2026 Mid March Vortex Slows Arctic Ice Recovery

The arctic ice extents are now reported through March 16, 2026, an important date just past the annual daily maximum for Arctic ice extents averaged over the last 20 years. As noted in February, the wavy polar vortex has hampered ice formation with incusions of warmer southern air into the Arctic circle.  For example, here is an image from AER PV blog showing temperatures recently:

Figure 12. Observed 10 mb geopotential heights (dam; contours) and temperature anomalies (°C; shading) across the Northern Hemisphere averaged from 3 Mar. (b) Same as (a) except forecasted averaged from 7 Mar to 11 Mar 2026. The forecasts are from the 00Z 1 Mar 2026 GFS ensemble.

Remarkably, the 2025 annual daily extent maximum of 14.48M km2 was on day 73 of that year.  Arctic ice reached 14.55 on day 63 in 2026, and continued near that level until yesterday, day 75.

The chart below shows the 20-year averages for Arctic ice extents mid-March along with 2026, 2025 and 2006 as well as SII v.4.

The 20-year average maximum daily ice extent appears at 14.93M km2 on day 71 before starting to decline. MASIE 2006 and 2026 started this period the same and ended the same at 14.42M km2. 2025 started much lowered but matched the other two years on day 75.  SII v.4 continues to show lower extents than MASIE,  a deficit on the order of  220k km2 during March and on day 75.

The table below shows the distibution of ice extents on day 75 across regions of the Arctic ocean.

Region 2026075 Average Day 75 2026-Ave. 2006075 2026-2006
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 14413747 14882167 -468421 14420679 -6932
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1071070 1070384 686 1069711 1359
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 966006 965902 104 964227 1779
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1087113 24 1086702 435
 (4) Laptev_Sea 897845 897838 7 897773 71
 (5) Kara_Sea 933375 921644 11731 921428 11947
 (6) Barents_Sea 616802 640512 -23710 646196 -29394
 (7) Greenland_Sea 585405 633630 -48225 613161 -27756
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 1400707 1511237 -110530 1134817 265890
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854931 853379 1551 852715 2215
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1260887 1258334 2553 1251360 9527
 (11) Central_Arctic 3206408 3223651 -17243 3244243 -37835
 (12) Bering_Sea 901252 729963 171289 635252 266000
 (13) Baltic_Sea 89899 77762 12138 175063 -85164
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 522126 992634 -470508 874372 -352247

The table shows that most regions are close to or above the 20-year average.  Two major deficits are in Baffin Bay and Sea of Okhotsk, partly offset by a smaller surplus in Bering sea. The overall 2026 MASIE deficit is 3% of the 20-year average.

 

 

 

Illustration by Eleanor Lutz shows Earth’s seasonal climate changes. If played in full screen, the four corners present views from top, bottom and sides. It is a visual representation of scientific datasets measuring ice and snow extents.

 

CO2 Facts Net Zero Zealots are Hiding from You

After a recent squabble with a pack of Net Zero zealots, I realized that interested people should have access to a number of CO2 science facts that are hidden from public view, and certainly won’t appear in the AI bots programmed to repeat IPCC slogans. Below is a compendiums of important contemporary findings everyone needs to know, not to be duped by the climatists. The titles are links to published research papers along with brief highlights of their importance and some pertinent graphics. There are many more skeptical findings, but these show the different analyses revealing numerous holes in IPCC swiss cheese “consensus science.”

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)— Health Physics, 2022; Skrable et al.

We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming. [My snyopsis: On CO2 Sources and Isotopes]

The graph above is produced from Skrable et al. dataset Table 2. World atmospheric CO2, its C‐14 specific activity, anthropogenic‐fossil component, non fossil component, and emissions (1750 ‐ 2018). The purple line shows reported annual concentrations of atmospheric CO2 from Energy Information Administration (EIA) The starting value in 1750 is 276 ppm and the final value in this study is 406 ppm in 2018, a gain of 130 ppm.

The red line is based on EIA estimates of human fossil fuel CO2 emissions starting from zero in 1750 and the sum slowly accumulating over the first 200 years. The estimate of annual CO2 emitted from FF increases from 0.75 ppm in 1950 up to 4.69 ppm in 2018. The sum of all these annual emissions rises from 29.3 ppm in 1950 (from the previous 200 years) up to 204.9 ppm (from 268 years). These are estimates of historical FF CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, not the amount of FF CO2 found in the air.

Atmospheric CO2 is constantly in two-way fluxes between multiple natural sinks/sources, principally the ocean, soil and biosphere. The annual dilution of carbon 14 proportion is used to calculate the fractions of atmospheric FF CO2 and Natural CO2 remaining in a given year. The blue line shows the FF CO2 fraction rising from 4.03 ppm in 1950 to 46.84 ppm in 2018. The cyan line shows Natural CO2 fraction rising from 307.51 in 1950 to 358.56 in 2018.

Despite an estimated 205 ppm of FF CO2 emitted since 1750, only 46.84 ppm (23%) of FF CO2 remains, while the other 77% is distributed into natural sinks/sources. As of 2018 atmospheric CO2 was 405, of which 12% (47 ppm) originated from FF. And the other 88% (358 ppm) came from natural sources: 276 prior to 1750, and 82 ppm since. Natural CO2 sources/sinks continue to drive rising atmospheric CO2, presently at a rate of 2 to 1 over FF CO2.

Residence Time vs. Adjustment Time of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere

Residence Time vs. Adjustment Time of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere — Entropy, 2023; Peter Stallinga

We study the concepts of residence time vs. adjustment time time for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The system is analyzed with a two-box first-order model. Using this model, we reach three important conclusions: (1) The adjustment time is never larger than the residence time and can, thus, not be longer than about 5 years. (2) The idea of the atmosphere being stable at 280 ppm in pre-industrial times is untenable. (3) Nearly 90% of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide has already been removed from the atmosphere. [My synopsis: CO2 Fluxes Not What IPCC Telling You]

Figure 3. (a) Yearly global CO 2 emissions from fossil fuels. (b) Cumulative emissions (integral of left plot). The yellow curve is the remainder of the anthropogenic CO 2 in the atmosphere if we assume a residence time in the sink much longer than the 5-year residence time in the atmosphere; in this case τs=50τa was used. (Source of data: Our World In Data [8]).

In these years, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 280 ppm (2268 Gt) to 420 ppm (3403 Gt), an increment of 1135 Gt. Of these, 202.3 Gt (17.8%) would be attributable to humans and the rest, 932.7 Gt (82.2%), must be from natural sources.

In view of this, curbing carbon emissions seems rather fruitless; even if we destroy the fossil-fuel-based economy (and human wealth with it), we would only delay the inevitable natural scenario by a couple of years.

The Scientific Case Against Net Zero: Falsifying the Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis

The scientific case against net zero: falsifying the greenhouse gas hypothesis— Journal of Sustainable Development, 2024; Michael Simpson

There is a suggestion (IPCC) that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is different for anthropogenic CO2 and naturally occurring CO2. This breaks a fundamental scientific principle, the Principle of Equivalence. That is: if there is equivalence between two things, they have the same use, function, size, or value (Collins English Dictionary, online). Thus, CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from, and each molecule will behave physically and react chemically in the same way.

The results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2. Dagsvik et al. 2024

It is well-known that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 5 years (Boehmer-Christiansen, 2007: 1124; 1137; Kikuchi, 2010). Skrable et al., (2022), show that accumulated human CO2 is 11% of CO2 in air or ~46.84ppmv based on modelling studies. Berry (2020, 2021) uses the Principle of  Equivalence (which the IPCC violates by assuming different timescales for the uptake of natural and human CO2) and agrees with Harde (2017a) that human CO2 adds about 18ppmv to the concentration in air. These are physically extremely small concentrations of CO2 which suggest most CO2 arises from natural sources. It can be concluded that the IPCC models are wrong and human CO2 will have little effect on the temperature. [My synopsis: Straight Talk on Climate Science and Net Zero]

Better calculations of the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentrations are available and it is small ~18ppmv (Skrable et al., 2022; Berry, 2020; Harde 2017a & 2017b; Harde, 2019; Harde 2014). The phase relation between temperature and CO2 concentration changes are now clearly understood; temperature increases are followed by increases in CO2 likely from outgassing from the ocean and increased biological activity (Davis , 2017; Hodzic and Kennedy, 2019; Humlum, 2013; Salby, 2012; Koutsoyiannis et al, 2023 & 2024).

Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change

Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change— International Journal of Geosciences, 2024; Nelson & Nelson

Historical data were reviewed from three different time periods spanning 500 million years. It showed that the curves and trends were too dissimilar to establish a connection. Observations from CO2/temp ratios showed that the CO2 and the temperature moved in opposite directions 42% of the time. Many ratios displayed zero or near zero values, reflecting a lack of response. As much as 87% of the ratios revealed negative or near zero values, which strongly negate a correlation.

The fact that the curves were wildly divergent suggests there were major factors in play that were not considered. Excluding water vapor from the analysis may be one reason, as explained in sections 4 and 5. The list of other contributing factors is extensive. For example, changes in the orbital paths of the sun and planets, as suggested by the Milankovitch Cycles, may have had an effect. Changes in the sun’s radiation intensity may play a role. The Earth’s volcanism, nuclear fission at its core, radioactive decay, or changes in the magnetic fields may have an effect over millions of years. These are only a few possibilities not considered in the hypothesis.

Figure 10. This graph is the cloud fraction and is set forth on the left vertical axis. The temperature is on the right vertical axis and the horizontal axis represents the observation year. The information was extrapolated from figures prepared by Hans-Rolf Dubal and Fritz Vahrenholt [37].

Studies have reported that the rise in the CO2 concentration lagged behind temperature increases by 400 to 1000 years [6]. In 2007 the IPCC stated at page 105 [7] “However, it now appears that the initial climatic change preceded the change in CO2 but was enhanced by it (Section 6.4)” But there was no proof provided in section 6.4 supporting the enhancement theory. They stated on page 442 “it may be the result of increased ocean heat transports due to either an enhanced thermohaline circulation” (citations) “or increased flow of surface ocean currents.” A lagging CO2 concentration after the temperature changes contradicts the Greenhouse-CO2 hypothesis, i.e. a rise in CO2 concentration results in warming.

The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years

The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years — Climate, 2017; Davis

“Assessing human impacts on climate and biodiversity requires an understanding of the relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere and global temperature (T). Here I explore this relationship empirically using comprehensive, recently-compiled databases of stable-isotope proxies from the Phanerozoic Eon (~540 to 0 years before the present) and through complementary modeling using the atmospheric absorption/transmittance code MODTRAN. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years. … This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.”

Figure 5. Temperature (T) and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration proxies during the Phanerozoic Eon. Davis (2017)

Reconstruction of Atmospheric CO2 Background Levels since 1826 from Direct Measurements near Ground 

Reconstruction of Atmospheric CO2 Background Levels since 1826 from Direct Measurements near Ground Ernst-Georg BeckScience of Climate Change Ernst-Georg Beck (2022)

The data also suggest higher levels in the first half of the 19th century than reconstructed from commonly used ice cores. Using modern MLO CO2 data, we can calculate a centennial average for the 20th century 1901–2000 of 331.38 ppm and of a MBL [Marine Boundary Level samples]in the 19th century (1826–1900) of 322.67. This is a growth rate of +2.6 % in contrast to about 30 % as derived from ice cores and therefore within measurement variability. Analysing the new series of directly measured CO2 MBL levels from 1926 to 2010 suggests a possible cyclic behaviour. The CO2 MBL levels since 1826 to 2008 show a good correlation to the global SST (Kaplan, KNMI; see Figure 26) with a CO2 lag of 1 year after SST from cross correlation (Figure 26a). Kuo et al. (1990) had derived 5 months lag from MLO data alone.

Stomata data confirm the CO2 MBL reconstruction as well as the raw data showing high CO2-levels in the 1930s and 40s at higher temperatures. This is the pre-condition for the inverse stomata/CO2 relation.

About Historical CO2-Data since 1826: Explanation of the Peak around 1940 Hermann Harde

About Historical CO2-Data since 1826: Explanation of the Peak around 1940–Science of Climate Change Hermann Harde, 2023

An extensive compilation of almost 100.000 historical data about CO2 concentration measurements between 1826 and 1960 has been published as post mortem memorial edition of the late Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2022). Different to the widely used interpretation of proxy data, Beck’s compilation contains direct measurements of chemically analysed air samples with much higher accuracy and time resolution than available from ice core or tree ring data.

Beck already found a high correlation of the CO2 level data to the global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) series of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (Kaplan, KNMI). Supported by different observations of CO2 enriched air at the coast (North Sea, Barents Sea, Northern Atlantic) he suggested that warmer ocean currents over the Northern Atlantic are the sources of the enhanced CO2-levels.

Figure 26. Annual atmospheric CO2 background level 1856–2008 compared to SST (Kaplan, KNMI); red ine: CO2 MBL reconstruction 1826–1959 (Beck), 1960–2008 (MLO); blue line: Annual SST (Kaplan) 1856 –2003; a) cross correlation of SST and CO2 MBL showing correlation of r=0.668 and a lag of 1 year for CO2 after global SST. Beck 2010

In this contribution we compare the temperature sensitivity of oceanic and land emissions and their expected contributions to the atmospheric CO2 mixing ratio. Our simulations with a land-air temperature series (Soon et al. 2015) alone, or in combination with sea surface data (HadSST4, Kennedy et al. 2019) can well reproduce the increased mixing ratio over the 30s to 40s, the consecutive decline over the 50s and the additional rise up to 2010. This stronger variation cannot be explained only by fossil fuel emissions, which show a monotonic increase over the Industrial Era.

Atmospheric CO2: Exploring the Role of Sea Surface Temperatures and the Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 Bernard Robbins

Atmospheric CO2: Exploring the Role of Sea Surface Temperatures and the Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 — Science of Climate Change, 2025; Robbins

“ Using SST and Mauna Loa datasets, three methods of analysis are presented that seek to identify and estimate the anthropogenic and, by default, natural components of recent increases in atmospheric CO2, an assumption being that changes in SSTs coincide with changes in nature’s influence, as a whole, on atmospheric CO2 levels.

Figure 16: Atmospheric CO2 measurements, shown in Blue (chemical measurements to 1960 and Mauna Loa measurements from 1960) and global SSTs (shown in Violet). The error margins and confidence intervals are as supplied with the chemical CO2 and SST datasets.

The findings of the analyses suggest that an anthropogenic component is likely to be around 20 %, or less, of the total increase since the start of the industrial revolution. The inference is that around 80 % or more of those increases are of natural origin, and indeed the findings suggest that nature is continually working to maintain an atmospheric/surface CO2 balance, which is itself dependent on temperature.”

Multivariate Analysis Rejects the Theory of Human-caused Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increase: The Sea Surface Temperature Rules

Multivariate Analysis Rejects the Theory of Human-caused Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increase: The Sea Surface Temperature Rules–Science of Climate Change Dai Ato 2024

“The main factor governing the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the SST [sea surface temperature] rather than human emissions.” – Ato, 2024

Another day, another new scientific paper has been published reporting efforts to curb anthropogenic CO2 emissions are “meaningless.” In this study multiple linear regression analysis was performed comparing SST versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions as explanatory factors and the annual changes in atmospheric CO2 as the objective variable over the period 1959-2022.

The model using the SSTs (NASA, NOAA, UAH) best explained the annual CO2 change (regression coefficient B = 2.406, P = <0.0002), whereas human emissions were not shown to be an explanatory factor at all in annual CO2 changes (regression coefficient B = 0.0027, P = 0.863).  Most impressively, the predicted atmospheric CO2 concentration using the regression equation derived from 1960-2022 SSTs had an extremely high correlation coefficient of r = 0.9995.

Thus, not only is the paradigm that says humans drive atmospheric CO2 changes wrong, but “the theory that global warming and climate change are caused by human-emitted CO2 is also wrong.”

SST has been the determinant of the annual changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and […] anthropogenic emissions have been irrelevant in this process, by head-to-head comparison.”

Revisiting the greenhouse effect – a hydrological perspective

Revisiting the greenhouse effect—a hydrological perspective — Hydrological Sciences Journal, 2023; Koutsoyiannis & Vournas

“As the formulae used for the greenhouse effect quantification were introduced 50-90 years ago, we examine whether these are still representative or not, based on eight sets of observations, distributed in time across a century. We conclude that the observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect, which remains dominated by the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere, and that the original formulae used in hydrological practice remain valid. Hence, there is no need for adaptation due to increased CO2 concentration.”

Net Isotopic Signature of Atmospheric CO2 Sources and Sinks: No Change since the Little Ice Age

Net Isotopic Signature of Atmospheric CO2 Sources and Sinks: No Change since the Little Ice Age — Sci, 2024; Demetris Koutsoyiannis

This is a follow-on to the paper above, which received more than 1,000 comments on Judith Curry’s blog. He revisits the calculations and claims that the CO2 in  the atmosphere today, and the rise during the last 100 years or so, is natural and there is no “signature” from humans.

Figure 1. Typical ranges of isotopic signatures δ13C for each of the pools interacting with atmospheric CO2, and related exchange processes.

The results of the analyses in this paper provide negative answers to the research questions posed in the Introduction. Specifically:
♦  From modern instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years, no signs of human (fossil fuel) CO2 emissions can be discerned;
♦  Proxy data since the Little Ice Age suggest that the modern period of instrumental data does not differ, in terms of the net isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 sources and sinks, from earlier centuries.

Comment and Declaration on the SEC’s Proposed Rule “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors”

Comment and Declaration on the SEC’s Proposed Rule— Happer and LIndzen, 

The Logarithmic Forcing from CO2 Means that Its Contributions to Global Warming is Heavily Saturated, Instantaneously Doubling CO2 Concentrations from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, a 100% Increase, Would Only Diminish the Thermal Radiation to Space by About 1.1%, and therefore tiny changes of Earth’s surface temperature, on the order of 1° C (about 2° F). Thus Confirming There is No Reliable Scientific Evidence Supporting the Proposed Rule.

This means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little impact on global warming. There is no climate emergency. No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like, with little warming effect.

Saturation also explains why temperatures were not catastrophically high over the hundreds of millions of years when CO2 levels were 10-20 times higher than they are today.

Further, saturation also provides another reason why reducing the use of fossil fuels to“net zero” by 2050 would have a trivial impact on climate, contradicting the theory there is a climate related risk from fossil fuel and CO2 emissions.

Laws of Physics Define the Insignificant Warming of Earth by CO2

Laws of Physics Define the Insignificant Warming of Earth— Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 2023; Lightfoot and Ratzer

The authors use real-world data (not models or simulations) to determine that at the tropics, water vapor does virtually all the work of the greenhouse effect, and at the poles, where it is very dry, carbon dioxide plays no measurable role. They show that almost three-quarters of the atmosphere’s water molecules are in the Tropics, which is where the greenhouse effect takes place. They don’t say this, but the CO2 at the poles can’t cause any heating simply because there is no greenhouse effect at the poles. In fact, CO2 at the poles causes cooling.

Calculating the increase in the heat content of the atmosphere caused by increased CO2 is the method for determining the rise in Earth’s temperature. An increase from 311 ppm to 418 ppm causes a maximum rise of 0.006oC from McMurdo to Taoudenni, Mali, in the Sahara Desert. This value indicates the temperature increase is too small to measure, i.e., negligible [15].

This study is a significant step forward in the science of the Earth’s atmosphere. It provides robust quantitative evidence that the overall warming by CO2 is insignificant, and water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas.

Footnote: Clashing CO2 Paradigms

For insight into the two conflicting viewpoints regarding CO2 and temperatures, see:

CO2 Fluxes Are Not Like Cash Flows

UAH Stays Cool Except NH Land Warms February 2026

The post below updates the UAH record of air temperatures over land and ocean. Each month and year exposes again the growing disconnect between the real world and the Zero Carbon zealots.  It is as though the anti-hydrocarbon band wagon hopes to drown out the data contradicting their justification for the Great Energy Transition.  Yes, there was warming from an El Nino buildup coincidental with North Atlantic warming, but no basis to blame it on CO2.

As an overview consider how recent rapid cooling  completely overcame the warming from the last 3 El Ninos (1998, 2010 and 2016).  The UAH record shows that the effects of the last one were gone as of April 2021, again in November 2021, and in February and June 2022  At year end 2022 and continuing into 2023 global temp anomaly matched or went lower than average since 1995, an ENSO neutral year. (UAH baseline is now 1991-2020). Then there was an usual El Nino warming spike of uncertain cause, unrelated to steadily rising CO2, and now dropping steadily back toward normal values.

For reference I added an overlay of CO2 annual concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa.  While temperatures fluctuated up and down ending flat, CO2 went up steadily by ~66 ppm, an 18% increase.

Furthermore, going back to previous warmings prior to the satellite record shows that the entire rise of 0.8C since 1947 is due to oceanic, not human activity.

gmt-warming-events

The animation is an update of a previous analysis from Dr. Murry Salby.  These graphs use Hadcrut4 and include the 2016 El Nino warming event.  The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4.  This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C.  Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C.  Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.

Importantly, the theory of human-caused global warming asserts that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere changes the baseline and causes systemic warming in our climate.  On the contrary, all of the warming since 1947 was episodic, coming from three brief events associated with oceanic cycles. And in 2024 we saw an amazing episode with a temperature spike driven by ocean air warming in all regions, along with rising NH land temperatures, now dropping well below its peak.

Chris Schoeneveld has produced a similar graph to the animation above, with a temperature series combining HadCRUT4 and UAH6. H/T WUWT

image-8

See Also Worst Threat: Greenhouse Gas or Quiet Sun?

February 2026 UAH Temps: NH Land Spikes with Cooling Elsewhere  banner-blog

With apologies to Paul Revere, this post is on the lookout for cooler weather with an eye on both the Land and the Sea.  While you heard a lot about 2020-21 temperatures matching 2016 as the highest ever, that spin ignores how fast the cooling set in.  The UAH data analyzed below shows that warming from the last El Nino had fully dissipated with chilly temperatures in all regions. After a warming blip in 2022, land and ocean temps dropped again with 2023 starting below the mean since 1995.  Spring and Summer 2023 saw a series of warmings, continuing into 2024 peaking in April, then cooling off to the present.

UAH has updated their TLT (temperatures in lower troposphere) dataset for February 2026. Due to one satellite drifting more than can be corrected, the dataset has been recalibrated and retitled as version 6.1 Graphs here contain this updated 6.1 data.  Posts on their reading of ocean air temps this month are ahead the update from HadSST4 or OISST2.1.  I posted recently on SSTs  January 2026 Ocean SSTs Warm Slightly   These posts have a separate graph of land air temps because the comparisons and contrasts are interesting as we contemplate possible cooling in coming months and years.

Sometimes air temps over land diverge from ocean air changes. In July 2024 all oceans were unchanged except for Tropical warming, while all land regions rose slightly. In August we saw a warming leap in SH land, slight Land cooling elsewhere, a dip in Tropical Ocean temp and slightly elsewhere.  September showed a dramatic drop in SH land, overcome by a greater NH land increase. 2025 has shown a sharp contrast between land and sea, first with ocean air temps falling in January recovering in February.  Then in November and December SH land temps spiked while ocean temps showed litle change.  Now in February 2026 NH land temps doubled, from Dec. 0.53C up to 1.14C last month.  Despite SH land changing little, and Tropical land cooling, the Global land anomaly jumped up from 0.53 to 0.93C.  Meanwhile ocean air temps dropped markedly in NH, and changed little elsewhere.

Note:  UAH has shifted their baseline from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 beginning with January 2021.   v6.1 data was recalibrated also starting with 2021. In the charts below, the trends and fluctuations remain the same but the anomaly values changed with the baseline reference shift.

Presently sea surface temperatures (SST) are the best available indicator of heat content gained or lost from earth’s climate system.  Enthalpy is the thermodynamic term for total heat content in a system, and humidity differences in air parcels affect enthalpy.  Measuring water temperature directly avoids distorted impressions from air measurements.  In addition, ocean covers 71% of the planet surface and thus dominates surface temperature estimates.  Eventually we will likely have reliable means of recording water temperatures at depth.

Recently, Dr. Ole Humlum reported from his research that air temperatures lag 2-3 months behind changes in SST.  Thus cooling oceans portend cooling land air temperatures to follow.  He also observed that changes in CO2 atmospheric concentrations lag behind SST by 11-12 months.  This latter point is addressed in a previous post Who to Blame for Rising CO2?

After a change in priorities, updates are now exclusive to HadSST4.  For comparison we can also look at lower troposphere temperatures (TLT) from UAHv6.1 which are now posted for February 2026.  The temperature record is derived from microwave sounding units (MSU) on board satellites like the one pictured above. Recently there was a change in UAH processing of satellite drift corrections, including dropping one platform which can no longer be corrected. The graphs below are taken from the revised and current dataset.

The UAH dataset includes temperature results for air above the oceans, and thus should be most comparable to the SSTs. There is the additional feature that ocean air temps avoid Urban Heat Islands (UHI).  The graph below shows monthly anomalies for ocean air temps since January 2015.

After sharp cooling everywhere in January 2023, there was a remarkable spiking of Tropical ocean temps from -0.5C up to + 1.2C in January 2024.  The rise was matched by other regions in 2024, such that the Global anomaly peaked at 0.86C in April. Since then all regions have cooled down sharply to a low of 0.27C in January.  In February 2025, SH rose from 0.1C to 0.4C pulling the Global ocean air anomaly up to 0.47C, where it stayed in March and April. In May drops in NH and Tropics pulled the air temps over oceans down despite an uptick in SH. At 0.43C, ocean air temps were similar to May 2020, albeit with higher SH anomalies. In November/December all regions were cooler, led by a sharp drop in SH bringing the Global ocean anomaly down to 0.02C. January and February saw continued Tropical cooling and NH cooling as well pulling Globa ocean air temps lower.

Land Air Temperatures Tracking in Seesaw Pattern

We sometimes overlook that in climate temperature records, while the oceans are measured directly with SSTs, land temps are measured only indirectly.  The land temperature records at surface stations sample air temps at 2 meters above ground.  UAH gives tlt anomalies for air over land separately from ocean air temps.  The graph updated for February is below.

Here we have fresh evidence of the greater volatility of the Land temperatures, along with extraordinary departures by SH land.  The seesaw pattern in Land temps is similar to ocean temps 2021-22, except that SH is the outlier, hitting bottom in January 2023. Then exceptionally SH goes from -0.6C up to 1.4C in September 2023 and 1.8C in  August 2024, with a large drop in between.  In November, SH and the Tropics pulled the Global Land anomaly further down despite a bump in NH land temps. February showed a sharp drop in NH land air temps from 1.07C down to 0.56C, pulling the Global land anomaly downward from 0.9C to 0.6C. Some ups and downs followed with returns close to February values in August.  A remarkable spike in October was completely reversed in November/December, along with NH dropping sharply bringing the Global Land anomaly down to 0.52C, half of its peak value of 1.17C 09/2024. Now in January and February Global land rebounded up to 1.14C, led by a NH warming spike.

The Bigger Picture UAH Global Since 1980

The chart shows monthly Global Land and Ocean anomalies starting 01/1980 to present.  The average monthly anomaly is -0.02 for this period of more than four decades.  The graph shows the 1998 El Nino after which the mean resumed, and again after the smaller 2010 event. The 2016 El Nino matched 1998 peak and in addition NH after effects lasted longer, followed by the NH warming 2019-20.   An upward bump in 2021 was reversed with temps having returned close to the mean as of 2/2022.  March and April brought warmer Global temps, later reversed

With the sharp drops in Nov., Dec. and January 2023 temps, there was no increase over 1980. Then in 2023 the buildup to the October/November peak exceeded the sharp April peak of the El Nino 1998 event. It also surpassed the February peak in 2016. In 2024 March and April took the Global anomaly to a new peak of 0.94C.  The cool down started with May dropping to 0.9C, later months declined steadily until  August Global Land and Ocean was down to 0.39C. then rose slightly to 0.53 in October, before dropping to 0.3C in December, and slightly higher now in February 2026.

The graph reminds of another chart showing the abrupt ejection of humid air from Hunga Tonga eruption.

TLTs include mixing above the oceans and probably some influence from nearby more volatile land temps.  Clearly NH and Global land temps have been dropping in a seesaw pattern, nearly 1C lower than the 2016 peak.  Since the ocean has 1000 times the heat capacity as the atmosphere, that cooling is a significant driving force.  TLT measures started the recent cooling later than SSTs from HadSST4, but are now showing the same pattern. Despite the three El Ninos, their warming had not persisted prior to 2023, and without them it would probably have cooled since 1995.  Of course, the future has not yet been written.

Solar Panels Replace Spanish Olive Trees

 

 

Spanish Solar Farms, Where hundreds of thousands of ancient olive trees are being ripped out to build massive solar factories. Trees, bees and insects all wiped out leaving increased temperatures caused by the heat island effect of the panels. Just so sad 😩😩😩. Plus Where will they all go when they are broken, damaged, and no longer function in 15 years time?

 

    • Centuries-old olive groves in Spain’s Andalusia region are being uprooted to make way for solar energy projects, sparking resistance from farmers who see their livelihoods and cultural heritage threatened.
    • The regional government uses a Franco-era expropriation law to seize land “in the public interest,” while farmers and activists accuse authorities of prioritizing corporate profits over local agriculture.
    • Jaén, known as the “olive oil capital of the world,” could lose up to 100,000 trees, devastating small farmers and cooperatives, with some groves dating back over 1,000 years.
    • Spain’s aggressive push for 81 percent renewable energy by 2030 is clashing with rural sustainability, as solar projects bring few local jobs and risk depopulation, while also raising transparency concerns.
    • The groves combat desertification and were considered for UNESCO status, but their destruction threatens ecological balance and forces younger generations to leave, raising ethical questions about green energy transitions.

In the sun-drenched plains of southern Spain, a bitter conflict is unfolding as centuries-old olive groves – some dating back to Roman times – are being uprooted to make way for solar energy projects.

The regional government of Andalusia, leveraging a Franco-era expropriation law, has declared the land seizures “in the public interest.” This has sparked fierce resistance from olive farmers who see their livelihoods and heritage under threat. With Spain leading Europe’s renewable energy push, the clash highlights the tension between green energy ambitions and the preservation of agricultural and cultural legacies.

The province of Jaén, often called the “olive oil capital of the world,” is at the center of the dispute. Here, olive trees blanket over 600,000 hectares, forming a landscape so vast it’s known as the “Sea of Olives.” Many of these trees are centuries old, with some exceeding 1,000 years. (Source: A crime against nature: Ancient olive trees uprooted for solar farms in Spain )

Vortex Slows Arctic Ice Recovery 2026 February End

The arctic ice extents are now reported through February 2026, early on showing rising refreezing rates bringing Arctic ice extents within 200k km2 of the 20-year average.  In the last 2 weeks the wavy Polar Vortex pushed cold south and replaced it with warmer southern air.   Remarkably, Arctic ice reached 14.44 on day 43 in 2026, virtually matching the 2025 annual daily extent maximum of 14.48M km2 on day 80 of that year.

The chart below shows the 20-year averages for Arctic ice extents mid-Febrauary along with 2026 and 2025, as well as SII v.4.

As stated previously, likely due to a wavy polar vortex, MASIE 2026 grew rapidly in February reaching 14.52 M km2 on day 51, surpassing the 2025 max of 14.48 on day 80.  In the last week the extent dropped back down to 14.4 M. Sea Ice Index (SII v4) reported lower extents than MASIE in February, averaging -250k km2 on a daily basis.

The vortex temperature shifts are shown below in charts from AER AO/PV blog.

Figure 12. (a) Observed 10 mb geopotential heights (dam; contours) and temperature anomalies (°C; shading) across the Northern Hemisphere for 17 Feb 2026. (b) Same as (a) except forecasted averaged from 28 Feb to 4 Mar 2026. The forecasts are from the 00Z 17 Feb 2026 GFS ensemble. Source: AER AO/PV blog.

The table below shows the distibution of ice extents on day 59 across regions of the Arctic ocean.

Region 2026059 Day 59 Average 2026-Ave. 2025059 2026-2025
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 14384094 14861155 -477061 14000679 383416
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1071070 1070420 650 1071001 69
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 966006 965473 533 965989 17
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1087111 27 1087137 0
 (4) Laptev_Sea 897845 897837 8 897845 0
 (5) Kara_Sea 914161 922224 -8062 925512 -11351
 (6) Barents_Sea 567312 604234 -36922 361405 205907
 (7) Greenland_Sea 731619 627908 103711 637961 93658
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 1264992 1512995 -248004 1357658 -92666
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854931 853573 1358 854878 53
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1260870 1260493 377 1260903 -33
 (11) Central_Arctic 3145110 3209967 -64857 3159772 -14663
 (12) Bering_Sea 724115 659010 65105 577908 146207
 (13) Baltic_Sea 136175 92656 43518 40575 95599
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 737815 1057674 -319858 774415 -36599

The table shows that most regions are close to or above the 20-year average.  Two major deficits are in Baffin Bay and Sea of Okhotsk, partly offset by several smaller surpluses, mostly in Greenland Sea, Baltic and Bering seas. The overall 2026 MASIE deficit is 3% of the 20-year average.