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.
WV amplification is about tropospheric WV.
Hunga Tonga injected WV into the stratosphere, and I don’t know of anyone who suggested that this injection would not eventually fall out, nor of anyone who suggested that this had any relation to the WV amplification effect, which is a feedback to tropospheric background temperature.
IOW, I’m not sure what prompts you to conflate two separate issues.
IF the HT WV injection had a significant warming effect (consensus is that it didn’t), NASA and other bodies expected that effect to dissipate in several years, along with the elevated stratospheric WV concentration:
“The excess water vapor injected by the Tonga volcano, on the other hand, could remain in the stratosphere for several years…
The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects.”
https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/
Thank you, barry, for your comment. To get from the sea to the stratosphere, the water had to pass through the troposphere, and to cycle back to the sea, the stratospheric water has to pass through the troposphere. You are right to observe that people haven’t been talking about tropospheric water vapour in this scenario. I think they know that water vapour in the troposphere is such an example of negative feedback that it is hardly in dispute. If there were genuine positive feedback, even the unreported amounts of water vapour that were put and are still being put into the troposphere would have interacted with the increased tropospheric temperature, and triggered the instability.
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.
Richard M.
The BLS estimates the employment rate for over 100 million people by sampling “just” ~200,000 people, of necessity, an inaccurate exercise.
The 90% confidence interval for the monthly change in total non-farm employment from the establishment survey is on the order of plus or minus 136,000.
So, the predicted rise of 73,000 jobs in July could turn out to be either a minus 70,000 or plus 200,000, in round numbers.
The discrediting whitehouse.gov propaganda can’t change facts:
” Its unemployment figures are routinely corroborated by multiple independent sources, including ADP, Moody’s, and private-sector payroll and economic analytics firms. “
That really was not the issue for Trump. It was the revision of 1/4 million jobs in previous months, that possibly could have given him more ammo in his fight with the Fed on interest rates for this latest round.
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.
What is your prediction for this month?
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.
And the rest of us can draw the conclusion of our choosing about his lack of character and competence.
It appears you’ve already drawn your conclusion.
There was no need to fire her. This was an overtly political act of retribution.
And no, the pres cannot simply install whoever they want. It is a senate-confirmed position, and because it is a non-partisan role the senate always confirms with significant majority.
Trump has thrown a tantrum and shown everyone who works in government that he might nix you if you tell a truth that he doesn’t like. Petty tyrant.
In the very same vein:
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/08/03/jeanine-pirro-ex-star-de-fox-news-confirmee-procureure-de-washington-par-le-senat-americain-sur-demande-de-donald-trump_6626393_3210.html
” Former Fox News star Jeanine Pirro, confirmed as Washington’s U.S. Attorney by the U.S. Senate at Donald Trump’s request
This 74-year-old judge, who is taking on one of the most important positions in the country, has written several books in support of the U.S. president and shared conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, which Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden. “
christopher…”This month’s post is of great importance. It shows strong empirical evidence that the earth’s energy transport process….”
***
I agree with your post, I just wish you’d refrain from calling it energy and refer to it as heat. The word energy is proper but it is far too general. What type of energy is being transferred? Also, there is a move afoot to discredit heat as a form of energy and heat is the problem we are facing, not so much a generic energy.
Gravitational energy holds our atmosphere in place as the planet rotates, otherwise Earth could not support life since the atmosphere would drift off into space. There would be no climate without gravitational energy, which creates a force on mass, attracting mass,including atmospheric gases to the surface.
If we say a mass has gravitational energy, it means ‘something’ is attracting the smaller mass to the greater mass of the planet. We have no idea what that something is, which is true of any kind of energy. Thermal energy, aka heat, is a reference to energy associated with atoms, in fact, heat has been defined as the kinetic energy of atoms by Clausius. That can apply to the internal energy within an atom or the kinetic energy of an atom in motion, even to the vibration of atoms in a solid.
Clausius, who is credited with the definition of internal energy in the 1st law, originally defined internal energy as internal heat plus internal work. However, he made it clear that it was the internal heat that is responsible for the internal atomic vibrations that constitute internal work. He was talked into dropping the dual energy designation by Thompson, an egregious error IMHO. Today, we have people talking about internal energy as some mystical entity that is lumped under the generic description of plain energy.
I have argued here with those who insist that heat is a philosophical entity that indicates a transfer of generic energy. They refuse to specify which type of energy is being transferred due to a temperature difference and by definition it can only be heat that is being transferred. Ergo, the modern definition of heat is reduced to a transfer of heat, not thermal energy itself.
We live in confused scientific times.
Temperature is a human definition, based initially on the relative level of heat. The heat in water at the freezing point of water and the heat in water at the boiling point of water were adopted as set points. 0C was designated by Celsius as the freezing point of water and 100C was designated as the boiling point. Linear gradations in between designated temperatures between.
Maxwell, along with Boltzmann, muddied the waters by defining temperature as the average kinetic energy of molecules in a theoretical gas. However, Celsius (1742) and Fahrenheit (1724) had already defined temperature using the freezing and boiling points of water as set points. Clearly, temperature was a human definition and not a natural phenomenon like heat energy. Heat infers atomic motion whereas temperature has a vagueness about it.
Where has all the warming gone?
Long time cooling.
Where has all the warming gone?
Long time no see.
Where has all the warming gone?
To the ocean I hear them say,
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
My apologies to Pete Seeger.
The oceans remain at near record temperatures.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2
And well above the pre 2023 levels.
Click the Anomaly map to see the massive heatwave in the Northern Pacific that we have had for 4 years.
Ho~g~le
In the previous monthly report thread, you copied and pasted the WUWT stuff about Marcott and Mann concerning past reconstructions.
Typical pseudoskepticism mostly based on singular points grossly amplified to a global of course negative appreciation.
*
Feel free to continue this discrediting sequence with the next element in the chain:
Ranking of tree-ring based temperature reconstructions of the past
millennium
J. Esper & al. (2016)
https://www.climatology.uni-mainz.de/files/2016/03/Esper_2016_QSR.pdf
*
” Tree-ring chronologies are widely used to reconstruct high-to low-frequency variations in growing season temperatures over centuries to millennia.
The relevance of these timeseries in large-scale climate reconstructions is often determined by the strength of their correlation against instrumental temperature data.
However, this single criterion ignores several important quantitative and qualitative characteristics of tree-ring chronologies. Those characteristics are (i) data homogeneity, (ii) sample replication, (iii) growth coherence, (iv) chronology development, and (v) climate signal including the correlation with instrumental data.
Based on these 5 characteristics, a reconstruction-scoring scheme is proposed and applied to 39 published, millennial-length temperature reconstructions from Asia, Europe, North America, and the Southern Hemisphere. Results reveal no reconstruction scores highest in every category and each has their own strengths and weaknesses. ”
*
Addendum
Großräumige Temperaturrekonstruktionen
mit Baumringen
Jan Esper (2022)
https://www.climatology.uni-mainz.de/files/2022/11/Esper_2022_AWLM.pdf
Just so we’re clear, Binny, I know the Auditor’s stuff inside out. But if you are to bait Walter as you baited for years our bunch of cranks on two of their three main talking points, you are on your own.
Not my pig, not my farm.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Nashville is headed into its 27th straight day in the 90s on Monday, which puts this heat wave in rare territory. The National Weather Service says it is the longest streak since 2022 and among the ten longest 90-degree streaks on record for the city.
https://wpln.org/post/peak-heat-expected-in-nashville-continuing-streak-of-90-degree-days/
I wonder why contrarians don’t worry that climate models could have underunderestimNashville’s last two years.
where are you going with this one Willard? all you have said is it is neither unusual or unprecedented, when did the instrumental records begin in Nashville? If they are less than 200.years old, all you are talking about is the odd warm spell in a warmer climate regime.we have little wind forecast for the UK tomorrow,if it blows some ones hat off it will be all over the media.