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 often cause an 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

[Typhoon Tip]

6 hours 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,

This is all great info ...

I'll just add that it is annoying at time to wonder if the general zeitgeist of denialism hasn't been enabled. 

If you look at this site,    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/   and cursory start going back month after month ...  large numbers of them emerge that feature a region of cooler anomaly, either occurring right smack in the midst of one of human society's greatest contributing Industrial anuses ... or, near enough by to wonder if the sensibility was touched. 

We are not registering the big heat of CC like other places.  We've had some memorable heat waves...yeah. But they've been rarer comparative to frequencies elsewhere.  Our low temperatures are in particular, more notable in that regards spanning much of the GL/OV/MA/NE/SE Canadian region.  That's obviously and intuitively related to WV increases ... but given the perennial circulation modal constraints, as the Pac flow moves across North America's topography, our experience is preordained.

Well fuck if I can't make my point... I just happened to check and NASA just finished tabulating the January numbers and there it is again.  The festering cold holes collocated with policy making-villes of the world

...and on and on and on we go - I just wonder/feel at times if what is needed is not having these blind the Idiocrasy from sensing the reality.  Because this bias might be doping the minds of the general civility.  Otherwise, maybe human kind will register the direly needed renaissance in their thinking about this issue

[bluewave]

3 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Because this bias might be doping the minds of the general civility.  Otherwise, maybe human kind will register the direly needed renaissance in their thinking about this issue

I think it’s more a function of human nature and our evolution that the warming planet doesn’t really get as much attention as other issues do. We evolved during ice ages that were tremendously challenging to just survive without the modern amenities we have today. So historically cold has been more of a concern than it being too warm. 

Most of the migration within the United States is from colder locations to the warmer sunbelt locations from Arizona to Texas and Florida. So it’s natural when we have a very cold 16 day period for most of the attention to be focused on cold since we have normalized all the record warmth in recent years.  

The cold stands out much more even though the magnitude, duration, and geographic footprint has been getting smaller over time. I also believe on a greater level most people outside this forum don’t like the cold and snow during winter. 

But this misses the long term challenges of the destabilizing effects of more extreme weather leading to migration shifts from areas which become difficult to survive in. 

[WolfStock1]

7 hours 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.

 

 

Are you sure?    Why is it that the Wikipedia page on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation

doesn't discuss ENSO?

The chart that's there doesn't seem to follow ENSO cycles:

 

 

Keep in mind we're not talking about radiation *into* the atmosphere here (what I think is most affected by ENSO), we're talking about radiation from all earth elements (including the atmosphere) out into space (outgoing longwave radiation).

Though I haven't attempted any kind of mathematical correlation - I thought ENSO cycles were generally much longer duration than what's in that chart.

 

[Typhoon Tip]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

I think it’s more a function of human nature and our evolution that the warming planet doesn’t really get as much attention as other issues do. We evolved during ice ages that were tremendously challenging to just survive without the modern amenities we have today. So historically cold has been more of a concern than it being too warm. 

Most of the migration within the United States is from colder locations to the warmer sunbelt locations from Arizona to Texas and Florida. So it’s natural when we have a very cold 16 day period for most of the attention to be focused on cold since we have normalized all the record warmth in recent years.  

The cold stands out much more even though the magnitude, duration, and geographic footprint has been getting smaller over time. I also believe on a greater level most people outside this forum don’t like the cold and snow during winter. 

But this misses the long term challenges of the destabilizing effects of more extreme weather leading to migration shifts from areas which become difficult to survive in. 

I don't disagree here in principle ... but the limitation and problems causing belated response, it's all even simpler than this.

It's that people don't step out of the way of warnings...

The step out of the way of what is causing them pain.

It's biological, alright.  May as well throw some irony in there, too.   Biology is limiting human response from actually adjusting to the calculus they are capable of making.  Such that people deny because they can ... They don't and won't be forced to do anything, unless it hurts. It's that simple.

If that sounds really, really stupid?   Your right.  

We are a flawed species. Period. "To err is human", but if we're not careful? no one left to forgive.  If CC appealed to any of the 5 senses (and I'd even take the spectrum between emotion to the 6th sense in that manifold of everyday experiences) there would be no debate. 

Little furthering muse... When the waves of population correction ( to put it nicely) begin to sweep over civilizations... there may even be attempts at blaming it on something else. Because even as it's killing, CC moves so slow compared to the every day experience;  the 90% Idiocrasy will still not believe it is so. They'll still fail to connect their shortcomings and observations to cause. 

I've drafted out this analogy, years ago in this climate sub forum somewhere.. I still think of it. This hearkens to the story of Noah in some ways - I am absolutely not religious, and am not attempting to take this down into that lunacy.  But it is still interesting, as the planet warms... and the masses continue to ignore, if not heckle it as a background problem of lesser import, the oceans will rise. Only creeping at first. 

I'm taking a little sc-fi doom prophecy dystopian license here, fine.  However, fact of the matter is, yeah ...the oceans are rising because of CC. Species are perishing. Human adaptiveness will proverbially doggy paddle, but like other people do ...when drowning is on the line, they'll take another man down with them to save themselves.  That ending there becomes a metaphor for wars.  

I guess we're powerless to stop the elegantly obtuse folly of the human finale, so may as well sit back and popcorn and cook the show.  Maybe when the aliens happen by this planet in a 1,000 years, they'll see all these monuments to our past - hopefully they'll find, and learn to decode the language of Percy Shelly, "Ozymandias"

 

[WolfStock1]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

I think it’s more a function of human nature and our evolution that the warming planet doesn’t really get as much attention as other issues do. We evolved during ice ages that were tremendously challenging to just survive without the modern amenities we have today. So historically cold has been more of a concern than it being too warm. 

Most of the migration within the United States is from colder locations to the warmer sunbelt locations from Arizona to Texas and Florida. So it’s natural when we have a very cold 16 day period for most of the attention to be focused on cold since we have normalized all the record warmth in recent years.  

The cold stands out much more even though the magnitude, duration, and geographic footprint has been getting smaller over time. I also believe on a greater level most people outside this forum don’t like the cold and snow during winter. 

But this misses the long term challenges of the destabilizing effects of more extreme weather leading to migration shifts from areas which become difficult to survive in. 

 

Well there's also the fact that it's lot harder to survive in extreme cold than it is in extreme heat, which is why so many more people die each year from cold weather.

Human comfort / survivability is not one of the negative effects of MMGW.    Sea level rise and increase in storms, yes.   But not the temperature itself.

IMO areas becoming "difficult to survive in" is a non-issue for MMGW.   Any slight increase in storm activity is just noise in the overall background of improved infrastructure and weather prediction.  A *lot* fewer people die these days from hurricanes and floods than they did in years past.

(Sea level rise of course is a non-issue w/regards to survivability; the creep is way slower than natural human birth/death cycles.   I always have to laugh when I hear of literal human "danger" proposed as being due to sea level rise.)

[GaWx]

48 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Well there's also the fact that it's lot harder to survive in extreme cold than it is in extreme heat, which is why so many more people die each year from cold weather.

Human comfort / survivability is not one of the negative effects of MMGW.    Sea level rise and increase in storms, yes.   But not the temperature itself.

IMO areas becoming "difficult to survive in" is a non-issue for MMGW.   Any slight increase in storm activity is just noise in the overall background of improved infrastructure and weather prediction.  A *lot* fewer people die these days from hurricanes and floods than they did in years past.

(Sea level rise of course is a non-issue w/regards to survivability; the creep is way slower than natural human birth/death cycles.   I always have to laugh when I hear of literal human "danger" proposed as being due to sea level rise.)

 Another positive effect of AGW/GW is regarding the world food supply due to the photosynthesis effect of CO2 as well as longer growing seasons. These favor larger crops/larger global food supply/less starvation. That shouldn’t be ignored in the full objective assessment of AGW/GW, which certainly has significant negative effects. However, there are  some good things, too, like fewer deaths from cold as you said and fewer deaths from starvation. These good effects are often glossed over by those wanting to only emphasize the bad effects.

[bluewave]

53 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Well there's also the fact that it's lot harder to survive in extreme cold than it is in extreme heat, which is why so many more people die each year from cold weather.

Human comfort / survivability is not one of the negative effects of MMGW.    Sea level rise and increase in storms, yes.   But not the temperature itself.

IMO areas becoming "difficult to survive in" is a non-issue for MMGW.   Any slight increase in storm activity is just noise in the overall background of improved infrastructure and weather prediction.  A *lot* fewer people die these days from hurricanes and floods than they did in years past.

(Sea level rise of course is a non-issue w/regards to survivability; the creep is way slower than natural human birth/death cycles.   I always have to laugh when I hear of literal human "danger" proposed as being due to sea level rise.)

Several of the biggest human migration stories since 2010 have a MMGW component as a contributing factor. A major trigger for the refugee crisis and migration into Europe was a crop failure caused by MMGW in the Middle East earlier in the last decade. Same for the wave of migration north from Central America into the U.S. following MMGW crop failures over the last decade. When those stressors combined with the background issues of extreme poverty they tipped the balance to mass migrations to escape those conditions.

Within the U.S. some parts of the country with extreme hurricane activity over the last decade due to record SSTs leading to the record rapid intensification of hurricanes have seen a steep increase in homeowners insurance. So many have gotten priced out of those markets.

Same across the Western U.S. where drought and wildfire activity have made some spots uninsurable leading to people exiting these regions. The good news is that we have sophisticated weather warning systems here to help save lives. But less developed parts of the world with increasing extremes haven’t been as lucky since they lack the warning systems we have.

Parts of the Southeast U.S. have experienced rapid sea level rise since the 1990s combined with subsidence and groundwater pumping  leading to saltwater intrusion. So several new high rises have been sinking and older structures have been having issues salt water intrusion into their foundations.

We hope that the fragile WAIS will take hundreds of years to slowly  melt. But they recently discovered that in past ice ages there were rapid melt episodes where significant  sea level rise occurred in just a few decades. Sea level rise following past ice ages wasn’t  that big of a deal since the world wasn’t covered by coastal megacities like we have today.

So an unexpected rapid sea level rise in any future decades due to our incomplete understanding of ice sheet dynamics would trigger a wave of migrations which would make the migrations since 2010 look tiny in comparison. 

Plus nearly all of the time when we pass critical climate thresholds we don’t know we have crossed into a new regime until it has already occurred. While the earth is a very resilient system, we really don’t understand how making these rapid alterations to the climate system will fully play out. Ecosystems are delicately balanced and what seems like a small change scan have a a much bigger impact than we understand. 

This whole climate experiment we have been running reminds me a bit of the great song by Pink Floyd.

 

[WolfStock1]

18 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Several of the biggest human migration stories since 2010 have a MMGW component as a contributing factor. A major trigger for the refugee crisis and migration into Europe was a crop failure caused by MMGW in the Middle East earlier in the last decade. Same for the wave of migration north from Central America into the U.S. following MMGW crop failures over the last decade. When those stressors combined with the background issues of extreme poverty they tipped the balance to mass migrations to escape those conditions.

Within the U.S. some parts of the country with extreme hurricane activity over the last decade due to record SSTs leading to the record rapid intensification of hurricanes have seen a steep increase in homeowners insurance. So many have gotten priced out of those markets.

Same across the Western U.S. where drought and wildfire activity have made some spots uninsurable leading to people exiting these regions. The good news is that we have sophisticated weather warning systems here to help save lives. But less developed parts of the world with increasing extremes haven’t been as lucky since they lack the warning systems we have.

Parts of the Southeast U.S. have experienced rapid sea level rise since the 1990s combined with subsidence and groundwater pumping  leading to saltwater intrusion. So several new high rises have been sinking and older structures have been having issues salt water intrusion into their foundations.

We hope that the fragile WAIS will take hundreds of years to slowly  melt. But they recently discovered that in past ice ages there were rapid melt episodes where significant  sea level rise occurred in just a few decades. Sea level rise following past ice ages wasn’t  that big of a deal since the world wasn’t covered by coastal megacities like we have today.

So an unexpected rapid sea level rise in any future decades due to our incomplete understanding of ice sheet dynamics would trigger a wave of migrations which would make the migrations since 2010 look tiny in comparison. 

Plus nearly all of the time when we pass critical climate thresholds we don’t know we have crossed into a new regime until it has already occurred. While the earth is a very resilient system, we really don’t understand how making these rapid alterations to the climate system will fully play out. Ecosystems are delicately balanced and what seems like a small change scan have a a much bigger impact than we understand. 

This whole climate experiment we have been running reminds me a bit of the great song by Pink Floyd.

 

 

Boy you hit about all the MMGW scapegoat talking points there, didn't you?   You forgot about rape though.  (Yes, it's a thing)

I'll just hit one of the scaries for now - crop failures - the rest can be inferred.

 

The sky-is-falling narrative tends to fall apart when you look at the actual data, and not individual anecdotes.

(ironically - much like looking at a weather event and claiming that it's an indicator of climate trends)

 

[GaWx]

1 minute ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Boy you hit about all the MMGW scapegoat talking points there, didn't you?   You forgot about rape though.  (Yes, it's a thing)

I'll just hit one of the scaries for now - crop failures - the rest can be inferred.

 

 Some of the crop yield increases were likely helped by better technology, but not nearly all of it. GW/AGW have helped significantly with crop sizes, something often intentionally glossed over