Global Average Temperature 2025

[Typhoon Tip]

...Continuation from 'Global Average Temperature 2024'  ( probably should have started this a couple of months ago - )

January 2025   ~ +1.8C above the pre 1850 level,  according to Copernicus

February 2025  ~ +1.8C above the pre 1850 level, according to Copernicus

March 2025 continued the remarkable trend, being the 2nd warmest March in the history of record,   https://phys.org/news/2025-04-global-temperatures-historic-highs-eu.html    

 

[LibertyBell]

we broken through the +1.5C threshold but it won't be recognized until we get a full year of this, so wait until the end of 2025 I guess to confirm it.

 

[bluewave]

March tied for warmest on record using the Berkeley Earth dataset continuing the streak of record warmth which began in 2023.

 

[chubbs]

CERES data updated through February. Noisy from month to month. Last month's anomaly came in lower after an upward spike in January. The 12-month average is starting to turn up so the net radiation bottom for this enso cycle has probably been passed. If so net radiation fell to a similar level following the 2015/16 and 2023/24 ninos. The 3-year average remains stubbornly high, indicating that the next big step won't be cooler.

[Typhoon Tip]

https://phys.org/news/2025-04-summer-lapland-warmest-years.html

[TheClimateChanger]

On 4/8/2025 at 8:43 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

...Continuation from 'Global Average Temperature 2024'  ( probably should have started this a couple of months ago - )

January 2025   ~ +1.8C above the pre 1850 level,  according to Copernicus

February 2025  ~ +1.8C above the pre 1850 level, according to Copernicus

March 2025 continued the remarkable trend, being the 2nd warmest March in the history of record,   https://phys.org/news/2025-04-global-temperatures-historic-highs-eu.html    

 

Thank you for the update. One correction, however, just to be clear... Copernicus uses an 1850-1900 baseline. I know they refer to it as "pre-industrial" which may imply before 1850, but it is, in fact, based on the second half of the 19th century averages [even if a fair amount of industrialization had occurred by that time]. 

Not trying to be critical, just wanted to clarify. A lot of times, the choice of baseline can make a big difference. Of course, in that era, the changes were relatively smaller. Still, a baseline of 1800-1850 could be 0.1 or 0.2C cooler. Just not enough data from that era to say for sure.

[Typhoon Tip]

On 4/28/2025 at 4:34 PM, TheClimateChanger said:

Thank you for the update. One correction, however, just to be clear... Copernicus uses an 1850-1900 baseline. I know they refer to it as "pre-industrial" which may imply before 1850, but it is, in fact, based on the second half of the 19th century averages [even if a fair amount of industrialization had occurred by that time]. 

Not trying to be critical, just wanted to clarify. A lot of times, the choice of baseline can make a big difference. Of course, in that era, the changes were relatively smaller. Still, a baseline of 1800-1850 could be 0.1 or 0.2C cooler. Just not enough data from that era to say for sure.

np ...

frankly, I begin to think the PI distinction may be less meaningful since ~ 1998 anyway; since, the curve's become less linear and more exponential.   That changes things, because something is happening endemic to these last 2 or 3 decades.   It's really like we need to change the narrative to "since pre super NINO 1998" 

The pre Industrial aspect is like a built in reminder that the 'momentum' in anthropomorphic forcing began when civility converted to an industrial format, but it appears some sort of trigger for feed-back induced synergistic heating is more recent, and dangerous once you get into non-linear responses.   We know PI began this - though the laity doesn't.  You know, in some quantum sense of it, probably really began when the first lesser hominid picked up a burning stick and light dawned some 300,000 years ago.   The curve was likely not linear all along, but to a close approximation, predictions based upon would be relatively well behaved. 

Case in point, the 2023: a whole planetary systemic temperature surged.   If a 1930s sci-fi writer conceived that in 2023 a temperature burst at a planetary scale would take place, it would probably be integral in a d-day plot.  When is the next unseen thing going to happen, and wtf is going to be when an entire planet farts.  Now that it has really happened...  guess were juts in it and not knowing if we're going to win it.

[TheClimateChanger]

April checked in at +0.61C [versus 1991-2020] on UAH V6.1.

[bdgwx]

My prediction for UAH for the year 2025 is 0.47 ± 0.14 C using a simple 5 parameter machine learning model. That means it is more likely than not to be the 2nd warmest year in their period of record. And that's with a mostly ENSO neutral backdrop.

[chubbs]

UAH6 tied for 3rd high this April, matching the 1998 and 2016 super ninos. Unusually warm for cool neutral enso.

[bluewave]

Looks like April was the 2nd warmest on record.

https://bsky.app/profile/climatecasino.net

The global temperature anomaly for April, 2025, came in at 1.51°C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial baseline, making April, 2025 the second hottest on record since 1940, behind only 2024 (1.58°C). The year-to-date anomaly is currently at 1.61°C above pre-industrial

 

[Typhoon Tip]

5 hours ago, bluewave said:

Looks like April was the 2nd warmest on record.

https://bsky.app/profile/climatecasino.net

 

The global temperature anomaly for April, 2025, came in at 1.51°C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial baseline, making April, 2025 the second hottest on record since 1940, behind only 2024 (1.58°C). The year-to-date anomaly is currently at 1.61°C above pre-industrial

 

and I just wonder, when the next warm ENSO phase arrives, what kind synergy results happen that next time.   Does this set the stage for another 2023 global phenomenon.. Bear in mind, 2023 temperature event ( at an entire planetary integrated scale!!) was worse than unprecedented ... it was utterly not predicted by anything unaided foresight, or technological assisted human vision.

That event is more than a mere geological enigma.  It's a silent doom siren ( to me ).  

This is intuitive ...but scratch calculations, with the assist of AI,  only lend credence to the idea. 

In order to raise 1 cubic meter of ocean water by 1 degree Celsius, you need approximately 4,200 joules of energy.  

The oceans have ~ 3.6e+12  KM of surface area, which M is thus 3.6e+15 (3.6 quadrillion) square meters.   In an (at least...) quick albeit gross assumption, the top 1 cubic meter of the oceans are virtually coupled to the thermal state of the atmosphere due to ongoing noise of turbulent exchange averages of the whole planetary system. Using that conceptually for our calculation implies  3.6e+15  X 4,200 joules = somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5e+19 .. Just because it's fun to hear this in dialogue ...
fifteen quintillion joules of energy.   And, that all took place in basically a 45 day span back in late March to early May ( check that - ) of 2023. 

That was just the ocean.  

The atmosphere behaved in a similar delta during those 45 days, not lagged , which is an extra special creepy "omg-ism" in its own right - the whole system, ocean and air, SIMULTANEOUSLY surged by 1 deg C ( note, these are approximations for/in conjecture but in principle, we're conceptually correct).  That part is a particularly troubling, non-intuitive observation.  The contemporary understanding is that the atmospheric, vs oceanic system, are "QUASI" coupled - which means in laity that they only seem to be coupled, but really aren't at the point observation.  Time is required in the total exchange thermal engine of the total system. Such that over time, the oceans store/lose temperature from multiple sources, then, non-linear feedback processes, over time, effects the atmosphere, and vice versa.  They are not suppose to unilaterally "explode", simultaneously.  There's been a lot of floated insights and studies - not criticism whatsoever. However, I haven't read anything that specifically addresses what took place from this kind of approach - and personally, I am 100% confident that answering question is more paramount, particularly when adding that "...it was utterly not predicted by anything unaided foresight, or technological assisted human vision"  Because even to the laity ... that means we don't see or know the land mines along this path to destiny. 

Be that as it may ...  let's include the atmosphere's contribution to the energy - obviously this has all likely been calculated million times ... to far greater confidence precision than all this but I'm just having fun here. 

To raise the temperature of 1 cubic kilometer of air by 1 degree Celsius, approximately 1e+12 joules of energy is required. 

Just using the troposphere (lowest layer) of the total atmospheric volume, there is 6e+12 (trillion) cubic meters of atmosphere down here (we'll also assume for concept-model a well mixed temperature rise too place through the tropospheric depth).

So ... 1e+12 joules X (6e+12 cu meters)/1000 => 6e+21 ... six sextillion KJ of energy added from "some unknown source", to the atmosphere, between late March and early May of 2023

The ocean and atmosphere together is too close to that six sextillion KJ number to really report that as 6.015e+21 so just take the larger numeric expression. 

Comparing this to the all of the nuclear arsenal of the world being unleashed, all at once ... according to AI assist, the U.S. alone has a total 5.3e+18 yield if the total cache were expended (2000 devices).   I don't know what the Soviets have, and China has, and India ...or other capable nations bring to the table, but just for argument's sake, this number may be tripled.  I'm getting tired of looking this up for the course of this thought experiment - which is based on approximations and less fully vetted anyway... but, 3(5e+18)  works out to 1.5e+19 ... if perhaps just a quirk of error, notwithstanding, this is same eerie value as that 1.5e+19 from the oceanic contribution arrived to from above. 

Given that the margin for error in the assumptions of metrics going into this little arithmetic/thought experiment could be +/-  2 or 3 orders of magnitude, that puts this imm abv number into a similar value as the 6e+21 ... Basically, what we observed in 2023 is like a complete commitment global holocaust's worth of a footprint.   Maybe merely symbolic to say ... but this "symmetry of doom" really is a pretty terrible optic that argues humanity's been playing with dad's end-game-gun for a long while.