Home/BlogThe Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2025 was +0.39 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up a little from the July, 2025 anomaly of +0.36 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through August 2025) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 20 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 |
| 2025 | Aug | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.16 | -0.06 | +0.69 | +0.11 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for August, 2025, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The anomaly in the tropics (20N – 20S) has dropped considerably, to +0.16 deg. C. The U.S. was below the 30-year average in August.
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:
Thank you Dr Spencer!
Let’s do this no TDS month
You might like:
A Republican Minnesota state senator who was caught in a sting operation resigned under fire Thursday after he was charged with soliciting a minor for prostitution, stepping down before the Senate could vote on whether to expel him.
According to Eichorn’s profile, which has now been removed from the Senate website, he is married with four children. He listed his profession as entrepreneur and was first elected in 2016. He got some national attention earlier this month as one sponsor of a not-very-serious bill that would have designated “Donald derangement syndrome” as a mental illness.
https://apnews.com/article/senator-justin-eichorn-resigns-b79bc500b740f61d1e5f280e3822fb9b
Huh? Is there some relevance to this blog? This seems so out of context that I struggle to understand- so very curious what is the context.
Thank you for your diffident question, Aaron. My comment was in response to Eboy’s hall monitoring. Are you struggling to understand the relevance of Eboy’s hall monitoring?
Further, you might already have forgotten:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/07/the-doe-scientific-report-underpinning-the-epas-decision-to-reconsider-the-2009-endangerment-finding-on-co2/
Chris Wright is that kind of guy to say that if we wrapped the Earth in solar panels it would produce 20% of the energy we need:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/energy-secretary-says-wrapping-earth-233101352.html
It might be true of Pluto, but wrapping the Sahara desert might be enough to produce four times the energy we actually need:
https://theconversation.com/solar-panels-in-sahara-could-boost-renewable-energy-but-damage-the-global-climate-heres-why-153992
Wright also uses the “report” to order Zeldin to deregulate the truck and car industry:
https://indianapublicradio.org/news/2025/07/epa-plans-to-get-rid-of-clean-car-standards-says-greenhouse-gases-dont-harm-people/
Deregulation is one of the main theme of Project 2025, a project from the Heartland Institute:
https://heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/roy-spencer/
Hope this helps.
In return, I got to ask – why so diffident?
Wright may have been making fun of the cult beliefs. That’s the “science” that claims Sun only provides 163 W/m² to Earth’s surface. A solar panel wouldn’t even work with so little flux!
Same temperature as August 1998, which makes this the equal third warmest August in the UAH data set.
Year Anomaly
1 2024 0.76
2 2023 0.61
3 1998 0.39
4 2025 0.39
5 2016 0.32
6 2020 0.30
7 2017 0.29
8 2019 0.25
9 2022 0.24
10 2010 0.21
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2025-09-01.gif says the same.
Great info, Bellman!
#3-1998 and #5-2016 featured strong El Nino’s, which always belch extra heat out into the atmosphere. Take those out and the top 3 are the last 3 years!
1. 2024
2. 2023
3. 2025
Both these 2 years prior to that featured sustained weak La Nina’s which caused temporary, slight cooling.
9. 2022
??. 2021
The important number is the Tropics. Looks like a new La Nina is getting started which will spread its effects towards the poles over the next 6 months.
I would also expect more cooling from the Hunga-Tonga warming effect dissipating. We might even reach negative anomalies again.
The biggest question is still the AMO. When the AMO phase change takes place we should see an increase in clouds along with further cooling. We are at the same place in the cycle as the early 1960s. We all know what happened then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRqr9_jw5I
You can ‘expect’ all you want, but there wasn’t a H-T warming effect to begin with so there will be no cooling from it either.
The HTE can be seen in the UAH chart above. It correlates well with the early Polar Vortex disruption followed by the Stratospheric water vapor, as shown here:
https://postimg.cc/DWDB8Tww
Now you might say that “correlation is not causation”, which is true. But the causation is backed by solid physics, unlike with the CO2 nonsense.
“But the causation is backed by solid physics”
which you are never able to show us…so this is another post that can be safely ignored.
Child Nate, you know you can’t ignore me.
You don’t have the necessary maturity.
Many folks, including myself, predicted the 2025 cooling we have experienced based solely on the dissipation of the HTe warming effect. There’s not any other good mechanism which fits both the warming in 2023-24 and the cooling we are now seeing.
https://climatlas.com/temperature/jra55/jra55_globe_t2m_2009_2023.png
What other mechanisms did you consider then refute.
The obvious one is ENSO. Every El Nino as large as the one in 2023, produces a strong spike in global warming through the year following it, ie 2023-2024.
Then a cooling in the year following that, ie 2025.
In addition there has been for several years an ongoing annual summer-Fall heat wave in N. Mid latitude oceans. This oscillates somewhat year to year, and is still high, but slightly reduced this year relative to the 2023 peak.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/ElNino.vs.aerosols.pdf
Ocean temps still near record of 2023.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2
“Many folks, including myself, predicted the 2025 cooling we have experienced based solely on the dissipation of the HTe warming effect. There’s not any other good mechanism which fits both the warming in 2023-24 and the cooling we are now seeing.”
No one has first shown how HT was responsible for the ocean warming.
My comments are not ad hoc speculations like your HT explanation.
I predicted in my May 2022 NASA-LASP Sun-Climate Symposium poster the 1.5°C ‘limit’ would likely be breached during this solar cycle from solar activity. It happened as I predicted. My system is based on decadal ocean warming after sunspots > 95 SN, and was confirmed using CERES EBAF data.
https://i.postimg.cc/Hx0fWkf1/Decadal-Warming-Steps-since-2000.jpg
Subsequent cooling is just the fade off the El Nino peak.
The basis for my prediction was expected solar minimum related relative tropical cloudlessness leading to lower albedo, enhancing the strong TSI rise.
https://i.postimg.cc/7hvjBJz5/Solar-Cycles-and-Tropical-Step-Changes.png
https://i.postimg.cc/5Nr6ghYn/CERES-TOA-Cloud-Area-Fraction-by-Latitude.jpg
It’s highly likely several different perturbations worked together to produce the recent spike — Solar, ENSO, HTE, and possibly others.
That shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
The only thing absolutely certain is that CO2 did not do it.
Sorry Nate, ENSO doesn’t fit. The 2023-24 El Nino was over in May 2024. It was replaced by La Nina conditions by the fall of 2024. There was some cooling from the end of the El Nino but that was over prior to the end of 2024.
In 2025 we moved from La Nino conditions to neutral conditions. That would have a slight warming effect. Solar cycle 25 remains at its peak.
There’s nothing to have driven the strong 2025 cooling other than the dissipation of HTe warming. Of course, that also means most of the warming in 2023 was due to the HTe. The El Nino was quite weak. It just looked strong from the added effect of HTe.
There’s still a little more of the HTe warming to lose as well. Probably take another year. When all is said and done we will likely be back to pre-2022 temperatures. And coming soon, the AMO phase change brings even more cooling.
“The El Nino was quite weak. It just looked strong from the added effect of HTe.”
False. It was a strong El Nino by the usual measures.
“There’s nothing to have driven the strong 2025 cooling other than the dissipation of HTe warming.”
Ummm, of course there is.
The eak la Nina spiked in Jan-March of this year. There is always 4-5 months delay in its effect on global UAH.
Nate just can’t accept the obvious. If the El Nino had been strong there would have been significant cooling in mid 2024 after it disappeared. Nope, just some minor cooling.
“There is always 4-5 months delay in its effect on global UAH.”
I said nothing about UAH data, don’t know why you brought it up.
It’s pretty obvious you have nothing to offer that explains the 2023 warming and matching 2025 cooling. HTe explains it quite well. Natural events do affect the climate.
Not UAH? Why not? What data do you prefer?
Even Clint acknowledges that correlation is not indicative of causation, particularly when there are several other confounding variables.
Child Nate, whenever you mention me you need to also include what I have discovered about you. You are an uneducated cult child stalking people here almost 24/7. You obviously have no job. You may even be unemployable….
The important number is the trend. When will that drop to zero? Not in our lifetime.
The LINEAR trend?
As always, LINEAR trends are, according to the opinionated Brit boy, only useful and valid when they are negative, e.g. that for UAH LT between 2016 and 2021.
Robert, trends on cyclic data need to be at least double the length of the longest cycle. Do you have thermometer data that goes back at least a couple thousand years? No?
That means trends are suspect unless you can mathematically remove the effect of cycles. Do you have that capability? No?
Trends will likely be misleading. They will simply show your position within the cycles which isn’t very useful for predicting future changes.
We have been in the warm phase of the millennial cycle for 400+ years. Hence, warming is expected. The AMO has moved from its cool phase into its warm phase over the past 60 years. Hence, additional warming is expected.
Unless one can remove these effects from historic data they cannot make any claims about other causes of climate change. That is the big failure of climate pseudoscience.
> trends on cyclic data
Where’s your stationarity test, Richard?
LINEAR trends are just the ultimate smoothing of the data.
Cycle nuttery isn’t less ultimate, Richard.
I thought the important number was DC, specifically summer days.
Please advise.
LOL!
” The biggest question is still the AMO. When the AMO phase change takes place we should see an increase in clouds along with further cooling. We are at the same place in the cycle as the early 1960s. We all know what happened then. ”
*
Since half an eternity, poster Richard M manipulates us with his AMO stuff by using the detrended AMO variant which is useful only to show that AMO has a cyclic kernel.
But when you want to talk about AMO versus temperatures, you obviously have to use the undetrended variant:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_sgA1QI-f6ZELCxGE3TUp3IgsAvJsSfr/view
And then you see that we are far far away from his nice polar bear picture because AMO increases at a rate similar to the rest of the Globe.
Of course the “AMO increases”, it is sitting on top of the millennial cycle which has been rising for several centuries. Your problem is, when the AMO cycle flips back, all of the warming seen this century will vanish. This cooling will rip apart all the claims coming from alarmists even if it’s slightly warmer than the 1960s/1970s.
The small warming from the millennial cycle will not be enough to keep the climate hoax alive. It won’t take long once the AMO flips. Keep an eye on Arctic sea ice. It will be the first hint the AMO transition has begun.
” Of course the ‘AMO increases’… ”
If you think a guy like Richard M would agree being wrong, you are even more wrong.
*
Instead of agreeing he is wrong on misinterpreting the detrended AMO, he invents a new escape
” … it is sitting on top of the millennial cycle which has been rising for several centuries. ”
The millenial cycle isn’t rising at all – apart from ‘the end of the LIA’ as some say.
*
And then the very best:
” It won’t take long once the AMO flips. Keep an eye on Arctic sea ice. It will be the first hint the AMO transition has begun. ”
Aha.
My answer is that keeping fixated on Arctic sea ice is a pseudoskeptic nonsense: AMO is strongly interconnected with AMOC and hence of global nature.
It would therefore be honest to ‘keep an eye’ on Global sea ice instead:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MEUnU8tQ0IJANp840_o6FQA-sXCdIJuL/view
*
Maybe the genius Richard M will download the same HadISST1 ICE data, process it, and inform us when the blue polynomial dares to go beyond the red linear trend, it could take long, however :–)
Bindidon says: “My answer is that keeping fixated on Arctic sea ice is a pseudoskeptic nonsense: AMO is strongly interconnected with AMOC and hence of global nature.”
We will see. If I am right the AMO index and Arctic sea ice will track together. As Arctic sea ice increases, the AMO index will decrease. With this view, the AMO index is simply showing the cooling effect of more sea ice in the Arctic. It has nothing to do with the AMOC.
Global ocean currents, of which the AMOC is a small portion, are more likely tied to the millennial cycle.
The change to the AMO cool phase is due soon. The warm phase transition started in 1995 and phases run 30-35 years. We could see this change at any time. The cooling from this change could lead to a 0.6 C drop in global temperatures. Coming on top of the recent HTe cooling will drop global temperature anomalies way down.
The only warming left will be from the millennial cycle. AGW will be relegated to the book of bad science.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MEUnU8tQ0IJANp840_o6FQA-sXCdIJuL/view
In this chart of the global sea ice extent there is a trend curve of the 4th polynomial degree. How to interpret its shape?
David
In contrast to linear estimates which draw a simple line over all the data, higher order polynomials tend to much better follow the local behavior of that data.
The choice of 4th order was simply due to the fact that for the observed data, 2nd and 3rd order polys kept too near to the linear estimate.
Richard M
” The warm phase transition started in 1995 and phases run 30-35 years. ”
Wrong, look at the data.
*
All your predictions in the last 10 years – be it here or at WUWT – were simply wrong, but you’ll never admit it.
Keep stubborn, Sah! We’ll enjoy.
Bindidon says “Wrong, look at the data.”
I have looked at the data. The last 3 AMO transitions occurred in 1932, 1962, 1996. All fit in the 30-35 year window. Before then the data is not good enough to make any claims. However, 1900 looks like it would be a reasonable date for the previous change.
“All your predictions in the last 10 years – be it here or at WUWT – were simply wrong”
Name one. My predictions come with conditions. I tie them to actual events. I have stated many times that when the AMO cycle flips we will see cooling. Since that hasn’t happened yet, my prediction has not been wrong.
I’ve also stated that cooling would occur when the HTe warming effects dissipated. Oh look, I was right.
The old link to data https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
seems dead. The new link http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/ leads to a global report page. It has a link to data through 2024. Does the change to version 6.1 eliminate the monthly summary files?
Try https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/ instead.
Thank you
When I look at
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
I see the pictures referring to July 2025, e.g.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2025/July2025/202507_Map.png
Until Roy (or others) get around o changing it, it will be JULY 2025 :: MAPS AND GRAPHS.
A relief to see the recent excursion in monthly temperatures reverting to the long term trend.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2027/every/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2027/every/trend
That WFT graph is not up to date. Current anomalies are much closer to the long term trend.
https://i.imgur.com/VtbiWYw.png
Thank you for the graph.
It illustrates that the 2024 peak is another like 1998 rather than an invite acceleration.
Testing
From comments on Roy Spencer coauthored report for DOE.
“More than 85 American and international scientists have condemned a Trump administration report that calls the threat of climate change overblown, saying the analysis is riddled with errors, misrepresentations and cherry-picked data to fit the president’s political agenda.
The scientists submitted their critique as part of a public comment period on the report, which was to close Tuesday night.”
“In a chapter-by-chapter rebuttal that essentially serves as a peer review, the scientists took apart some of the government’s most eye-popping claims.”
“By Tuesday morning, more than 2,300 comments had been filed regarding the report. Among them was a submission from the American Meteorological Society, a premier climate science organization, which outlined what it called “foundational flaws” in the report and called on the government to correct the findings.”
“Among them was a submission from the American Meteorological Society, a premier climate science organization…”
Meteorologists are not climatologists aka climate scientists. Meteorologists are experts in the field of climate, but laymen in the field of climate change.
I notice you left out the link to whatever left wing source you are using. Try this:
“This comes weeks after the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Environmental Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration”
How many think those are reliable sources? Their liberal bias and publicly stated agenda is obvious.
Let’s not leave out the ring leader:
“Andrew Dessler, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, coordinated the response from dozens of climate experts. He says unlike the DOE report, climate reports from groups such as the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change feature the work of hundreds of global scientists and require multiple rounds of peer review.”
The fact remains that the endangerment finding was based on bogus speculation and the raw opinion of activist scientists. It was not based on a sound scientific analysis using factual information. It was pure speculation. Now that the adults in the room are taking a fresh look, the alarmists are very upset.
From the Federal Register:
In this action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to repeal all greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines to effectuate the best reading of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 202(a). We propose that CAA section 202(a) does not authorize the EPA to prescribe emission standards to address global climate change concerns and, on that basis, propose to rescind the Administrator’s prior findings in 2009 that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to air pollution which may endanger public health or welfare.
Are you disputing these facts which have been widely reported?
Or are you just calling them left-wing facts?
““More than 85 American and international scientists have condemned a Trump administration report that calls the threat of climate change overblown, saying the analysis is riddled with errors, misrepresentations and cherry-picked data to fit the president’s political agenda.”
“The scientists submitted their critique as part of a public comment period”
“By Tuesday morning, more than 2,300 comments had been filed regarding the report. Among them was a submission from the American Meteorological Society, a premier climate science organization, which outlined what it called “foundational flaws” in the report and called on the government to correct the findings.”
None of the “85 American and international scientists” who have “condemned” the DOE report are being objective in any way. The authors of the DOE report did not “condemn” anyone. They have offered their view of the currently available science, as well as their interpretation of the data and analysis contained in the various papers they have referenced — even if that differs from the view of the authors. They are being honest and responsible. Rational and objective people understand that.
Objective scientists do not condemn each other for having a diffident interpretation of the data. That type of personal attack is a certain sign of a political activist. This offensive activism and hype is the foundation of Climate Science. Sadly, the vast majority of people who call themselves climate scientists have already made up their minds to push the climate agenda regardless of the data.
“Objective scientists do not condemn each other for having a diffident interpretation of the data.”
They actually do.
There is no threat to anyone , truth is, the climate is most agreeable, as it was during all past warmings, billions have been and are still being wasted worldwide for no good reason,1850 is an obsession , a period in time no sensible person would want to return too,