cloud cover – Climate- Science.press

If the Green Sahara Returned Tomorrow: How a Wetter North Africa Would Transform the Planet

During the African Humid Period (roughly 11,000- 5,000 years ago, with some definitions extending the onset earlier to ~14.5- 15 ka), enhanced monsoon rainfall greened the Sahara with lakes, rivers, and vegetation, while also supporting the growth and expansion of tropical glaciers on high East African peaks such as Kilimanjaro.

A return of African Humid Period (AHP)- like conditions today, much stronger West African monsoon rainfall, widespread greening of the Sahara and Sahel with savannah, grasslands, woodlands, expanded lakes (e.g., a revived Mega-Chad), and flowing rivers, would transform North and West Africa while producing significant regional and global climate teleconnections.

Scenic African savanna landscape with elephants, antelopes, a lake, mountains, and wind turbines at sunset — ***AI generated by Grok***

Ice- core evidence from Kilimanjaro’s Northern Ice Field shows basal ice dating to the early Holocene (~11.7–9- 10 ka BP). Comparison of oxygen- isotope records indicate glacier growth began early in the African Humid Period, with the ice fields expanding under the wetter conditions of that interval.

The same enhanced moisture that raised lake levels across northern and equatorial Africa (by tens to over 100 m in places) and expanded vegetation into the Sahara also increased snowfall accumulation on the high peaks, allowing ice to build up even though regional temperatures were generally warmer than in the preceding glacial period.

Tropical glaciers on Kilimanjaro (and nearby peaks such as Mount Kenya and the Rwenzori) are highly sensitive to precipitation and humidity in addition to temperature.

Higher moisture and cloud cover during the African Humid Period improved the mass balance enough for net growth and expansion relative to drier intervals. Moraine and exposure- age data also document early Holocene glacial features on these mountains.⁠

After the African Humid Period ended (around 5- 4 ka in many records), drier conditions returned, lake levels fell, the Sahara aridified, and the ice fields contracted.

The surviving ice on Kilimanjaro has continued to respond to later Holocene moisture and temperature fluctuations, but the modern rapid retreat is occurring under a different combination of reduced precipitation, increased sublimation, ablation, and warming. The continuous presence of ice since the early Holocene makes the current loss notable in that context.⁠

In short, the same orbital- driven strengthening of the African monsoon that created the “Green Sahara” also supplied the moisture that allowed Kilimanjaro’s (and other East African) tropical glaciers to grow during that interval.

Ancient rock art depicting three stylized human figures on a weathered sandstone surface — By Roland Unger, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22698492 WadiSuraSwimmers – African humid period – Wikipedia

The African Humid Period (AHP; roughly 14.5- 5.5 ka, peaking ~11- 5 ka) was primarily driven by orbital changes that strengthened and expanded the West African (and broader African) monsoon, amplified by positive feedback involving the land surface, vegetation, oceans, and other factors.

Primary Driver: Orbital (Milankovitch) Forcing

Earth’s orbital precession (the ~21,000- year “wobble” of its axis) is the dominant control. During the early- to- mid Holocene, precession aligned Northern Hemisphere summer with perihelion (Earth’s closest approach to the Sun). This boosted summer insolation over North Africa by ~7- 8% relative to today.⁠

Higher summer heating of the North African landmass (which has lower thermal inertia than the ocean) intensified the land- sea temperature and pressure contrast. This strengthened the summer monsoon, drew more moisture inland from the Atlantic (and to some extent other sources), and shifted the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and rain- belt farther north into the Sahel and Sahara.⁠

Precession paces North African humid periods over hundreds of thousands of years (and longer). Eccentricity modulates the amplitude of the precession signal, and high- latitude ice sheets can suppress humid periods during glacial times even at favorable precession phases. Obliquity (axial tilt) plays a secondary role.⁠

Amplifying Feedback

Orbital insolation changes alone are insufficient in climate models to produce the full observed greening, lake expansions (e.g., Mega- Chad), and rainfall increases.

Key positive feedback include:

Vegetation- albedo feedback: Expanding grasslands and shrubs lowered surface albedo (darker vegetation absorbs more sunlight), further heating the land, enhancing convection, and drawing in more moisture. Vegetation, soil-moisture, and surface- water (lakes and wetlands) feedback collectively amplified precipitation substantially.⁠
Ocean and atmospheric feedback: Changes in Atlantic sea- surface temperatures, moisture transport, and atmospheric circulation (including jets) reinforced the monsoon.
Other influences on timing: Strengthening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) after deglacial meltwater events helped position the ITCZ northward and contributed to relatively abrupt onsets. Residual Northern Hemisphere ice sheets could delay the peak humidity. Greenhouse- gas increases played a minor direct role compared with insolation and ice- sheet effects.

The AHP began after the Last Glacial Maximum as insolation rose and ice sheets retreated, with relatively rapid transitions in many records once insolation crossed thresholds and feedbacks engaged.

It ended gradually overall as summer insolation declined, but with locally abrupt aridification in some areas (possibly involving vegetation and dust feedback or high- latitude cooling that weakened tropical circulation). The end was time- transgressive, occurring later at lower latitudes in some reconstructions.⁠

In summary, the AHP is a classic example of orbital pacing of monsoon strength, strongly modified by Earth- system feedback that turned a moderate insolation change into a dramatic regional climate shift, the “Green Sahara”. Similar humid periods recurred throughout the Quaternary (and earlier) under comparable orbital configurations.

Map of Africa showing vegetation and agricultural zones, including forestland, savanna, grassland, semi-desert, and extreme desert regions. — Africa Climate 7000bp – African humid period – Wikipedia

It would not be an exact replica of the mid- Holocene AHP, because today’s boundary conditions differ (higher CO₂, no residual ice sheets of the same scale, modern land use, and different orbital configuration), but model studies of “Green Sahara” scenarios and analogs provide strong guidance.

Local and Regional Impacts in Africa

Hydrology and landscape: Annual rainfall would rise dramatically across the present- day Sahara and Sahel (hundreds of mm/year in many areas, locally more). Large permanent or seasonal lakes, wetlands, and river systems would reappear or expand. Dust emissions from the Sahara (currently Earth’s largest source) would drop sharply due to vegetation cover and wetter soils.
Vegetation and ecosystems: Desert would shift to grassland and savannah, with some woodland in wetter zones. Biodiversity would change, expansion of flora and fauna adapted to wetter conditions, potential recovery of species whose ranges contracted after the AHP, but also losses or shifts for strict desert specialists. More standing water would likely increase disease vectors (e.g., mosquitoes).
Agriculture, water and society: Vast new potential for rain- fed farming, grazing, and water resources in currently marginal or uninhabitable areas. This could boost food security, support larger populations, and create economic opportunities in the Sahel and Sahara. However, existing infrastructure, cities, and farming systems (adapted to aridity) would face flooding, soil erosion, and the need for major adaptation. Land- use conflicts, migration into newly productive areas, and geopolitical tensions over water and territory are plausible. Projects like the Great Green Wall already explore partial, managed greening and show potential rainfall increases and local cooling, but a full natural AHP- scale shift would be far larger and less controlled.

Broader Climate and Remote Effects

Climate models of mid- Holocene Green Sahara conditions (and related experiments with prescribed vegetation and reduced dust) show that Sahara greening is not purely local:

Strengthened monsoon and lower albedo (darker vegetation absorbs more sunlight) enhance local heating and convection, further amplifying rainfall via positive feedbacks.
Reduced dust alters atmospheric radiation, cloud properties, and Atlantic sea-surface temperatures.
Teleconnections include shifts in the ITCZ and Walker circulation, influences on other monsoons, changes in ENSO variability (often reduced), and effects on tropical cyclone activity (some studies indicate fewer North Atlantic storms under greened Sahara conditions due to altered wind shear and moisture).
Remote drying is frequently simulated over parts of South America (including the Amazon) in Green Sahara experiments. Other possible effects include altered precipitation and temperatures in Europe, the Mediterranean, and parts of Asia, plus influences on high- latitude climate (e.g., Arctic responses in some solar-farm or greening analogs that mimic albedo and vegetation changes).

Dust reduction alone has climatic effects (more solar radiation reaching the surface, changes in ocean fertilization downstream). Combined vegetation and dust changes amplify monsoon strengthening beyond orbital forcing alone.

A true AHP return would require orbital precession driving substantially higher Northern Hemisphere summer insolation (as occurred ~11- 5 ka), which is not the case today. Anthropogenic warming may increase Sahel rainfall in some projections, but models do not generally produce a full Green Sahara under 21st- century scenarios.

Higher modern CO₂, different greenhouse-gas and aerosol backgrounds, and human land- use modifications would interact with any greening in complex ways, some amplifying, some damping.

In short, an AHP- like return would turn much of the Sahara into a productive, vegetated landscape with major benefits for water and agriculture in Africa, sharply cut global dust loading, and rearrange atmospheric circulation enough to affect weather and climate on other continents (notably potential drying in parts of South America).

The transition would bring large adaptation challenges, risks of conflict or displacement, and irreversible ecosystem shifts. Managed partial greening (e.g., via reforestation) is already under discussion precisely because of these powerful local and remote levers.

Panoramic view of a snow-covered glacier with steep ice cliffs beneath cloudy skies — KiliGlacier – African humid period – Wikipedia

Is climate change Abe Lincoln’s fault?

Mark Twain said, “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”

For some newspaper to report evidence of climate change because there was a heavy storm yesterday is crazy.

From CFACT

By Kelvin Kemm

Mark Twain said, “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.” His real name was Samuel Clemens, and in 1863, he adopted ‘Mark Twain’ as a pen name. The most common explanation of where the name came from is that as the riverboat men on the Mississippi measured the depth of the water, they would call out ‘mark twain’ at the ‘two fathom’ mark on a rope. A fathom is about six feet, so that mark indicated that there was twelve feet of water, and so it was safe for the boat to move.

There is, however, an alternative explanation. Sam was a newspaper reporter in Virginia City, which was a mining town on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada. He was well known in the saloons around town where he reportedly consumed many drinks, no doubt on his hunt for news stories. In the saloons, they would have a chalkboard, and the barman would mark up the customer’s drinks on the board. Apparently, Sam would order two drinks and call out to the barman, ‘mark twain, indicating that he should mark up two drinks at a time.

Whatever the truth of the origin of the name is, it has certainly become a famous name in history. There would be no doubt that the boatmen of the Mississippi would be very well-aware of daily weather conditions. Mark Twain clearly would have been. So, it is very important to make a distinction between climate and weather because these days they are so often confused.

Half a lifetime

‘Climate’ is the state of affairs which one can observe over some region, over a period of something like 30 years. In contrast, ‘weather’ is short term, from one day to the next, or from one week to the next. For some newspaper to report evidence of climate change because there was a heavy storm yesterday is crazy.

Mark Twain traveled around the world a lot and so he would have examined the recorded climate for any region that he was visiting. But having grown up with the riverboats, he would have been very well aware that the weather at any time that he arrived somewhere might not at all be what the recorded general climate indicated.

So, if you ask the question, “Is climate change taking place or has climate change taken place?” the first thing you have to do is ask the secondary question, “What period of time are you referring to?” If you ask, “Is the climate today the same as it was at the time of the dinosaurs?” the answer is clearly no. Similarly, if you ask, “Is the climate today the same as it was during the time of President Lincoln?” the answer is also no.

The temperature of the atmosphere of the planet has changed over much shorter periods than from the dinosaurs to now. It is well known and verified that there was a warm period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from around the year 950 to 1250. During this time, grapes were grown in England and the Domesday Book of 1086 records vineyards at Tiddington in Oxfordshire.

That warm period was followed by a cold period known as the Little Ice Age (LIA), from about 1250 to 1850. This covered the time of Shakespeare. During this time there were paintings produced of the Thames freezing over, even showing horse-drawn carriages riding down the frozen Thames.

The potato famine in Ireland also happened during this period. There are historical records showing that food shortages in Ireland and Europe were part of the reason that the Pilgrim fathers went to the New World of America.

Top hat marker

Abraham Lincoln was president right at the end of the LIA, at a time when temperatures in the U.S. were about a degree colder than they are now.

It is also an historical fact that the Industrial Revolution came about from the middle of the 1800s, at about the same time as the term of office of Lincoln.

The planet is now going into a period of modern warming, so temperatures are around 1° to 2° warmer than at the time of Lincoln. So yes, there has undoubtedly been global warming of a bit more than a degree since the time of Lincoln, which is also the time of the Industrial Revolution.

There has never been any argument that there has been some global warming and some consequent climate change.

The discussion point of merit is not whether it has happened, but rather what caused it?

‘Carbon’ is simplistic

To blame ‘climate change’ on industrially created CO₂ is totally simplistic. It is far too convenient for the warming enthusiasts to blame observed warming on modern industry. By far the more plausible explanation is a variation in the incidence of cosmic radiation from outer space which alters the amount of cloud cover, which in turn alters the amount of heat reaching the ground. The cosmic rays are in turn controlled by the stream of electrically charged particles coming from the Sun, which are controlled by the magnetic field of the Sun. These particles interact with the magnetic field of the Earth.

It has been known for centuries that the Sun goes through an 11-year solar cycle, during which time the activity of the Sun varies and consequently alters the magnetic shield around the Earth.

So, try to exhibit the wisdom of Mark Twain and don’t blame every unusual storm on ‘climate change,’ which is then darkly linked to ‘the fault of modern industry.’

3 New Studies Find Increasing Trends In Solar Radiation Since The 1980s – Easily Explaining Warming

“These findings indicate that the primary driver of air temperature increase in Kraków is the rise in SD (solar radiation influx) rather than [CO2] radiative forcing (∆F).”

From NoTrickZone

By Kenneth Richard

“These findings indicate that the primary driver of air temperature increase in Kraków is the rise in SD (solar radiation influx) rather than [CO2] radiative forcing (∆F).”

New research shows internal or natural changes in cloud structure have allowed more solar radiation to reach the surface in recent decades as documented by the widespread increase in sunshine duration (SD).

The increase in SD is the primary driver of warming since the 1980s, explaining both the temperature variability and trend.

“…the main factor driving the rise in temperature after 1988 was also a radical increase in sunshine. These results indicate the fundamental role of changes in cloud structure, and consequently sunshine, in shaping the observed rise in air temperature.”

“The regression analysis revealed that the variability of the three considered factors – SD, the intensity of the western circulation in winter (NAO), and radiative forcing (∆F) – completely explained (within the estimation errors) the observed increase in annual air temperature in Kraków.”

Cloud cover changes are far more influential than modern CO2 concentration increases in shaping climate.

“…even small changes in cloud cover can have a greater effect on earth’s radiation balance than corresponding changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

“van Wijngaarden and Happer (2025) estimated that the role of low cloud cover in shaping the transfer of solar energy to Earth’s surface is even greater, and a reduction in low cloud cover by just a few percent produces the same effect as doubling the CO2 concentration.”

Indeed, CO2 forcing has only have a “marginal” (~6%) contribution to warming trends, and only a 3.6% contribution to the variability.

“The analysis indicates that the strong rise in SD has resulted from changes in cloud structure since the late 1980s. … SD variability explains 58% of the variance, NAO index variability accounts for 7.7%, and ∆F variability contributes 3.6%.”

“The role of the anthropogenic factor, namely the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, described by radiative forcing, in driving the increase in air temperature in Kraków is statistically significant but marginal in terms of its importance. It does not introduce interannual variability and only slightly increases the trend of temperature rise. Similarly, in Wrocław, located ~250 km from Kraków, a small impact of radiative forcing on temperature increase (~6%) was detected (Marsz et al. 2021).”

Another new study indicates an overall increase in solar radiation reaching the surface since 1983, which is consistent with other studies that have found “a generalized increase in downwelling shortwave radiation (DSWR) across Brazil between 1980 and 2016.

“Trend analysis indicate a generalized increase in SDU [Sunshine Duration] over Brazil since the early 1980s.”

And yet another new study (Budnukaeku, 2026) finds a significant increase in sunshine duration across Nigeria between 1970 and 2022 due primarily to declining cloud cover.

“This study investigates the temporal variability of sunshine duration and cloud cover across Nigeria from 1970 to 2022, leveraging satellite-based and ground-observed datasets to elucidate climatic trends and their implications for renewable energy, agriculture, and climate adaptation strategies. Using data from the Meteosat-based SARAH-2 climate data record, ERA5 reanalysis, and Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NIMET) ground stations, we analyze long-term trends, seasonal patterns, and spatial disparities in sunshine duration and cloud cover. Results indicate a significant increase in sunshine duration in northern Nigeria, averaging 0.5–0.7 hours per decade, driven by decreasing cloud cover, particularly during the dry season (November–March).”

Glaciers have advanced and retreated before

We constantly hear panic stories about glaciers melting, accompanied by hysterical voices calling out that retreating glaciers are a clear sign of human-induced global warming.

Much of this hysteria is driven by green activists and politicians who know just enough to be dangerous but not enough to be sensible.

Massive glacier wall of Perito Moreno Glacier in Los Glaciares National Park, El Calafate, Patagonia, Argentina

From CFACT

By Kelvin Kemm

We constantly hear panic stories about glaciers melting, accompanied by hysterical voices calling out that retreating glaciers are a clear sign of human-induced global warming.

Much of this hysteria is driven by green activists and politicians who know just enough to be dangerous but not enough to be sensible.

Scientifically you can’t come to a conclusion, on the basis of a principle. You have to look at the real science and carry out correct measurements.

This is a complex subject, but let us have a quick look at the issue. What about atmospheric warming? Well, for starters, we need some physics. For a gram of cold glacial ice to warm up by 1°C, say from -4°C to -3°C, it takes about two Joules of heat. It needs this amount of heat for each degree Celsius that the ice warms. Inside a glacier it can be as cold as -50°C, but let us just consider the top part and, being generous, call it -10°C. In other words, to raise the temperature of a gram of ice from -10°C to 0°C we will need about 20 Joules. So far so good. So where would this heat come from? Well, the global warming enthusiasts say, ‘from the atmosphere.’ So we take 20 Joules from the atmosphere. That is reasonable.

But now for a bit more physics. When you melt ice to water, it needs a huge amount of heat to separate the frozen molecules. In fact, it takes just over 300 Joules for each gram. Remember that it takes 20 Joules to raise the temperature of a gram of ice by 10°C, but 300 Joules to turn that one gram of ice into water. So where does the 300 Joules of heat come from? ‘Well, the atmosphere,’ say the warmists. If that much heat is being pulled out of the atmosphere, why do we not see the air above a glacier cooling off? After all, the warmists are worrying about the atmosphere warming by only 1 or 2°C.

So if an entire glacier is melting faster than before, where on earth (excuse the pun) is all that melting-heat coming from? Remember, millions of grams of ice each needing 300 Joules just to melt. That is a vast amount of energy.

What about an alternative mechanism? There is another option. That is; direct sunlight falling on the glacier surface. What is known to happen is that sunlight warms the top couple of millimetres of the ice, which melts quite easily. So an obvious question is; where does that water go? The simple answer is that it percolates downwards through the fissures in the glacier. The water works its way to the bottom, where the ice lies on the bedrock. There it acts as a lubricant, and reduces the friction between the ice and the rock. So the ice can slide faster.

Therefore the whole glacier becomes more mobile, and more big chunks can break off at the end of the glacier.

The amount of sunlight falling on the glacier’s surface has nothing to do with the temperature of the atmosphere. In contrast, it has to do with the amount of cloud cover, which in turn is linked to the amount of cosmic radiation coming in from outer space. That in turn is linked to the magnetic activity of the Sun, because the Sun influences the protective magnetic barrier around the Earth.

Where this magnetic barrier ‘leaks’ is seen at the North and South poles where we see the spectacular Aurorae which form curtains of waving light sheets in the night sky.

So we clearly have a perfectly reasonable mechanism for retreating glaciers which has nothing to do with atmospheric warming.

But there is yet more! There has been a huge archaeological benefit resulting from the retreat of some glaciers, and melting ice sheets.

What has happened is that melting ice has revealed thousands of ancient artefacts which have been a bonanza for historians and archaeologists. For example, 10,000 year old Atlati spear-throwing hunting darts have been found in the Rocky Mountains and the Canadian Yukon.

Intact arrows have been found in a Norwegian mountain pass dating to 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. They have quartzite arrowheads secured by animal sinew and Birch-bark glue. A 1,700 year old Roman-style shoe was also found in Norway. In the Schnidejoch pass in the Swiss Alps, leather trousers, shoes and Birch-bark arrows were found, dating back to 3,000 to 4,000 BCE.

The list goes on, but what it shows is that there was no thick ice cover there in the past, at times like 1,700 years ago, 3,000 years ago, and 10,000 years ago. This indicates that ice cover and glaciers, have come and gone on a regular basis in the past. These past changes certainly had nothing to do with industrially-produced carbon dioxide.

But they can be linked to the magnetic activity of the Sun.

Proposed Theory of Historical Global Cloud Cover.

It expands on the earlier Cloud Reduction Global Warming (CRGW) theory, proposing that long-term changes in global annual evapotranspiration (ET(ga)) — driven by the stark difference in evaporation rates between oceans and land — can explain historical variations in global cloud fraction (CF(ga)) and thus Earth’s temperature, independent of (or in addition to) CO₂ forcing.

From Watts Up With That?

Charles Blaisdell, PhD ChE

Abstract

The earth’s evaporation rate (mass/time/unit area) of water from oceans is higher than from land (2.4x). This evaporation rate from land includes water from vegetation, ground, dew, as well as liquid water and is referred to as EvapoTranspiration, ET. Ocean’s global annual ET(ga) rate is relatively constant while land’s rate can change with local changes in EvapoTranspiration. Because of this difference in ocean vs land the earth’s global annual ET(ga) is dependent on the size of the land and/or the amount of land under the sun’s zenith (both of which currently do not change). Historically scientists say the size of land and axis did change. This essay will propose a theory that calculates all three sources of the earth’s ET(ga) change and what could have happened to cloud fraction and the earth’s temperature.

A sigmoidal relationship is proposed for vapor pressure deficit, VPD(ga) vs global annual enthalpy, En(ga), and global annual cloud fraction, CF(ga), A model shows possible global temperature change from changes in the earth’s land mass, axis, local ET, and combinations of all 3.

A psychrometric chart will picture the two-step math in this natural climate change process to better understand the complex math.

Introduction

The four fundamental variables of atmospheric science are temperature, specific humidity (SH), pressure, and radiation. The first three variables are used by the Clausius Clapeyron law to describe their energy (Enthalpy, En) and their relative humidity, RH, etc. On a global daily basis these variables are quite hectic and are called weather. On a global annual basis things calm down to not much change except climate change. The Clausius Clapeyron law works for both daily and global annual data and can be seen in a psychrometric chart that somewhat simplifies this complicated relationship.

There is a consensus in the scientific community that the cloud fraction is the biggest uncertainty in climate change. The earth’s (about 60%) cloud fraction reflects about 50% of the sun rays. Prior to about 1980 little change in cloud fraction could be observed or measured it was assumed global cloud fraction was constant. Satellite data since about 1980 suggested that cloud fraction may be decreasing. A Cloud Reduction Global Warming, CRGW, theory (8) has been proposed to show how a natural sequence of related atmospheric processes can explain the cloud reduction and account for the observed increase in temperature, increase in specific humidity, and decrease in relative humidity.

From temperature and specific humidity, SH, the global annual Vapor Pressure Deficit, VPD(ga), can be calculated (8). VPD(ga) is a number that expresses how close the water concentration in the atmosphere is to the dew point, zero being the dew point (clouds highly probable) and the larger the number the less likely clouds will form somewhere on the earth.

Cloud fraction, CF(ga), measurement includes partly cloudy, high thin clouds, highly reflective rain clouds, and a lot of other cloud types with varying degrees of reflectivity. Enthalpy, En(ga) is a better indicator of non-reflectivity and is also correlates to CF(ga). VPD(ga) vs En(ga) does not have the baggage of CF(ga) and will be used in the model. Total enthalpy of the atmosphere has been shown to be equal to long wave radiation out (10) and at all altitudes including the surface data is proportional to long wave radiation out, see (10). Furthermore, ET(ga) is proportional to SH(ga), such that a change in ET(ga) = a change in SH(ga) and vs-vs.

Trenberth et al (2011) (12) documents total water evaporated/yr (Figure 9 in (12) ) from oceans, 413 (1000km^3/yr) and land at 73 (1000km^3/yr). The ocean data includes ice and clouds (62%) (both oceans and land). These measurements can be converted to ET(ga) per unit of earth’s surface area (1141(mm/yr/% of earth) for oceans and 494 (mm/yr/% of earth) for land), a 2.4 x higher ET rate from oceans. This difference in ocean vs land ET implies that any change in the earth’s land area, or percentage land under the sun’s zenith, or just land ET change may via CRGW theory change global temperature. This ocean vs land difference was observed in (18).

The Model

This is a first principles model not a statical model to show understanding of the proposed theory.

The model starts out with a reference year since ET(ga) and SH(ga) are proportional they need a real starting point (NOAA data between 1975 and 2024) . Next, a case study is chosen from any one or combination of: 1. change land size, 2. change axis shift of land under suns zenith, 3. change the ET of the land. Each case study calculates the ET(ga) (per year per unit area of earth’s surface) change from the ocean (and ice) and land ETs above (1141 and 494). Check the excel model attached for calculations. Table 1 gives some examples case from the model. Table 2 gives the input parameters and calculated ET(ga)s.

The model uses Clausius-Clapeyron derived Psychometric equations (see (8) for equations) and a sigmoidal graph of VPD(ga) vs Enthalpy, En(ga). The strategy of the model follows the path shown in Figure 1 and Figure 4. This path follows the adiabatic (constant En) line for increasing ET (SH) (to the left) or decreasing ET (SH) (to the right) to the point of SH(ga) change. Then follows the constant VPD(ga) line to the En(ga) predicted by Figure 2. (Follow VPD(ga) up for decreasing SH path, down for increasing SH path), see Figure 4 for a larger view of the path.

In Figure 2 the middle of the graph is NOAA data from (15) 1975 to 2024. The high and low asymptotes (all clouds and no clouds En(ga)) were calculated from Dubal (16) and Loeb (17) albedo data ratioed to known enthalpy data (adjusted for ocean and land area), all data at the same year. The parameters in the sigmoidal equation were then (by trial and error) fit to the data (20). Special attention was given to the sigmoidal fit matching the linear NOAA data. The sigmoidal graph allowed the model to work outside of the narrow NOAA range of VPDs.

Figure 1. Psychrometric chart showing the two-step process in the CRGW theory.

Figure 2. Sigmoidal fit of combined NOAA and CERES data.

The curious results of this model are that an initial decrease in earth’s ET(ga) will result in an increase ET(ga). This behavior can be seen on the psychrometric chart where the SH(ga) first decrease (for a -ET(ga)) on the adiabatic En line then increases on the constant VPD line per Figure 2. CRGW climate change is a two-step mathematical process where any time spent in the first step is only long enough to establish a new VPD to begin adjustment in cloud fraction. (Psychrometric charts are used by HVAC technicians to design air-conditioning systems, this is the first time constant VPD lines have been added to a Psychrometric chart to explain climate change, see Figure 4). The two-step process happens in yearly cycles leaving a trail of data on a diagonal with the two-step path from the starting point to the end point, if the change in ET is + or – or no change the observed data will be on the diagonal line, At either end of the sigmoidal graph this may change. At the end of the two-step path the resulting temperature and SH(ga must be solved by a convergence routine since the psychrometric equation contains mixed functions (log and linear). See attached model for equations.

The VPD(ga) vs cloud fraction is also a sigmoidal graph see Figure 3.

Figure 3. Sigmoidal graph of VPD vs Cloud Percent.

Figure 4. +/- ET(ga) change paths in the Model.

Other Model variables

Plumes occur over hot land and reach cloud level and can spread to cover areas larger than the surface they came from including the oceans. The hotter the more they spread. Plumes with low SH retard cloud formation (like a black parking lot). Plumes with high SH can make clouds (like a cooling tower). See (6) for more on plumes. The model uses plumes factors from 1x to 4x. Little research is done on global plumes other than we know they exist. The model shows plume factors can have a big effect on global temperature. The plume factors are set at 1x for size of land cases, and 2x for land under the sun’s zenith changes (for the expected hotter air), and 4x for special parcels where larger plumes are expected, see (6). The model applies the plume factor to the whole earth.

ET of special parcels like UHIs (urban heat Islands), land changes like forest to crop, or surface mining, see (8) for more on special parcels were estimated based on data from Mazrooei, et al (2021) (19). ET changes from +10 to -50 can be used.

Special parcel size is estimated at about 5 to 15% of the earth’s total land mass and growing, see (19) and (7) for more this.

Not in the model

Variations in the sun’s radiation to the earth. Easy to add just did not do it.

Volcanos also have historical climatic effects but appear to be short lived. Math like this essay may be applicable to volcanic effects on climate. Wet volcanoes (ones that have a lot of water in their plumes) cool the earth. Dry volcanoes (ones with just hot gas in the plumes) destroy clouds.

While CO2’s climatic effects are not discussed in this essay. CO2’s increase or decrease can be an indicator of changes in ET(ga) from vegetation. Decreasing CO2 indicates that vegetation is increasing the ET(ga) (more clouds, cooler), vs-vs. Current monitoring of CO2 concentration shows variation CO2 with the growing seasons.

Model results

The case studies in tables 1,2,3 show the earth’s temperature is very sensitive to axis rotation and land size. To the point that glaciers could be encouraged to grow or shrink with changes in the amount of land under the sun’s zenith (axis rotation), see (11), or change in the amount of land. Either one could be accented by vegetation changes.

The amount of increase in ET(ga) from cloud reduction seems to be related to the ratio of ET rate from oceans vs ET rate from land, for current data this ratio is 2-3 :1.

The historical coming and going of glaciers cloud be related to a series of cases like the following: Start at today’s conditions and rotate the earth so that less of the earth’s land is under the sun, (more clouds) the earth will cool. The earth’s vegetation will become more tropical near the sun’s zenith; (more clouds) the earth will cool more. Glaciers will grow, oceans will shrink, more land will appear, CO2 will decrease. Finaly enough land has appeared so that global ET increases (less clouds). The earth rotates back to more land under the sun’s zenith (less clouds). The earth becomes less tropical (less clouds) and the glaciers start to melt, seas rise and the earth returns to near current conditions.

Adding water to the atmosphere could return climate to 1975 conditions, but it is a lot of water.

Don’t worry about any of the cases, they will not happen in our time!

Discussion

Why wasn’t this theory already discovered (or has someone already proposed it and the author has not found it)? The answer could be simple: history could not see cloud change. The current climate change opened our eyes to the possible existence of this natural theory waiting to be discovered.

This expansion of the CRGW theory is intended to be a possible tool in the investigation of historical climate change to explore what did cloud fraction do as the earth changed over time and what future changes in the earth’s land mass might do to cloud fraction.

To the scientist that study earth’s changes over time: How well does this theory fit possible historic climate change vs earth’s land changes?

Thank You Anthony

For promoting diversity of thought

Bibliography

Author’s Papers

Bibliography continued

Atmospheric Moisture Transports from Ocean to Land and Global Energy Flows in Reanalyses (2011) by Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jessica Mackaro web link Atmospheric Moisture Transports from Ocean to Land and Global Energy Flows in Reanalyses in: Journal of Climate Volume 24 Issue 18 (2011)
“HUMIDITY CONVERSION FORMULAS” by Vaisala Oyj (2013) web link Humidity_Conversion_Formulas_B210973EN-F (hatchability.com)
Climate Explorer web site Climate Explorer: Select a monthly field (knmi.nl) .
Physical Science Laboratory Monthly Mean Timeseries: NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory
“Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020” (2021) by Hans-Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt web link: Atmosphere | Free Full-Text | Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020 | HTML (mdpi.com)
Norman G. Loeb,Gregory C. Johnson,Tyler J. Thorsen,John M. Lyman,Fred G. Rose,Seiji Kato web link Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate – Loeb – 2021 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library
Figure 4 in 5 above and Met Office Climate Dashboard web Link Humidity | Climate Dashboard (metoffice.cloud)
. “Urbanization Impacts on Evapotranspiration Across Various Spatio-Temporal Scales” (2021) by Amir Mazrooei, Meredith Reitz, Dingbao Wang, A. Sankarasubramanian web link Urbanization Impacts on Evapotranspiration Across Various Spatio‐Temporal Scales – Mazrooei – 2021 – Earth’s Future – Wiley Online Library
StackOverlow Q and A scipy – Fit sigmoid function (“S” shape curve) to data using Python – Stack Overflow

CERES Data Shocker: Clouds and Albedo Changes Account for All Modern Warming

Nikolov and Zeller use NASA CERES satellite data on planetary albedo (Earth’s reflectivity) and compare it to their semi-empirical model, which downplays or replaces the traditional greenhouse effect with a thermodynamic pressure-based explanation for atmospheric warming.

Ned Nikolov and Karl F. Zeller note that prior studies (including CERES satellite observations) have documented a decreasing planetary albedo (Earth’s reflectivity) and corresponding increase in absorbed solar radiation since the early 1980s, accelerating after 2000. They argue this has contributed significantly to observed surface warming but has been inadequately addressed by the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).

Note that prior studies (including CERES satellite observations) have documented a decreasing planetary albedo (Earth’s reflectivity) and corresponding increase in absorbed solar radiation since the early 1980s, accelerating after 2000. They argue this has contributed significantly to observed surface warming but has been inadequately addressed by the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).

They used Dimensional Analysis (an objective mathematical technique to identify functional relationships from data) applied to vetted NASA observations from six Solar System bodies with rocky surfaces and atmospheres (or lack thereof): Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Titan (Saturn’s moon), and Triton (Neptune’s moon). These span wide ranges of solar irradiance, atmospheric pressure, composition, and temperature.

The authors conclude that recent warming is entirely explainable by observed solar forcing via albedo changes (mainly clouds), leaving “no room” for GHG radiative forcing or positive feedback in climate models.

The standard greenhouse effect theory in mainstream climate science explains why Earth’s surface is about 33°C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere (average ~288 K or 15°C instead of ~255 K or -18°C for a bare “blackbody” planet at Earth’s distance from the Sun). This is a well-established process rooted in radiative physics, energy balance, and observations, dating back to foundational work by Joseph Fourier (1824), John Tyndall (1859–1860s experiments), Svante Arrhenius (1896 quantitative estimates), and modern radiative transfer models.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Challenges to the CO2 Global Warming Hypothesis: (13) Global Warming Entirely from Declining Planetary Albedo

From Clintel

By Ralph B. Alexander

One of my early posts in this series on challenges to the CO₂ global warming hypothesis featured a paper claiming that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. Now the same authors appear to have sidestepped that claim in proposing instead that current global warming can be explained entirely by the observed decrease in planetary albedo over the last few decades.

In a new paper, U.S. research scientists Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller compare empirical observations of albedo made by CERES (Earth’s Radiant Energy System) satellites to the output of a semiempirical mathematical model used in their earlier work. In their model, the radiative effects integral to the greenhouse effect are replaced by a thermodynamic relationship between air temperature, solar heating and atmospheric pressure, analogous to compression heating of the atmosphere.

Nikolov and Zeller conclude that the observed decrease of planetary albedo, together with variations of solar output or TSI (total solar irradiance), account for 100% of the global warming trend as well as 83% of the interannual variability in global surface air temperature. They find that temperature changes are driven primarily by albedo changes, with only a marginal contribution from TSI.

Albedo is a measure of the earth’s ability to reflect incoming solar radiation. Melting of light-colored snow and sea ice due to warming exposes darker surfaces such as soil, rock and seawater, which have lower albedo. The less reflective surfaces absorb more of the sun’s radiation and thus push temperatures higher.

The same effect occurs with low-level clouds, which are the majority of the planet’s cloud cover. Low-level clouds such as cumulus and stratus clouds are thick enough to reflect 30-60% of the sun’s radiation that strikes them back into space, so they act like a parasol and normally cool the earth’s surface. But less cloud cover lowers albedo and therefore results in warming.

The figure below shows CERES measurements of global albedo from 2000 to 2024, expressed as a percentage anomaly of the 2001 to 2022 mean. The albedo decrease since 2000 is approximately 0.79%, which implies an increase in absorbed shortwave solar radiation of 2.7 watts per square meter over that period. The two researchers point out that this absorption is very close to the total anthropogenic forcing of 2.72 watts per square meter from 1750 to 2019 estimated by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in its AR6 (Sixth Assessment Report).

*Source of all images: Scienceunderattack.com*

The decline in albedo corresponds to a similar reduction in low cloud cover studied by a trio of German environmental scientists, which I discussed in a 2025 post. Their data for total (red curve) and low cloud (lower black) cover, calculated by the study authors from two separate sets of satellite data, is presented in the next figure. The lowered cloud cover is most prominent in northern mid-latitudes and the tropics.

The next figure shows CERES measurements of absorbed shortwave radiation from 2000 to 2024 along with global surface air temperature, measured as the average of six temperature datasets (HadCRUT5, GISTEMP4, NOAA Global, BEST, RSS and NOAA STAR). The temperature anomaly tracks changes in the absorbed solar flux with an average lag of approximately 4 months. Nikolov and Zeller say this close empirical relationship suggests that temperature is directly controlled by the absorbed solar flux.

The researchers quantify the individual effects of albedo and TSI on surface temperatures by using their semiempirical mathematical model. The following figure compares modeled temperatures based on each of these two factors with observations. It’s clear that variations in TSI play only a minimal role while variations in albedo dominate the temperature trend.

This conclusion is also supported by the next figure, which depicts the modeled contribution to albedo and TSI separately going back to 1981. According to Nikolov and Zeller’s model, the low contribution from TSI variation indicates that the earth’s climate is 5.6 times more sensitive to changes in solar absorption than to TSI variations.

The estimate is in good agreement with a conclusion reached by Israeli physicist Nir Shaviv, who has investigated the effect of TSI cycles on several climatic variables. Shaviv found that total solar forcing of the earth’s climate, which includes indirect effects, is 5 to 7 times larger than that associated with direct solar warming. Such a large amplification factor would imply that the climate is much more sensitive to the sun than to CO₂. Of the various possible indirect amplification mechanisms, Shaviv favors the influence of cosmic rays on low cloud cover.

Nonetheless, the observation of declining albedo or low cloud cover begs the chicken-and-egg question: is decreased albedo the cause or effect of current warming? While Nikolov and Zeller argue for the former, they also call for large-scale interdisciplinary research into the physical mechanisms controlling the earth’s albedo and cloud physics, in order to resolve the question.

This article by Ralph B. Alexander was published on February 16 at: scienceunderattack.com.

Could less cloudiness over the tropics be due to warming?

I have been highlighting the retreat of cloud cover in tropical regions for the past 10 years and recently considered geothermal spreading as a significant contributing factor in the source region. However, this retreat may be a byproduct of the warming, not the cause, although it is now certainly exacerbating the warming.

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

Beautiful island with palm trees. Whale underwater

It is widely accepted that total solar irradiance plays a major role in climate. An examination of this shows an increase that began around the same time as the sudden warming (over the last 30-35 years in the oceans).

Link: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/06/23/bombshell-study-reveals-climate-warming-driven-by-receding-cloud-cover/

Rising with it is the chart I have shown many times. This chart shows the increase in geothermal input PRECEDING the warming.

Recall the idea suggesting that the increase in geothermal activity is due to stresses placed on the Earth by the reversal of the exosphere (the molten core of the Earth).

You can read more about it here: https://theethicalskeptic.com/tag/core-exothermic-cycle/.

It is entirely possible that the two are connected, and perhaps the sun and planetary alignments, which alter gravitational pull, are causing this forcing. If you focus on the sun, you might attribute it to total solar irradiance (TSI). Most people dismiss geothermal influences because we lack sufficient real-time data to confirm it as a major cause. We also lack the data to confirm it is not. Yet, it appears to be increasing close to the TSI.

However, as I have demonstrated numerous times, until this shift occurred, the change in sea surface temperature (SST) was not particularly significant from 1951 to 1990. Then, it accelerated, accompanied by an increase in water vapor input into the air and subsequent warming.

This warming could be causing a reduction in clouds in areas receiving the most incoming solar radiation, particularly where it matters most—the tropical oceans. Over the last 10 years, outgoing longwave radiation has become dominant around landmasses in the tropics and has decreased over the tropical oceans.

But that seems counter intuitive unless we understand that we need increased vertical velocities where it’s warm to cause cloud formation.

If we examine temperatures over the last 10 years…

we notice the greatest warming near the poles, where sea level pressures have lowered most.

Sea level pressures have also lowered in the eastern Pacific and around Central America. They have also risen away from the tropics in the Pacific which means stronger easterlies, a La Niña base state, and MJOs (Madden-Julian Oscillations) favored in phases that are linked to warming. There is now more outgoing long-wave radiation in the major tropical areas of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Western Indian Ocean, with decreases (more clouds) over SE Asia and Africa. The change is startling over the tropics. The blue represents less cloudiness. The top image is 1951-1960. The bottom image is 2012-2022.

Why is this happening? Consider this: when sea-level pressures shift—lower at the poles, higher in the temperate zones of both hemispheres—what does it mean for global wind patterns? They reweave into something different from the norm. And what does that do to vertical velocity patterns? It distorts the atmosphere’s energy budget. Yes, a warmer world might hold more energy, but it’s distorted, stretched out. This disruption weakens the usual vertical motion over tropical oceans, thinning cloud cover and amplifying warming.

A study that deserves far more attention nails this dynamic: MDPI Study.

This is precisely what I’ve been trying to articulate about distorted warming. I see it firsthand: fewer long-tracked, monstrous storms; instead, compact, intense systems forming farther north. The evidence shows that.

If the Hadley cell expands, the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) loses its focus. Upward motion spreads out, diluting precipitation patterns. Fewer clouds form, and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) spikes. Over the past decade, rising OLR over tropical oceans hints at a weakened or broadened ITCZ. Other factors—ocean temperature shifts, atmospheric circulation changes—may play a role, but this mechanism fits like a glove.

This aligns perfectly with what you’re observing.

For more, check out this talk: CERES at the Heritage Foundation Symposium.

You have 3 large natural drivers now that are stacking the deck for warming: TSI, geothermal, and the result of the warming, fewer clouds in the big bang for the buck areas.

You can see the change in the global pattern by looking at the dominance of negative ENSO events since the great El Niño of 1997-1998.

This is due to stronger easterlies over the tropical Pacific, which are being caused by Asian and Western Pacific warming. I have flogged this horse many times in previous posts.

As we continue to examine natural forcings, it becomes increasingly likely that their cumulative effect diminishes the impact of human-induced inputs. It is evident that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate but rather a minor contributor compared to the major natural forces that have always shaped weather and climate.

When we consider the basic definitions of weather and climate—nature’s attempt to correct imbalances inherent in a system it cannot fully stabilize—it becomes intuitive that human influence on the chaotic climate system is limited. However, some livelihoods depend on promoting an agenda that attributes climate change primarily to human activity and demands compliance with specific solutions.

New Study: Recent ‘Unprecedented’ Cloud Cover Decline Driving Modern (And Past) Climate Change

“[T]he increase in absorbed solar radiation is primarily due to natural variations in cloudiness and surface albedo, which have served as the main forcing factors of the flux above the atmosphere over the last 2 decades.” – Diodato et al., 2025

From NoTrickZone

By Kenneth Richard

“[T]he increase in absorbed solar radiation is primarily due to natural variations in cloudiness and surface albedo, which have served as the main forcing factors of the flux above the atmosphere over the last 2 decades.” – Diodato et al., 2025

It is commonly accepted that there has been a satellite-observed (CERES) cloud cover albedo decline that has led to an increase in solar radiation absorbed by the Earth’s oceans. This increasing trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) explains the post-2000 global-scale temperature increase (Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021, Loeb et al., 2021, Stephens et al., 2022, Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023, Loeb et al., 2024, Nikolov and Zeller, 2024).

And now, in two new studies (Diodato et al., 2024 and Diodato et al., 2025), scientists have begun formulating reconstructions of cloud cover over the Mediterranean region that can be dated all the way back to the Medieval Warm Period, or 970 CE.

The authors suggest their reconstructions of cloud cover may be representative of more than just this region, as it is a product of large scale processes that may “transcend geographical boundaries.” In other words, what happens in the Mediterranean region may well have global implications.

Their reconstructions indicate the modern declining cloud cover trend may not only have been occurring since 2000, but, except for a brief increasing period from about 1945 to 1980 (that coincided with a global cooling trend), it has been ongoing for over 200 years. The “turning point” years were 1815-1818, following the eruption of Mount Tambora. From that point on there has been a precipitous decline in cloud cover that departs from multi-decadal variability.

The authors suggest the “dominant” factors linked to the post-1800s warming trend include solar forcing, volcanic forcing, and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (Diodato et al., 2024).

In other words, the modern warming as well as the past climate changes may be “primarily due to natural variations in cloudiness and surface albedo, which have served as the main forcing factors” (Diodato et al., 2025).

,olar.0053 Herunterladen

,research.0606 Herunterladen

The Recent Decades Of Cloud Cover Decline May Be A Continuation Of A Trend That Began In 1818

From NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard

Per a new study, the last 200 years of global warming are associated with cloud cover decline, and this decreasing cloud albedo can be linked to “the dominant roles of external forces – volcanic, solar, and oceanic – in their mutual influence after the LIA [Little Ice Age].”

Scientists have repeatedly reported a satellite-observed (CERES) cloud cover albedo decline that has led to an increase in solar radiation absorbed by the Earth’s oceans – a trend that explains the post-2000 temperature increase (Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021, Loeb et al., 2021, Stephens et al., 2022, Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023, Loeb et al., 2024, Nikolov and Zeller, 2024).

Scientists have now formulated new 1500 to 2022 CE reconstruction of cloud cover over the Mediterranean region. The authors suggest their reconstruction of cloud cover may be representative of more than just this region, as it is a product of large scale processes that may “transcend geographical boundaries.” In other words, what happens in the Mediterranean region may well have global implications.

The reconstruction indicates the modern declining cloud cover trend may not only have been occurring since 2000, but, except for a brief increasing period from about 1945 to 1980 (that coincided with a global cooling trend), has been ongoing for over 200 years. The “turning point” years were 1815-1818, following the eruption of Mount Tambora. From that point on there has been a precipitous decline in cloud cover that departs from multi-decadal variability.

The authors suggest the “dominant” factors linked to the post-1800s include solar forcing, volcanic forcing, and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO).

“Our study…indicating the dominant roles of external forces – volcanic, solar, and oceanic – in their mutual influence after the LIA”

“This combination of factors [AMO surging to a positive phase, a significant rise in solar forcing] likely contributed to a substantial decrease in cloud cover in the Mediterranean area.”

Interestingly, the authors also repeat the model-based assumption that the post-LIA rising temperatures could have been a contributing causal factor in the 1800s-to-present cloud cover decline. In other words, the warming led to cloud decline, and not the other way around. This assumption is odd, at best. It is well known warmer seawater adds more water to the air than cooling seawater. Which is why, for example, water vapor concentrations reach 35,000 ppm in the tropics, but less than 1,000 ppm at the poles.

Also, it is well known that warmer summers are cloudier than colder winters (see Malliard et al., 2021 and Abrahim et al., 2022 below, for example). Cloudier summers can be 10 to 15°C warmer than clearer-sky winters across the middle and high latitudes. In contrast, the modern warming trend of only tenths of a degree in recent decades could only produce negligible changes in clouds relative to these much larger seasonal temperature changes. Besides, a decline in cloud cover is the opposite of what occurs with warmer temperatures anyway.

Image Source: **Malliard et al., 2021** and **Abrahim et al., 2022**

Furthermore, real-world observations (Jonas, 2022) are very clear on the question of whether warming induces a decline in cloud cover.

“A rise in temperature causes an increase in cloud cover.”

“0.71 percentage points of cloud cover per deg C of temperature.”

Anthropogenic global warming apologists want to believe the observed decline cloud cover in recent decades is human caused. Thus, climate model inputs have been programmed to say warming from rising greenhouse gases leads to cloud decline, and cloud decline leads to more warming – a perpetual, runaway positive feedback.

Problematically, actual, real-world observations show warming leads to cloud increases, not decreases. Thus, neither warming nor rising greenhouse gases can explain the observed modern cloud decline.

And since declining cloud cover, a function of “unforced internal variabilty,” allows more solar radiation absorption at the surface, this can explain modern warming.

New Study: Sunshine Duration Changes Over Europe, N. Atlantic Natural, ‘Result Of Internal Variability’

Changes in cloud cover over Europe and the North Atlantic have been observed to be a significant driver of sunshine duration (SD) changes, and thus climate change, in this region. Changes in cloud cover are “the result of internal variability in the ocean-atmosphere system.”

From NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 7. August 2023

Previously, the non-linear, oscillatory climate variations over Europe had been assumed to be connected to the sunshine duration variations elicited by anthropogenic pollution (aerosol) mitigation policies.

But a new study (Marsz et al., 2023) presents compelling evidence decadal-scale sunshine duration variations are driven by the internal processes affecting cloud cover, namely the natural thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic (THC NA). This relationship spans the entire period from 1900 to 2018.

“The mechanisms of the THC NA functioning are known and indicate that they are the result of the internal variability in the ocean-atmosphere system.”

“SST changes occur not only because of changes in the amount of radiation reaching the ocean’s surface but also due to the meridonal oceanic heat transport.”

“[I]t is the long-term changes in the thermal condition of the North Atlantic, and not changes in the concentration of aerosols, that would be the primary cause of the long-term change in the SD over Europe.”

“[T]he occurrence of long-term variability in the SD over Europe, manifested in the occurrence of successive phases of dimming and brightening, can be explained without resorting to changes in the concentration of volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols in the atmosphere.”

Image Source: Marsz et al., 2023

10.14746_quageo-2023-0023 Herunterladen

Primary Driver: Orbital (Milankovitch) Forcing

Amplifying Feedback

Local and Regional Impacts in Africa

Broader Climate and Remote Effects

Like this:

Like this:

“These findings indicate that the primary driver of air temperature increase in Kraków is the rise in SD (solar radiation influx) rather than [CO2] radiative forcing (∆F).”

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

“[T]he increase in absorbed solar radiation is primarily due to natural variations in cloudiness and surface albedo, which have served as the main forcing factors of the flux above the atmosphere over the last 2 decades.” – Diodato et al., 2025

Like this:

Per a new study, the last 200 years of global warming are associated with cloud cover decline, and this decreasing cloud albedo can be linked to “the dominant roles of external forces – volcanic, solar, and oceanic – in their mutual influence after the LIA [Little Ice Age].”

Like this:

Like this: