Global Average Temperature 2025

[chubbs]

CERES net radiation continues to increase off the El Nino bottom set in late summer 2024. The last net radiation peak occurred in January 2023, as the 3-year nina came to an end. With  growing signs of a shift from nina to nino conditions another peak is probably developing this winter. If so the next net radiation peak will be well below Jan 2023 levels and more in-line with winter of 21/22 and other recent nina peaks since 2008. Indicates that a portion of the unusually high peak in winter2022/2023 was enso-related. In-any-case the current radiation imbalance would support a rise in global temperatures to record levels if moderate/strong nino conditions develop as forecast.

[Typhoon Tip]

https://phys.org/news/2026-02-january-hottest-cold-snap-eu.html

[WolfStock1]

On 2/10/2026 at 3:30 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

https://phys.org/news/2026-02-january-hottest-cold-snap-eu.html

 

So here's a question.

Given that "the planet" is generally a self-contained system with very little (essentially no) variance in externalities with regards to energy inputs (mainly solar irradiance - generally near-constant) and output (terrestrial radiation - generally near-constant) - shouldn't the warming of the planet just be essentially a straight (or curved) line with an always-upwards slope, such that a new record should be set *every* year?

Or is it the case that it's really just these records are just really just referring to "the places we are measuring" and not "the planet" as a whole?

Yes - question is somewhat rhetorical, but is intended to trigger some thought.   If one presumes that the planet as a whole is warming continually, then what are the "holes" in the data?   Are there significant areas of the ocean for instance that we're just not measuring, and the reason we don't see a new record every year is because of the non-existent data that would offset the data we do have?   Or perhaps is it the case that we are in fact measuring the whole "surface" (including the oceans), but the surface temperature as a whole actually does go up and down based on something - e.g. subterranean effects e.g. "bubbles" in mantle convection, or perhaps solar cycles?

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

So here's a question.

Given that "the planet" is generally a self-contained system with very little (essentially no) variance in externalities with regards to energy inputs (mainly solar irradiance - generally near-constant) and output (terrestrial radiation - generally near-constant) - shouldn't the warming of the planet just be essentially a straight (or curved) line with an always-upwards slope, such that a new record should be set *every* year?

Or is it the case that it's really just these records are just really just referring to "the places we are measuring" and not "the planet" as a whole?

Yes - question is somewhat rhetorical, but is intended to trigger some thought.   If one presumes that the planet as a whole is warming continually, then what are the "holes" in the data?   Are there significant areas of the ocean for instance that we're just not measuring, and the reason we don't see a new record every year is because of the non-existent data that would offset the data we do have?   Or perhaps is it the case that we are in fact measuring the whole "surface" (including the oceans), but the surface temperature as a whole actually does go up and down based on something - e.g. subterranean effects e.g. "bubbles" in mantle convection, or perhaps solar cycles?

The earth's output is not constant. Instead It is modulated by ENSO. More radiation out during El Nino when the atmosphere is relatively warm and less during La Nina when the atmosphere is cool. Similarly the global surface temperature is modulated by ENSO, the earth's surface is warmer during el nino. Note that the climate system is dominated by the ocean and the rise in ocean temperature is steadier than the global surface temperature.

There is also some variation in solar output over the 11-year solar cycle. If you take an 11-year average of global surface temperatures (below) most of the enso and solar variability is removed. Leaving mainly man-made forcing and a small volcano contribution.

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

The earth's output is not constant. Instead It is modulated by ENSO. More radiation out during El Nino when the atmosphere is relatively warm and less during La Nina when the atmosphere is cool. Similarly the global surface temperature is modulated by ENSO, the earth's surface is warmer during el nino. Note that the climate system is dominated by the ocean and the rise in ocean temperature is steadier than the global surface temperature.

There is also some variation in solar output over the 11-year solar cycle. If you take an 11-year average of global surface temperatures (below) most of the enso and solar variability is removed. Leaving mainly man-made forcing and a small volcano contribution.

 This suggests ~0.20/decade 1980-2000 and ~0.24/decade 2000-2020.

[bluewave]

Great charts showing how much smaller the geographic footprint and magnitude of these Arctic arctic outbreaks have become relative to the areas of record warmth.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/uspa/warm-cold/0

 

 

 

Climatologist49

 

‪@climatologist49.bsky.social‬

Follow

The Dec-Jan period was the 7th warmest for the Contiguous U.S. since 1940. 21.1% had the warmest Dec-Jan during that period. 0.0% had the coldest Dec-Jan; 0.0% had the 2nd coldest, 0.0% had the 3rd coldest, .... all the way thru the 13th coldest.

 

9:32 PM · Feb 4,

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

Great charts showing how much smaller the geographic footprint and magnitude of these Arctic arctic outbreaks have become relative to the areas of record warmth.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/uspa/warm-cold/0

 

 

 

 

Climatologist49

 

‪@climatologist49.bsky.social‬

 

Follow

The Dec-Jan period was the 7th warmest for the Contiguous U.S. since 1940. 21.1% had the warmest Dec-Jan during that period. 0.0% had the coldest Dec-Jan; 0.0% had the 2nd coldest, 0.0% had the 3rd coldest, .... all the way thru the 13th coldest.

 

9:32 PM · Feb 4,

 A better representation of the SE US to minimize the warming effects of UHI as well as warming from increased traffic on airport runways (big problem at ATL for example) would be to use a rural station like the far N GA small town of Blairsville, GA, which has a pretty long record (back to 1931):

Per my counting (hoping I didn’t miscount…if I did it should be only minimally off):

Since 2020 including ties, it has had 24 different days with record highs and 7 days with record lows.

Since 2010, 65 with highs and 25 with lows

Since 2000: 87 with highs and 42 with lows

So, of course GW is real. But large cities’ records can sometimes cause some exaggeration of the degree of warming. So, it’s important to separate out UHI/airport effects as much as possible.
——————

Daily records from here:

https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=ffc