Has the Global Temperature Trend Turned to Cooling?

A downturn in May.
UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for May, 2025: +0.50 deg. C
June 5th, 2025
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2025 was +0.50 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the April, 2025 anomaly of +0.61 deg. C.


The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through May 2025) remains at +0.15 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).

 

You seem to be saying the scientists deliberately under-correct to make the warming look smaller. That would contradict your other conspiracy theories about scientists exaggerating the warming. I imagine by now you're quite used to holding contradicting beliefs.

There, you're implying that TSI is the only thing affecting climate. I never made that bonehead error. But I see why you made it. It's the only way you can deny the extremely close correlation of TSI and temperature.

Again, rural stations show the same warming, therefore your conspiracy theory is disproved. It doesn't matter how fervent your belief in it is, or how angry you get about being disproved. The hard data says your theory is wrong, so it's wrong.

Mr. Ockham would like some words with you. Those words are "don't multiply entities unnecessarily." He was specifically referring to what you're doing, and saying to not do it.

For example, when I turn my oven up, and make no other changes in the environment, the oven always gets hotter. I conclude it gets hotter because turning the dial added more energy. Minimal entities invoked.

You would conclude, with your entity-multiplying, that the adding more energy was just one factor, and that a combination of other factors that nobody can name made the oven hotter.

And for some reason, you think your way is better.

 

Then why hasn't anyone on your side ever been able to point out such things?

I'd love to see such evidence, if you have it. Please present it for us.

(Please proceed with your "WE ALREADY PROVED THAT!" evasion.)

So why does Tommy keep declaring he has a list 285 papers, which settles the issue?

Needless to say, you have no problem with that.

That's what I was mocking, the tactic which you will continue to support, a tactic that you admit is unscientific.

And then I generally point out why the conclusions he draws are wrong, resulting in evasions and insults. Which you're often part of. Jack parrots, I debate.

 

Actually, you have never once found a conclusion inconsistent with the research I cite and link. And you are the usual source of insults.

 

Bzzzzt, you fail. You were talking geographic distribution. Removing stations absolutely will affect that. GET IT??

It's true. You really have single-handedly refuted the last century of physics, purely through the power of your mighty "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

Let me help you out here. Not all El Ninos have the same strength.

You're doing that sleazy thing you do so often again, where you take a correct general statement I made and pretend it was absolute and specific. Now you're going to double down on it, because what else can you do?

And? This is a problem ... why? It's certainly not a problem for AGW theory, that global temps fall after a strong El Nino period ends.

Now, what happened in 2024? What happened after? Have temps fallen to the 2017 levels? That would be "no".

Noise on a rising trend. This isn't difficult for most people.

As anyone familiar with the basics knows, that's no problem for AGW theory, which absolutely does not say CO2 is the only thing affecting climate.

What's more, you know that AGW theory says that. You're not being intellectually honest, so why should anyone waste time with you?

Not according to Mr. Ockham.

It's true. The entire planet really is conspiring against you, and you're one of the few brave souls to know the RealTruth. I bet knowing that gives you a special thrill.

 

Let me talk about the most recent example of me doing so, a few minutes ago, just to prove that you are flat out wrong with your "never" claim. And since you're wrong, that thus lowers your credibility as a whole. (See how direct I am with my points? All deniers should aspire to that level of honesty.)

You posted a paper that showed a fast sea level change in a very local area.

You claimed that quick local sea level change proved that the current fast global sea level change was totally ordinary.

I pointed out that while fast local changes happen, fast global changes do not. They can't, because the mount of water is a finite thing. So, your conclusion was wrong.

Your only response was "that is false". That's the only type of response you'll ever give. If you can't cut-and-paste from another website, you're helpless.

Each time you say that, I take it, correctly I think, as your admission of getting whupped.

 

Please cite the post of mine you think makes your point. I think your claim is false.

 

Ah, found it. What you missed was the link in the post to the very large number of other research results showing the same outcome.

 

And btw, you are debating against points of your own creation.

 

No, the propagandists.

No, to make it look bigger.

No, you just (surprise!) don't understand the logic of applying corrections.

Let's say the measurement we are talking about is children's weight gain as they get older instead of the earth's surface temperature. We know their clothes and shoes have some weight, so we apply a correction to the data: say 500gm, based on averaging the weight of a sample of kids' clothes. But in fact, as they get older, their clothes also get bigger and thus heavier, so the older kids' clothes weigh more than 500gm, the younger kids' clothes weigh less than 500gm. By undercorrecting for the weight of the kids' clothes, we make the kids' weight gain look bigger than it actually is. The same logical relationship applies to undercorrecting instrumental temperature readings for urban heating, land use changes, etc. You just don't understand any of the logical relationships involved in applying corrections to measured data, and quite likely never will. You just lack the required intellectual horsepower.

No. You have never demonstrated that anything I have said is self-contradictory, nor will you ever be doing so.

No, I have stated the opposite: that it is not even a relevant index of the sun's effect on climate. You claimed TSI and temperature were closely linked until the 1970s. I simply pointed out that that was false, even according to YOUR OWN SOURCE.

Yeah, you did, wrt the few decades before the 1970s.

It's not extremely close, as YOUR OWN SOURCE shows. There was a superficial resemblance for a few decades. That's all. If you look at enough data, you can always find spurious correspondences.

Again, no they don't, as this peer-reviewed paper demonstrates beyond any doubt:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43... land,than the trend for the rural background.

No, it has been proved correct. See above.

It doesn't matter how fervent your belief in it is, or how angry you get about being disproved. The hard data says your theory is wrong, so it's wrong.

So now you think the CO2 climate narrative claim that CO2 is the only significant factor that affects climate is just an application of Ockham's Razor??

No he wasn't. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. Until temperature variations can be explained perfectly using some given number of factors, positing additional factors is not multiplying entities unnecessarily. Your claim is just another bald falsehood.

No, that's just another bald falsehood from you to go along with all your other bald falsehoods.

Which just goes to show how utterly incompetent you are to participate in a discussion of scientific reasoning. You included a proviso that no other factor can be changed. That is nothing but a blatant question begging fallacy. We can't do that with climate, so we have no way of determining that we have accounted for all the relevant factors until we can show perfect correspondence between the known factors and temperature, which we are not remotely close to doing.

And if you had not begged the question by explicitly stipulating that no other factor was permitted, I would be right.

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. There are lots of nameable factors in both the oven case -- if they had been permitted by your statement of it -- and the sun's effect on climate. We just don't know exactly how important any of them is, or even if we know what they all are.

Yes, because my way is suitable for science in the real world, where you can't just disallow factors whose effects are as yet unknown by arbitrary stipulation.

 

The sun is doing some weird $#!+. There have been some large prominences, and magnetic storms hitting the earth, but sunspot activity fell off a cliff in May after hitting a 20-year high last August. It has astrophysicists scratching their heads.

 

We have, often.

For which example?

If you want an answer, you'll need to ask a specific question.

How would I know?

What, you think I am working with Tommy or something....?

That would be a -- wait for it -- conspiracy theory!!

When I see something that looks wrong to me, I explain why it's wrong. Like the Koutsoyiannis paper on increased atmospheric CO2 concentration that Jack referenced in another thread. Otherwise, I usually don't say anything: I just don't have the time. So my silence is not an endorsement, mkay?

Could you quote me supporting it, please? Thanks.

Except that you typically get the relevant logic wrong, as I have demonstrated numerous times (see my previous message for several examples).

When, as is often the case, the ridicule is merited.

More accurately, Jack provides links to peer-reviewed science, you get the logic wrong.

 

Nope. Not removing them at random, it won't, which is what you claimed.

GET IT??

No, that's just another bald falsehood from you. The CO2 climate narrative has nothing to do with the last century of physics, which if anything disproves it.

Which is one reason your claim was baldly false.

Your statement was not generally correct. It was baldly false. You just didn't care that it was baldly false because your intention was to prevent reasoned discussion by sowing alarm, not to inform.

I suppose I could just accept your false claims.

Naaaahhhhh....

It actually is a problem for the CO2 climate narrative, which claims CO2 -- which continued its more or less exponential rise while temperatures fell -- is the principal factor determining the earth's surface temperature.

And more to the point, it's a fatal problem for your false, absurd, and disingenuous "each passing year of strongly rising temperatures" claim.

Low-sulfur ship fuel, the Tonga submarine volcano, El Nino, and a spike in solar activity.

It's a little early to say.

If -- when -- they do, will that refute the CO2 climate narrative?

Or was 2023-4 noise on a falling trend? It's evidently a little more difficult than you are able to grasp.

It says it's the main thing, and it's a big problem for the CO2 climate narrative, which is why the temperature record was retroactively altered to remove it.

The side that rationalizes and justifies changing the data to fit their theory says I'm not being intellectually honest???

Wrong, as already proved. You have not the slightest acquaintance with scientific logic, and have probably never had a science class beyond high school.

No, only a handful of well-placed liars.

https://imgur.com/do-you-see-cat-fWlTXEV

"I was one day walking along Kearney Street in San Francisco when I noticed a crowd in front of a show window... I took a glance myself, but I saw only a poor picture of an uninteresting landscape. As I was turning away my eye caught these words underneath the picture: 'Do you see the cat?' ...I spoke to the crowd. "Gentlemen, I do not see a cat in the picture; is there a cat there?" Someone in the crowd replied, "Naw, there ain't no cat there. Here's a crank who says he sees a cat in it, but none of the rest of us can." Then the crank spoke up. "I tell you," he said, "there is a cat there. The picture is all cat. What you fellows take for a landscape is nothing more than a cat's outlines. And you needn't call a man a crank either because he can see more with his eyes than you can with yours."

 

Sure it will. The global network isn't that total. If you removed most of the stations, you change the geographical distribution. This isn't complicated, yet you fail at it, mostly because you want to fail at it.

"IS NOT!" is not an argument, but it's pretty much all you have now, over and over. You're boring. Please try to be more entertaining with your delusions.

So your excuse is that think "principal" means "sole".

Rest assured how that bonehead error is yours and yours alone. You fail at the basics.

And as you always do when backed into a corner, you invoke the VastSecretGlobalSocialistConspiracy.

It's so good to be on the rational side. All the hard data, physics and logic backs us up, so we don't need to humiliate ourselves by inventing loony conspiracies.

 

Actually, you’re the only one invoking a conspiracy.

 

It takes very little intellectual horsepower to point out that you're making stuff up.

You keep telling everyone to believe your delusional claim over our lying eyes, even though we can clearly see how TSI and temperature track closely.

TSI and temp were highly correlated before the 1970s. This isn't up for debate, not by any rational person. At this stage, you're mainly interesting as a pychological study.

And again, you fail at the basics. Congratulations on proving that UHI exists, something that everyone already knew. Thing is, it's corrected for. And the corrected urban stations show the same trend as the rural stations. Thus, your conspiracy theory is disproved.

There you go, yanking out the strawman when you're backed up against the wall. Nobody ever said "only significant factor".

However, all the factors we do take into account explain the observed climate change nearly perfectly, therefore hell yes, the Razor absolute says to not unnecessarily multiply entities as you do, inserting your unknown magical mystery factors. Absolutely, positively, 100%.

You way is the way that charlatans and frauds throughout history have operated. For example, the tobacco industry used your logic pattern, claiming that there are too many unkown factors out there to know that smoking causes cancer, and therefore nothing should be done.

See? Exactly like the tobacco industry. That's not how science works. Perfection is never required. You do your charlatan ancestors proud.

And I didn't claim climate is like that. That was to simplify the analogy, to show how multiplying entities unnecessarily is bad.

Under my way, if my beans are burning, I know to turn the knob, since I know the knob controls the heating.

Under your way, I'd have to declare that we can't know what factors really control temperature, so nothing should be done. And my beans burn. And maybe the house.

Your way creates fake indecision paralysis, which is harmful. Your way, science could never be absolutely sure about anything, so we could never make decisions based on science. Your way would have left humanity shivering in caves.

 

Nope. The whole point of random sampling is that it is representative of the whole population with some acceptable degree of probability. If the whole population of instrument records is biased towards locations where land use changes, urban heating, increased energy use on farms and ranches, etc. is creating a spurious warming trend in the data -- which it indisputably is -- then any random sample of that population large enough to be representative of the whole will be similarly biased. Obviously, if you take a handful of stations at random out of a population of thousands, there is a good chance that tiny sample would not represent the total population very well; but it is indisputable that taking 10% of that population (your original claim) would be very unlikely to alter its bias, and is certainly in no sense a test of its bias.

You just don't know anything whatever about statistical methodology.

You poor noob. Random removal of stations will likely change the geographical distribution slightly in some way, but the change itself will be in a random direction, so the sample would still be virtually certain to retain the bias of the whole population, or even aggravate it, and would in no sense offer a test of its bias.

You clearly know nothing whatever of statistical methods. Nothing. Zip. Nil. Nada.

This isn't complicated, yet you fail at it, mostly because you want to fail at it.

Why do you insist on repeating bald falsehoods like that? I proved your claim was false, and you then weaseled and accused me of wrongly taking you at your word (!).

<yawn> No. You made a baldly false claim, I proved it was false, so now all you can offer is, "IS TOO!" and, "You're a meany!"

Talk about boring....

No, that's another fabrication on your part. Your excuse seems to be that "principal" means, "having less predictive power than other factors."

Rest assured how that bonehead error is yours and yours alone. You fail at the basics.

It is indisputable that a few crucial temperature records have been altered retroactively, and those alterations have removed trends that were inconsistent with the CO2 climate narrative, but present in the data.

You often make such claims, but climate realists have repeatedly proved them false. The physics, logic, and (unmanipulated) data are all on the realist side.

Other than the loony conspiracy of fossil fuel companies funding all the dissenters from your One True Faith, that is...

 

Or rather to falsely claim it, which is all you are capable of.

No. The only graph you have ever been able to provide on the subject -- and this is why you have provided exactly the same one over and over -- has been cleverly constructed to create that impression, as a kind of optical illusion; but close examination reveals that the correspondence is more apparent than real, as I already demonstrated.

Nope. Of course there was a modest correspondence -- it would be bizarre if there were no positive relationship at all -- but there were also substantial divergences, as I demonstrated. The apparent divergence in the 1970s occurred because that is when the mid-20th century cyclical cooling trend entered its warming phase.

Anyone can examine the graph and confirm what I said. You don't examine it. You are just content to believe the carefully constructed illusion.

By always proving that you get them wrong....?

Not enough, as proved by the fact that the "corrected" data still show a spurious warming trend that is not found in radiosonde, satellite, or pristine rural instrument data.

No, because the rural stations are also contaminated by land use changes, increased energy use on farms and ranches, etc. Only pristine rural sites well away from farm buildings, roads, etc. can be considered free of human heat signatures, and they do not, repeat, NOT show the same trend as the "corrected" urban and contaminated rural stations.

Uh, yeah, they have.

No they do not, which is why they cannot predict temperature changes. None of the CO2 climate narrative models predicted the declining trend 2016-2022, because it was in the opposite direction from CO2; and none of them predicted the sudden heating in 2023-4, because there was no sudden increase in CO2.

Refuted above.

Ah, no, your way is: scare tactics, logical fallacies, demands for immediate action, etc. All the tools of the con man.

No, the tobacco industry cherry-picked data (like you), constructed deceptive graphs (like you), committed logical fallacies (like you) and used flawed methodologies to conceal the facts (like you).

Refuted above. And you disingenuously snipped the context to create a false impression of what I wrote. Tsk tsk.

It is if you want to invoke Ockham. Until all imperfections in prediction can be accounted for, allowing for additional factors is not multiplying entities unnecessarily.

Try not to be despicable, OK?

Uh, yeah, you did.

Thus making the analogy completely invalid.

And if the knob is broken, the beans continue to burn, and the house burns down because you refused to consider the possibility that something other than turning the knob was involved, since you know the knob controls the heating -- even when it doesn't. Your "knowledge" is not subject to correction by objective physical reality.

GET IT??

No, because we already know a stove element is made to be controlled by the knob, while it is merely an assumption that we can control climate by changing CO2 levels.

Not as harmful as doing the wrong thing because you were sure of something that turned out not to be the case. One characteristic that separates experts from amateurs is that experts delay committing to a course of action until they have all the relevant facts, whereas amateurs assume they know what to do before the facts are all in.

No, that's all just more baseless garbage from you.

 

It was warmer before, and sea level was higher before.
Another Study Indicates China Was 7°C Warmer Than Today Throughout Much Of The Holocene
By Kenneth Richard on 12. June 2025

The evidence for a much warmer Mid-Holocene keeps accumulating.
According to a recent paleoclimate study, today’s Gahai Lake (China) reconstructed surface sediment warm season temperature is 9.4°C. This is similar to the region’s documented meteorological station temperatures (8.8°C, May-September).

The reconstruction’s average Gahai Lake sediment warm season temperatures dating to 8000 to 3500 years ago was determined to be 16.5°C. This means the region was more than 7°C warmer than recent decades during those millennia.



Image Source: Hou et al., 2024
Another new study from the Gulf of Thailand provides robust evidence sea levels were 1.8 – 2.3 m higher than today from 8600 to 6100 years ago. Sea levels were higher because less water was locked up on land as ice throughout the much warmer Mid-Holocene.



Image Source: Leknettip et al., 2025

 

It's getting colder in Antarctica.
Good News (If You Like Freezing)! Antarctica Sees More Snowfall, Record Low Temps!
By P Gosselin on 14. June 2025

The Germany-based European Institute For Climate And Energy (EIKE) has issued its latest video featuring Antarctica. Good news! The alleged catastrophic warming remains a myth there.

It’s as cold as it ever was.



Lots of other publications showing Antarctic cooling. See my side bar for all posts about Antarctica.

Antarctica experienced record low temperatures in late 2023, particularly during late winter (July-August). These extreme cold events were observed across a wide area, impacting both East and West Antarctica, including the Ross Ice Shelf and the Antarctic Peninsula, according to The Watchers here.

The irony just couldn’t be greater, as all we hear in the fake media are stories about big icebergs breaking off somewhere, and everyone being (mis)led to believe the South Pole is melting when clearly as a whole it is not.

The Watchers’ story cites a peer reviewed study “Extreme Antarctic Cold of Late Winter 2023” by Tomanek et al published in Springer Nature.

Natural chaotic climate and weather change

According to The Watchers: “These atmospheric patterns caused severe and persistent cold, influencing weather systems and temperature variations across the continent. The study also found that southerly flows from the continent and calm air conditions contributed to these cold spells.”

Supply of stations disrupted by cold

The study’s abstract states that the cold temperatures were measured across a broad area and hindered aircraft operations into McMurdo Station and Phoenix Airfield. When temperatures fall below −50°C, flight operations become risky because of hydraulic fluids and fuel can turn into gel onboard aircraft.

How cold was it? “Antarctica as a whole experienced dramatic drops in temperature,” reports The Watchers. “This extreme cold coincided with record-breaking high temperatures in South America, particularly in Chile where temperatures reached -40 ℃.”

 

Cooling is coming.
New Study: Antarctic Ice Sheet Melt Will Lead To Widespread Cooling, Sea Ice Expansion
By Kenneth Richard on 16. June 2025

Scientists have counter-intuitively determined that a melting Antarctic ice sheet serves to mitigate global warming.
The anticipated accelerated melting of the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) will mean massive amounts of freshwater will enter the Southern Ocean (SO) over the next one hundred years.

According to a new study‘s panoply of SOFIA (Southern Ocean Freshwater Input from Antarctica) models, a melting AIS will, in turn, cool the SO and Antarctica (the latter by 1°C or more) as well as lead to further expansion of the Southern Hemisphere’s sea ice.

More specifically, as a consequence of future Antarctic ice sheet melt, over the next century the entire 40-70°S region will cool ~0.7°C and sea ice will expand by approximately 2 million km² (per Figure S1 from the study). The lead author already published a 2022 paper documenting “the Southern Ocean (50°S–70°S) sea surface temperature has a significant and robust cooling trend during 1982–2020,” so the cooling trend has been ongoing for over 40 years already.

The authors of the present study maintain the “response to an increased Antarctic sea ice extent and ocean surface cooling results in global atmospheric impacts,” not just local or regional ones. Specifically, the effect of SO cooling includes a (a) reduction in the global warming rate, (b) troposphere-wide cooling, (c) Eastern tropical Pacific cooling, (d) a delay in the anticipated weakening of the AMOC, (e) a northward shift of the ICTZ (Inner-Tropical Convergence Zone), and (f) a “weakening of the jet stream on its equatorward flank in both hemispheres.”

In other words, the key to reducing the global warming “problem” and its presumed side effects may be to cheer on (or hope for) an accelerated AIS melting over the next century.

“Since most of these responses act opposingly to global warming mechanisms diagnosed from model experiments lacking Antarctic freshwater, our results support the notion of a potential delay of anthropogenic climate change through SO [Southern Ocean] processes.”


Image Source: Xu et al., 2025