Home/BlogThe Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2025 was +0.36 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the June, 2025 anomaly of +0.48 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through July 2025) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The 0.12 deg. C drop in global average temperature anomaly since last month was dominated by the extra-tropical Southern Hemisphere, which fell from +0.55 deg. C in June to +0.10 deg. C in July.
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 19 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 |
| 2025 | July | +0.36 | +0.49 | +0.23 | +0.45 | +0.32 | +0.40 | +0.53 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for July, 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:
This month’s post is of great importance. It shows strong empirical evidence that the earth’s energy transport process, aka the climate system, is dynamically stable. This is saying that, after the 2023 – 2024 strong water vapour and temperature perturbation, the July point shows regression towards the expected trajectory. A similar regression was evident in response to the 1998 perturbation.
This means that the warmista Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC fable of “amplification through positive feedback by the radiative effect of increased water vapour” does not occur in nature. The “amplifier” is shown to be fake. The true dynamics of the process has no amplification.
This shows that the feedback, properly defined (not as the warmistas bizarrely or perversely define it), is negative. The whole warmista doctrine is blown away by this empirical observation.
Congratulations, Dr Spencer, on your magnificent and decisive assembly of empirical data.
A single month’s anomaly says very little in terms of trends or amplification. Like any other month,this anomaly falls well within the normal variability, and is well within the envelope of the long term positive trend.
Thank you, barry, for your comment. Yes, a single month’s anomaly, considered by itself, says little. But we are looking at a time series. The trend on the relevant time scale for water vapour feedback, shows, as you observe, a return to the “normal”, and is well within the envelope of the longer term positive trend. That is the point. If there were positive feedback, it would have shown itself as a persisting growth of the perturbation. We don’t know the cause of the longer term positive trend, but we don’t need to for this analysis. What matters here is that it wasn’t disrupted by an explosive extension of the perturbation that started in 2022 or 2023. The proposed “amplification” is said to arise from “positive feedback”, which the new data rule out when the sign is defined according to the natural definition.
Good point, Christopher.
It’s a correction after the perturbation. Earth can handle it.
I was curious if the fall would be as rapid as the rise.
If the La Niña returns we could even see the global anomaly get back to 0.0!
Good point, Clint. La Nina is now the highest probability ENSO condition for next winter.
The current downturn is sure looking like the dissipation of the Hunga-Tonga eruption effects which should continue through 2025. That would likely get us back to a pre-2022 climate state.
CFSR data is showing a similar downward trend in 2025.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2025-08-01.gif
This also means all the climate change hype over the past 3+ years was based on a false premise. There really is no other good explanation for the current cooling.
Finally, we are still hanging on to the AMO warm phase which has now reached 30 years. It is due for a phase change. This could lead to as much as 0.6 C of cooling in the not too distant future.
I hope my humble effort based on 17 years of study of first future energy options and then, realising that what was proposed was a fraudulent moneymaking scheme, concentrating on the climate change that is all attributed to one small effc and dimishing effect of increasing CO2, so all blamed on AGW/enrgy use justification – for the fraud that monetises a non-problem in fact. That nuclear could fix much better.
After detailed consideration of the sensitivity/response of each of the main and obvious natural feedbacks kindly quantified by NASA, that ensure the wafer thin skins of water and atmosphere held onto the huge rock that is Earth by gravity, absorb and then release an equal amount of energy, and how each of these feedbacks will change with temperature, I produced a simple, empirical, dynamic energy balance – such as you suggest.
THe energy balance is maintained by the variability of the 240W/m^2 of LWIR enrgy losses with temperature. This powerful negative feedback to changing temperatures overcomes the tiny radiative perturbations from AGW effects, even if the full Hansen nonsense of 2W per metre per degree Kelvin positive feedback by WV is included.
The net feedback to any radiative perturbation to the whole System is about 9W per m² per degree NEGATIVE feedback. Most of this is convected latent heat that is later lost as radiation from the troposphere, 84W/m^2 that varies by 7% per degree SST so 6W/m^2, the next largest is S-B effect of 1.4% per degree on 240W/m^2 from mostly Tropospheric atmosphere but also direct radiative losses from the surface/ocean. So another 3.4W/m^2 deg K.
For example, the IPCC’s 1.6 W per m² AGW effect since 1850 will have been rebalanced by a temperature rise of about 0.2°C – hence the remaining 1.3° is natural change.
In models the natural change component is simply denied to attribute all change to modeller’s chosen variable, of course. Which is why the models so over-predict the actual change we measure.
Yet the natural cyclical change range, rate and periodicity have been measured and reported many times by people who study natural change. Who knew?
So climate models are complete fraud on the measured facts of nature we know. And the strong natural feedbacks that are a very real, obvious and inherent part of the natural enrgy balance control system can easily hold the balance against the natural radiative perturbations of the Earth’s orbital variability, nearly up to 100W/m^2 over a year at max eccentricity and the Laskar cycles in general. The much smaller AGW is barely noticeabale to this dominant negative feedback control.
In haste….. I hope you find merit in this approach. It’s real, simple to explain, easy to follow. NO models required.
Catt, Brian, An Empirical Quantification of the Negative Feedbacks of Earth’s Energy Balance (January 01, 2025).
Available at SSRN:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5220078
Hello, Brian Catt. I note with comfort that your excellent work corroborates the conclusion, from Dr Spencer’s most valuable empirical data, that the earth’s energy transport process, aka the climate system, is dynamically stable. This blows away the “official” warmista doctrine of “amplification by positive feedback through the radiative effects of increased water vapour”.
The warmista doctrine is propped up by two tricks. One: a dodgy and perverse definition of “positive feedback”. Two: considering the virtual or potential radiative effects of extra water vapour without regard to the evaporative and convective feedback components that are their necessary physical precursors.
I agree that the warming isn’t due to the multiple static shell theory expressed by the Greenplate effect promoted by Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC. But there is a single shell effect.
And there may be an element of a multiple shell effect probably detected by Roy’s work on climate sensitivity that showed negative feedback.
Folks in here have widely recognized that if the atmosphere gets warmer the surface will get warmer. But the Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC calls for atmosphere cooling via their multiple static shell theory. However, cooling of the upper troposphere would cause a destabilization of the atmosphere.
Also when looks at radiation physics a 241w/m2 mean input from the sun results in a mean stabilized temperature of 279K for .3 albedo making the GHE somewhere around 9K.
So what causes the 9K? Latent heat from evaporation of water into water vapor can easily account for that. A physical process that warms the atmosphere.
Total mean incoming solar radiation over appropriate periods of time will change both evaporation and albedo via Milankovic theories of orbital and axial perturbations.
The main short term perturbation is the one that led to the discovery of Neptune where the speed of Uranus in the sky confounded astronomers in that it wasn’t showing up where it was expected to show up on schedule.
In 2023 the earth has been arriving closer to the sun up to 5 days later than 1980 than was expected before this effect was detected in Uranus around 1821. It then took 28 years before they found the cause.
It would be nice to develop a model of earth’s orbital perturbations as that can easily be then used to see how much it effects total mean sunlight variations and predict their effects into the future. I have been grinding away on this with a lot less discipline and zeal that Milankovic had and my access to technology is severely limited. . .but not nearly as much as Milankovic was. I can say there is a strong correlation of the variations we know of in timing of planet positions and the bumps and valleys we see in our temperature and proxy data.
Why can we be sure that the customary Hansen−Schlesinger−IPCC “amplifier” is fake?
The “amplifier” of the customary Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC circuit diagram has a unilateral “gain” circuit element, and it has a unilateral summing junction. Such are artificial engineered devices, and do not occur in the atmosphere. Natural processes are dissipative or reciprocal, practically the opposite of unilateral. Dissipative processes include friction, thermal conduction, and diffusion, involving self-feedback, with negative elements on the leading diagonal of the matrix of rate coefficients. In contrast, the customary “amplifier” circuit diagram excludes self-feedback by setting zero values for the elements on the leading diagonal of the matrix of rate coefficients. This makes the eigenvalues of the matrix either purely real, one negative, the other positive (necessarily dynamically unstable), or both purely imaginary and of opposite signs (necessitating undamped finite oscillatory responses to perturbations). Such dynamics are unnatural and unphysical. That shows that the “amplifier” is fake.
The proper way to define dynamical stability in the present context is through dynamical systems theory (e.g. ‘Dynamical Systems’ by G.D. Birkhoff (1927), American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI). All the eigenvalues of the matrix of rate coefficients must be negative (or, exceptionally, if complex, must have negative real parts). A single positive eigenvalue will make the process dynamically unstable.
That is a rather theoretical definition, which we can’t directly verify, because we don’t well enough understand the details of the dynamics.
The appropriate empirical definition, according to dynamical systems theory, is that, for dynamical stability, a substantial perturbation should always be followed by a rapid return to the currently expected trajectory of the process. Such a return signifies negative feedback.
On the other hand, positive feedback as defined above would have resulted in a rapid extension of the perturbation. Instead, this month’s new data rule out positive feedback.
Looks like I was correct in saying that https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2025-08-01.gif would well predict the outcome of UAH global temperatures.
You were correct. I suspect if we had more data we would be seeing and increase in cloudiness as the main driver of the cooling. This follows Christopher’s point that we are seeing negative feedback.
The Earth’s climate is slowly returning to its pre Hunga-Tonga eruption state. The only response by the alarmist crew will be to push longer term trends which are still influenced by this temporary warming. They will have no explanation for the cooling.
What are you talking about? Variability is not contested by anyone. Why would anyone have difficulty explaining recent months being cooler than the latest peak in UAH temps?
Are you imagining that someone said the recent high temps are here to stay? What dream are you dreaming about this mythical ‘alarmist crew’?
Thank you, barry, for your comment. Indeed, as you suggest, no clear thinking person will say that “the recent high temps are here to stay”. But there are others who support the “official” warmista Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC theoretical doctrine of “amplification by positive feedback through the radiative effects of increased water vapour”. Their theory predicts the persistence of the recent high temps. Dr Spencer’s data blow that theory away.
In 1937, Soviet census officials were disappeared for reporting numbers Stalin didn’t like.
In 2025, Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because the jobs numbers made him look bad.
Different century, same instinct: if the facts don’t flatter the regime, shoot the messenger and burn the ledger.
An alternative view on this is that successive US governments had removed the voices that didn’t fit the narrative and Trump reinstated them.
That alternative view collapses under even modest scrutiny.
The BLS operates with a long-standing reputation for methodological rigor and independence across administrations of both parties. Its unemployment figures are routinely corroborated by multiple independent sources, including ADP, Moody’s, and private-sector payroll and economic analytics firms.
If a president fires a statistical agency head not for malfeasance or inaccuracy, but for publishing data that conflicts with his preferred narrative, that is not restoring balance; that is undermining institutional integrity. Dismissing verified facts in favor of political convenience is not reform. It is propaganda.
He should keep Biden’s appointment because you think so?
She was fired for incompetence. Sorry to ruin your TDS fantasies.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/08/bls-has-lengthy-history-of-inaccuracies-incompetence/
You are missing the bigger picture. It wasn’t the latest numbers that led to the firing. It was the updates to the May numbers. Those numbers weren’t even close according to the revision. Trump fired the head of the department because they were reporting junk numbers.
I think that makes this the 4th warmest July in the UAH record. Well down on the last two years, and slightly below 1998.
How do you see the rest of 2025 turning out?
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2025-08-01.gif
Top 10 warmest July’s
Year Anomaly
1 2024 0.74
2 2023 0.56
3 1998 0.38
4 2025 0.36
5 2022 0.32
6 2020 0.30
7 2016 0.26
8 2019 0.24
9 2010 0.20
10 2021 0.19
8 of the 10 warmest have happened in the last 10 years.
https://i.imgur.com/ICJwTTd.png
My estimate for 2025, based on a simple linear projection, drops slightly to 0.49 +/- 0.10C.
https://i.imgur.com/iJPsby8.png
But I think it’s more likely the projection will drop over the rest of the year.
This month’s anomaly is now just slightly above the long term trend.
https://i.imgur.com/PSW1auq.png
These non-systematic step changes have set up sinusoidal patterns after the step change. The crests of the sinusoids tend to be below the peaks. Curious to see where the trough sets.
Yes, stephen p anderson, indeed, as you observe, the subsequent crests are below the peak. The “official” warmista Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC “amplifier” model says that such oscillations will be undamped; Dr Spencer’s empirical data refute that: they show that such possible oscillations are damped.
Right now 2 of August 2025, according to Copernicus, from the peak of 18 of November 2023, in terms of surface temperatures, it has decreased 0,66dC globally. From average troposphere, from the peak of April 2024 (+0.94dC), it has decreased 0,58dC. It looks like after Hunga Tonga, temps are returning to the mean, and earth cooling a little bit. Hope it continues in the future.
The surface temperature of the ocean is exactly as it should be at this time of year. In the western Pacific, it reaches 30 C (more can’t because of the pressure near the surface and the increase in convection in these areas).
https://i.ibb.co/1tXPRBz7/cdas-sflux-sst-global-1.png
It’s only one month, but it is a relief to see those gobsmacking temperatures reverting to the long term trend.
Here’s why BLS revises numbers:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbers.htm
The size of the revisions are almost always less than a percent of the total workforce.
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cestn.htm#Benchmarks
Trump and the Repubs are creating a false scandal, presumably based on Trump’s political ego. BLS initial figures are based on 70% of the data, and their revisions climb to over 90% of the nationwide data.
An initial total jobs estimate from 70% of the data that is less than a percent off the final estimate with 90+% of the data is a very good error window.
But because revisions to monthly changes in the labour force are a much larger percentage, they can become a political football. But Trump has gone way beyond the usual politicking and actually attacked the bureau for what happens normally.
The President can have the person of his choosing.