This month’s open thread on climate topics. Please be respectful and substantive.
Reader Interactions
34 Responses to "Unforced Variations: June 2026"
Comment Policy:Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.
I’m going to ask another question that I’m sure might spark some controversy. I promise this isn’t a “debate-me-bro opening gambit”, I genuinely have a question. During the 2023-2024 El Niňo, which was exceptionally hot, I heard a lot of theorizing that this was proof that the climate system had entered a new period in which warming drastically accelerated. In 2025, the La Niña cooling period did come, but it was less pronounced than usual. Now we have another strong El Niño coming. What is the status scientifically of this “greatly accelerated warming” theory, and what does the incoming El Niño say about it? Are we tracking towards the upper bound of model expectations or are we tracking toward breaking the y-axis entirely? Apologies if this question is vague or if I got some details wrong, and all answers are greatly appreciated. Thanks!
W.R. Agner ; all questions are good questions. But not all answers are good answers.
You should avoid the following kind of framing because it is not correct and distorts what was already being distorted both positively and negatively. Rhetoric from media reporting, activists, and too many climate scientists themselves does not equal real science.
Avoid – this “greatly accelerated warming” theory/ies; theorizing that this was proof ; have another strong El Niño coming ; What is the status scientifically (no such thing exists–it is all premature personal opinions anyway) ;
Avoid text like – “the incoming El Niño say about it” – says nothing about this issue nor the paper ref’d below. It has not happened yet, and so no one knows yet if how strong it might be or not. Future Hypotheticals (including CMIP. GCM modelling and scenarios) can not determine what real world physical observations are in the present, past or future.
Therefore avoid framing questions like this — ” Are we tracking towards the upper bound of model expectations or are we tracking toward breaking the y-axis entirely? ” — they are moot. Unscientific and irrational. There is no supportable credible answer worth hearing.
The only things we can and do know is what are the current observations, the real world measurements of the various kinds of Data we are actually recording. Then scientifically extrapolating that out to give it meaning in todays physical world.
We might summarize known science dynamics and changes in plain speaking terms :
AGHG emissions have and are increasing while atmospheric concentrations mirror those increases.
AGHG Aerosols are decreasing relative to the past and relative to increasing GHG emissions.
Albedo is decreasing again relative to the past.
Warming temperatures globally and regionally are driving the positive feedbacks from the above changes such as in clouds incl over the oceans and precipitation; as well as impacts on forests both albedo cover and moisture flux.
Economic growth drives energy consumption, drives fossil fuel consumption, AGHG emissions, national laws drive aerosol reductions regionally and globally, warming drives ice permafrost melt, cloud changes to albedo and sea ice loss and global ocean current changes and impact the el nino and la nino cycles.
Everything is connected. Monitoring the present state of affairs of all these phsyical dynamics is the only thing we can truly know. Then making a rational short term ongoing existing trend — all things being equal — unfolding into the future.
All widespread long term future projections and scenarios are assumed guesses. History suggests in climate these projected modelling scenarios have not been accurate as claimed when made. Those who made them, and still make them vigorously disagree — as one might expect they would. Their jobs, their long term careers, depend on robustly maintaining those opinions.
These are my answers.
With respect to spreading discussions if/when the next El Niño comes and/or how strong it will be, I would like to ask Paul Pukite:
Dear Paul,
You claim a theory explaining climate oscillations like ENSO as a result of tidal forces from the Sun and Moon. Could you demonstrate the predictive force of your theory on this hot topic?
Greetings
Tomáš
“Could you demonstrate the predictive force of your theory on this hot topic?”
If we could predict an El Nino or La Nina a few years ahead of arrival, the impact would be significant. Farmers could plan for when to buy seeds or invest in irrigation facilities, switch from rain-fed wheat to more drought-tolerant crops (sorghum), etc. Also ranchers can adjust livestock herd sizes gradually rather than in an emergency sell-off.
A 2-year lead could turn a reactive disaster response into planned adaptation as governments and water utilities have time to prepare. Yet, by the same token, a false positive or false “all clear” would do no good either, so any predictions have to be spot on.
The impact on science would be significant as well. Scientists dismiss tidal forces because the consensus claim is that they are too small to drive anything. Yet, CO2 is a small factor too and look at it’s impact. There is also the adage that a butterfly flapping it’s wings can influence a climate outcome. Or that all these slight orbital adjustments can lead to glaciation cycles. The fact of the matter is that gravitational forces have a >>100X factor on the thermocline than what is observed with conventional surface tides. And the thermocline is where all the ENSO action is.
Why is this consistently ignored? Hmmm, Tomas? You think solar spots are influencing the thermocline?
My recollection is you say el nino is caused by the earths tides. Given the tides and the moons gravity that cause the tides, follow a regular pattern shouldnt you therefore already be able to predict when the next el nino occurs with reasonably good accuracy? I think that might be what TK is implying.
In Re to 6 Jun 2026 at 1:26 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/06/unforced-variations-june-2026/#comment-848962
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your reaction, even though it does not comprise the sought answer to my question.
As regards your question why your theory is consistently ignored, I assume that one of possible answers may read “Because you so far failed to show its practical applicability by making an ENSO prediction which would have been subsequently proven correct.”
In other words, I asked why have you not tried to exploit the present uncertainty about ongoing ENSO to a precise prediction thereof using your theory. I suppose that a good fit of this prediction with the real situation could represent a quite convincing argument for relevance of your theory, and a significant contribution to your scientific reputation.
Your answer, however, sounds as if your theory were not mature enough to enable any reliable predictions yet. Could you confirm, or, if otherwise, clarify why you omitted this opportunity?
Best regards
Tomáš
Has anyone looked at this pre-print? “Global warming acceleration in satellite observed lower-tropospheric temperature” https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-9283491/v1
Honestly, it has sent me into a bit of a spiral. The implications of this paper would be extremely grim.
Warming_observer
The results and the implications should be no surprise. Yes, it is grim, which has been for decades. The acceleration in AGHG emissions have accelerated higher, global GDP Growth continues to increase with energy consumption mirroring or exceeding that growth. Atmospheric concentrations continue to increase while AGHG aerosol emissions have decreased over decades over and above the more recent (tipping point?) of IMO reductions. While global albedo decreases are codependent positive feedbacks to warming.
Combined they add up. No past or present CMIP modelling or IPCC IAM RCP SSP scenario projections are required to do the Math. The observations speak for themselves.
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am hardly one to blow sunshine up one’s skirt. However, it doesn’t have to be that way. Much of the latest consumption of energy (and water and computer hardware and…) has to do with the current push by the broligarchy to develop AI. And part of the problem is that it is still easier, if not cheaper, to simply produce more energy than it is to develop more energy efficient ways of doing…everything. Even so, the untold story of the industrial era is one of increasing energy efficiency. Art Rosenfeld noticed this when he observed that since 1845, the energy to generate 1$ of GDP output has decreased by 1% per year–a trend since referred to as Rosenfeld’s Law. Now 1% per year doesn’t sound like much, especially compared to the doubling of transistor count every 24-30 months known as Moore’s Law. However, it is an exponential trend.
What is more, there has been very little study of the mechanism by which these energy savings have been realized–again in contrast to the billions spent to keep electronics on a pace with Moore’s Law. This leads to the question: If we understood Moore’s Law, could we accelerate the pace of energy savings? I suspect the answer is in the affirmative. However, until we make consumers of energy pay the full price, including environmental costs, of the energy they consume, there is little incentive to investigate. And until we do, I suspect that we are leaving a lot of money and more efficient growth toward sustainability on the table.
That’s pretty scary. I hope they’re wrong.
So I found this preprint by Zou et al. (2026). Am I reading it correctly that they’re modeling changes in temperature of lower troposphere while talking about GMST at the same time? If I remember correctly, TLT is a different statistic from GMST, although I don’t understand the exact relationship between the two.
Big if true, but something smells fishy. I wonder how it would relate to the recent Foster et al. paper.
Julian
Yes they are modeling changes in temperature of lower troposphere while talking about GMST at the same time.
They reference #8. the recent Foster et al. paper. Read where they do that and what they say.
I mean, sure, but then what I’m really interested in is the exact relationship between TLT and GMST. I know for a fact they are correlated, but how does acceleration in TLT warming translate to acceleration in GMST? The impression I got from the Zou et al. was that it’s pretty much the same, which conflicts with what Foster et al. are saying regarding warming rates, i.e. ~0.36°C/decade for GMST. And, aside from satellite observations, up to one extra degree of warming is quite a lot, especially within their proposed timeline (next decade or so, although lower troposphere might work differently, I don’t know, I’m not a climate scientist) – what could be the mechanistic explanation for that?
Julian,
Not sure what your question is. One reason is that you keep using the ambiguous term “warming”.
” how does acceleration in TLT warming translate to acceleration in GMST”
“warming rates, i.e. ~0.36°C/decade for GMST”
” up to one extra degree of warming”
It’s obvious that an increase in temperature for both numbers results from an increase in the energy in the climate system. But the physical things whose temperature is being measured are very different. You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of the measurements.
Actually, the best metric for determining whether there has been an increase in the rate of increase in energy of the climate system is probably OHC.
Zebra,
Eh, maybe I really am too ambiguous – sorry about that. By “warming”, I meant the positive change of measured temperature. What frustrated me about that original paper and what I explicitly stated I don’t know, is how said increase of change in TLT relate to changes in GMST (to put it bluntly, what are the practical implications of this for me? I dunno, should I panic or give up or go spend my entire life savings because we’re going to be dead in a couple years or so? You understand it’s an extinction-level rate of warming, right?). Hence why I asked for some clarification – is that acceleration in TLT change something that we’ll soon see in GMST as well?
I’m sorry if I’m still being vague or ambiguous, but I’m not a climate scientist – I’m just a layperson; I don’t know this stuff and reading about it online can only get you so far.
Dear all,
In the last week of May, Anastassia Makarieva and Andrei Nefiodov published a preprint
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.23875
that, at least according to positively excited comments by AM on her blog
https://substack.com/home/post/p-199042019 ,
might represent a progress in our insight in the role of precipitation in the initiation of atmospheric motions (“condensation induced atmospheric dynamics”, CIAD).
I would appreciate comments thereon, particularly from readers having expertise in atmospheric physics.
Greetings
Tomáš
Thoughts on this preprint? Its prediction seems to far exceed any existing forecast but I can’t find any glaring reason why. https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-9283491/v1
More anti-science activity by the present Administration in Mar a Lago:
Trump Administration to Dismantle Ocean Monitoring System
The $368 million network of instruments collecting data in both the Atlantic and Pacific has been critical to climate and ocean research.
Link to shared article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/01/climate/ocean-observatories-initiative.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nFA.NuL2.leDbQw-TUkg8&smid=url-share
This is criminal vandalism, a waste of US taxpayers’ money as well as a loss of scientific information.
How can any conscientious NSF employee be involved in this?
From last month:
oke Zonderkop says
14 May 2026 at 2:35 AM
New book out – https://sarahwilson.substack.com/p/my-book-i-eat-the-stars-hits-aunz
TedX 2025 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7Ay73HHHrE
from her last chapter
Sass Lark: “Picking up this mantle doesn’t have to feel like a burden—it can feel joyous and momentous, like the swell of music in a beautiful film when the hero realizes and commits to their purpose.”
As I tried to find a way to write this final chapter, I went back and skimmed my last book, This One Wild and Precious Life, which chronicled a three-year journey hiking around the world in the footsteps of philosophers and polemicists to find a path for “solving” the climate crisis. It was a hope-heavy read. It felt strange and a little sad to be reminded that five years ago I was advocating many of the same approaches and mindsets – the need to mature, to draw on our core human values and to reconnect with our wildness. But there was a major difference – I was advocating that we did these things within the system. We didn’t have time to overhaul things and start anew, I wrote. I very tentatively called capitalism a cult, but I pushed the green economy and degrowth economics.
Now, of course, we are not so ham-strung. The system is going down.
And this got me to realise something that almost feels too rude to verbalise. Not only does the truth of collapse produce relief it also enables an equally eerie ease. I put this here for you to sit with:
…………….. I think a lot of us have been slowly working out we don’t have to try so hard!
We had been efforting so much. But as collapse would have it, the only way now is to simplify. Do less, buy less, grab less, meddle less, strategise less.
We have frantically been trying to stem climate mayhem; Big Capitalism drummed into us that it was our job to doorknock our neighbours and tell them to electrify everything and buy more “green” things. But now we have only one avenue left to us – to join the flow, the tangle, of life. We can only emerge our way through such complexity now.
We have been searching for someone or something to save us, to tell us what to do. But our guru is right in front of us. And it’s in us. Indigenous knowledge systems show that the emergent strategies of nature are far more efficient than our horribly efforting, linear ones. Have you seen that video where slime mould solves the Tokyo subway system in less time than an engineer can? Here, check it out: …………….
Indigenous author Andrea Ritchie speaks of fractal activism – making small right moves that get replicated, like the repeated patterns of a snow flake that emerges to become an avalanche. This is the most efficient and effective way to go about change:
……….. Small, right moves, made in congruent ease, powered by fierce love, that allow for unexpected turns and mysterious transformations.
We have been going against the grain for so long and now we can only be ourselves. It is only via love and cooperation with all that is, and by bravely allowing, can collapse be rendered a beautiful transformation. This, somehow, gives me a snug, “looked after” feeling.
For a bit. Then I go rage some more and do some more internal collapsing.
This is what I have said here, lo, these past 19 years. Regenerative, rapid, simplification. We change the system by creating the simpler one. One side-effect? If you opt out of the growth economy, you end the growth economy: As more and more opt out, it becomes less and less stable and eventually completely implodes. If enough simplification has occurred to create the skeleton of a new, simpler civilization, MAYBE we come back from the brink… eventually.
But all bets are likely off if we hit 2C, and definitely off if we hit 3C. (Based on worst case scenarios that hitting even 2C can trigger a slide all the way to 10C in time. Yes, real science. I have taught for the last 19 years that one must do risk analysis of an existential threat via the WCS (Worst Case Scenario). Anything less risks being suicidal.)
Killian O’Brien
I am really glad you liked that by Sarah. I agree with you too about the all bets are off if we hit 2c 3c. Similarly warming acceleration rates of 0.35-0.45°C/dec already and potentially increasing to 0.45–0.55°C toward century end. These make the current capitalist civilization structures unsustainable. Including food output from agriculture of all forms.
Recent climate papers already indicate such rates are credible physically possible. The default being increased economic growth and over consumption in the short term at least.
This is a critical understanding you have — “you end the growth economy: As more and more opt out, it becomes less and less stable and eventually completely implodes. If enough simplification has occurred [soon enough] to create the skeleton of a new, simpler civilization, MAYBE we come back from the brink… eventually. ”
I totally concur. I really like Sarah because she has this simple clarity when explaining what’s been happening and the way forward. She used to be an outspoken advocate for minstream eco-green solutions like switching to renewables through increased manufacturing production would work — one day she woke up and realized he whole concept was flawed. The cause was Systemic. The only solution therefore was to change the global system/s. The only way to do that was opt out disconnect from the drivers of it, and live a different way. Psychologically and materially. Then hope for thest with your fingers crossed, but live a decent life anyway.
For me she really cut through mirroring my own internal ideas and beliefs and cumulative frustrations at failures across the board. Science, engineering, cultural, political, communications, social, activists, greenies, technology … regenerative permaculture etc local resilience centres are critical for long term survival through the collapse over decades. Whenever it manifests beyond all doubt.
New book out – https://sarahwilson.substack.com/p/my-book-i-eat-the-stars-hits-aunz
TedX 2025 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7Ay73HHHrE
This isn’t a science problem to solve. It’s a human predicament to live through.
Could one of the experts please discuss the science implications of the recently announced (yesterday’s NY Times) ending of the Ocean Observatories Initiative and the removal of its sensors? thanks.
Anyone home? Unusual that we go this long without any comments!
W.R. Agnrt (sic),
Firstly, it is not “unusual” here at RC for the comment threads to remain static and un-uploaded for a handful of days, in this instance so your “this long” rubric is not actually “unusual.”
Secondly concerning your question “Anyone home?”, While moderating and uploading comments is a task that could well be automated in this day and age, thus making it a non-question, if you were asking for “anyone” when applied to responding comments (which you likely weren’t but which is a more valid enquiry for a commenter asking questions), do the responding comments here pass the Turing Test or do these responding comments look like some utter fool has decided to feed chat-bot guff into the comment thread?
UAH has posted its TLT anomaly for May at +0.53ºC, a bit higher than the earlier months of the year which were generally flat. (Jan-May running +0.35ºC, +0.39ºC, +0.38ºC, +0.39ºC, +0.53ºC.) El Niños are far more wobbly in TLT than in surface temps and May, if nothing else suggests the post-2023-El Niño cooling has come to a halt as we await the impacts of the renewed El Niño conditions in 2026**. The quarterly anomalies of UAH TLT (& for comparison ERA5 SAT) run as follows:-
UAH TLT (& ERA5 SAT)
2024 Q1 … … +0.85ºC … (+0.74ºC)
2024 Q2 … … +0.80ºC … (+0.66ºC)
2024 Q3 … … +0.76ºC … (+0.71ºC)
2024 Q4 … … +0.66ºC … (+0.76ºC)
2025 Q1 … … +0.51ºC … (+0.69ºC)
2025 Q2 … … +0.53ºC … (+0.53ºC)
2025 Q3 … … +0.42ºC … (+0.53ºC)
2025 Q4 … … +0.42ºC … (+0.61ºC)
2026 Q1 … … +0.37ºC … (+0.53ºC)
Apr 26 … … … +0.39ºC … (+0.52ºC)
May 26 … … … +0.53ºC … (+0.55ºC)
(** After the big leap in the NINO3.4 temperatures from +0.0ºC to +1.0ºC thro’ April, they have remained stuck at +1.0ºC thro’ May. Don’t see this impacting the forecasts of El Niño strength which haven’t shifted much since April.)
Visiting his website to grab the UAH TLT numbers, I note poor Roy Spencer is being driven to despair by a right-royal lunatic denialist that he makes a point of not naming (presumably thinking, like Beetlejuice, he will be summoned if you mention his name too often – as if that would stop the nutcase in question). Even naming using a pronoun is avoided!!
This is about Nikolov Nikolov Nikolov who with Zeller continue to pedal the crazy physics-defying idea that it is the surface pressure in the atmosphere which warms a planetary surface and not GHGs. There is a whiff of sense to this craziness as the GHGs do need a lapse rate to do their stuff and that would require a certain ‘thickness’ of atmosphere.
Courtrooms sure are busy in the current state of the USA. But sometimes good outcomes – not a total victory but at least a bit of good news (for now) regarding the threats to NCAR/UCAR.
“Feds failing in bid to take a supercomputer from a climate research center
The National Center for Atmospheric Research won’t be losing its supercomputer.”
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/06/judge-blocks-part-of-trump-admins-effort-to-hurt-colorado-research-center/
As they noted over the headline: “Arbitrary and Capricious Strikes Again” so it’s nice to have the Administrative Procedures Act to make that kind of thing verboten.
Maybe we should see if some of the more famous climate change skeptics, e.g., Happer, Lindzen, Koonin, would like to accept my challenge of explaining the combined diagram of modern climate records and projections with paleoclimate records. https://justdean.substack.com/notes
Not to forget Willie Soon, John Clauser, etc., etc., etc.,
Maybe we should let these ersatz scientists lapse into the obscurity they so richly deserve.
Key passages
Global warming acceleration
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-9283491/v1
in bold in the paper –
Two common features emerge across all datasets.
(1) The linear trends over 1981–2024 for the ENSO–aerosol-adjusted TLT are smaller than those of the original TLT by about 0.016–0.020 °C decade⁻¹ for all datasets (Figures 2 and 3). In addition, the total changes (maximum at 2024 minus minimum at 1981) in the adjusted TLT are reduced by about 0.032–0.069 °C relative to the original TLT for both fitting models. These differences reflect the net cooling effect of aerosols on the climate system.
(2) The temperature jumps during 2023–2024 can be largely attributed to the accelerated warming captured by the fitted models. For example, in the NOAA adjusted time series, the linear trend of 0.130 °C decade⁻¹ would yield only 0.117 °C of warming over the 9-year period from 2015 to 2024. When acceleration is included, the piecewise fit produces 0.452 °C of warming during the same period, an increase of 0.335 °C.
Other datasets show comparable additional warming due to acceleration, ranging from 0.220 °C for RSS to 0.324 °C for ERA5. The cubic fits yield similar additional warming during 2015–2024 compared to linear warming.
The remaining warming in observations is attributable to El Niño effects, estimated as the residuals between observations and the accelerated-warming fits during 2023–2024 (Figure 3b), with magnitudes of approximately 0.2–0.3 °C depending on the dataset and fitting approach.
The acceleration-driven warming suggests that the 2023–2024 temperature jumps are part of an ongoing acceleration.
————————
Projection of future climate change
A significant implication of the detected acceleration is its potential impact on future warming. Because both the cubic and piecewise fitting models are statistically significant for all adjusted datasets, they can be used to explore projections of future climate change.
Note that statistical significance of the fits does not imply skillful projections; substantial changes in climate forcing could lead to future climate trajectories that differ from these projections.
The observed 2025 value provides an independent test of the projections.
Over the 10-year period (2025–2034), the piecewise model projects additional warming of 0.503 ± 0.180 °C in the adjusted TLT time series, corresponding to a warming rate approximately three times the 1981–2024 average.
The cubic model projects additional warming of 1.042 ± 0.292 °C, corresponding to a warming rate five to six times the 1981–2024 average.
In the absence of such information, the piecewise projection may be viewed as a conservative estimate, whereas the cubic projection represents an upper-end scenario.
Discussion
After removing ENSO and aerosol effects, robust and statistically significant post-2015 warming trends of up to 0.482 ± 0.113°C decade⁻¹ are identified across all satellite and reanalysis TLT datasets. Although substantial, this represents a conservative estimate. As an upper-end scenario, statistically significant acceleration emerges around 2000 and reaches ~ 0.4–0.5°C decade⁻² by 2024.
These trends indicate that the 2023–2024 temperature jumps are part of an ongoing acceleration, amplified by El Niño, and imply an additional 0.5–1.0°C of warming over the next decade—roughly three to five times the 1981–2024 linear trend.
———————-
Extrapolating data analysis of temperature means and acceleration rates only one decade into the future based on known data today is a conservative and reasonable approach to take. Projecting climate modelling scenarios decades ahead is unrealistic and not credible given the unknowns.
Does anyone know what is happening with GHCN Monthly? The last posting of a data file was on May 30, and that was empty. No May data at all. Until know they have posted new data every day.
Nick Stokes,
I’m not familiar with this data access but it looks like the GHCN-M data is back. Looking a short while ago, the file set HERE had mainly empty files – zero size. Now all the files have size.
Thanks. Yes, there was a gap of about five days, but it is back, with very little data outside US so far.
Nick, not sure I’m looking at the right one, but “Global Historical Climatology Network – Monthly Temperature, Version 4” had link for NCEI direct download and there are populated dat and inv files dated June 4.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/global-historical-climatology-network-monthly/v4/temperature/access/
But yeah, I look at the parent directory and dates on the last two archives show the gap
ghcn-m_v4.00.00_temp_s17600102_e20260530_c20260530.tar.gz 2026-05-30 12:23 44872738
ghcn-m_v4.00.00_temp_s17600102_e20260603_c20260603.tar.gz 2026-06-04 16:25 134804232
Why do you want to know this information?