduction of heat from one area to a larger area. The conduction started when the Trade Winds allowed warmer water to slosh eastward. The sun did not suddenly increase insolation. CO2 did not suddenly increase downwelling radiation.

ENSO is a natural occurrence that periodically allows the earth to expel stored energy accumulated in the past. The preoccupation with temperature rather than joules of energy leads people to incorrect assumptions. Unless you think ENSO only started in the early 20th century could you assign the natural process to anthropogenic global warming.

-1

sherro01

Reply to Jim Gorman

September 4, 2026 3:58 pm

Phenomenon.
Geoff S

0

Warren Beeton

September 3, 2026 3:25 pm

1) 10s of thousands of peer reviewed research papers, published by thousands of scientists working for decades in every country of the industrialized world, and every Scientific Institution in the world and every major University without exception conclude:
‘Earth is warming, Man is the cause (primarily due to CO2 emitted thru the burning of fossil fuels) and the net effects are strongly negative’ or similar. That’s as strong a scientific consensus as you will find in any field of Science.

2)The IPCC has summarized the latest peer reviewed research in its 6th Assessment and it includes the mean estimate of researchers that Man is responsible for all of the warming. In fact, for a thousand years prior to the industrial era, Earth had been in a slow natural cooling cycle. That came to an end about 1900, as CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels accelerated. So mans affect on climate was to both offset natural cooling, but also create net warming.

the climate has varied in the past, both regionally And globally. But today’s rate of warming is the fastest global rise ever seen— hundred times faster, or more, than any natural global changes prior or during mans existence. Today’s global temperature is now higher than anything ever seen by Homo Sapiens, and rising far faster than any natural change ever seen by Man, or seen in Earths geologic record.

I urge you, and anyone else reading this, to read reliable sources, such as the US National Climate Assessment, the National Academy of Sciences Reports, or the IPCC 6th Assessment. Or for easier reading, NASA’s Earth Sciences website:
https://climate.nasa.gov
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/sites/climate/index.htm
https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar5/

-17

davidmhoffer

Reply to Warren Beeton

September 3, 2026 3:46 pm

Without exception? Seriously?
Oh yeah, Phil Jones changed the definition of peer review to keep them out. Oh wait, he failed, so they are in. So are many, many others.
We’ve been in a warming cycle for the last 400 years, ever since the end of the Little Ice Age. That was several hundred years before 1900. Not to mention that 1950 is the year commonly referenced as the time when CO2 emissions became statistically significant, so they could not have ended your imaginary cooling cycle in 1900.
You’ve got a bunch of other stuff hopelessly wrong, but I only have so much time right now.

9

davidmhoffer

Reply to davidmhoffer

September 3, 2026 3:58 pm

OK, I found a few extra seconds.
Could you please point to the deleterious effects of climate change in this graph? Given how dire the situation is, you’d think it would stand out like a sore thumb but I cannot see it. Your help and expertise would be appreciated.

0

Warren Beeton

Reply to davidmhoffer

September 3, 2026 7:20 pm

That one chart is supposed to invalidate anything I said?

-6

davidmhoffer

Reply to Warren Beeton

September 3, 2026 8:50 pm

Since you apparently skipped what I said and went straight to the picture (that says a lot about you) I will repeat what I said:

Oh yeah, Phil Jones changed the definition of peer review to keep them out. Oh wait, he failed, so they are in. So are many, many others.
We’ve been in a warming cycle for the last 400 years, ever since the end of the Little Ice Age. That was several hundred years before 1900. Not to mention that 1950 is the year commonly referenced as the time when CO2 emissions became statistically significant, so they could not have ended your imaginary cooling cycle in 1900.

2

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Warren Beeton

September 4, 2026 7:23 am

We do not need anything to invalidate anything you say.

You do that all by yourself.

More catnip, kitty?

We all are laughing at you.

0

Warren Beeton

Reply to davidmhoffer

September 3, 2026 7:27 pm

1) Without exception. It would be easy to disprove. Just find an exception. They don’t exist. (And random non peer reviewed blogs don’t count).
2)no, we’ve been in a cooling portion of a Milankovitch cycle for the last 1400 years, not warming. It’s the 40 gigatonnes of annual human caused co2 emissions that are overwhelming the natural cooling of the current M cycle, yielding the fastest warming ever seen by humans.
do you now understand?

-7

davidmhoffer

Reply to Warren Beeton

September 3, 2026 8:48 pm

Just one exception and you will admit you were wrong?

Klotzbach et al 2022 Geophysical Research Letters
Weinkle et al 2018 Nature Sustainability
Pielke et al 2008 Natural Hazards Review
Sheffield Wood Roderick 2012 Nature
Andela et al 2017 Science
Bloschl et al 2019 Nature
Formetta Feyen 2019 Global Environmental Change
Gasparrini et al 2015 The Lancet
Otto et al; 2013 Nature Geoscience
Lewis and Curry 2018 Journal of Climate
Zhu et al 2016 Nature Climate Change
Makowski et al 2020 European Journal of Agronomy

That’s just a few. I haven’t even dug into my list of papers arguing specific attribution claims are statistically overstated. H*ll, I could just drag a whole bunch of quotes out of the Summary for Policy Makers and challenge you to find where in the IPCC report itself those claims are made.

You’ve made a fool of yourself. You can keep doing that or you could apologize. I expect you will choose to either slink away with your tail between your legs or continue to make a fool of yourself.

11

Warren Beeton

Reply to davidmhoffer

September 4, 2026 7:11 pm

That’s bogus . None of the peer reviewed sources in your list contradict what I said. I challenge you to cite any part that does.

-1

davidmhoffer

Reply to Warren Beeton

September 4, 2026 9:27 pm

Ah, so fool it is.

1

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to davidmhoffer

September 4, 2026 7:22 am

Is 1950 a typo. Should it be 1850?

0

davidmhoffer

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

September 4, 2026 8:19 am

Nope, 1950. That’s been the year cited by the IPCC for as long as I can remember. I’m not current, maybe they changed it, but I doubt it. Simple stats wouldn’t have supported a number earlier than that.

2

davidmhoffer

Reply to davidmhoffer

September 4, 2026 8:58 am

OK I checked. Technically industrial revolution started in 1850. By 1950 CO2 had risen from 280ppm to 310ppm. In 1950 CO2 emissions dramatically accelerated. But from 1940 to the 1970’s, global temps fell, sparking the ice age earth scare. So from 1850 to 1950 emissions were not significant enough to show up in the temperature record. 30ppm over 100 years is less than 1/3 of 1 ppm per year. The Muana Loa record didn’t start until 1958 so we don’t have accurate CO2 numbers before that, but 1959 was a .94ppm year over year increase, 3 times as much. Currently we’re hitting 2 to 3 ppm per year.

So 1950 still stands as the year when CO2 emissions accelerated to the point of being statistically significant. Some would argue that it should be later, more like late 1970’s, when the global warming trend returned. I’m fine with 1950.

1

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to davidmhoffer

September 4, 2026 1:52 pm

Copy that.

There is data measurements recorded by chemists in the early 19th century that show CO2 levels comparable to today. Those are always dismissed out of hand, with nothing more than words.

2

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to davidmhoffer

September 4, 2026 1:51 pm

Copy that. I was thinking of the beginning of the industrial age often used to base temperature change against.

0

ToldYouSo

Reply to Warren Beeton

September 3, 2026 3:58 pm

“. . . without exception conclude . . .”
“. . .for a thousand years prior to the industrial era, Earth had been in a slow natural cooling cycle”

(not bothering to consider that Earth naturally exited (i.e., warmed up from) the last glacial interval about 12,000 years ago)

“But today’s rate of warming is the fastest global rise ever seen . . .”

(not bothering to consider the rate of warming upon entering the current Holocene, nor the numerous Dansgaard-Oeschger climate events during the last glacial interval)

Total ,unadulterated BS being presented for consumption in a word salad.

10

Mr.

Reply to Warren Beeton

September 3, 2026 4:21 pm

” . . . a scientific consensus . . . “

There have been many of these through history.

And equally as many since filed in those categories in libraries labeled-
BULLSHIT

3

karlomonte

Reply to Warren Beeton

September 3, 2026 4:53 pm

What is the optimum concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere?

0

Anthony Banton

Reply to karlomonte

September 3, 2026 11:24 pm

The one where the biosphere is stable.
The one where Ein = Eout.
[But then you have to accept, as science does, that CO2 is a GHG, and doesn’t precipitate out of the atmosphere as does WV.]

Which was, let me think, oh yes – the pre-industrial number.
(and, of course there is still NV in the climate).

-6

Right-Handed Shark

Reply to Anthony Banton

September 4, 2026 12:43 am

Let’s examine this ‘carbon footprint’ claim. CO2 is currently around 430 parts per million, increased, they tell us, from 280 ppm in 1850 (estimated). That’s a difference of 150 ppm, or in terms more readily understood by the layman, the composition of the atmosphere has changed by 0.015% (15 thousandths of 1%) in the last 175 years. LESS THAN 1 THOUSANDTH OF 1% PER DECADE! That’s it. That’s the TOTAL ‘carbon footprint’ for the entire planet, and human activity is only responsible for a small part of that increase. This measurement is averaged annually from much higher and lower daily figures. All the development that has occurred in this timeframe, everything we have built, all industry and every drop of fuel burned is included in that calculation. Furthermore, every life form on this planet; on the land, in the sea and in the air is composed of carbon compounds that were once in the air as CO2, and every living thing that has come and gone in those 175 years is incorporated in a figure that doesn’t fall outside of a reasonable margin of error. By these processes alone nature circulates more than our annual emissions every few days:

From: Scrutinizing the Carbon Cycle and CO2 Residence Time in the Atmosphere
by
Hermann Harde, (2017)

Why CO₂ Doesn’t Stay for Millennia: The Math Everyone Ignores
Climate policy assumes excess CO₂ stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years. But when you look at the actual carbon cycle math, the picture changes completely. Here’s the step-by-step calculation.

Step 1: How Much CO₂ Is in the Atmosphere?
Current atmospheric CO₂ is about 870 gigatons (Gt).

Step 2: Annual Flux
Nature moves enormous amounts of CO₂ every year:
• Natural emissions: 770 Gt/year (from oceans, vegetation, soil respiration)
• Natural absorption: 770 Gt/year (into oceans and plants)
• Human emissions: 36 Gt/year
So humans add less than 5% of the total annual flux.
______________________________________________________

And this calculation doesn’t take into account the amount of greening the planet has seen in the last few decades. Our annual emissions equate to no more than an extra CO2 molecule per plant leaf on the planet. The claim that it is only our “emissions” that remain in the air and accumulate year on year, nature cannot cope with our contribution or that the carbon cycle was somehow magically in perfect equilibrium every year before we started to burn coal, gas and oil is a complete fairy tale designed to fool the gullible.

9

karlomonte

Reply to Anthony Banton

September 4, 2026 5:58 am

Rubbish — in other words, you have not the faintest clue about an answer.

-1

Anthony Banton

Reply to karlomonte

September 4, 2026 8:33 am

Have you?
That is the sensible answer.
But I wouldn’t expect to grok with you or indeed most on here.

-1

karlomonte

Reply to Anthony Banton

September 4, 2026 10:16 am

Thank you for admitting that you want to return to the bad old days of subsistence farming and burning wood for heat (and too many others to list).

You, of course, will be one of the elite who doesn’t have to stoop to such an existence.

0

Anthony Banton

Reply to karlomonte

September 4, 2026 11:14 am

Saying that the obvious answer to “What is the optimum concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere?”
Does not mean I advocate time-travel!
The two can and are mutually exclusive.
The obvious optimum is that for which the biosphere is stable.
(It’s not now).
We obviously cannot go back there and your inference that I meant that is bizarre.
I’d have thought that even you would have twigged what I meant – but then again this place never fails to bewilder.

0

karlomonte

Reply to Anthony Banton

September 4, 2026 1:16 pm

“Does not mean I advocate time-travel!”

Are you on some strange medication?

“The obvious optimum is that for which the biosphere is stable.”

“Which was, let me think, oh yes – the pre-industrial number.”

Please to tell the listening audience [tinla] when the biosphere has ever been “stable”.

“We obviously cannot go back there and your inference that I meant that is bizarre.”

So why do you bother with Nut Zero and all the other hair-brained schemes to reduce CO2?

And where is “this place”?

0

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Anthony Banton

September 4, 2026 1:55 pm

In other words, you can’t answer the question.

SMH

1

Whetten Robert L

Reply to Warren Beeton

September 3, 2026 6:15 pm

Dude! Easy now, stop hollering, lay down your NCA-shovel; and
Let us lift you out that NASty hole you’ve dug yourself into;
Your mind is a terrible thing to waste, and we need you up here!
Embrace the warmth, soak awhile in this here 40 C mineral bath.
C’mon now, your kids & grandkids will thank you for doing this.
We’ll get y’all back safely into the Holocene Optimum in no time.

1

Whetten Robert L

Reply to Warren Beeton

September 3, 2026 8:29 pm

… the Earth is Warming, Man is the cause, and the net Effects are strongly Negative.

When all else fails, as inferred from your thE-M-E phrasing —

Earth – warming runaway [infrared catastrophe]
Man — the cause [COz/combustion] &
Effects — negatory [X’d out]

Then just remember this much:
*This is not the End of this World, It’s just the End of You-Fix-You* [your civilization]
You can do this, Dr. Beeton, just keep your doctoral beet on Dr. Strangelove …
Learn from How [he] learned to stop worrying & love the bomb [that Thermageddon]
Know that your true Friends don’t let Friends join the *Great Extinction*
Read The Book*, Be(come) A Believer, & speak no more of {NCA-NAS-NASA-IPCahCah-ARgh5}
— RLW, Prof. A. Friend
P.S. If you ask [us], Why endorse Goldman-as-Spengler? Because the original Oswald Spengler‘s Untergang des Abendlandes (Decline of the West / Christendom) is just too darn long (1020 pp. in two volumes, 1918 & 1922) & hard-slogging, even for a dedicated Eco-Fascist Klima-Kulti-Krieger like Potsdam(m)er Rahmstorf.

*Source It’s Not the End of the World, It’s Just the End of You: The Great Extinction of the Nations (2011) by Spengler-(Asia-Times/Hong Kong & NYC-David P. Goldman ISBN-1614122024

Ask anyone … to name the world’s most brilliant intelligence service, and we’ll all give the same answer: Spengler. David P. Goldman‘s ‘Spengler’ columns provide more insight than the CIA, MI6, and the Mossad combined.” –Herbert E. Meyer Assistant, Director of C.I.A.

0

Warren Beeton

Reply to Whetten Robert L

September 4, 2026 7:13 pm

Spengler is not a peer reviewed climate scientist. Doesn’t count.

-1

Dave Andrews

Reply to Warren Beeton

September 4, 2026 7:41 am

Ah yes. 33,900 “peer reviewed papers” based on the now discredited RCP 8.5 scenario from 2018 to 2024. Brilliant job that!

2

Victor

Reply to Warren Beeton

September 4, 2026 9:26 am

Climate scientists are hiding the sun’s influence on the climate by not making an anomaly for solar radiation at Earth distance.

If climate scientists make an anomaly for TSI at Earth distance and compare it with the Earth’s global temperature anomaly, everyone will understand it is the variation in solar radiation at Earth distance that is the cause of rising temperatures on Earth.
If climate scientists show the sun is the cause of the temperature increase on Earth, climate scientists will no longer receive any research funding for research on CO2.

If you don’t believe me, show a climate study with a graph of Earth’s global temperature anomaly compared to TSI at Earth distance anomaly.

If you don’t find an anomaly on TSI at Earth distance, it is because climate scientists are hiding the sun’s influence on Earth’s global temperature.

-2

Jim Gorman

Reply to Victor

September 4, 2026 4:28 pm

Climate science is also hiding the suns influence on the surface. They pretend that W/m² must equal W/m² heating the atmosphere. Here are 4 graphs that I have never seen discussed. Where is the curiosity. BTW, the data is from the USCRN station at Manhattan, Ks.

2

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Warren Beeton

September 4, 2026 1:49 pm

Funny. The second IPCC summary report concluded that there was no detectible human signal in the data. Enter a politician and the summary was changed stated a clear and unambiguous human signal. The science reports were force to change from that point on.

2

Eldrosion

September 3, 2026 3:30 pm

“El Niño kicking in, but still cooler than 2024.”

Let’s go back exactly seven years, to September 2019:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2019-0-38-deg-c/

What were people saying then?

“August 2019 UAH temperature anomaly is below the August UAH El Niño years of 1998 and 2016.”

“The UAH satellite data clearly shows that there has been a cooling trend in GLAT from 2016 to present day (both by individual data points and by the 13-month running average).”

“ If a cooling or flat trend should likewise follow the 2016 warm spike, then CACA will be well and truly flushed down the drain.”

We have the same thing happening now with 2024, and people here will almost certainly be saying the same stuff during the 2028–29 La Niña following the 2026–27 El Niño.

🙂

-4

johnesm

Reply to Eldrosion

September 3, 2026 4:22 pm

Ugh, no more La Niña for at least a decade, please.

-Regards, the Western USA

4

Eldrosion

Reply to johnesm

September 3, 2026 4:32 pm

+1

0

TheFinalNail

Reply to Eldrosion

September 4, 2026 12:36 am

Let’s go back exactly seven years, to September 2019:

Look at the confidence the commenters on WUWT had in the UAH data set back then. Not a word about its validity, precision or methods.

Just so long as UAH suggested a hint of cooling (which, as we now know, didn’t transpire) not a single question was raised about its legitimacy.

Compare and contrast that attitude with the comments above. Will UAH be the next data set to be thrown under the bus by WUWT, like BEST was before it, because it gives the ‘wrong’ answers?

1

Eldrosion

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 6:57 am

Exactly!

“ Will UAH be the next data set to be thrown under the bus by WUWT, like BEST was before it, because it gives the ‘wrong’ answers?”

Maybe, but I doubt it, because Anthony Watts has had a relationship with Roy Spencer that goes back a long time. And remember, skeptics tend to have a major loyalty component to them.

So they really have no choice but to watch the utterly relentless warming taking place. It must be pretty hard to watch.

1

ResourceGuy

September 3, 2026 4:23 pm

Oh, I thought the world had already been obliterated by a super massive ultra el nino. Maybe I’ll finish my drink, take a walk in perfect weather, and enjoy the rest of the month with the same. It helps letting go of failed legacy news also.

3

Whetten Robert L

September 3, 2026 4:28 pm

Yes, he actually did post this, or was his account hacked?
“If I was young enough, I would invest in a coconut palm farm on the north coast of Alaska”
— Dr Roy Spencer, last (un)seen driving NNW out of Nashville TN

1

bdgwx

September 3, 2026 4:40 pm

The new Monckton Pause remains at 43 months now starting in 2023/02. The average of this pause is 0.55 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 0.34 C higher than the previous one.

+0.1578 ± 0.041 C.decade-1 k=2 is the trend from 1979/01 to 2026/08 covering 572 values.

+0.0535 ± 0.055 C.decade-2 k=2 is the acceleration of the trend. [1]

[1] Regarding acceleration. In the process of converting my model to use RONI I realized I screwed up the acceleration causing it to be underestimated by 50%. I also upgrade the analysis of the acceleration to use the more robust HAC model for the uncertainty computation.

4

karlomonte

Reply to bdgwx

September 3, 2026 4:56 pm

“Error Error Zero”

“uncertainty computation”

Snort, glad I was not trying to sip any coffee while reading this.

-2

Eldrosion

Reply to bdgwx

September 3, 2026 4:57 pm

That’s an amazing model, bdgwx.

-1

bdgwx

Reply to bdgwx

September 3, 2026 6:23 pm

Lol…in the process of fixing my R code I somehow typo’d the round function parameter and now I really do have 1 too many digits. For once the significant figure police really do have a legitimate gripe about the figures I posted above.

2

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to bdgwx

September 4, 2026 7:33 am

You are under arrest for violating the significant figure law.

2

Victor

Reply to bdgwx

September 4, 2026 12:42 am

The Earth was subjected to the gravitational pull at the time of aphelion July 6, 2026. This caused the Earth’s orbit to take a closer path after aphelion, causing higher solar radiation this fall and higher global temperatures.
If the Earth’s orbit moves closer to the Sun this fall, the Earth will increase its speed and cause perihelion on January 2, 2027 to be further from the Sun than normal due to the higher speed. The greater distance at perihelion on January 2, 2027 will cause less solar radiation and colder January, February, March, and April 2027.

1

TheFinalNail

Reply to Victor

September 4, 2026 2:10 am

Do you do Tarot readings too?

-1

Victor

Reply to TheFinalNail

September 4, 2026 3:47 am

I see the changes in the Earth’s orbit on the TSI at Earth distance anomaly.
Have you looked at the TSI at Earth distance anomaly curve?

The month of September is likely to be record warm due to the solar radiation being so high now.

2

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Victor

September 4, 2026 7:38 am

Correct. Plus the eccentric parabolic orbit alters with the position of other planets plus the sun orbits the barycenter. Using a mean orbit hides all this.

The sun is also not a constant temperature. There are lots of variables in the solar physics of which we do not have a clear understanding. So let’s just assume an average temperature.

One must also take into account that Terra and Luna are a binary planetary system.
The center of gravity orbits the sun.
The two planets orbit the center of gravity.
This affects incoming solar energy, too.

Too many averages of averages of averages computed to a gadzillion decimal places for any of it to be credible. Even the accurate parts are made incredible by the processes.

5

Whetten Robert L

Reply to bdgwx

September 4, 2026 5:36 am

converting my Model to use RONI

Oh no, the maca[ca]-RONI conversion.
Your beloved ‘Model’ will never make sense again.

0

Warren Beeton

Reply to bdgwx

September 4, 2026 7:16 pm

The Fake Lord? The Fraud Monckton? Give us all a break. He’s a liar and only has degrees in the Classics and journalism. Nothing in science. And nothing published in scientific journals.

-1

Bellman

September 3, 2026 5:49 pm

Incidentally, is it just me or is this site having problems with it’s RSS feeds over the last day or so. Possibly related to it constantly checking the browser every time it’s loaded.

2

Mr.

Reply to Bellman

September 3, 2026 7:24 pm

Well if you stopped linking to here from your facebook profile it mightn’t take so long.

1

Oldseadog

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 1:29 am

I am getting the same checking message every time I open the site. I use DuckDuckGo as my browser and don’t use any social media of any kind.

1

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 7:39 am

Been recent, last few days.

Then again, the Cyber World War has flared up in recent times.

1

Bellman

Reply to Bellman

September 4, 2026 2:41 pm

Seems to be OK now.

0

JoeG

September 3, 2026 7:39 pm

It’s been a very mild summer in New England. Zero Atlantic hurricanes for the season to date. I just jinxed that, so hold on to your hats!

1

Whetten Robert L

Reply to JoeG

September 4, 2026 5:40 am

New England. Zero Atlantic hurricanes

Remember the Twins of ’54 (Carol + Edna) …
… 72* years of Good Luck, due for an October Surprise.

0

KensoGhost

September 3, 2026 8:14 pm

If the value is a running mean of a 13 month period the present value must be the average centered on last February so comparing average results for August should be a comparison for February. The change however is an indication of the effect of dropping August 2025 and adding August 2026 to the mean so in this sense it can be taken as an August 2026 effect.
If I am incorrect please tell me what I am missing.

1

TheFinalNail

Reply to KensoGhost

September 4, 2026 3:37 am

If the value is a running mean of a 13 month period…

The monthly value quoted, +0.68C, is not the 13-month period. It is the August 2026 temperature anomaly; the difference between August 2026 and the average of all August temperature anomalies in the 30-years between 1991 and 2020.

The running centred 13-month average is the previous 13-months’ anomalies (all months from August 2025 to Aug 2026, centred on Feb 2026). That value is not stated on Dr Spencer’s update chart, but for what it’s worth, it is currently +0.45C.

3

Whetten Robert L

Reply to KensoGhost

September 4, 2026 5:42 am

dropping August 2025 and adding August 2026

Replacing last August with this August; exactly correct.
No matter what they may say about you.

1

Ireneusz

September 3, 2026 9:48 pm

Hurricanes

1

Ireneusz

Reply to Ireneusz

September 3, 2026 10:24 pm

Hurricane LOWELL is moving westward and is expected to miss Hawaii.

2

Whetten Robert L

Reply to Ireneusz

September 4, 2026 5:54 am

Thanks for this GIF[t] animation.
The Tropical East-Pacific is a fluid-dynamical Wonder-Land.
“I can almost see Mauna Loa from my Cabo Cabana!” the Swedish dwarf-gnome [never] said.
P.S. Updated projections:
Lowell’s track is projected to hook around Kona, a hard rightward (northward) turn.
Ka[t]rina & Maria entrained. Norberto winding up behind those old girls, in the wings.
Polo (Marco) by the Equinox-Autumnal, why-so-ever not? Cathay-bound.
————
Closely related: wettest rainy-season ‘Monsoon’ (since ’22) in the Desert-Mountain Southwest. Rio Colorado flowing wild thru its Grand Canyon & the Havasupai homelands, en route to replenish the big Mead Reservoir / Hoover Dam.

1

Ireneusz

September 4, 2026 11:04 am

Hurricane Karina is approaching Hawaii along the 20th parallel.

1

Whetten Robert L

Reply to Ireneusz

September 4, 2026 12:34 pm

Gorgeous!
How this portrays an unfolding scenario of awesome & terrible beauty.
Give Lowell [now 150 mph] just another ~ 12 hours, to start its hard-right turn twd Oahu.
(My married son & his bride reside on its North Shore.)
Karina should glance that shore from an orthogonal direction, a few days after.
Maria (the mother of El Niño, naturally) looks like a gentle giant, at 100 MPH, her outflow should water the thirsty Southwestern Deserts for the entire week.
Give Norberto another full week gestation.
Polo-(Marco)-by-Equinox, it’s not impossible for it to traverse the entire Pacific along 20N, as we saw from the past couple years.

1

Ireneusz

Reply to Whetten Robert L

September 4, 2026 11:19 pm

Lowell is not heading toward Hawaii and is moving westward. The high-pressure system will now be in the middle of the Pacific, while the lows are moving down the west coast.

0

Ireneusz

Reply to Whetten Robert L

September 5, 2026 2:03 am

Karina is turning northwest and moving away from Hawaii.

0

Alexander Rawls

September 4, 2026 6:46 pm

Good for planet earth (where the only actual climate dangers are global cooling and CO2 starvation), bad for the political struggle against the exactly-backwards “too much CO2 is causing dangerous global warming” alarmists.

0

Ireneusz

September 4, 2026 11:10 pm

Hurricane Marie has a very wide area of impact.

0

Ireneusz

September 4, 2026 11:50 pm

This paper presents an overview of gridded surface solar radiation data sets currently provided by Deutscher Wetterdienst which are suitable for a wide range of specific applications.
Table 1, Table 2 show the details and the main properties of all data sets in a summarised form. Some quantitative comparisons are shown in Figs. 3, 4 and Table 3 for the five climate data records and for their common time period and region. Overall, the data records agree reasonably well concerning climatology, time series of monthly anomalies and their linear trends during 1995–2020. The mean SSR is ∼124W/m2 with lowest values in HYRAS and highest values in SARAH (Table 3). The slightly lower values in HYRAS are primarily driven by the reliance on SSR (pyranometer and SCAPP) and sunshine duration measurements. For the common period there is a significantly positive trend of about +4 W/m2/decade in all climate data records considered.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950630125000250#fig0004

0

Year	Mon	Globe	NHem	SHem	Tropic	US48	Arctic	Aust.	Can.
2024	Jan	+0.80	+1.02	+0.57	+1.20	-0.19	+0.40	+1.12	+0.97
2024	Feb	+0.88	+0.94	+0.81	+1.16	+1.31	+0.85	+1.16	+2.45
2024	Mar	+0.88	+0.96	+0.80	+1.25	+0.22	+1.05	+1.34	+1.12
2024	Apr	+0.94	+1.12	+0.76	+1.15	+0.86	+0.88	+0.54	+1.39
2024	May	+0.77	+0.77	+0.78	+1.20	+0.04	+0.20	+0.52	+0.67
2024	June	+0.69	+0.78	+0.60	+0.85	+1.36	+0.63	+0.91	+0.19
2024	July	+0.73	+0.86	+0.61	+0.96	+0.44	+0.56	-0.07	+1.15
2024	Aug	+0.75	+0.81	+0.69	+0.74	+0.40	+0.88	+1.75	+1.36
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	+0.89
2024	Nov	+0.64	+0.87	+0.40	+0.53	+1.11	+0.79	+1.00	+1.61
2024	Dec	+0.61	+0.75	+0.47	+0.52	+1.41	+1.12	+1.54	+1.65
2025	Jan	+0.45	+0.70	+0.21	+0.24	-1.07	+0.74	+0.48	+1.04
2025	Feb	+0.50	+0.55	+0.45	+0.26	+1.03	+2.10	+0.87	-0.35
2025	Mar	+0.57	+0.73	+0.41	+0.40	+1.24	+1.23	+1.20	+0.80
2025	Apr	+0.61	+0.76	+0.46	+0.36	+0.81	+0.85	+1.21	+0.45
2025	May	+0.50	+0.45	+0.55	+0.30	+0.15	+0.75	+0.98	+0.81
2025	June	+0.48	+0.48	+0.47	+0.30	+0.80	+0.05	+0.39	-0.22
2025	July	+0.36	+0.49	+0.23	+0.45	+0.32	+0.40	+0.53	-0.23
2025	Aug	+0.39	+0.39	+0.39	+0.16	-0.06	+0.82	+0.11	+0.62
2025	Sep	+0.53	+0.56	+0.49	+0.35	+0.38	+0.77	+0.30	+2.44
2025	Oct	+0.53	+0.52	+0.55	+0.24	+1.12	+1.42	+1.67	+2.59
2025	Nov	+0.43	+0.59	+0.27	+0.24	+1.32	+0.78	+0.36	+1.47
2025	Dec	+0.30	+0.45	+0.15	+0.19	+2.10	+0.32	+0.37	-1.86
2026	Jan	+0.35	+0.51	+0.19	+0.09	+0.30	+1.40	+0.95	+1.17
2026	Feb	+0.39	+0.54	+0.23	+0.03	+1.91	-0.48	+0.73	+0.32
2026	Mar	+0.38	+0.33	+0.42	+0.07	+3.74	-0.48	+1.14	-3.17
2026	Apr	+0.39	+0.43	+0.34	+0.23	+1.20	+0.30	+0.70	-0.89
2026	May	+0.53	+0.46	+0.60	+0.58	+0.21	+0.34	+0.10	+0.21
2026	June	+0.46	+0.54	+0.38	+0.57	+0.64	+1.01	+0.38	+0.99
2026	July	+0.48	+0.68	+0.27	+0.85	+1.14	+0.53	-0.22	+0.78
2026	August	+0.68	+0.76	+0.59	+0.90	+0.60	+0.80	+0.39	+0.71
Year	Mon	Globe	NHem	SHem	Tropic	US48	Arctic	Aust.	Can.

Share this:

Related Posts

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for July, 2026: +0.48 deg. C

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

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

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