Global Average Temperature 2025

[bluewave]

New SST records set for the subtropical oceans.

 

[GaWx]

31 minutes ago, bluewave said:

New SST records set for the subtropical oceans.

 

Why did they wait til the mid 90s to finally start warming?

[Typhoon Tip]

10 hours ago, GaWx said:

Why did they wait til the mid 90s to finally start warming?

Tough sell/science for now ... ( and I realize you're not asking me directly - ) but,  I've surmised it may be related to C02 growth in the atmosphere, exceeding absorption rate/capacity of the oceans.  With more C02 left available to store tropospheric heat, that effects heat exchange efficiency in the total atmosphere/ocean coupled model.  

How?    A warmer C02 richer atmosphere increased WV loading, and above some mass, this slows the evaporation rate off the ocean, which physically transports heat away with the evaporating mass...  This slows ocean cooling, ...such that heat absorption exceeds heat escaping -->  temp goes up.   

Probably?  approaching a critical mass threshold where we all die.   Have nice day ///   2023 didn't just happen for shits and giggles.  And the ITZ SST band only dropping .6, while the Sub -T SSTs tickle history, means the total region is actually not going down.     

[chubbs]

Another paper in the high climate sensitivity camp. This paper says that low-climate sensitivity models can't match CERES satellite radiation measurements, i.e. climate models are underestimating warming on average.

"The CERES satellite measures Earth's energy imbalance—specifically, how much solar radiation is absorbed compared to how much heat (longwave) radiation is emitted back into space. The data show a significant increase in absorbed solar radiation, partly due to reduced snow and ice cover, but also because of changes to clouds. At the same time, Earth is emitting more heat, driven by rising surface temperatures.

The satellite measurements have been compared with results from 37 climate models. The study shows a clear connection between climate sensitivity in the models and the ratio between increased absorbed solar radiation and increased heat radiation from Earth. Climate models with low climate sensitivity show small changes in the energy imbalance in the individual contributions from absorbed solar radiation and increased terrestrial radiation from Earth, and are less able to reproduce what is measured from satellite data."

https://phys.org/news/2025-06-climate-sensitivity-greenhouse-gases-align.html

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt0647

[LibertyBell]

22 hours ago, GaWx said:

Why did they wait til the mid 90s to finally start warming?

isn't that when the AMO changed from - to +?

our tropics were very quiet before 1995

[bluewave]

On 6/14/2025 at 7:48 AM, GaWx said:

Why did they wait til the mid 90s to finally start warming?

The strong subtropical warming actually contradicts our current understanding of how the ocean temperatures have changed in the past. The strongest SST warming was expected in the subpolar oceans. But instead the western subtropical basins have seen the greatest warming. But isn’t anything new as the lack of warming in the EPAC has baffled scientists for a while now. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00839-w

Strongest ocean warming expected in subpolar ocean

The observed warming pattern (Fig. 1a) contradicts our understanding of how ocean temperature has changed in the geologic past. SST reconstructions covering the mid-Pliocene, the most recent time when atmospheric GHG concentrations were similar to today⁴¹, highlight the strongest large-scale ocean warming over the subpolar oceans (Fig. 1c). Comparably, warmings in subtropical regions are less pronounced, except for the subtropical extension of western boundary currents, where a poleward shift of western boundary currents contributes to a local maximum temperature increase^8,9.

 

[LibertyBell]

48 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The strong subtropical warming actually contradicts our current understanding of how the ocean temperatures have changed in the past. The strongest SST warming was expected in the subpolar oceans. But instead the western subtropical basins have seen the greatest warming. But isn’t anything new as the lack of warming in the EPAC has baffled scientists for a while now. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00839-w

Strongest ocean warming expected in subpolar ocean

The observed warming pattern (Fig. 1a) contradicts our understanding of how ocean temperature has changed in the geologic past. SST reconstructions covering the mid-Pliocene, the most recent time when atmospheric GHG concentrations were similar to today⁴¹, highlight the strongest large-scale ocean warming over the subpolar oceans (Fig. 1c). Comparably, warmings in subtropical regions are less pronounced, except for the subtropical extension of western boundary currents, where a poleward shift of western boundary currents contributes to a local maximum temperature increase^8,9.

 

Maybe it's because the western basins are warming faster..... it's happening in the Atlantic too.  There is a see saw effect, if one side warms faster the other side has to go in the opposite direction?

[bdgwx]

On 6/14/2025 at 6:48 AM, GaWx said:

Why did they wait til the mid 90s to finally start warming?

That is a really good and interesting question.

This touches on the topic of ENSO as well. As we've discussed before the ENSO region hasn't warmed in the last few decades despite the global average warming. As a result the general circulation patterns that had once typified the ENSO cycle are no longer playing out; at least not in the same way as they once did. This is because El Nino's appear attenuated and La Nina's amplified against the global backdrop. This is the primary motivation of new indices like the RONI.

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

No problem from me ...

I've smirked the notion in multiple post over the last 10 years.  Climate forcing probably began the moment that inquisitive proto modern human picked up stick still aflame at one end somewhere along the sub-Saharan African savanna, and it dawned on him/her.   Well not right then - ... but controlling fire.

It just needed 200 years of Industrial humanity to become very obvious ... Before then, it's presence was buried in the noise of natural variability.

[LibertyBell]

57 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

to be honest humans change everything

if you want to widen the scope, so do other animals plants and even microbes

if it weren't for blue green algae (not algae lol) our atmosphere wouldn't be the way it is and we would not exist.

 

[Typhoon Tip]

https://phys.org/news/2025-06-planetary-linked-wild-summer-weather.html

[TheClimateChanger]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

No problem from me ...

I've smirked the notion in multiple post over the last 10 years.  Climate forcing probably began the moment that inquisitive proto modern human picked up stick still aflame at one end somewhere along the sub-Saharan African savanna, and it dawned on him/her.   Well not right then - ... but controlling fire.

It just needed 200 years of Industrial humanity to become very obvious ... Before then, it's presence was buried in the noise of natural variability.

Makes sense to me, and I've made this argument in the past. If you read weather records from that era, the general consensus was warming from past eras. I think this is supported by longer-range temperature records and reconstructions. But it does call into question the use of this era as some sort of special baseline. The true baseline may, in fact, have been a continuation of the natural cooling trend that had generally characterized the period since the Holocene Thermal Maximum - perhaps to levels even colder than those of the so-called Little Ice Age. Granted the degree of warming at that time was a tiny fraction of what we see today, so it wouldn't make a huge difference. But this paper would suggest the cumulative human impact is at least slightly higher than commonly reported from temperature datasets which use that period of history as the baseline of a natural climate.

[LibertyBell]

18 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Makes sense to me, and I've made this argument in the past. If you read weather records from that era, the general consensus was warming from past eras. I think this is supported by longer-range temperature records and reconstructions. But it does call into question the use of this era as some sort of special baseline. The true baseline may, in fact, have been a continuation of the natural cooling trend that had generally characterized the period since the Holocene Thermal Maximum - perhaps to levels even colder than those of the so-called Little Ice Age. Granted the degree of warming at that time was a tiny fraction of what we see today, so it wouldn't make a huge difference. But this paper would suggest the cumulative human impact is at least slightly higher than commonly reported from temperature datasets which use that period of history as the baseline of a natural climate.

You can also argue that at least some of the warming has had a beneficial impact on humanity.

[Typhoon Tip]

33 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

You can also argue that at least some of the warming has had a beneficial impact on humanity.

Human influence/forcing "hidden in the noise of climate variability" is fanciful rhetoric that really means the same thing as Earth being capable of absorbing the human influence - all systems, weather and biology.  This is academic logic really ... but still needs to be stated for a lot of population that don't get it.

Species loss and species migration are happening because when the emergence out of noise became coherent, that coincides with changes occurring faster than species adaptation rates.      Dead meat.

Humans are not unaffected.  The Serbian diaspora 15 to 20 years back took place because of shifting climate zones and agricultural failure over a vast region ... 

These are all just physically realized evidences; when the anthropomorphic forcing was still contained inside the Earth's ability to hide it in the noise, that means adaptation had a chance.   I'm just saying that coherence became like a data proxy for when the detriment began. People are waiting for threshold dystopia ...but, it's more likely that a series of them will breach silenty, like crossing an event horizon - you don't feel anything out of the ordinary when you go across, but you don't return to the previous state . We surpass enough of them and then find ourselves in a "Serbian crises", perhaps one that has fewer existential solutions

When that expose happened, also marks the first threshold being crossed.  When the warming becomes (attribution) discernible and differentiable, meaning it sticks out of the noise as being more significant, that is the threshold of injury.

[TheClimateChanger]

30 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

You can also argue that at least some of the warming has had a beneficial impact on humanity.

I think it probably depends on whether you are looking pre- or post-invention of air conditioning. Prior to the invention of air conditioning, I suspect something near pre-industrial is the optimum. Perhaps somewhat colder. Last glacial maximum is probably too cold due to the expansive continental ice shelves, although it would open up a lot of new coastlines. Ben Franklin considered 47-50F annual mean temperature to be the ideal for agriculture and industry. I think patterns of development [prior to air conditioning] support that, with large cities like Chicago, Detroit, New York, Boston, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. falling in that isothermal band. The south was mostly underdeveloped rural/agrarian lifestyle. Maybe some winter homes in Florida. So, prior to the invention of air conditioning, you would probably want to find the climate regime that maximized the areal extent of mean temperatures from the mid 40s to low 50s. Of course, now, most of these places are above 50F in the running means. But he did say 50-53F was the second best temperature band.

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I think it probably depends on whether you are looking pre- or post-invention of air conditioning. Prior to the invention of air conditioning, I suspect something near pre-industrial is the optimum. Perhaps somewhat colder. Last glacial maximum is probably too cold due to the expansive continental ice shelves, although it would open up a lot of new coastlines.

also, for farming purposes maybe a halfway point was better.  Definitely not the ice ages and definitely not what we have now.  I'd estimate that our ideal climate for productivity and food growth was somewhere between the 1950s and the 1990s, we went downhill rapidly after that.

 

[LibertyBell]

10 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Human influence/forcing "hidden in the noise of climate variability" is fanciful rhetoric that really means the same thing as Earth being capable of absorbing the human influence - all systems, whether and biology.  This is academic logic really ... but still needs to be stated for a lot of population that don't get it.

Species loss and species migration are happening because when the emergence out of noise became coherent, that coincides with changes occurring faster than species adaptation rates.      Dead meat.

Humans are not unaffected.  The Serbian diaspora 15 to 20 years back took place because of shifting climate zones and agricultural failure over a vast region ... 

These are all just physically realized evidences; when the anthropomorphic forcing was still contained inside the Earth's ability to hide it in the noise, that means adaptation had a chance.   I'm just saying that coherence became like a data proxy for when the detriment began. People are waiting for threshold dystopia ...but, it's more likely that a series of them, like crossing an event horizon - you don't feel anything out of the ordinary when you go across, but you don't return to the previous state - will surpass and then you'll find yourself in a "Serbian crises"

When that expose happened, also marks the first threshold being crossed.  When the warming becomes (attribution) discernible and differentiable, meaning it sticks out of the noise as being more significant, that is the threshold of injury.

Yes, we've passed the point of benefits, which I believe ended in the 1990s.  But the ice ages and the cold we had in the 1800s wasn't the ideal climate for humans either.

[TheClimateChanger]

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

also, for farming purposes maybe a halfway point was better.  Definitely not the ice ages and definitely not what we have now.  I'd estimate that our ideal climate for productivity and food growth was somewhere between the 1950s and the 1990s, we went downhill rapidly after that.

 

I added a little context after your quote:

Quote

Ben Franklin considered 47-50F annual mean temperature to be the ideal for agriculture and industry. I think patterns of development [prior to air conditioning] support that, with large cities like Chicago, Detroit, New York, Boston, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. falling in that isothermal band. The south was mostly underdeveloped rural/agrarian lifestyle. Maybe some winter homes in Florida. So, prior to the invention of air conditioning, you would probably want to find the climate regime that maximized the areal extent of mean temperatures from the mid 40s to low 50s. Of course, now, most of these places are above 50F in the running means. But he did say 50-53F was the second best temperature band.

 

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I added a little context after your quote:

 

Nice, I think we started exceeding that in the 1990s.  I remember at the time that 1990 and 1991 were the two hottest years on record (both locally with 23 of 24 months above normal at NYC and globally with the hottest years on record up to that point.) If I remember what I read back then correctly, we jumped to a global mean temperature in the 57 degree range.

[Typhoon Tip]

14 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes, we've passed the point of benefits, which I believe ended in the 1990s.  But the ice ages and the cold we had in the 1800s wasn't the ideal climate for humans either.

well... yeah.   but then Earth, nor the nature within which it exist are ideal then, either.

1800s had a couple a big volcanoes.  then we got solar cycles and storms there.  comet impacts...  CRB's from deep astronomy for shit's sake.  I mean how far outside of it do we wanna go, we can certainly find reasons to just suggest it's all futile anyway.

Or, we can keep the conversation constrained to Human asshole forcing not adding to this compendium of plausible disaster scenarios.  That's the point. 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said:

well... yeah.   but Earth, nor the nature within which it exist are perhaps not ideal then, either.

1800s had a couple a big volcanoes.  You go solar cycles and storms there.  You have comet impacts...  CRB's from deep astronomy for shit's sake.  I mean how far outside of it we go, we can certainly find reasons to just suggest it's all futile anyway.

Or, we can keep the conversation constrained to Human asshole forcing not adding to this compendium of plausible disaster scenarios.  That's the point. 

Humans have now reached the point where it's a runaway greenhouse effect.

I remember there was an article posted that we are on the pathway to a similar fate as what happened to Venus.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

2 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

well... yeah.   but Earth is perhaps not ideal.

1800s had a couple a big volcanoes.  You go solar cycles and storms there.  You have comet impacts...  CRB's from deep astronomy for shit's sake.  I mean how far outside of it we go, we can certainly find reasons to just suggest it's all futile anyway.

Or, we can keep the conversation constrained to Human asshole forcing not adding to this compendium of plausible disaster scenarios.  That's the point. 

Speaking of volcanos... this looks promising:

 

[Typhoon Tip]

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Humans have now reached the point where it's a runaway greenhouse effect.

I remember there was an article posted that we are on the pathway to a similar fate as what happened to Venus.

 

Can't....   Earth would have to lose it's magnetic dynamo.    Venus suffered H2O extinction from slow rotation and having too little dynamo, while being technically too far inside the Goldy zone ...  That meant eons of pulverizing radiation cracking water molecules apart - there's also likelihood that Earth began with or received water sources in addition to having the powerful dynamo that protect it. 

But... if by saying "like Venus", we just mean hot as hell?  that can happen with different chemistry and insolation, too. 

[LibertyBell]

3 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Can't....   Earth would have to lose it's magnetic dynamo.    Venus suffered H2O extinction from slow rotation and having too little dynamo, while being technically too far inside the Goldy zone ...  That meant eons of pulverizing radiation cracking water molecules apart - there's also likelihood that Earth began with or received water sources in addition to having the powerful dynamo that protect it. 

But... if by saying "like Venus", we just mean hot as hell?  that can happen with different chemistry and insolation, too. 

Yes, and I've noticed it's a cascading effect because besides CO2 we also have more methane and more water vapor (all three are greenhouse gasses), we are becoming cloudier by the year which is increasing the impact, just like it did with Venus (even though its clouds have a different composition, mostly sulfuric acid.)