Home/BlogThe Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2025 was +0.48 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down slightly from the May, 2025 anomaly of +0.50 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through June 2025) now stands 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 18 months (record highs are in red).
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.58 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.95 | +0.81 | +1.17 | +1.31 | +0.86 | +1.16 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.26 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.76 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 |
| 2024 | May | +0.78 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.05 | +0.20 | +0.53 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.37 | +0.64 | +0.91 |
| 2024 | July | +0.74 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.97 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.76 | +0.82 | +0.69 | +0.74 | +0.40 | +0.88 | +1.75 |
| 2024 | Sep | +0.81 | +1.04 | +0.58 | +0.82 | +1.31 | +1.48 | +0.98 |
| 2024 | Oct | +0.75 | +0.89 | +0.60 | +0.63 | +1.90 | +0.81 | +1.09 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.87 | +0.41 | +0.53 | +1.12 | +0.79 | +1.00 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.62 | +0.76 | +0.48 | +0.52 | +1.42 | +1.12 | +1.54 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.45 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.06 | +0.74 | +0.48 |
| 2025 | Feb | +0.50 | +0.55 | +0.45 | +0.26 | +1.04 | +2.10 | +0.87 |
| 2025 | Mar | +0.57 | +0.74 | +0.41 | +0.40 | +1.24 | +1.23 | +1.20 |
| 2025 | Apr | +0.61 | +0.77 | +0.46 | +0.37 | +0.82 | +0.85 | +1.21 |
| 2025 | May | +0.50 | +0.45 | +0.55 | +0.30 | +0.15 | +0.75 | +0.99 |
| 2025 | June | +0.48 | +0.48 | +0.47 | +0.30 | +0.81 | +0.05 | +0.39 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for June, 2025, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:
Not a scientist here, just a weather enthusiast with a very dated education in weather and climate. A year or two ago, I marked up a copy of this chart noting major El Niño and La Niña events. For me, it explained the cyclical nature of the temperature graph. Last time I looked we were ENSO neutral, but since that phenomenon has a cyclical nature to it, it would not surprise me if we weren’t hading for a La Niña and slower increases.
As an aside, related to UHI, our NWS office – Wilmington, Ohio – noted several temperature records for June in Dayton, Ohio. Every one of them was a record LOW. I know it is anecdotal, but it seems to fit with the idea/theory that UHI is a very important factor in recent warming trends.
I am praying for you, Roy. With God’s grace you will get through this time. I really appreciate your work and how you are trying to make your contribution to a better world.
Second warmest June, beaten only by last year’s.
Year Anomaly
1 2024 0.69
2 2025 0.48
3 1998 0.44
4 2019 0.34
5 2023 0.30
6 2020 0.29
7 2016 0.21
8 1991 0.18
9 2010 0.18
10 2015 0.18
My projection for the year increases slightly to 0.50 +/- 0.12C, with it looking increasingly likely that 2025 will be warmer than 2023. But we will see.
Recent changes at the poles have had a major effect on CFSR data. It will be interesting to see where this goes. It could throw off your “projection” by a significant amount.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2025-07-02.gif
That’s why I said “We will see”.
I was going to mention the big drop in land temperatures as seen here
https://pulse.climate.copernicus.eu/
It certainly looks that much of South America has turned very cold. But I don’t know how much significance to put on 1 day.
And absolutely zero evidence of any human causation.
Bellman” I don’t know how much significance to put on 1 day.”
The CFSR data shows cooling over the last 6 months which has now reached 0.9 C. Much of that has occurred in the last week, so it could be a fluke. However, it’s unprecedented without volcanic or ENSO forcing.
“The CFSR data shows cooling over the last 6 months which has now reached 0.9 C.”
No, you need to compare at least whole months to the same months in previous year. Then you will see that compared to last year (the peak year for El Nino warming) the months have been ~ 0.1 C cooler.
Pretty normal.
Nate says: “you need to compare at least whole months”
Wasn’t it last summer the media was comparing day by day anomalies to the past and claiming record warming? Hottest evah!?! What goes around comes around ….
I didn’t say this was a long term trend, but I didn’t see any previous cooling period quite like it. Personally, I’m thinking this could be the end of the Hunga-Tonga warming period and we will level off to values seen prior to 2022. That will take several more months to determine.
We are 30 years into the latest +AMO phase so even more cooling will be coming soon.
Or …. we could see some major cooling.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2025-07-02.gif
Just weather. Antarctica has large variations this time of year.
” Recent changes at the poles have had a major effect on CFSR data. ”
Really?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KdsNhZb-8-lFt112o80zXrCPZL77FqS4/view
I based my comment on this graph.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/d2-gfs-grta-daily-2025-07-02.gif
Think this may be the first time UAH has hit a rate of +0.16C per decade warming for any period exceeding 360 months (30-years).
It’s been +0.16C/dec before a couple of times previously; once in the late 1990s and again in the early 2000s; but never before over a period spanning 30-years or more. (30-years being the standard period of reference in climatology, as far as I’m aware?)
Right, and by 2014 the trend had dropped to +0.11 C/decade. The trend line rises and falls.
“The trend line rises and falls.”
_________________
Indeed, but where periods of 30-years (360 months) and more are concerned, this is the first time the UAH_TLT warming trend has surpassed +0.16 C per decade.
Also, taking only 30-year periods, of which there are now 200 in the UAH_TLT data (i.e. overlapping consecutive periods of 360 months each), the average trend is +0.13C/dec with a standard deviation of (+/-) 0.015C.
The 30-year periods ending over this past 3 months, (Apr-Jun 2025) have all had warming rates of +0.17C/dec; that is to say, more than 2 standard deviations above the long term average for 30-year periods.
These facts may not indicate a long-term acceleration in the UAH warming trend, but they are new high water marks in terms of the UAH warming rate for periods of, and exceeding, 30-years.
And that is the 46 year trend, and a significant increase in it over the last several years.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2025-07-02.gif
Looks like CFSR is trending lower.
The 1877 spike continues to serve as a template. This is NOAA data through April. The next six months should be interesting.
https://localartist.org/media/HTvAkjsaENSO2504.png
Correction: NOAA data included May. I’ve added the UAH data through June.
https://localartist.org/media/HTvAkjsaENSO2506.png
Cool
In a previous thread, Wal~ter R. Hog~le (who now nicknames as ‘red krokodile) posted the following:
” Bindi is quick to generate inverse hockey sticks for Arctic sea ice and Rutgers’ Northern Hemisphere snow cover, ignoring key context, like the non stationary shifts that challenge IPCC assumptions in the former, and the seasonal divergence in the latter (with Northern Hemisphere autumn and winter snow cover increasing).
Yet when confronted with the fact that these kinds of shifts impact the signal to noise ratio, as in the case of the anomalous drop in cloud cover during 2023-24, he brushes it aside. When the signal is buried in noise, as it is here, it is simply not credible to claim detection of climate trends with the kind of precision he asserts.
This selective treatment of evidence mirrors climate denial. It is well established that climate deniers view science through the lens of their ideology rather than through objective inquiry. ”
*
This is really brazen. I never posted any ‘inverse hockey sticks about anything: this is a sheer lie. Hog~le polemically discredits what I do instead of technically contradicting it with charts proving he is right; he simpl,y is unable to do that.
*
1. Arctic sea ice
I reproduce either exactly the original G02135 data in absolute form containing the annual cycle:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u8Hd4Hpskx9mlKan8CloUHa4JEZk3v4L/view
or in anomaly form with annual cycle removal in the same manner as teached by Roy Spencer:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rRqY7uYkHEHYISJgMTt7lue-C8-JI2RI/view
**
2. Rutgers’ Northern Hemisphere snow cover
Same as above.
Original weekly data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ABBiug5c5lQ-rgL7Ijd8KjiTcNfGx9rR/view
Data with annual cycle removal
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1843ycyIsaTPuSjQRIIn88Zzo1es_zAmJ/view
*
If you show the data with a 52 week averaging, the decrease becomes even more apparent in both absolute and anomaly-based series.
**
3. Now let’s move to a carefully organized seasonal split of the weekly snow cover data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11UUojgTWCvomT5m_DKNp0dFU7APJhwfz/view
As we all can see, Hog~le’s claim (most likely carelessly copied without any verification from a pseudo-skeptical blog)
” … with Northern Hemisphere autumn and winter snow cover increasing ”
isn’t correct.
What is rather visible is that recently,
– winter time isn’t decreasing at all, and that
– autumn increases at the same rate as spring decreases.
*
Conversely, all his claims about the “key context,” especially about the “signal-to-noise ratio,” etc., as usual, lack any proven scientific basis.
I asked Hog~le for such a source; he could only provide me with three links to articles that didn’t even mention the points highlighted in bold above.
*
Germans would call Hog~le ‘dummdreister Schnösel’, i.e. a brazen snoop.
Bindi, did red krokodile correct you again? Is that why you’re so mad?
Have you noticed that you’re ALWAYS mad?
Maybe you’re just mad at reality….
Clint,
We tend to follow different corners of discussion on here, but I have noticed our impressions seem to overlap in a certain direction about you know who. Can’t help but think that says something. Curious if you see it the same way.
Yes red, Bindi is one of a group of about 8-10 that are only here to disrupt and pervert. I call them the “cult kids”. They have two things in common — they have no interest in science (reality), and they hate anyone that doesn’t hold their false beliefs.
Classic case of projection – seen most clearly in the current president.
“Accuse your enemy of what you are doing…”
This quote (often attributed to Karl Marx, Joseph Goebbels, or Saul Alinsky) describes a common strategy of propaganda referred to as projection.
The tradition has been that the first day of a new post by Dr. Spencer should be restricted to rational comments without arguments and insults. You should show more respect.
“I never posted any ‘inverse hockey sticks about anything: this is a sheer lie.”
Yes, you did. Here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebdqPl_tmxazXAMchHEU87zVvvPdonef/view
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700872
“(most likely carelessly copied without any verification from a pseudo-skeptical blog)”
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=4
Rutgers University: a ‘pseudo skeptical blog,’ really, Bindidon? That is quite a dismissal for an institution known for rigorous work. One might expect at least a shred of evidence before such a sweeping judgment.
“winter time isn’t decreasing at all, and that
– autumn increases at the same rate as spring decreases.”
No, winter snow cover is increasing as shown above.
And why exactly do you think the autumn increase is “offset” by spring decreases?
That is such nonsense. More autumn snow cover over Siberia strengthens the Siberian High, which in turn enhances polar air advection into Eurasia later in the winter.
These are not abstract numbers you can cancel out on a spreadsheet. They are physically meaningful and seasonally asymmetric.
“he could only provide me with three links to articles that didn’t even mention the points highlighted in bold above.”
Yes, none of the papers explicitly claim the global signal to noise ratio changed two years ago. So what? The purpose of reading scientific research is not to find every conclusion spelled out. It is to understand the content, apply the insights, and draw logical extensions beyond what was directly studied.
Your entire comment is vacuous. You cannot respond to the evidence, so you resort to lazy speculation about who you think I am.
Hog~le
” Bindi is quick to generate inverse hockey sticks for Arctic sea ice … ”
*
A reply showing how incredibly dishonest you behave.
*
Here is, made extra for you, your personal ‘inverse hockey stick’:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QlG-YLKpZSWSK3Q5_67fc_TvhMj7WYu4/view
*
Feel free to compare it to what I posted on March 18, 2025 at 6:23 PM:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebdqPl_tmxazXAMchHEU87zVvvPdonef/view
*
By insinuating that my comparison of NOAA’s G02135 data to HadISST1 Ice would have anything in common to your dumb idea of inverse hockey sticks, you not only show pure dishonesty but also profound technical incompetence.
*
Not any person who, unlike you so boastfully describe yourself, would ‘understand the content, apply the insights, and draw logical extensions beyond what was directly studied‘ would ever identify my graph to any kind of hockey stick, Hog~le.
*
Simple because s/he would have immediately seen that if I had ever intended to ‘hockey stick’ the data as you woefully insinuate, I of course would have stopped the two time series in 2020 – before they started looking like the contrary of what you overlooked: namely an increase of sea ice shown by both NOAA’s and Met Office’s data.
*
” … so you resort to lazy speculation about who you think I am. ”
I don’t need to speculate about who I think you are, Hog~le.
It is sufficient to look at how you behave.
*
Just a detail, finally.
You proudly showed fall and winter NH snow cover data fitting your personal narrative, but – typical for Pseudoskeptics – intentionally dissimulated the spring data (Rutgers’ summer data isn’t shown anyway at their site):
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2
*
Extra for you, I post a graph containing linear trends for the four seasons, to be compared to the much more accurate polynomials:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k7evmkZao_oYuT_kuVcF15OzBeeb-vdb/view
*
Trends in Mkm^2/year
Winter: 0.06 +- 0.02
Spring: -0.20 +- 0.02
Summer: -0.34 +- 0.02
Fall: 0.17 +- 0.03
*
Weren’t you a Pseudoskeptic like Blindsley H00d aka RLH, he would of course have discredited your post with a hint on how useless and wrong linear trends are :–)
Arctic down to 0.05. Is that exceptional in recent years? Will a ”cold” Arctic affect the global temperature progress in any way? How and why?
Not exceptional. In the summer T is dominated by ice-water temperature ~ 0C.
Nate,
Joachim is referring to the Arctic temperature anomaly.
June’s anomaly for the North Pole is the coldest since February 2023.
The new Monckton Pause extends to 25 months starting in 2023/05. The average of this pause is 0.66 C. The previous Monckton Pause started in 2014/06 and lasted 107 months and had an average of 0.21 C. That makes this pause 0.45 C higher than the previous one.
+0.155 +- 0.041 C.decade-1 k=2 is the trend from 1979/01.
+0.027 +- 0.010 C.decade-2 is the acceleration of the trend.
Rounding this to 1 significant figure means the trend has ticked up to +0.16 +- 0.04 C.decade-1 k=2.
A new record for the highest lower bound of the trend at +0.12 C.decade-1 k=2 occurred on this update.
My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/03 update was 0.43 +- 0.16 C k=2.
My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/04 update was 0.47 +- 0.14 C k=2.
My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/05 update was 0.46 +- 0.11 C k=2.
My prediction for 2025 from the 2025/06 update is now 0.47 +- 0.09 C k=2.
Happy Fourth of July. What a great country our Founders made!
And look who ‘they’ made the President!
I’ll take my leader over your leader any day.
Says you (and no-one else).
We have a King. Do you?
We have the same King. I’d rather the President (this one, not the last one).
” What a great country our Founders made! ”
Oh yes. Based on
– the emigration of some of Europe’s most evil populations to North America (not including people persecuted for political or religious reasons, of course);
– the subsequent extermination of indigenous peoples, which – admittedly – began with the Spanish invasion of North and South America;
– the disgusting enrichment of many ‘Americans’ through the enslavement of Black people brutally torn from their African world and their roots;
– the very silent denazification of an incredibly large number of Nazis who fled the German Reich, which collapsed in 1945, including, among many others, a certain Wernher von Braun and all his closest collaborators, who saved the USA from the shame of its absolute failure in rocket construction in the 1950/60s.
*
Yes. Anderson, who so enjoys insulting others as Nazis and Fascists, can indeed be proud of all that.
Bindi, your extreme Leftism is showing, again.
See a therapist about all your hatred. It might be based on your jealousy….
Hello Mr 360-degree-ball-on-a-string-brain
Thanks for your reply, perfectly fitting your daily attitude.
The concept of “CO2 warming the planet” still has its followers, regardless of the fact that it can’t be supported from First Principles of physics. The reason appears to be that very few people understand radiative physics and thermodynamics, both topics are rather obscure to those with little science background.
For example, the thermodynamic definition of “heat” is “the energy that moves from a hot object to a cold object”. Many cannot understand that simple definition. As another example, radiative fluxes can not be simply added. Yet the vast majority of “CO2 Warmists” believe fluxes from the atmosphere simply add to solar.
A recent discussion involved a surface emitting 500 W/m². A flux of 400 W/m² arrives the same surface. Could the 400 W/m² flux raise the temperature of the surface that is emitting 500 W/m²?
Of course not! To raise the temperature of the surface, the incoming flux must be greater than the flux emitted from the surface.
Continued stupidity.
You still haven’t explained where the 400 W/m² goes.
Or doesn’t conservation of energy apply in your fantasy world.
Are you sure your name is not D..g Co….n ?
In the science of radiative physics, it’s called “reflection”, child.
Get a responsible adult to explain why you can see things in your playpen.
Clint R
You don’t even know your own posts? Your post was not if a 400 W/m^2 would raise the temperature of a surface emitting 500 W/m^2.
Your post was if you had 1000 W/m^2 reaching a black-body surface with two sides so that each side would emit 500 W/m^2 at Steady State conditions. Then you add a 400 W/m^2 source and yes the temperature will go up with both these sources of input. This is textbook physics, I have linked you to both textbook material and a video explaining it to you. You reject science (real science) in favor of your own made up opinions and beliefs on how you think reality works. That is not science. You reject science and endlessly insult and denigrate any who try to correct your false made up beliefs. This has been going on for some time now.
Wrong again, Norman.
You have NEVER provided a credible source to explain how a surface can be warmed by a flux less that the flux emitted by the surface.
You just BELIEVE ice cubes can boil water.
Beliefs ain’t science….
Bindidon
Your 7:19 PM comment contains only rhetoric, personal attacks, and continued speculation about who I am.
You’re fixating on my use of the term ‘inverse hockey stick’ while largely sidestepping the rest of my points. All while presenting yourself as a voice of honesty. The irony could not be more obvious.
I also have not forgotten the misleading move you pulled last month with your trend estimates. That time series was used to downplay the intensity of the warming that began two years ago. This is why you are a climate denier: you only acknowledge warming when it fits your narrative.
Either the anomalous drop in albedo that warmed the planet two years ago will reverse, allowing the climate to cool back toward previous levels, or it will persist, triggering feedbacks and further degrading the signal to noise ratio.
If the latter occurs, accurately estimating long term climate trends will likely require several additional decades of data.
But to respond directly: I was not suggesting that you are using the actual methodology behind the hockey stick. You took that too literally. What I meant is that you are showcasing a sharp decline in sea ice without accounting for the necessary context.
It is well established that Arctic sea ice underwent a regime shift in 2007.
This is not just a talking point from skeptic blogs anymore. Even the National Snow and Ice Data Center recognizes it. Just last month they published a blog post titled ‘Yes, Arctic sea ice took a turn in 2007’.
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/analyses/may-sea-icealways-grace-our-planets-poles