New Research Reaffirms Clouds, Aerosols, And Surface Solar Radiation Are ‘Driving The Climate System’

From the NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 23. February 2026

Warming across Germany in the last 3 decades can be explained by declining cloud and aerosol albedo and consequent rising solar radiation. Not CO2.

Another new study affirms clouds and aerosols play a key role in explaining trends in solar surface radiation (SSR), which is “essential for the global energy cycle driving the climate system.”

Over Germany, five independent observational datasets all agree that SSR increased by 4 W/m² per decade (~10 W/m²) from 1995-2020.

A 4 W/m² per decade increase in SSR easily explains recent warming. It especially explains warming far better than the alleged 20-times smaller clear-sky-only CO2 impact (0.2 W/m² per decade) over this span.

Image Source: Pfeifroth et al., 2026

Supporting this new research, a 2024 study (Wacker et al.) utilizing a German “testbed site” reports total and direct shortwave (SW) radiation forcing rose by 3.5 and 9.3 W/m² per decade, respectively, from 1996-2021.

Image Source: Wacker et al., 2024

Posted in Cloud Climate InfluenceSolar Sciences | Leave a response

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.3 3 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scarecrow Repair
February 23, 2026 10:06 pm

I remember articles in Nature 20-30 years ago about clouds in climate models, but didn’t recognize the significance until later when the alarmists put so much emphasis on their models. Since then I’ve noticed more reports of advances in cloud modeling. Sure doesn’t convince me of their accuracy or even usefulness.

February 23, 2026 10:20 pm

the alleged 20-times smaller clear-sky-only CO2 impact

20 times smaller is not a proper mathematical concept. You lose credibility by using this ridiculous misnomer. As someone here once asked “Do please tell me what you multiply a number by to make it 20 times smaller!”

It is one twentieth!

Chasmsteed
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
February 23, 2026 10:58 pm

Have to agree with you on that one – it’s one of those commonly used terminologies used by the mathematically ignorant.

Denis
February 23, 2026 11:25 pm

Declining cloud cover has been reported for decades. See climate4you under the climate+clouds button to see the NOAA data.

February 23, 2026 11:44 pm

I saw a recent video on the Tom Nelson podcast in which someone pointed out that the argument about dropping aerosol levels didnt hold in recent times.
He concentrated on clouds.
I will see if i can link it here.

Reply to  ballynally
February 23, 2026 11:46 pm
Anthony Banton
February 24, 2026 12:06 am

Not new – this is from 2014:

Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2
Aaron Donohoe thedhoe@mit.edu, Kyle C. Armour, Angeline G. Pendergrass, and David S. Battisti

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1412190111

Abstract
In response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, high-end general circulation models (GCMs) simulate an accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing—but through an enhancement of net absorbed solar radiation (ASR). A simple linear radiative feedback framework is used to explain this counterintuitive behavior. It is found that the timescale over which OLR returns to its initial value after a CO2 perturbation depends sensitively on the magnitude of shortwave (SW) feedbacks. If SW feedbacks are sufficiently positive, OLR recovers within merely several decades, and any subsequent global energy accumulation is because of enhanced ASR only. In the GCM mean, this OLR recovery timescale is only 20 y because of robust SW water vapor and surface albedo feedbacks. However, a large spread in the net SW feedback across models (because of clouds) produces a range of OLR responses; in those few models with a weak SW feedback, OLR takes centuries to recover, and energy accumulation is dominated by reduced OLR. Observational constraints of radiative feedbacks—from satellite radiation and surface temperature data—suggest an OLR recovery timescale of decades or less, consistent with the majority of GCMs. Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR, the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR.”

Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 24, 2026 12:59 am

From the math and physics of compressible flow, the radiative influence of incremental CO2 on the climate system is negligible.

Vanishingly weak. Not discoverable directly by any means we have available to us.

Not capable of driving “warming” or ANY trend of ANY climate variable.

The movement of energy by mass air movement is several magnitudes more than any tiny, theoretical unmeasured effect of atmospheric CO2.

….

… as for the stuff you posted.. seriously…!!

“GCMs simulate”… LOL…. No sensible scientific person is interested in GCMs that are built from the ground up on baseless conjectures and a fake pseudo-atmosphere.

Everything else is “if, maybe, suggests, might expect, is likely.. blah, blahhh”..

It is just nonsense speculation. !!!

Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 24, 2026 1:34 am

It is found that the timescale over which OLR returns to its initial value after a CO2 perturbation”

Define a CO2 perturbation.