Home/BlogThe Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2026 was +0.48 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, which is statistically unchanged from the June, 2026 value of +0.46 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through July 2026) 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 31 months (record highs are in red).
| Year | Mon | Globe | NHem | SHem | Tropic | US48 | Arctic | Aust. | Can. |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.57 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 | +0.97 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.94 | +0.81 | +1.16 | +1.31 | +0.85 | +1.16 | +2.45 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.25 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.76 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 | +1.39 |
| 2024 | May | +0.77 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.04 | +0.20 | +0.52 | +0.67 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.36 | +0.63 | +0.91 | +0.19 |
| 2024 | July | +0.73 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.96 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 | +1.15 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.75 | +0.81 | +0.69 | +0.74 | +0.40 | +0.88 | +1.75 | +1.36 |
| 2024 | Sep | +0.81 | +1.04 | +0.58 | +0.82 | +1.31 | +1.48 | +0.98 | |
| 2024 | Oct | +0.75 | +0.89 | +0.60 | +0.63 | +1.89 | +0.81 | +1.09 | +0.89 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.87 | +0.40 | +0.53 | +1.11 | +0.79 | +1.00 | +1.61 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.61 | +0.75 | +0.47 | +0.52 | +1.41 | +1.12 | +1.54 | +1.65 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.45 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.07 | +0.74 | +0.48 | +1.04 |
| 2025 | Feb | +0.50 | +0.55 | +0.45 | +0.26 | +1.03 | +2.10 | +0.87 | -0.35 |
| 2025 | Mar | +0.57 | +0.73 | +0.41 | +0.40 | +1.24 | +1.23 | +1.20 | +0.80 |
| 2025 | Apr | +0.61 | +0.76 | +0.46 | +0.36 | +0.81 | +0.85 | +1.21 | +0.45 |
| 2025 | May | +0.50 | +0.45 | +0.55 | +0.30 | +0.15 | +0.75 | +0.98 | +0.81 |
| 2025 | June | +0.48 | +0.48 | +0.47 | +0.30 | +0.80 | +0.05 | +0.39 | -0.22 |
| 2025 | July | +0.36 | +0.49 | +0.23 | +0.45 | +0.32 | +0.40 | +0.53 | -0.23 |
| 2025 | Aug | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.16 | -0.06 | +0.82 | +0.11 | +0.62 |
| 2025 | Sep | +0.53 | +0.56 | +0.49 | +0.35 | +0.38 | +0.77 | +0.30 | +2.44 |
| 2025 | Oct | +0.53 | +0.52 | +0.55 | +0.24 | +1.12 | +1.42 | +1.67 | +2.59 |
| 2025 | Nov | +0.43 | +0.59 | +0.27 | +0.24 | +1.32 | +0.78 | +0.36 | +1.47 |
| 2025 | Dec | +0.30 | +0.45 | +0.15 | +0.19 | +2.10 | +0.32 | +0.37 | -1.86 |
| 2026 | Jan | +0.35 | +0.51 | +0.19 | +0.09 | +0.30 | +1.40 | +0.95 | +1.17 |
| 2026 | Feb | +0.39 | +0.54 | +0.23 | +0.03 | +1.91 | -0.48 | +0.73 | +0.32 |
| 2026 | Mar | +0.38 | +0.33 | +0.42 | +0.07 | +3.74 | -0.48 | +1.14 | -3.17 |
| 2026 | Apr | +0.39 | +0.43 | +0.34 | +0.23 | +1.20 | +0.30 | +0.70 | -0.89 |
| 2026 | May | +0.53 | +0.46 | +0.60 | +0.58 | +0.21 | +0.34 | +0.10 | +0.21 |
| 2026 | June | +0.46 | +0.54 | +0.38 | +0.57 | +0.64 | +1.01 | +0.38 | +0.99 |
| 2026 | July | +0.48 | +0.68 | +0.27 | +0.85 | +1.14 | +0.53 | -0.22 | +0.78 |
| Year | Mon | Globe | NHem | SHem | Tropic | US48 | Arctic | Aust. | Can. |
Time Series Plots for USA48, Canada, and Australia
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for July, 2026 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here. John officially retired on July 1, 2026, but will continue working as a part-time employee of UAH.
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:
+1.14C is a new warmest July record for US48. Beats the previous July record (2011, +0.92C) by over +0.2C.
Year-to-date (Jan-Jul), US48 average is +1.3C; a fair bit ahead of the next warmest Jan-Jul period (+0.9, 2012).
Tropics up too, maybe showing first signs of El Nino?
I have recently been trying to learn more about oscillations other than ENSO. Can someone comment on where we are on other oscillations…AMO, PDO, etc? Whether you are a climate action advocate or a skeptic they are obviously important. We are in an interglacial warming period (perhaps closing in on the end of one) and likely near the end of a 40 year AMO. But that’s sort of just the beginning for various oscillations of temperature, isn’t it? I would love to read a thoughtful discussion of this. For example, what is the effect when several of these are in phase at the same time? I just got a recently published Oceanography text and was disappointed that it only addressed ENSO.
Thomas, you are on the right track. See
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plus80n/daily/daily_ts_2026.png
This is showing record cold summer temperatures in the high Arctic. IMO, the is being driven by a natural cycle of Arctic sea ice. The affects of this cycle are what drives the AMO index. This is often referred to as a 60 year cycle although it tends to vary between 60-80 years. Right now the warm phase of this cycle is in control and has been since the mid 1990s.
If I am right, we should see an increase in the Arctic summer sea ice minimum this year and in the future. This increasing sea ice extent will continue and eventually expand out into the North Atlantic. This is exactly what happened in the early 1960s which led to the global cooling scare of that period.
This cycle appears to be affected by the PDO. When the PDO is negative and this Arctic sea ice cycle is in its cool phase. That leads to cooling. When both are in their warm/positive phases, you get warming.
If the PDO remains negative and this phase change continues we can expect a lot of cooling following the current El Nino.
I agree—take a look at the Western Arctic.
https://i.ibb.co/FbG7Lf6w/r02-Chukchi-Sea-ts-4km.png
I had July even warmer, at 0.53C. That was based on an angry ENSO, and all the high temperatures in NH. We’ll see anomalies that high, and higher, in the next few months. This ENSO means business….
Clint, I suspect some of the El Nino warming has been countered by the Atlantic Nina and the high Arctic cooling. The El Nino will win out over time, but might not be as strong as it might have been.
Yes, I believe you are correct.
More relevant data about Arctic above 80 N from the Danish DMI
Poster Palmowski has shown this useless picture last month already:
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plus80n/daily/daily_ts_2026.png
I replied to this on July 8, 2026 at 3:35 PM:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1748297
*
It is complete nonsense to look all the time at the summer temperatures at a latitude like 80 N, as they for simple reasons never change.
*
1. Monthly series of absolute data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GwYOyCfKK9vzBW8R2tNieuiLZLcxCYnc/view
Already here you easily can see that the summer temperaturesw did not change sonce 1958: they never move far from +- 0.0 °C.
2. Seasonal split DJF versus JJA
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gwa8bpETqbw179pcQacl7AVzAKhH6X3p/view
Here it becomse ven more evident that all warming happens outside the summers.
Seasonal trends for 1958/59 till 2025/26, in °C / decade
Jun/Jul/Aug: -0.04 ± 0.02
Dec/Jan/Feb: +1.20 ± 0.13
*
During Arctic summers, the Sun just has enough power to partly melt ice and snow but doesn’t manage to additionally warm the ambient air – despite shining 24h a day.
Thus, as long as there is ice to melt, ambient temperature won’t move much about 0 °C.
This is the reason why the average summer temperature did not increase since 1958.
No oscillation here… only a constant increase in winter temperatures, oh so moderate: 1 °C per decade. That’s nothing, move along.
*
DMI Data source
https://download.dmi.dk/pub/plus80N_temperatureindex/
**
Now, about:
” If I am right, we should see an increase in the Arctic summer sea ice minimum this year and in the future. ”
Maybe! The Sep/Oct/Nov increase happened after all last year already, even before Richard M mentioned it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cL57UakZj8Hqw7QAv2c6XSqto6iHH5Sv/view
*
” This increasing sea ice extent will continue and eventually expand out into the North Atlantic. ”
Wow. That’s a courageous, audacious forecast, isn’t it?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1il2mz5XU13p0YjV_8CZUVjevmRZv1GOP/view
Wait and see :–)
**
” I suspect some of the El Nino warming has been countered by the Atlantic Nina and the high Arctic cooling. ”
High Arctic cooling? Show it us please.
See point (1) above.
Poor Bindi is in a bind. He’s now forced to pre-deny events that haven’t happened yet and ignore simple facts like the high Arctic summer is the coldest on record. Just think what it will be like after the biggest cause of recent warming, the 60 year cycle, moves further into its new cool phase.
How will it explain increases in Arctic sea ice almost every year?
How will it explain global temperature anomalies falling almost every year?
How will it explain the billions wasted on fake science?
Richard,
This “the biggest cause of recent warming, the 60 year cycle, moves further into its new cool phase.” is just not supportable by the facts.
Here we see the supposed 60 y AMO cycle in green, which operates in the North Atlantic. It is scaled to fit the detrended N. Hemisphere temperature, in red.
We also see the raw N. hemisphere temperature (no detrending) in blue (up to 2020). The further rapid increase 2020-2026 is unavailable at this site.
It should be obvious to all that the 60 y cycle amplitude is much smaller than the observed N. Hemisphere warming trend. And it has even less influence on the S. hemisphere.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/mean:60/offset:0.38/from:1880/to:2000/detrend:0.65/plot/esrl-amo/mean:60/scale:0.65/from:1880/to:2020/plot/hadcrut4nh/mean:60/offset:0.38/from:1880
So it makes no sense for you to keep asserting that the 60 y cycle is the “biggest cause of recent warming”, when you just don’t have the evidence to support it.
I intentionally avoided to reply immediately to Richard M, and it showed.
Nate did a perfect job.
Nate’s graph is similar to what I posted many times for years in reply to Richrd M, based on a comparison of the two AMO variants – detrended vs. original (curiously named ‘undetrended’):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rli_V3tzq9lFsxZY4YdDCafOt4mVLNJl/view
All the time, Richard M dismissed this evidence.
*
Even today, he fails to grasp — or actually better: refuses to acknowledge — that the detrended AMO is and remains a fictitious construct devised solely to isolate its cyclical core.
For at least a decade, he has been pestering us almost monthly with his 60-year cycle which seems to be increasingly out of touch with reality.
**
I now move to the reply he definitely deserves.
He writes above:
” … and ignore simple facts like the high Arctic summer is the coldest on record. ”
*
On August 4, 2026 at 5:53 PM, I posted a graph with this text:
” 2. Seasonal split DJF versus JJA”
Who saw this graph immediately understood that I displayed summer data together with winter data, and that the summer data was flat just because the winter data had increased incredibly during the same period!
Here are the temperature graphs with winter and summer data displayed separately:
Winter
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ms21aJIwMsqC11q7-GXtDaCwhfDkJofq/view
Summer
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jRoXSnGdbHeMWan6n21FmOWEsm4Tywfg/view
*
How is it possible to stubbornly scrutinize with a strong magnifying glass the slight trend of -0.4°C per decade during the summer months, together with an indeed unusual drop this year, while simultaneously dissimulating the massive trend of +1.2°C per decade during the winter months?
Incredible.
**
Then he writes, as would he live on another planet:
– ” How will it explain increases in Arctic sea ice almost every year? ”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bd4DlbcGDVPF8xOjkugJK-r39_B2apaP/view
*
” How will it explain global temperature anomalies falling almost every year? ”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VMNui_SggO_B4xlTups5smR581QAA-OD/view
*
Who behaves so dishonest, opinionated and ignorant better should refrain from speaking about ‘fake’ science.
Relative to the older 1979–1998 baseline (one of Dr. Spencer’s former reference periods: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/december-2009-uah-global-temperature-update-0-28-deg-c/), the July 2026 anomaly is +0.67°C.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vhvmO4Q4ae60h67HU6ennKTIFRByOT5q/view?usp=sharing
I’ve started keeping track of that too. Thanks!
Always a chance for a mea culpa from co2-forcing denialists on here. You can always just admit you were wrong, and that you were swayed by ego and right wing media. But I wont hold my breath waiting.
Jesse,
There are many natural and man made reasons why the climate is changing. Pinning your hopes on it just being CO2 is being a science denialist. Why not be honest and say that you are anti freedom, anti individualist, and anti freedom market.
Think with your swipe at the right wing suggests that you think a trans-women are women.
Pretty sure everyone knows climate can change naturally — that’s hardly a groundbreaking revelation.
The leap skeptics make is conflating the fact that “climate change can occur naturally” with the entirely different claim that “today’s climate change is being caused by natural factors.”
They hand wave toward the AMO and PDO while ignoring the actual data. The PDO is currently in a negative phase, and the AMO has shown little overall change since 2005. As a result, these factors cannot explain the magnitude or pattern of contemporary global warming.
Here is the AMO time series:
https://postimg.cc/XXFq1wXY
(This is the detrended version of the North Atlantic sea surface temperatures).
The underlying data can be downloaded here:
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/AMO/
Yet another 3rd warmest month this year.
Ten warmest anomalies for July
2024 0.73
2023 0.56
2026 0.48
1998 0.38
2025 0.36
2022 0.32
2020 0.30
2016 0.26
2019 0.23
2010 0.20
It’s noticeable how much of an outlier 1998 is for the last century. Next warmest 20th century July is 1988 in 20th place with an anomaly of +0.03.
“Yet another 3rd warmest month this year.”
That’s my mind playing tricks. It seemed that so far every month had been around 3rd warmest, but in fact it’s only been June and July.
Current rankings are
Jan 6th
Feb 6th
Mar 5th
Apr 5th
May 2nd
Jun 3rd
Jul 3rd
The media reports that Europe is the fastest warming area on the globe. Would it be possible to confirm or falsify that by doing a Time Series Plot, similar to USA48, Canada, and Australia?
Thanks to you and John for some many years of providing this data. And may John have a wonderful retirement! Is he still running?
It certainly seems that Europe, especially central Europe has been warming faster than most areas in the summer. Here’s my own analysis of trends for the month of June. The 20 fastest warming countries are
1 Austria +0.61 ± 0.20 °C / decade
2 Slovenia +0.60 ± 0.20 °C / decade
3 Luxembourg +0.59 ± 0.21 °C / decade
4 Switzerland +0.59 ± 0.20 °C / decade
5 Czechia +0.59 ± 0.20 °C / decade
6 Germany +0.56 ± 0.20 °C / decade
7 Croatia +0.56 ± 0.20 °C / decade
8 Slovakia +0.55 ± 0.19 °C / decade
9 Hungary +0.55 ± 0.19 °C / decade
10 Belgium +0.53 ± 0.22 °C / decade
11 Bosnia and Herz. +0.50 ± 0.20 °C / decade
12 Serbia +0.48 ± 0.20 °C / decade
13 Netherlands +0.48 ± 0.22 °C / decade
14 Poland +0.47 ± 0.20 °C / decade
15 Romania +0.47 ± 0.18 °C / decade
16 Moldova +0.46 ± 0.19 °C / decade
17 Montenegro +0.46 ± 0.21 °C / decade
18 Italy +0.46 ± 0.19 °C / decade
19 France +0.44 ± 0.17 °C / decade
20 Ukraine +0.41 ± 0.21 °C / decade
Note, this is based on the UAH gridded data, but the division into countries is entirely my own work. There’s probably a lot of room for improvement.
Here’s the trend by continent for all months up to June 2026. (I’ve included Russia on its own as I don;t have a mapping that divides it by continent).
Europe +0.28 ± 0.05 °C / decade
Russia +0.26 ± 0.05 °C / decade
Asia +0.25 ± 0.03 °C / decade
North America +0.22 ± 0.04 °C / decade
Oceania +0.21 ± 0.03 °C / decade
Africa +0.20 ± 0.02 °C / decade
South America +0.20 ± 0.02 °C / decade
Antarctica +0.11 ± 0.06 °C / decade
And here’s the trends for Northern Hemisphere summers (Jun – Aug) up to 2025.
Europe +0.33 ± 0.08 °C / decade
Oceania +0.28 ± 0.08 °C / decade
South America +0.25 ± 0.06 °C / decade
Russia +0.25 ± 0.08 °C / decade
Africa +0.21 ± 0.05 °C / decade
North America +0.19 ± 0.07 °C / decade
Asia +0.14 ± 0.05 °C / decade
Antarctica +0.00 ± 0.21 °C / decade
I calculate the new Monckton Pause at 38 months (3years, 2 months). Would that be right?
Skeptikal, no offense, but you’re an idiot.
“No offense, but you’re an idiot.”
What does that mean?
If you say “no offense” first, then that negates the offense?
I would like to retract what I said and apologize for it.
Skeptikal’s interest in the Monckton Pause doesn’t necessarily mean he endorses it.
bdgwx keeps track of it as well, but his interest is in examining the idea, not endorsing it. Skeptikal may be doing the same, so I was premature in my earlier comment.
That said, Stephen, do you really think a period of just 3 years and 2 months constitutes a meaningful climate trend?
Eldrosion, trying to be superior and failing yet again
It looks like he was asking others’ opinions if this is part of the step change after 2015 or have there been two step changes since 2015.
I suspect the reason no one has resurrected “the pause” discussion recently is because they know this upcoming El Nino will probably kill it in its infancy.
However, they may be able to stretch a few more years’ ‘pause’ out of this El Nino, if it’s as big as they say.
It’s just a matter of starting your trend at the most recent peak, which is usually the month closest to the last big El Nino peak. As we have seen in the past, a really big El Nino can yield a decade or more of misleading “pause” claims, for those desperate to manufacture one.
[“kill it in its infancy.”]
It’s not like the previous periods analyzed were very long to begin with:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/14/a-new-pause/
According to the 95% confidence interval for the trend over the period discussed in this blog post, the underlying slope is not well constrained; the estimated range extends from approximately -2.7°C/century to +2.1°C/century.
And that is not even accounting for the fact that ENSO persistence means the data points aren’t completely independent from one another.
Skeptics can be a little silly at times.
Bellman, as always, schooling the swivel-eyed Monckey and the rest of the deniers.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/14/a-new-pause/#comment-3162991
Aug. 2025–Jul. 2026 averaged +0.64°C, making it the 2nd warmest La Niña period on record.
Major El Niño developing.
Earth’s albedo continues to decline.
Yet deniers continue to focus on short 3 year windows.
What about looking at a longer timeframe? From June 2008 to the present, the trend is +3.4°C/century.
Eldrosion,
Finally you stumbled onto some truth and haven’t distorted it into something cult nonsense.
“Earth’s albedo continues to decline.”
Now being a sport and work out how much the earth has warmed due to the change in albedo. Unlike your usual gaslighting that it’s all CO2 aka capitalism, rather than changes in albedo, earth orbit, solar orbits, solar output and clearer atmosphere due to less pollution.
This is why those who follow the science and have no fear of the lefts cancel culture doubt the excessive claims of people like you on the left who don’t follow the science and believe men can become women.
Q-Anon, trying to be superior and failing yet again.
Anon for a reason
“Unlike your usual gaslighting that it’s all CO2 aka capitalism, rather than changes in albedo, earth orbit, solar orbits, solar output and clearer atmosphere due to less pollution.”
You are treating albedo as though it is an independent driver of the recent warming.
The observed albedo change is not independent at all. The cryosphere is shrinking, exposing darker land and ocean surfaces that absorb more sunlight.
The question then becomes: Why is the cryosphere shrinking? GHG-driven warming.
As for cleaner air, that is NOT a controversial point.
Plenty of climate scientists have discussed the reduction in sulfate aerosols as contributing to recent warming:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494#abstract
Nobody well-informed claims that recent warming is “all and only CO2.” The mainstream view has always been that multiple forcings and feedbacks operate simultaneously, with CO2 and other GHGs being the dominant long term forcing.
So you are criticizing a position that neither I nor climate scientists actually hold.
And you should REALLY tone down your politics. They make a bad match with science.
You think climate science is liberal because liberals accept it. Maybe the simpler explanation is that liberals are more likely to accept the scientific findings.
Sea surface temperatures again at new record levels.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2.
And, as predicted, the El Nino is a record level monster:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4
Looks like this will again be another record warm year.
Is 1.6 degrees per 100 years a problem?
Is the warming equivalent of an ice age in three years a problem?
You never disappoint with a stupid answer,
Is a question an answer?
Additionally, the trend could change over time, so another 1.6°C of warming above the current level is not a certainty.
Yes. And a one degree C warming (at Earth’s surface) in 50 years is even worse.
Yes. And a one degree C warming (at Earth’s surface) in 50 years is even worse.
8000bc Northern Europe and the UK experienced a 5c temperature drop in 5;decades.
Was the 8.2-kiloyear event a problem?
In the last 600 million years , only the Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period have been as cool as our current Age. The Quaternary.
In the last 600 million years , only the Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period have seen temperature as cool as our current Age. The Quaternary.
More and more people are realizing that ocean oscillations are a major part of climate change. The problem is, we just don’t have enough data to arrive at meaningful studies. Due to UAH, we’ve got a good handle on where Earth temperatures are, but not with the oceans. The ARGO float program will help immensely, but it is still in startup mode, with only about 20 years of data in only about one quarter of its fleet. (Final installation will be over 4000 floats.)
Here’s what ChatGPT says about ocean oscillations:
If only we had a “UAH” style group tracking ocean oscillations….
[“Due to UAH, we’ve got a good handle on where Earth temperatures are, but not with the oceans.”]
Actually, lower tropospheric anomalies over ocean grid cells do exist in the UAH dataset.
Here is a plot of what the UAH shows over Northern Hemisphere ocean grid cells:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_l8UwbaAqifWfdVsmg6hwS2xoQOIl_2P/view?usp=sharing
Agree with your comment about oscillations. They are very important for Earth’s climate. Some alarmists do tend to overlook the role of natural oscillations.
I believe he was referring to deep-layer ocean, not atmosphere.
Clint
I knew there were a few ocean systems didn’t know it was quite that many. Thanks for that
Re: ocean circulation and other oscillations
Someone must have done a meta study on oscillations, as spotty as the data may be. Maybe a dissertation? If not, it is a shame. It’s not as if we (industrialized nations) have not been spending a lot of money on climate research/earth science.
Appreciate a citation if anyone finds one on this topic.
Here is one regarding specifically the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO):
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-02088-x
It is paywalled, but the authors explicitly analyze the PDO.
During a negative PDO, the eastern North Pacific tends to cool while the western North Pacific tends to warm.
However, the observed warming is basin-wide, with strong warming in both the eastern and western North Pacific.
As a result, they conclude that the PDO cannot be the primary explanation for the recent warming.
Instead, the authors argue that the warming is being driven by reduced vertical mixing caused by increased upper-ocean stratification. The resulting shallower mixed layer means the same amount of heat warms less water, amplifying sea surface temperatures.
If the PDO cannot account for the observed basin-wide warming in the North Pacific, it seems unlikely that it could account for the broader global warming trend.
Kynqora – PDO is one of 8-12 ocean circulations that are being tracked (see Clint R above) and apparently several more that are not routinely monitored. It would be very interesting, if it were possible, to track their cumulative effect, especially the ones that have a stronger influence on atmospheric temperature. What happens when these are in phase? Then throw in ocean floor volcanism, especially mid ocean rise volcanism, happening on every ocean floor, the basis for plate tectonics. Many of these may be insignificant by themselves, but collectively? If ENSO is so important to global temperature fluctuations over short periods, why wouldn’t it be possible that the net effect of these oscillations could be significant for global temperatures. When I win the lottery I may fund this research.
It seems that we are at an inflection point in the data. The 13-month average has turned flat. With the current El Nino condition that is forecast to get stronger, it would be very unusual if we do not see a warming period in the data.
We will soon see various people on TV and here on this site who will claim victory — we predicted this. That could be followed by the next statement of victory that we must take action now to stop the worst effects of climate change. The supporting data will be the fact that “we have passed 1.5 C”, or maybe even the dreaded 2 C, when really horrible things will result.
The problem with all of these claims and projections is that growth in CO2 emissions will continue to come from the developing world, not the developed world. For many of those people, it is not a political game, it is survival. The notion that “we must do our part” sounds convincing, but only if doing out part is done rationally. Panic is usually not a good place to start.
Every step of the “new green deal” has problems. Electric energy production, storage, and distribution using renewable resources is a very difficult problem to solve. The fist problem is production capacity. The various components take time and money to produce.
If human carbon emissions double, they will only be 10% of the total. The Green New Deal’s only goal is a means for leftists to control capitalism. It is Marxist extremism cloaked in altruism. (Mamdani) Property rights don’t matter, majority tyranny rules.
Stephen, “If human carbon emissions double, they will only be 10% of the total.”
Eh? Human carbon emissions are positive. Natural carbon emissions are negative, as natural CO2 sinks are larger than natural sources. in other words, the CO2 increase (which is currently hundreds of times faster than in the past) is entirely man-made. You didn’t know this?
Gadden – Can you explain your comment about natural CO2 sinks a bit further? I am not questioning it (or accepting it) on a scientific basis, since I am not a scientist. But if that is true, then we should have a fairly long term record of falling CO2.
In very long time frames (not our direct interest today) CO2 was much higher. Falling (cooling levels) of CO2 actually helped moderate earths temperature, since solar intensity was increasing. But life at all scales, fauna and flora, thrived at considerably higher (1-5F higher) temps and CO2. The Cambrian and several other “explosions” of life (and new life forms) occurred under those conditions. Lower CO2 and corresponding lower temps are not good for life, especially large animals and man.
The “greening of the earth” seems to be an unintended, beneficial consequence of fossil fuel burning. All that green is adding to the sink in plant/algae growth (and I assume soil), removing CO2 and giving us oxygen to breathe.
Gadden,
Not according to the IPCC. Human emissions are about 5ppmv annually and natural emissions are 100ppmv annually. That number you cite is net emissions. The claim is natural emissions just recycle and the only emissions are human. That claim assumes a human CO2 and a natural CO2 are seen differently by nature. If you look at the math your claim (not you specifically) is impossible.
> Not according to the IPCC.
Gadden was referring to the forcing:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans
This addresses both “but there were historical times with more CO2” (which forgets we had a tropical Antarctica), and “but the human contribution is tiny” (which omits that natural sinks are net negative).
“Gadden was referring to the forcing:”
He was replying to my comment which had nothing to do with forcing and there isn’t any CO2 forcing anyway.
There’s something about “human carbon emissions are positive. Natural carbon emissions are negative” that seems to be escaping troglodytes. Too much Newscorp in their information diet?
Tinkerbells go off topic and stay off topic. It’s called use deflective propaganda when the math isn’t on your side.
I think Tinkerbell is the second lady in checkered pink top.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuDwfQTkKc
Troglodyte’s friend likes em “on the young side”, as would say Donald:
https://www.npr.org/2026/08/03/nx-s1-5918341/chuck-edwards-ethics-report
That gives a whole new meaning to “prayer and reflection.”
Besides, Troglodyte’s squirrel has very little to do with our Ivy Leaguer’s usual “but prediction” rant. It’s just Edwin’s crap all over again, which is a variation on “but trace gas”.
And of course Gadden’s point refutes it: Edwin has been told a thousand times.
Tinkerbell,
Peter is calling you back to Never Never Land.
Troglodyte might appreciate ICE has spent more than $2B to purchase four private prisons from CoreCivic, who keeps the contracts to run these places.
Is this…socialism?
It certainly is amusing, but not in any way informative to observe stephen p anderson and Willard debate who knows the least about science in general and CO2 concentrations specifically.
Depending on location in the world, CO2 measuring stations show anywhere between 5 ppmv and more than 30 ppmv annual variation. This is due entirely to the fact that the northern hemisphere has more land mass and biological turnover than the southern hemisphere.
The high peak is typically in May as the growing season get underway, and the low peak is in September as the growing season ends and leaves begin to rot. In general the drop off during the summer is faster than the rise during the winter.
Along with this variation is a very steady increase of about 2 ppmv per year due to human CO2 emissions. Various calculations consistently show that less than half of human emissions accumulate in the atmosphere due to ocean absorption and greening of the planet.
Tim S,
I use the Mauna Loa data. So, the 2ppmv increase per year is only due to human emissions? Explain how that works. Start with human emissions at 5ppm and natural at 100ppm. Somehow nature was keeping 50% of human emissions 10 years ago but not it is only keeping 40%. Oh, and by the way, Tinkerbell doesn’t debate. He’s a propagandist like you. You have to know something about math or science to debate.
Tim S,
P.S.-The change last year was only 1.8ppm at Mauna Loa from June to June while human emissions continue to climb. Why don’t you explain how that works?
Tinkerbell,
No, it isn’t socialism. First, start with the preamble then deduce from there.
Socialitism:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/least-half-dozen-top-trump-administration-officials-appear-jeffrey-eps-rcna258749
Thomas Hagedorn,
Natural sinks are larger than natural sources NOW. Before humans started messing with the carbon cycle, natural sources and sources were of course more or less in balance, as CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was relatively stable. Even during the deglacializations, which are among the most rapid CO2 concentration change periods we’re aware of, CO2 concentration grew at a rate of ‘only’ around 10 ppm per MILLENNIUM. Compare that with today’s 25 ppm per DECADE. Natural sinks are of course increasing as the partial pressure of CO2 is increasing.
Earth, like any other large system, will usually be in a relatively stable state (i.e. any changes are slow) unless there is some ‘force’ disturbing it. We are that ‘force’.
You don’t get it. Nature emits 780 gigatons CO2 per year and absorbs 800 gigatons. Humans emit (or at least generate) 35 gigatons and absorb none. How can you not see that the annual 15 gigatons CO2 increase in the atmosphere is caused by us? (The numbers aren’t exact but that’s irrelevant as they are in the ballpark.)
I’ll dumb it down:
Let’s say you receive $100 from Peter every year, in $1 bills. Peter also takes $100 from you every year so the net of these transactions is zero. This goes on, year after year. One year, Peter’s friend Paul shows up. He gives you $5 every year, in $1 bills, from then on and doesn’t take anything back from you. Peter now sees an opportunity to get some more money. He continues to give you $100 every year but he also takes $103 from you every you.
So now you receive $105 every year from Peter and Paul and you also lose $103. So you will GAIN $2 per year and this gain will accumulate year by year. Would you now say that Peter or Paul is causing your money to grow? Does it matter if the specific $1 bills that you accumulate in this way came from Peter or Paul?
(These are rhetorical questions so don’t bother replying. Either you understand it or you don’t.)
Stepen p,
Of all the sceience denial arguments I’ve seen (so far), the “we are not causing the CO2 increase” has got to be the most stupid one. This isn’t rocket science.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans
Stephen p anderson,
My “you don’t get it” comment on August 26, 9:07 AM is directed to you, about your post in which you seem to think it matters where the individual CO2 molecules comes from. Do you know how banks work? Do you think they keep track of which SPECIFIC dollar that came from which customer?
Gadden,
“You don’t get it. Nature emits 780 gigatons CO2 per year and absorbs 800 gigatons. Humans emit (or at least generate) 35 gigatons and absorb none. How can you not see that the annual 15 gigatons CO2 increase in the atmosphere is caused by us? (The numbers aren’t exact but that’s irrelevant as they are in the ballpark.)”
That’s propaganda that professes to be science. If Nature emits 780Gton per/year and humans emit 35 Gton/year for a total of 815Gton/year, doesn’t the natural and human CO2 mix in the atmosphere? And wouldn’t they be ab.sorbed by sinks in proportion to their ratio in the atmosphere? How can sinks differentiate between a human and natural CO2 molecule?
Gadden
Your arguments are excellent. They won’t help with lunatic right-wing stephen p anderson!! He has no logical sense and i don’t believe he is able to think on his own! He has accepted that the science of Climate Change is a Marxist Global Government Conpiracy so his brain is shut-down. He only accepts right-wing nonsense and is not able to think about them. He just repeats right-wing lies, the dude is in a cult and will not think at all until he wakes up but the right-wing ensures none of their mindless pawns wake up, they call thinking and observing on your own “Woke” which is very bad. You will never get intelligent thoughts from this poster!
[TROGLODYTE] Nature emits 780 gigatons CO2 per year and absorbs 800 gigatons. Humans emit (or at least generate) 35 gigatons and absorb none.
[ALSO TROGLODYTE] How can sinks differentiate between a human and natural CO2 molecule?
Stephen p anderson,
“How can sinks differentiate between a human and natural CO2 molecule?”
Strawman argument, duh. I’m not saying they can differentiate. Look, if I give you $780 (in $1 bills) and my friend Paul gives you $35 (also in $1 bills), and I then immediately take $800 from you, you have $15 left. Are you with me so far? So your net gain after these transactions is $15, right? Would you thank me or my friend Paul for thus gain? Some of those fifteen $1 bills you gained are most likely from me. So does it make sense for you to thank me for those, even though I took more money from you than I initially gave you.
Think about it, for as long as it takes to make the penny drop. Did I or Paul cause your capital to grow. (This is math for nine-year-olds, by the way.)
Gadden,
“Strawman argument, duh. I’m not saying they can differentiate. Look, if I give you $780 (in $1 bills) and my friend Paul gives you $35 (also in $1 bills), and I then immediately take $800 from you, you have $15 left. Are you with me so far? So your net gain after these transactions is $15, right? Would you thank me or my friend Paul for thus gain? Some of those fifteen $1 bills you gained are most likely from me. So does it make sense for you to thank me for those, even though I took more money from you than I initially gave you.
Think about it, for as long as it takes to make the penny drop. Did I or Paul cause your capital to grow. (This is math for nine-year-olds, by the way.)”
That isn’t the correct analogy. If you give me $780 and Paul gives me $35 then I have $815. Then if you take away $800 I have $15 remaining. However, of the $800 you took away, $767 was what you gave me and $33 was what Paul gave me. Of the $15 dollars I have left, $13 came from you and $2 came from Paul.
Gadden,
By the way, you, Tinkerbell and Norman flunk physics and calculus 101.
“[TROGLODYTE] Nature emits 780 gigatons CO2 per year and absorbs 800 gigatons. Humans emit (or at least generate) 35 gigatons and absorb none.
[ALSO TROGLODYTE] How can sinks differentiate between a human and natural CO2 molecule?”
Does Canada not offer psychiatric treatment?
I have a question for you guys. Are they just not teaching math in school anymore? Do they make you use pencil and paper and no cell phones?
Troglodyte gloats about maths yet fails to master the concepts of positive and negative numbers.
Still, let’s go for more cOMplEX AnD DEtaIlEd:
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Greenhouse-effect/Arrhenius/1-WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
The notion of Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF) is related, but different to the “technical” concept of Radiative Forcing (RF). Hence my earlier use of “forcing” simpliciter.
Troglodyte’s guru makes two claims:
(B1) Humans don’t increase CO2 emissions.
(B2) CO2 can’t increase climate change.
Sometimes he pads these claims using words such as “significantly”. Troglodyte confuses the two claims, although his actual jabs are related to B1. That’s where his “human CO2” and “natural CO2” are trying to lead Gadden. Since that argument is absurd (natural sinks are net negative), it might be best to address B2 directly: CO2 indeed increases climate change, for it’s a positive forcing.
Astute readers should never expect a real argument from troglodytes.
Stephen p anderson,
“Of the $15 dollars I have left, $13 came from you and $2 came from Paul.”
Sure, but the question remains. Paul’s net contribution was to give you $35 and my net contribution was to take $20 from you. So which one of me and Paul is causing your capital to grow? Can you answer that?
I sure hope you don’t work in a bank. it would be a nightmare to try to keep track of which SPECIFIC dollar came from which SPECIFIC customer and belongs to which SPECIFIC customer. Stocks and flows are clearly not your forte.
Let’s review Troglodyte’s “maths”:
You give me 780…
No, you gave me 767.
Who would ever want to deal with Troglodyte?
Gadden,
“Sure, but the question remains. Paul’s net contribution was to give you $35, and my net contribution was to take $20 from you. So which one of me and Paul is causing your capital to grow? Can you answer that?
I sure hope you don’t work in a bank. it would be a nightmare to try to keep track of which SPECIFIC dollar came from which SPECIFIC customer and belongs to which SPECIFIC customer. Stocks and flows are clearly not your forte.”
You just said sure, and then you tried to make an argument against it but failed. You are causing my capital to grow more than Paul. $815 is put into the pot, $800 is taken out. Since you are putting more in you are causing capital to grow the most. That’s called differential calculus. Your argument is you are putting in $780 and pulling $800 out so Paul is making it grow more but you can’t tell whose dollars you are pulling out. Maybe you’re pulling all $35 of Paul’s dollars and $765 of your dollars. Then you’re contributing all $15 of the net.
“Let’s review Troglodyte’s “maths”:
You give me 780…
No, you gave me 767.
Who would ever want to deal with Troglodyte?”
LOL. Poor Tinkerbell. Math deficient. What are you doing on science blogs?
Let’s hope Troglodyte does not have any business partner. They would have to deal with him taking money out of their business account and pretend nobody can know for sure it’s not the clients that are scamming them…
For those in the back:
– the natural sinks are net negative;
– the antropogenic sinks are net positive.
Even Harde accepts these facts. But then Harde still has a reputation to maintain, whereas Troglodyte just needs to spin on Step 3 – Saying Stuff.
I think Harde understands there is no such thing as a natural sink and an anthropogenic sink. It is called the equivalence principle.
> I think Harde understands there is no such thing as a natural sink
Another usage of Step 1 (Pure Denial) that conceals Step 2 (Sammich Request):
https://retractionwatch.com/2018/04/23/flawed-climate-science-paper-exposed-potential-weaknesses-in-peer-review-process/#comment-1598326
Even Edwin’s model posits three buckets. His “equivalence principle” is another thing altogether. In terms of my B&W model, we don’t need to know the provenance of each specific buck in our account to know that Muricans are being scammed by rent seekers, not workers.
Contrarians are natural time sinks.
Tinkerbell,
You continue to lie by omission and cherry picking. You are a lying propagandist. Nowhere in that statement does Harde claim there are natural sinks and anthropogenic sinks. There are only sinks. Also, this is from a blog comment in 2018. Harde has written paper after paper (with friend Murray Salby) since then supporting natural emissions as the cause of CO2 rise.
I think readers can realize that after a crank denies “nature is a net sink”, that crank will keep asking for receipts or else skip to Step 3 – Saying Stuff. Troglodyte does both. At some point he might also go for Step 4 – Cheap Bargaining, and discuss residence time.
Meanwhile, Ohio Republican Representative Max Miller’s attorney publicly released a sensitive image of the congressman’s 2-year-old daughter in a domestic abuse case. Miracle Mike, who’s used to the missteps of Donald’s thugs, shrugged.
“The 13-month average has turned flat. With the current El Nino condition that is forecast to get stronger, it would be very unusual if we do not see a warming period in the data.
We will soon see various people on TV and here on this site who will claim victory — we predicted this.”
Nobody on this site – except sometimes skeptics – makes the mistake of confusing short term fluctuations in global temperatures with long term trends.
I doubt you’ll see anyone being ‘victorious’, either.
We may get record warm global temps with this el Nino. Who knows? But we will one day in the next 15 years, when a strong el Nino combines with the underlying long-term rise in global temps.
I’ll lay bets on it.
So barry, is it your turn to play Nate’s game with the drive-by quotes? Did you read the whole comment? Do you represent everyone who comments about climate here and in the general public? You did not comment on my conclusion. Was that because you agree with it?
Laughable that Tim regularly baits and trolls me, but when I challenge his science claims with facts and sources, we get crickets from him.
He seems to be truly afraid to debate me on science.
Nate, have you considered the possibility that he knows you are going to expose the flaws in his argument and can’t respond? So he feels the need to attack you in advance to make you seem less credible before you have even presented your rebuttal.
Eldrosion,
Do you notice any similarity between our Ivy Leaguer’s rhetorical ploy and Ray-Gunn’s preemptive strike doctrine? See for instance:
https://inkstickmedia.com/reagan-preemptive-strikes-doctrine/
In fairness, Q-Anon and Troglodyte are doing the same.
“So barry, is it your turn to play Nate’s game with the drive-by quotes?”
I bet you light up every room you leave.
W,
Tim went to an Ivy League school? That explains why he’s so vitriolically pompous…
I find it rather interesting that someone whose main purpose is to argue and disrupt the discussion finds me “pompous”. The fact is that I will correct any mistakes I see on either “side”, and most importantly I avoid making it personal.
If you don’t like being corrected, then don’t respond to my posts.
“Gadden was referring to the forcing:”
No, I wasn’t. I was referring to the fact that the natural contribution to CO2 is currently negative while Man’s contribution is positive. In other words, we are causing the rapid growth. This is well-known although stephen p anderson apparently can’t wrap his head around this basic fact.
> In other words, we are causing the rapid growth.
Often called a forcing.
” In more technical terms, it is defined as “the change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux (expressed in W/m2) due to a change in an external driver of climate change.”[3]:”
That’s why Tinkerbell stays away from the actual math and science and sticks to the propaganda. He doesn’t understand it.
That comment goes here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2026-0-48-deg-c/#comment-1751116
Let’s illustrate T’s so-called argument with two accounts: Billionaires (B), and Workers (W).
Ws give us more than we give them, say by N. Bs take more than they give, say by M. Thus Troglodyte subtracts Bs’ debit from Ws’ credit, because “differential calculus”.
In other words, he amortizes what is paid to billionaires the population like the closet socialist he is. Instead of recognizing rent-seeking behavior, he’ll blame workers for being inefficient.
So maths. Much difficult. Wow.
Let’s be clear. If you mud wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig likes it. My consistent and ongoing complaint is that any reply to my complex and detailed comments has to include the conclusion. My definition of a “drive-by” is very clear and obvious. A drive-by is the method of taking a sentence or phrase out of context and then making an argument that is actually answer in the conclusion. People who cannot be honest, and then attempt to distort the full meaning of the comment, do not deserve anything more than to be revealed for what you are doing.
People are at liberty to take any part of a comment and agree with it or contest it. When agreement arrives it is met with acceptance or silence. For some reason it’s only when a portion of a comment is contested that people get snooty about such partitioning.
Word to the wise, lose the snoot and stick to your topic. You’ve seen what follows snoot, but you don’t seem to learn from it.
If you want to practise right here, return to the topic. I didn’t have a go at you in my first reply, but you opened the door. The tone can shift right now, if you want.
Here you go barry, take a shot at this. It is a direct quote from my original comment:
“The problem with all of these claims and projections is that growth in CO2 emissions will continue to come from the developing world, not the developed world. For many of those people, it is not a political game, it is survival. The notion that “we must do our part” sounds convincing, but only if doing out part is done rationally. Panic is usually not a good place to start.
Every step of the “new green deal” has problems. Electric energy production, storage, and distribution using renewable resources is a very difficult problem to solve. The first problem is production capacity. The various components take time and money to produce.”
The reason I didn’t comment on the whole post was that the 3 paragraphs were only loosely connected, and seemed to be three separate talking points.
I’ll leave the ‘panic’ comment aside as it’s rhetorical.
There is a long-running, ongoing discussion about balancing the needs of burgeoning economies late to the fossil fuel party and mitigation to prevent long-term global warming. It’s a multi-layered, nuanced topic, rarely oxygenated in blog chats.
I see little to no evidence of ‘irrational’ policy-making on CO2 mitigation. More commonly, pushback is hyperbolic and selectively argued. Economic armageddon doesn’t seem to have collapsed the economies of countries implementing mitigation policies. A little temporary economic depression, perhaps, which is expected – but that might be some people’s idea of irrational. It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis on uncertain futures. I’ll go with precaution when we don’t get a do-over.
I don’t know which “new green deal” you’re referring to, but yes, mitigation is challenging when fossil fuel is the historical bedrock of an economy. It’s a long list of things to balance.
Jim on July 9, 2026 at 3:47 AM
” Has anyone compared the worldwide time graphs since 1979 for the 4 levels of the atmosphere? ”
*
Apologies – I overlooked your question.
Some years ago I made such a comparison:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kBkDZhSsVCHn7GOPp1SYl9tuyY4TsKec/view
No problem to update it if necessary…
Firefighters are battling around the clock as the Spokane Complex Fire remains 0% contained, fueled by extreme heat, dry conditions, and strong winds forecast to reach 30 mph.
The wildfire has now burned more than 10,000 acres, destroyed over 700 structures, and forced more than 65,000 residents to evacuate. Hundreds of additional firefighters have been deployed as crews race to protect communities and critical infrastructure.
Authorities warn that worsening weather conditions could lead to rapid fire growth over the coming days.
#Spokane #Washington #Wildfire #BreakingNews #FireSeason #USA
“Sparked” by an arsonist who has been arrested.
The causes of wildfires have not changed; malice, carelessness or natural causes.
The difference is that in large areas of CONUS and Europe the climate has changed.
Warmer wetter Winters allow more vegetation to grow. Hotter drier Summers dessicate that vegetation and turn it into extra fuel for wildfires.
Regardless of cause, wildfires which would once have fizzled out on their own or burned a few acres are now spreading over many square miles, destroying landscapes and cities.
Entropic man,
You forgot to include the biggest cause of wild fires being larger. That of poor forest management which have been going on Gor the last few decades.
Admittedly it is caused by climate change but not of the weather type of climate change. It has been caused by the left wing climate cult and their Willard style of thinking. The left never thinks of consequences unless they can get more control, more money and more vanity point for their fragile egos.
Ent, once again you display your inability to learn.
Wildfires have been here since well before you were born. They are NOT new. And we’re in a natural warming trend, nothing we can do about it. Adapt!
You’re addicted to cult beliefs and that causes you to make stupid claims, like passenger jets can fly backward.
Grow up and face reality.
” It has been caused by the left wing climate cult and their Willard style of thinking. ”
Not sure how a specific style of thinking can ignite a fire.
You need flammable fuel and an ignition source like lightning.
Keep showing everyone just how badly right-wing ideology mixes with science.
🙂
H2O was here before humans existed. That means Puffman’s bath tub can never spill because he’s too busy ranting online under various sock puppets. CO2 was here before humans existed. That means soda cans are UNPOSSIBLE. Et cetera.
Our troglodytes tolerate Puffman’s nonsense, for some reason.
Another typhoon is forming in the western Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/d0X2QsL6/mimictpw-wpac-latest.gif
The cult kids are still clinging to their cult beliefs. They’re ABSOLUTELY SURE that CO2 is warming the planet. They have no science to support that. They are only going by their cult beliefs that since CO2 ppm is going up, then temperatures are going up. They no not understand correlation is NOT causation.
If that were true we could say the soaring stock market (now at record highs) is due to increasing CO2.
Kids these days….
It’s rather the extremist points on both ends of the debate that I find ridiculous.
One side: It’s all CO2!
Other side: CO2 contributes nothing!
Personally, I don’t think the radiative theory of the greenhouse effect is accurate.
But I can’t rule out CO2 doing something.
It probably is just by far not the dominant driver of increasing temperatures.
That’s most likely decreasing cloud cover and changes in albedo.
1% in albedo decrease translates into 1 degree Celcius gain – no CO2 needed.
Old albedo estimates in literature were 0.31, newer estimates are below 0.29.
Ron v. F.
” Personally, I don’t think the radiative theory of the greenhouse effect is accurate. ”
So, you don’t think?
Not one of the ‘Skeptic’s, even not Claes Johnson let alone Ed Berry, were able to scientifically disprove it.
Are you?
Ron,
Yes, staggers the imagination. Eab=S(1-a) a=albedo
It’s math. Their God NASA said albedo has been decreasing. This explanation is completely ignored.
Yes Ron, for a Solar Constant of 1371 arriving Earth’s “disk”, the following albedos would result in maximum disk temperatures as follows:
Albedo******Temperature
0.31 ********* 86.2C
0.30 ********* 87.6C
0.29 ********* 88.9C
Don’t forget ocean oscillations. As various oceans oscillate (cycle in and out of phase) the results can vary surface temperatures for 5 to 80 years. We’ll know more about the oceans if the ARGO data remains “unadjusted”.
And remember, CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature.
“Not one of the ‘Skeptic’s, even not Claes Johnson let alone Ed Berry, were able to scientifically disprove it.”
False. Berry applied mathematics to the data that is already out there to disprove the IPCC carbon cycle model. The logical conclusion is his model is correct and that most of the CO2 rise is due to natural emissions. Therefore, the warming is not due to anthropogenic effects.
[Q-ANON, August 5, 2026 at 12:18 PM] rather than changes in albedo
[ELDROSION, August 5, 2026 at 11:25 PM] The observed albedo change is not independent at all. The cryosphere is shrinking, exposing darker land and ocean surfaces that absorb more sunlight. The question then becomes: Why is the cryosphere shrinking? GHG-driven warming.
[TROGLODYTE, August 7, 2026 at 9:33 AM] Their God NASA said albedo has been decreasing. This explanation is completely ignored.
Not only do we need better contrarians, but we need better cranks.
CO2 does have an effect. It just isn’t warming. As CO2 increases it leads to an increase in downwelling IR (DWIR). This does not cause any warming due to conductive feedback, but it does cause increased evaporation.
More evaporation enhances the water cycle which is a cooling effect. The added water vapor increases low atmosphere buoyancy which leads to stronger convective currents. While this leads to some direct cooling by carrying warm, moist air higher in the atmosphere, there’s also a secondary effect. This is the part climate science continues to deny.
Stronger convection pushes air currents into a colder part of the atmosphere. This increases latent heat removal and decreases residual water vapor. Both of these add to the cooling effect. Less latent heat gets carried back to the surface in downdrafts and the lower residual water vapor in the upper troposphere allows more radiation to be emitted to space.
The bottom line is the small warming effect of CO2 itself is canceled and we also get a little more precipitation. Both of these help plants grow bigger and stronger.
“Not only do we need better contrarians, but we need better cranks.”
And somehow they have convinced themselves they know more than the scientists who have spent years earning advanced degrees, conducting research, analyzing data, and dedicating their careers to understanding the climate.
A lifetime of expertise apparently loses out to a few confident opinions.
“Not only do we need better contrarians, but we need better cranks.”
Propagandists don’t need better liars, they have you.
I guess when you don’t have any math or science skills (or logic), then lying is your fallback.
I guess when you don’t have any math or science skills (or logic), then lying is your fallback.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
South Korea Heatwave Kills 19, Suspends Baseball After Fan Cardiac Arrest
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/323226/20260805/south-korea-heatwave-kills-19-suspends-baseball-after-fan-cardiac-arrest.htm
For some reason the NYT headline only mentions baseball being cancelled.
“For some reason”…and you don’t understand why?
Dullard
You seem to be unaware that the NYT and WP are left of centre.
So why would a left of center newspaper not report the heat wave?
Q-Anon embraces the political compass of troglodytes, which is US-centric. Newspapers of record present the viewpoints of the establishment. In WaPo’s case, it’s Jeff Bezos’. In the Grey Lady’s case, who knows what it tries to do with opiniators such as Bret Stephens, David French, David Brooks, and Ross Douthat, who left for CBS News, now owned by David Ellison.
Donald is a massive money launderer and cut off by the bank that discovered it, yet the story barely registered with the legacy media. Ronnie Ray-Gun redid the tax code that led Murica to its golden age, with overwhelming journalistic support. It’s all about catering for the membership base.
Q-Anon self-identifies with billionaires, for some reason.
A powerful cold front will cause damaging winds, heavy rain, hail, snow and bitterly cold temperatures across the southern half of Australia towards the end of this week. ⚠️ This blast of wintry weather is likely to cause severe weather in at least 4 states
There’s a small problem, because winter weather is determined by the pattern of the polar vortex in the stratosphere. El Niño will, at most, cause a drought in eastern Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/0p9YJ9rc/npst30.png
Two cold fronts will pass over Australia. The first will bring heavy snowfall to the Australian Alps.
Global
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2026/08/05/uah-global-for-jul-2026/
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2026/08/05/uah-tropical-for-jun-2026-2/
This months Data
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
Can anyone point me to global water vapour trend data. Ideally to now, or at least into 2026?
It’s well known, by those who know it well, that Climate Reanalyzer provides the ECMWF ERA5 global Total Column Precipitable Water record, including anomalies through the present: ERA5 World (90°S-90°N) Total Column Precipitable Water Anomaly (kg/m²).
Being a global atmospheric reanalysis, ERA5 is observationally constrained rather than a satellite-only product, and it is updated to within days of the present.
Remote Sensing Systems also publishes a satellite microwave Total Precipitable Water record, although that record primarily represents the ice-free oceans rather than the entire globe.
There is a more scientifically interesting point here: Comparing the ERA5 water-vapor trend directly with ERA5 global temperature would make the result much more physically informative than simply viewing the raw curve, because Clausius-Clapeyron predicts roughly a 6-7% increase in atmospheric moisture per °C of warming under approximately constant relative humidity.
It never ceases to amaze how deniers have never looked at the very data they so adamantly deny. It just confirms that anthropogenic climate change science denial is nothing more than Kayfabe.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The rise in Nino 3.4 region sea surface temperatures over the past few weeks has been nothing short of astonishing.
We are now hotter than any days during the 1997/1998 super El Nino event, and we are still many months from the peak.
https://bsky.app/profile/zekehausfather.com/post/3mseh3hse6d2f
Last couple of months I’ve commented on the visual distortion of data presented in the monthly graph resulting from hiding the original multi-decadal baseline, and on the lack of acknowledgement from our host that the UAH data shows the rate of warming is increasing.
Here’s a recently (March 6) published study of the global temperature record with most of the short-term cyclical ‘noise’ (El Niño/Southern Oscillation, volcanism, and solar variation) removed. And folks I’m here to tell ya the line goes up, and it goes up faster and faster:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL118804
“…our analysis of GMST data after removing the best estimate of the influence of three natural variability factors reduces the noise level sufficiently to reveal a large and significant acceleration of global warming, regardless which statistical method is used. Note that the adjustments reduce the global temperature in 2024 and minimally in 2023 by removing effects of El Niño as well as the solar maximum. The evidence is thus strong that the statistical significance of warming acceleration is not due to outlier years in 2023 and 2024, but that global temperature has departed from its previous path since around 2015.”
It’s happening right in front of us. Go look.
MFA, Dr. Spencer is only following the convention of the “industry”, to adjust the baseline every 10 years.
But your “paper” did not remove ALL of the natural variability. They just removed the things they knew about! That ain’t science.
“But your “paper” did not remove ALL of the natural variability. They just removed the things they knew about! That ain’t science.”
The goal of the paper was to remove short-term variability in order to isolate the underlying global warming signal.
Grant Foster (Tamino) and Stefan Rahmstorf first applied this approach in 2011, showing that the so-called “pause” largely disappeared once short term influences such as ENSO, volcanic aerosols, and solar variability were accounted for. This new paper extends that analysis through the mid 2020s.
Figure 1 (of this new paper) is particularly informative:
https://i.postimg.cc/kXTxNwZG/FR2026-Figure1.png
Looking at the figure, it is difficult to reconcile the observed warming with the idea that multidecadal ocean oscillations are driving the long-term increase in global mean surface temperature.
#1: An oscillation, by definition, swings between positive and negative phases, averaging out to roughly zero over time. It can speed up or slow down warming for years or even decades, but it cannot, on its own, explain a persistent global warming trend lasting more than a century.
#2: There is no clear multidecadal cooling phase in the instrumental record that would correspond to the negative phase expected from an oscillation dominating the temperature record. The cooling observed from roughly 1940 to 1975 is well explained by increasing sulfate aerosol emissions, whose cooling effect partially offset the underlying warming, rather than by a reversal of the underlying warming trend.
Don Easterbrook predicted global cooling back in December 2008 based partly on ocean oscillations:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/
But that, of course, did not happen.
The first six months of 2026 have averaged a staggering +0.64°C above the 2008 annual average (UAH).
Funny how every failed denier prediction gets quietly swept under the rug, while the IPCC and Al Gore are expected to have a perfect crystal ball forever. Apparently accountability only applies to one side.
How long are climate deniers going to keep selling themselves and everyone else the same tired fantasy?
“The goal of the paper was to remove short-term variability in order to isolate the underlying global warming signal.
Correct, the “paper” did not remove ALL of the natural variability. They just removed the things they knew about! That ain’t science.
You are misinformed, MFA. Roy is following the definition of climate which is the 30 year average of weather. Every 30 years, he recalculates the baseline, which is scientifically correct.
Your link points to an article by uber-climate alarmists, Rahmstorf and Tamino.
el d….”An oscillation, by definition, swings between positive and negative phases, averaging out to roughly zero over time. It can speed up or slow down warming for years or even decades, but it cannot, on its own, explain a persistent global warming trend lasting more than a century”.
***
Re-warming from the the Little Ice Age can explain the warming but I have never heard Tamino or Rahmstorf or any alarmist admit that.
________
“There is no clear multidecadal cooling phase in the instrumental record that would correspond to the negative phase expected from an oscillation dominating the temperature record”.
***
Some of the oscillations like the AMO work over 40 year periods. Others like ENSO operate over a period of a few years, even months. How can you expect any revelation of cooling when the AMO and PDO were not even discovered till very recently?
________
“The first six months of 2026 have averaged a staggering +0.64°C above the 2008 annual average (UAH)”.
***
Natural variation can explain that and there is still no proof that a trace gas can.
I love it when skeptics resort to:
“it is just natural variation”
which effectively is the same as:
“something is happening but I refuse to accept there is a physical cause involved”
i.e. it must be the hand of God.
If God is involved, then possibly he/she is trying to send us a message? My bet would be that he/she wants us to stop polluting the atmosphere, the land and the oceans. In which
case reducing CO2 emissions would seem to be a wise move.
” Every 30 years, he recalculates the baseline, which is scientifically correct. ”
Here you can marvel at the level of scientific knowledge possessed by the average pseudo-skeptic… OMG
It is painfully obvious that, despite arm-waving and predictions of doom from climate alarmists, the red-running average curve has a negative trend. And a rather steep negative trend since whatever caused the 2024 warming spike.
The warming spike is theorized to be a product of the Hunga Tonga volcanic explosion that dumped millions of tons of water vapour into the stratosphere, a normally very arid environment. The spike is taking its time to dissipate but we mere mortals must await an explanation, if one is forthcoming.
Meantime, the alarmists bray propaganda about it being somehow connected to a trace gas in the atmosphere.
If anyone is interested where stephen p anderson gets his terrible material from it is from Edwin X Berry paper on CO2 from 2019.
Here is the logic Berry uses (which is flawed!! but Anderson is so lost in right-wing lies he will not understand the flaw at all even when you clearly explain it to him).
“Therefore, natural and human CO2 do not “add” CO2 to the
atmosphere. Both natural and human CO2 “flow through” the
atmosphere. As CO2 flows through the atmosphere, it raises
the level of atmospheric CO2 just enough so CO2 outflow
equals CO2 inflow. Nature balances CO2 in the atmosphere
when outflow equals inflow.
You pump air into a tire or inner tube that has a leak. As
you pump air into the tube, air leaks out of the tube. The
faster you pump air in, the faster air leaks out. If you pump air
into the tube at a constant rate, the air pressure in the tube will
find a level where outflow equals inflow.
River water flows into a lake or a pond and flows out over a
dam. If inflow increases, the water level increases until
outflow over the dam equals inflow from the river. Then, the
water level will remain constant so long as inflow remains
constant. The river does not “add” water to the lake. Water
“flows through” the lake and finds a balance level where
outflow equals inflow.
Similarly, human and natural CO2 flow through the
atmosphere. The inflow creates a balance level that remains
constant so long as inflow remains constant.”
https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13
The flaw in the logic is the outflow will increase to match the inflow and that does not have to happen! The river can continue to increase the lake level if the outflow remains a constant and the river flow increases.
Here is another unscientific comment he put in his paper.
“Of course, nature is a “net carbon sink” because nature
absorbs human CO2 emissions. However, absorption of human
CO2 has no bearing whatsoever on how much natural CO2
flows into the atmosphere. Nature can set its inflow as it pleases,
no matter how much human inflow nature absorbs. The 98-ppm
natural flow can double or reduce to one-half while nature
continues to absorb the outflow of the human addition to
atmospheric CO2. So, the IPCC argument is absurd. ”
What??!! “Nature can set its inflow as it pleases,” That might be one of the most unscientific comments seen in a supposed science paper!!
“The flaw in the logic is the outflow will increase to match the inflow and that does not have to happen! The river can continue to increase the lake level if the outflow remains a constant and the river flow increases.”
There is no flaw in logic. It is the solution to the differential equation. The level will tend toward the balance level according to 1-1/e, the eTime, until it reaches equilibrium. If inflow remains constant, then inflow minus outflow will eventually reach equilibrium. The math cannot be argued with. Here’s the math:
dCO2/dt = Inflow – Outflow =
Human Emission + Natural Emission – Natural Outflow
Using a Te of 4 yrs:
2ppm/yr = 438ppm/4yr – 430ppm/4yr
= (5ppm + 104.5ppm) – 107.5ppm
= 109.5ppm – 107.5ppm
It has to be this. This is the historical data from Mauna Loa. dCO2/dt is approximately 2ppm annually.
Outflow is proportional to level where mass is proportional to pressure and the higher the partial pressure of CO2 then the more the collisions occur with the sinks. If you have a level of 430ppm (which it is now) then 5.14ppm of the outflow will be human and 102.36ppm will be natural. You can see most of the 2ppm rise is due to nature. It is a random process. Human and natural CO2 are mixed completely in the atmosphere and indistinguishable by nature.
More strange points by Edwin X Berry in a later paper:
“Furthermore, the argument – that because cumulative human carbon exceeds the measured carbon level proves human carbon caused all the increase – is not valid because cumulative natural
carbon is much greater than cumulative human carbon, and if natural carbon did not flow rapidly out of the atmosphere the measured carbon level would be much greater than the measured
carbon level today. So, that argument omits proper account of the flow of human carbon out of
the atmosphere.
Another invalid argument used to support the IPCC basic assumption is because nature absorbs
human carbon from the atmosphere, therefore nature cannot add carbon to the atmosphere. This
argument neglects the physics model superposition principle that explains why the natural carbon cycle is independent of the human carbon cycle.”
What neither Edwin X Berry or stephen p anderson can understand about logical thinking, is that CO2 emission and that which is absorbed is a continuous process, there is not a cumulative natural flow. CO2 is emitted by some parts of the ocean and absorbed at other places. It is a continuous process. He uses some gibbly-gook nonsense logic about residence time, how long emitted CO2 reamins in the air. He does not understand what is meant by man emitted CO2 lasting 100 years. This does not mean that the CO2 emitted by mankind is just lingering in the air, it means that the amount we added would take 100 years for sinks (at net rate of around 2 PPM a year) to take in all the carbon dioxide emitted by humans. Not that human emitted CO2 sits in the air. That is why all the math he does is pointless.
Nature acts (currently) as a CO2 sink removing around 2 or so PPM of the human emitted 5 PPM. The net gain by mankind emission is 2 to 3 PPM a year and this will accumulate as nature is only taking out half of what humans emit. Berry’s whole argument is terrible logic and his points are not real good.
https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1o4zoam/what_does_everyone_think_of_this_article_can/
Some opinions of Berry’s paper.
Norman,
Reddit?
“What neither Edwin X Berry or stephen p anderson can understand about logical thinking, is that CO2 emission and that which is absorbed is a continuous process, there is not a cumulative natural flow. CO2 is emitted by some parts of the ocean and absorbed at other places.”
That is exactly what Berry’s model describes, a continuous process. dCO2/dt= Inflow – Outflow describes the process.
“It is a continuous process. He uses some gibbly-gook nonsense logic about residence time, how long emitted CO2 reamins in the air. He does not understand what is meant by man emitted CO2 lasting 100 years. This does not mean that the CO2 emitted by mankind is just lingering in the air, it means that the amount we added would take 100 years for sinks (at net rate of around 2 PPM a year) to take in all the carbon dioxide emitted by humans. Not that human emitted CO2 sits in the air. That is why all the math he does is pointless.”
Now this is gibberish. Human CO2 has the same Te as natural CO2. Therefore, they flow through the atmosphere independently and indistinguishably.
“Nature acts (currently) as a CO2 sink removing around 2 or so PPM of the human emitted 5 PPM. The net gain by mankind emission is 2 to 3 PPM a year and this will accumulate as nature is only taking out half of what humans emit. Berry’s whole argument is terrible logic and his points are not real good.”
These are statements without any mathematical basis and no solution to the differential equation above which describes CO2 in the atmosphere. I asked you to show your math and all you do is make blind religious statements.
I hate to be alarmist, but these news items are worth noting:
Wildfires have increased by 57% since 2022, with climate change driving more frequent and intense fires, threatening communities and health.
Drought, overuse and climate change are driving a major Colorado River crisis, with proposed cuts threatening water security across the US Southwest.
” It is painfully obvious that, despite arm-waving and predictions of doom from climate alarmists, the red-running average curve has a negative trend. ”
Maybe this one, for example?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fj9wkFBJHGirBiRDaQfRbs4CLB7QZW2D/view
*
” And a rather steep negative trend since whatever caused the 2024 warming spike. ”
Can the trend for a time series starting high and ending low be positive? That would be new to me.