The first three months of 2026 have been the fourth warmest on record, with each successive month surpassing historical averages by a greater margin.
While weak La Niña conditions pushed down temperatures at the start of the year, scientists expect the development of a strong – and potentially “super” – El Niño event by early autumn.
El Niño and La Niña are the warm and cool phases of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a recurring climate pattern in the tropical Pacific that shapes global weather patterns.
Based on temperature datasets from five different research groups, Carbon Brief predicts that 2026 is likely to be the second-warmest year on record.
The year is virtually certain to be one of the four warmest on record and, currently, has a 19% chance of surpassing 2024 as the warmest year on record.
However, the development of a strong El Niño event later this year would substantially increase the chance that 2027 will be the warmest year on record.
In addition to near-record warmth, the start of 2026 has seen record-low sea ice cover in the Arctic, with the year tying with 2025 for the lowest winter peak in the satellite record.
Fourth-warmest start to the year
In this latest quarterly state of the climate assessment, Carbon Brief analyses records from five different research groups that report global surface temperature records: NASA, NOAA, Met Office Hadley Centre/UEA, Berkeley Earth and Copernicus/ECMWF.
The figure below shows the annual temperatures from each of these groups since 1970, along with the average over the first three months of 2026.
(It is worth noting that warming in the first three months may not be representative of the year as a whole, as temperatures relative to pre-industrial levels tend to be larger in the northern hemispheric winter months of December, January and February.)
Carbon Brief provides a best estimate of global temperatures by averaging the different records using a common 1981-2010 baseline period and then adding in the average warming since the pre-industrial period (1850-1900) across the datasets – NOAA, Hadley and Berkeley – that extend back to 1850. (This follows the approach taken by the World Meteorological Organization in its state of the climate reports.)
The figure below shows how global temperature so far in 2026 (black line) compares to each month in different years since 1940 (lines coloured by the decade in which they occurred).
The first three months of 2026 have been relatively warm, coming in in the top-five warmest on record across all the different scientific groups that report on global surface temperatures. This is despite the presence of weak La Niña conditions in the tropical Pacific at the start of the year, which typically suppress global temperatures.
January 2026 was the fourth- or fifth-warmest January on record across all the groups, February was the fourth- to sixth-warmest and March was between the second and fourth warmest.
| Dataset | January | February | March |
|---|---|---|---|
| HadCRUT5 | 5th | 6th | Yet To Report |
| NOAA | 5th | 5th | 2nd |
| GISTEMP | 5th | 4th | 4th |
| Berkeley Earth | 4th | 4th | 4th |
| Copernicus ERA5 | 5th | 5th | 4th |
Global temperature anomalies have been steadily increasing since their low point in January, as La Niña conditions have faded.
When combined, the first three months of the year in 2026 were the fourth-warmest in the historical record, below only 2024, 2025 and 2016.
A potential ‘super’ El Niño
There is reason to expect that global temperatures will continue to increase over the remainder of the year, as a strong – or even “super” – El Niño event is expected to develop later in the year.
Since the start of April, 13 different modelling groups have published estimates of future El Niño strength through at least September. These, in turn, contain 637 different model runs, as each model is run multiple times to better characterise the range of potential El Niño development.
There are a number of different ways to assess the strength of an El Niño or La Niña event.
The most common is the temperature anomaly in the “Niño3.4” region of the tropical Pacific. In addition, these temperatures have the human warming signal removed from changes over time in that part of the Pacific.
There are other approaches to assessing the strength of El Niño, including the newly released relative Oceanic Niño Index (RONI), which may be more accurate. However, RONI data is not readily available from all models today.
The figure below shows a distribution of Niño3.4 temperature anomalies across all of the runs of all of the models (top panel), as well as the range of runs across each of the individual models (bottom panel). Sustained sea surface temperatures in excess of 0.5C indicate an El Niño event, temperatures above 1.5C represent a strong El Niño event and above 2C is often referred to as a “super” El Niño event.
The latest climate models give a central (median) estimate of 2.2C warming by September – a scenario which would put the world firmly in “super” El Niño territory.
Warming would likely strengthen after September, as El Niño conditions generally peak between November and January.
However, there is still a wide spread among models, with some, such as CanESM5 and DWD, only showing a weak-to-moderate El Niño.
Historically, it has been hard to accurately forecast the development of El Niño during early spring, so it will be a few more months before scientists can be confident that a strong or super El Niño will develop.
Exceptional regional warmth
There were many regions of the planet that saw exceptional warmth in the first quarter of 2026. This includes much of the western US, western China and eastern Russia.
The figure below shows the temperature anomaly in the ERA5 dataset, relative to a more recent 1981-2010 baseline period. (ERA5 does not provide gridded data back to the pre-industrial era.)
In addition to temperature anomalies, it is useful to look at where new records have been set. The figure below shows each grid cell that saw one of the top-five warmest first-quarter periods on record, as well as the top-five coolest.
During the first quarter of 2026, 5.2% of the globe saw record warm temperatures, while virtually no place on earth had record cool temperatures. In addition, 24.3% of the globe was in the top-five warmest on record, whereas only 0.1% was in the bottom-five coolest on record.
On track to be second-warmest year on record
Carbon Brief estimates that the global average temperature in 2026 will be between 1.37C and 1.58C, with a best estimate 1.47C. This puts 2026 on track to likely be the second warmest year on record, though it could potentially be as high as the warmest or as low as the fourth warmest.
This is based on the relationship between the first three months and the annual temperatures for every year since 1970. The estimate also accounts for El Niño and La Niña conditions seen in the first three months of 2026, as well as how El Niño conditions are projected to develop across the rest of the year.
The analysis includes a wide range of possible outcomes in 2026, given that temperatures from only the first quarter of the year are available so far.
The chart below shows the expected range of 2026 temperatures using the Carbon Brief average of groups – including a best-estimate (red) and year-to-date value (yellow). Temperatures are shown with respect to the pre-industrial baseline period (1850-1900).
Carbon Brief’s projection suggests that 2026 is virtually certain to be one of the top-four warmest years, with a best-estimate – a 62% chance – that it ends up between 2024 and 2023 as the second-warmest year on record.
However, there remains a 19% chance that 2026 will be the warmest year on record – beating the prior record set in 2024. There is also a 19% chance that it will end up as the third- or fourth-warmest year.
The chances of a record-breaking year depends on the strength of El Niño, as well as how rapidly global temperatures warm up as El Niño develops.
There is also a roughly 30% chance that 2026 will be the second year that exceeds 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
While the development of a strong or “super” El Niño will give a boost to 2026 temperatures in the latter part of the year, its largest effects will likely be felt in 2027.
Historically, the year where El Niño develops has been warmer than usual, but the year that follows the phenomenon’s winter peak – for example, in 1998, 2016 and 2024 – is record-setting.
This is because there is an approximately three-month lag between the peak of El Niño conditions in the tropical Pacific and the maximum global surface temperature response. If a super El Niño develops this year, it is likely that 2027 will set a new record.
Record-low winter Arctic sea ice
Earlier this year, Arctic sea ice saw the joint-smallest winter peak in a satellite record going back almost half a century.
Sea ice extent peaked for 2026 at 14.29m square kilometres (km2) on 15 March, marking a “statistical tie” with a record low recorded the year before, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
The figure below shows both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent in 2026 (solid red and blue lines), the historical range in the record between 1979 and 2010 (shaded areas) and the record lows (dotted black line).
(Unlike global temperature records, which only report monthly averages, sea ice data is collected and updated on a daily basis, allowing sea ice extent to be viewed up to the present.)
Arctic sea ice set new record daily low values during periods of January, March and early April. Antarctic sea ice did not set any new records so far in 2026, but remains on the low end of the historical (1979-2010) range.
The post State of the climate: Strong El Niño puts 2026 on track for second-warmest year appeared first on Carbon Brief.
State of the climate: Strong El Niño puts 2026 on track for second-warmest year
The launch of the Africa Energy Bank (AEB) has been put back yet again, raising doubts about the institution’s future ability to finance fossil fuel projects – its main objective – as global lenders retreat from such investments over climate concerns, experts told Climate Home News.
The bank, which had been billed to launch in September after a series of delays, is now scheduled to begin operations in November, according to the head of the African Energy Chamber, an advocacy body for the continent’s oil and gas sector.
Even as the world aims to transition away from fossil fuels, many African leaders have made clear they want to continue exploring and extracting the continent’s large oil and gas deposits – estimated at around 125 billion barrels of crude and over 600 trillion cubic feet of gas – to boost economic development.
As a group, Africa sided with a number of powerful oil-and-gas producing nations in blocking progress on negotiations to craft a global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels at last year’s UN COP30 climate talks, although some countries did individually support the proposal.
-
Campaigners oppose Dangote’s planned Kenya refinery over climate and ecological risks
Plans to build Africa’s second largest oil refinery in ecologically sensitive region criticised as “environmental recklessness” -
Tanzania pushed African nations to oppose fossil fuel transition at COP30
While chairing the African group at the summit, the gas-dependent nation advised the continent’s ministers to block language on transitioning away from fossil fuels
Meanwhile, major projects under development across the continent – including the 1,443-km East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) and Dangote’s 700,000-barrel-per-day Kenyan refinery – show that African governments see oil and gas as playing a significant role in meeting their energy and economic needs for many years to come.
In 2022, at a gathering of the African Petroleum Producers’ Organization (APPO) in oil-rich Angola, ministers from its member states adopted a resolution to create the Africa Energy Bank to finance projects for the production, use and trade of oil, gas and broader energy sources.
African control over energy resources
An article on the APPO website explains that the bank was conceived as a way to overcome “disenchantment” with fossil fuels among “the international community” which it said had crystallised around the “energy transition” concept.
“If Western countries, after having long taken advantage of the energy sources they now revile to develop, can afford the luxury of abandoning them, this is not the case in Africa,” it adds, noting that many of the continent’s economies are still largely dependent on oil and gas revenues.
A separate web page about the bank, also hosted on APPO’s website, says its objectives include financing the exploration, production and refining of oil and gas, as well as supporting member states in transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources “while ensuring energy security”.
Said Addi, a former executive with Shell and energy commodities trading house Gunvor, said the new bank was judged necessary because financing for hydrocarbons from many traditional international lenders has become constrained.
In trying to fill this financing gap, Africa is not simply setting up another fund to support oil and gas, he added. “It is also an attempt to give African countries greater control over how their energy resources and infrastructure are financed,” he explained.
Nigeria to host the AEB
The energy bank – a joint initiative of APPO and the African Export–Import Bank (Afreximbank) – has so far suffered several delays and is almost two years behind schedule. The initial plan was to start operations in January 2025, with Nigeria as the host country, but the bank’s opening was delayed to June of that year to allow Nigeria time to finalise the construction of the bank’s headquarters in Abuja.
After the government announced the completion of the offices in late November 2025, a new launch date was set for January 2026, which was moved back to April, June and then September. Now it has shifted again to November, raising concerns that the institution may be losing momentum.
Former Shell executive Addi said that if the capital is eventually paid in, the bank becomes operational and its first projects are commercially credible, then the delays will be regarded as normal teething troubles in setting up a multilateral institution. But, he added, scepticism will be justified if it continues to stall.
Uganda may see lower oil revenues than expected as costs rise and demand falls
Baron Lamarré, an oil and gas expert and former Petronas oil trader, said that missing “three deadlines in a row is not normal”, and warned that if the timeline slips again, “the story flips from ‘ambitious institution finding its footing’ to ‘good idea that lost momentum before it found any’.”
The Nigerian government, APPO and Afreximbank did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.
The funding challenge
The Africa Energy Bank is targeting base capital of $5 billion, with plans to scale up to $120 billion within five years by mobilising private-sector funds. However, it is expected to start operations with initial seed capital of $500 million.
The funding plan is to have the 18 member countries of the APPO contribute $83 million each to the bank as equity for a combined $1.5 billion. Afreximbank, other non-APPO African countries and investors outside the continent are expected to provide the remaining $3.5 billion.
But even the initial $500 million has not been easy to mobilise. In May, APPO Secretary-General Farid Ghezali called on members to deliver on their pledges towards the startup goal before the end of June. But the delays suggest this may not have been met, with experts saying Africa may be finding it difficult to self-fund its oil and gas projects in the absence of international capital.
Lamarré said every extension of the deadline points to the fact that “raising fossil fuel capital in Africa without the majors and their financing networks is brutally hard”.
Why the global electrification agenda misses the point on Africa’s energy crisis
Since 2020, Western lenders, export credit agencies and insurers have been in steady retreat from African hydrocarbons, he said, while oil majors are divesting their African assets, handing over fields to smaller local operators whose credit ratings are not high enough to borrow cheaply.
Even capital from China and the Gulf, which has partially filled the gap, cannot match the volume, tenor or pricing that Western investors once offered, Lamarré argued.
“If mobilising the first $500 million of seed capital [for the AEB] has taken this long, that’s the clearest signal yet of how steep the climb to $120 billion looks,” he said, noting that the continent’s energy financing gap is as large as $30 billion-$45 billion per year.
Africa’s investment landscape, meanwhile, has been shifting. While foreign direct investment dropped from a 2024 peak, inflows remained roughly one-third above the continent’s long-term average in 2025, according to the 2026 World Investment Report from UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). They are concentrated in a few sectors including critical minerals needed for renewable energy technologies, battery manufacturing and advanced industrial production.
At the same time, data on global energy investment from the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that fossil fuel investment in Africa has declined over the last decade.
“Trojan horse” for fossil fuels
While the Africa Energy Bank struggles to get off the ground, climate campaigners have criticised its primary aim of financing oil and gas on the continent at a time when the world is starting to move away from high-carbon fuels to cleaner alternatives.
Bhekumuzi Dean Bhebhe, founder of Africa Change Lab, described the bank as a “Trojan horse”, arguing that its focus on fossil fuel financing runs counter to the global energy transition and the African Union’s Agenda 2063 goals of sustainable development and inclusive growth.
The energy bank, he warned, “risks locking Africa into a new cycle of debt, dependency and fossil fuel entrenchment”, adding that its financing blueprint does not pave the way for a climate-resilient future. “In truth, it is to deepen the same extractive, carbon-heavy pathways that the continent should be moving away from,” he added.
Ugandan farmers use British court to try to stop East Africa oil pipeline
Kenya-based climate and energy expert Joab Okanda said the AEB’s plan to finance oil and gas is “a misplaced priority” and it should instead back clean energy in line with the policies of some of Africa’s major export markets like Europe.
In addition, the new bank could struggle to mobilise enough resources to advance large-scale oil and gas projects, he added, noting that its proposed $5-billion initial capital is equivalent to the cost of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline alone.
The AEB’s aim of backing more fossil fuels should be flipped “to support countries that are oil-dependent to start working on their transition plans”, Okanda said.
The post Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes appeared first on Climate Home News.
Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
A booklet published by the UK’s opposition Conservative party includes a “cost of net-zero” that appears to have been doubled by a spreadsheet error.
The “