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 Influence, Solar Sciences | Leave a response
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.
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!
Have to agree with you on that one – it’s one of those commonly used terminologies used by the mathematically ignorant.
The expression “5 times (1/20)” should be comprehensible to any numerate 10-year-old!
Isn’t 20 times smaller -2000%?
“20 times smaller” taken literally is meaningless gibberish, yet everyone knows what it means. Same as “I could care less” meaning the same as “I couldn’t care less” — everyone knows what it means. Languages are full of such constructs.
When talking science, I prefer concise definitions that do not depend on context derived definitions or social gibberish.
It’s how English is spoke. It’s a colloquialism. You knew what it meant yet complained anyway.
picky picky picky – let’s stick with the substance
Colloquialisms in sc9ientific discussions? I guess if you guess the correct meaning you will be ok.
Declining cloud cover has been reported for decades. See climate4you under the climate+clouds button to see the NOAA data.
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.
Link here:
https://youtu.be/ox_Gm820Uno?si=rB56CKwxZe-e9Gx1
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.”
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. !!!
“Not capable of driving “warming” or ANY trend of ANY climate variable.”
Yes, yes, we all know, you say that at every opportunity.
So what is causing reduced cloud cover then?
Now we also know you are entirely ignorant of meteorology, but anyway a quick lesson in the formation of SC cloud….
It is formed under a temp inversion. Usually at the top of the mixing layer (~ 2000-5000ft). This when Cu cloud loses its driving thermal. It is dependent on the RH of the air under the inversion but over the sea this is high.
The DeltaT between the SST and the inversion base determines the thickness of the SC sheet. So increase the SST or lower the T under the inversion and the SC will be thinner ( * ). The thinner the Sc then the more likely it will be to break-up or dissolve overnight ( ** ) as drier air can be mixed down into it.
(*) Higher SSTs can lead to lower RH in the air directly above because, while warmer water increases the SH, the air temp rises faster than its capacity to hold that water vapour. Thus the air has to rise higher before reaching its condensation point.
(**) AS nocturnal SC cools to space then it becomes unstable through it’s thickness, (cools from the top down), this instability entrains drier air from above the SC sheet ( this becasue of stronger thermals causing more boundary lyr mixing down of drier air above the surface) and so dries it out.
Oh, another thing, the reduction in aerosol is manmade, as of course we put it there due our manufacturing/transportation infrastructure.
IOW: it was masking warming that is now revealed as it is reduced.
Nothing you’ve offered here contradicts bnice’s statement about CO2 -> “Not capable of driving “warming” or ANY trend of ANY climate variable.”
Your own post says higher SST’s would thin the SC clouds.It is SWIR that is the biggest factor in warming the ocean which CO2 does not emit as “back radiation”. In fact, rising CO2 would *block* more of the LWIR in the sun’s radiation from reaching the ocean thus creating a cooling situation which should *increase* the SC depth and cool the ocean even more.
So your question “So what is causing reduced cloud cover then?” is the right question. But the answer “rising CO2” doesn’t seem to be the right answer.
“But the answer “rising CO2” doesn’t seem to be the right answer.”
Sorry but the science says it is.
And your denying it without a causative mechanism does doesn’t cut it.
Which causative mechanism ….
Warms the oceans to depth?
(bearing in mind the original post) ie: something has to cause lower cloud to diminish.
Cools the top of the stratosphere?
Tracks anthro emissions.
Has been known to science for ~150 yrs
Slowly lowers ocean ph.
Warms nights faster than days (no it’s not UHI – no UHI over the oceans).
Has an emission spectrum of absorption coincident with terrestrial LWIR emission and causes specific “dips” in the outgoing radiation spectrum that match the exact absorption frequencies of CO2/CH4.
Causes warming over 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an IA and 250 times faster than natural post-ice-age sources.
PS: before about 1975, the radiative driving of increasing GHGs (inc CH4 etc) did not sig outway NV (ENSO and aerosols).
“Causes warming over 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an IA and 250 times faster than natural post-ice-age sources.”
So you were around to witness ? Or are those “rates” an artifact of the testing method requiring a century or two of plant growth to reach a level where chance winds can blow sufficient pollen into the lake bottom to be detectable thousands of years later ?
“Causes warming over 10 times faster than the average rate”
It’s a “correlation is not causation” issue. Banton is trying to say that correlation is causation, nothing more.
And is totally a unjustified statement , as well.
Bullsh!t. The “science” doesn’t say squat.
Bullsh!t. There is no burden on Tim or anybody to provide an alternate causative mechanism” just because they think you are wrong. And claiming that your mechanism is correct because no one can provide an alternative is just a plain fallacy.
He’s caught in the same catch-22 climate science is. “CO2 blocks outgoing LWIR but doesn’t block incoming LWIR”.
It comes from trying to equate temperature with heat. They aren’t the same. Far too many climate scientists don’t even realize that the Earth loses more heat during the day than it does at night.
Climate science says it is. Pardon me but climate science gets so much wrong that I don’t accept them as an authority.
I gave you the causative mechanism. LWIR gets blocked from the ocean by CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s a *cooling* mechanism, not a warming mechanism. And your own post says that is warming of the ocean that causes the SC to dissipate, not cooling.
Pick one. But it isn’t CO2.
So what? Correlation is not causation.
That emission spectrum of absorption of CO2 PREVENTS LWIR from reaching the ocean! You are caught in the same catch-22 that climate science is:
“CO2 blocks LWIR going up but doesn’t block LWIR coming down.”
“Causes warming over 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an IA and 250 times faster than natural post-ice-age sources.”
Assumes a fact not in evidence. You haven’t show causation yet. All you have here is the “correlation is not causation” problem.
“LWIR gets blocked from the ocean by CO2 in the atmosphere. “
This is backed up by measurements using ground-level upward pointing pyrgeometers, which actually work in the CO2 emission range.
These show a deep dip through the CO2 band…
After following this issue for a few decades, climatology has only a slightly lower reputation than scientology.
GISP shows many periods of warming, and cooling, at least as steep, and much more prolonged that the tiny insignificant warming since 1900
A compendium of all surface pH ocean measurements since 1910, shows a slight increase in ocean pH
No source provided. Not stated whether local or global. Data ends ~10 years ago.
Another wee-nasty special misdirection.
Yes I’m sure it’s all changed since then.
What don’t you understand about “ALL global SST pH measurements” ??
Are you saying the last 10 years will have further increase ocean pH ?
Measurements shows that any slight decrease in OLR in the CO2 main band is more than countered by an increase in OLR in the adjacent band.
That is because when the earth absorbs energy at a given frequency, it doesn’t just broadcast it back upwards at that frequency. The heat created by absorbing downwelling CO2 energy is re-emitted over the whole IR spectrum with a large part going out the atmospheric window.
Utilizing a definite article in front of “science” is quite possibly the only thing more arrogant than doing math in pen. It is also an indicator of a propagandist, not a scientist.
It would be worth your while to do the math associated with your assertion. Assume a 4 W/m² can raise the SST by 0.25K. What is the possible change in RH for this?
As usual you go down a rabbit-hole in and attempt to obscure the obvious.
We really don’t have to go back to first principles with known phenomena.
FYI: It’s called the accumulated knowledge of science.
Like Newton said “that I see so far is becasue I have stood on the shoulders of giants”
The above is an empirical fact and indeed the same happens over land actually, which I have personally observed a zillion times.
Eg: When a wet surface is dried by lower RH air aloft being mixed down and Tconv. is reached.
It is known that wet roads cause more cloud cover.
No rabbit hole, just show the math you are using to support your assertion. You studied meteorology, you should be able to calculate some of the changes in humidity that you are discussing.
Warmists throw around annual anomalies of ±0.1°, ±0.2°, or less. What kind of RH humidity changes can be expected at the surface with small temperature changes?
God, you’re boring. It’s the sun. Always was. Increase in the TSI over the last many decades can explain all the current warming (which emanates from the ocean) It also stands to reason that, directly or indirectly, the sun is responsible for reduced cloud coverage as well.
Banton, How could you possibly come to another conclusion after looking at this… Maybe you believe increased CO2 causes increased solar activity?
Not exactly.
((600) / (5.27× 10⁻⁸)).²⁵ ≈ 326.7K
((604) / (5.27× 10⁻⁸)).²⁵ ≈ 327.2K
Or a difference of about 0.5K at maximum insolation. Integrated over sunrise to sunset, the average change will be a lot less.
Where will that small amount possibly show up? Since the land surface is a heat sink, it will show up later in time, like nights and winters.
Still, it is pretty small. I’m not sure the effects on oceans.
And where did you get 600 and 604 watts from ? Average is 240 emitted day & night equator to poles, 1360 perpendicular to the noontime equator…
You are ignoring the fact that most energy in the atmosphere is transferred by bulk air movement that totally overwhelm any tiny theoretical and immeasurable radiative affects.
“It is found that the timescale over which OLR returns to its initial value after a CO2 perturbation”
Define a CO2 perturbation.
How about the current one!
Like 280 ppm to 430 ppm.
That is a rise to 165% of pre-industrial.
That is a trend, not a perturbation.
A purterbation is not defined by duration.
Quite the opposite. A perturbation is defined by rate of change.
In whose dictionary? Not in Collins’:
No mention of a rate of change. Do you have your own special definition or dictionary?
Or did you just make that up?
An “ unusual change” is how I would define it, and was just wondering what was unusual about increasing CO2 since it has been a steady, expected increase.
I wasn’t sure what Anthony was referring to.
A highly beneficial rise that has enabled billions of people on the planet to be fed.
Much more CO2 is needed to bring the level up to optimum plant growth levels.
Needs to be 3 or 4 times higher.
It might be 165%, but in real world influence on anything, you’re still talking about poofteenths of effectiveness.
But it’s like adding a second teaspoon of bubble bath to your tub..,not gonna make much more suds…
So, 1859 was the optimum climate?
You do realize, of course, that the article you’re citing is basically another attempt to move the goalposts in the face of yet more evidence that the canonical narrative of global warming is false. It’s called special pleading, and it’s rampant among climate alarmists.
I reject that assertion on the basis that what you read posted on here and lauded by most denizens, does not represent the science nor the acknowledgement of it.
Do not mistake this place as a fount of accurate (as in unbiased) science and opinion.
Any backlash is entirely due to costs/economics of a drive to mitigate (of which I disapprove – it should be affordable and sustainable), because as in all things there is a sinusoidal tendency and things go to far in one direction before having to be corrected.
‘I reject that assertion on the basis that what you read posted on here and lauded by most denizens, does not represent the science nor the acknowledgement of it.’
Don’t take my word for it:
“Indeed, discrepancies between perceived changes in OHC and total energy on Earth and the inferred changes from CERES measurements became a matter of concern and known as the “missing energy” problem (Trenberth and Fasullo 2010; Loeb et al. 2012).”
You guys have trying to clean up this mess for almost 20 years.
I think Thanos said just that before taking it upon himself to wipe out half the living things in the universe.
The problem with this claim is there has to be some warming from GHGs to initiate this supposed cloud feedback. The data shows all the warming is from the increase in ASR. Your excuse has been debunked by scientific data.
“A simple linear radiative feedback framework is used to explain this counterintuitive behavior”
Indeed. That’s how the alarmists always work.
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.
More computer modelling nonsense. Little point in reading further.
That is why i was highlighting it in my previous post. It is always amusing to me when people deliberately point to a form of linear modeling as proof of what they are saying. And especially if they, like Banton talk of The Science, further underlying what others concider problematic but what they themselves consider fundamental. It is really 2 opposite worlds and i guess that is what sets ‘Climate Science’ apart from normal atmospheric science.
I’m sure the Germans freezing now and unable to heat their homes will be so happy to hear this good news
Moving fluid through a hydraulic resistance requires a pressure difference, high to low.
Moving current through an electrical resistance requires a voltage difference, high to low.
Moving heat (energy in motion) through a thermal resistance requires a temperature difference, high to low.
Physics be physics.
The Sun heats the surface, the surface heats the air.
The elliptical orbit, tilted axis, albedo and thermal resistance drive the terrestrial heat engine.
Not only is there no global consensus on GMST, 8.5 C spread, Trenberth 2011jcli24 shows eight different values for albedo.
How about a graph of anomaly Tmax vs delta solar radiation for Germany? While global air masses control the longer term av temperatures, maximum local temperatures are significantly controlled by sunshine (and wind: try skiing on snow covered glaciers in winter on sunny, wind free days!).
We experience and the MSM report LOCAL Tmax and Tmin. We should look at how more or less sunshine affects Tmax and Tmin.
I don’t understand why this aspect isn’t constantly mentioned by the skeptical side of CAGW.
I agree. Tmid-range is *NOT* an average since daytime and nighttime temperatures follow different distributions. Tmid-range does *NOT* allow differentiation between climates let alone climate change. It’s why agricultural science identified longer growing seasons over the past 40 years and not climate science.
I don’t have one for Germany…
but here is one for part of the UK. Sunshine vs CET.
Mean, mode, median, average. Pick one that supports your agenda.
Mean is (highest + lowest)/2
Average is Σn/n
For a 1,368 W/m^2 hemisphere w 0% albedo mean would be 31.3 C & average 72.6 C (163 F).
For a 1,368 W/m^2 hemisphere w 30% albedo mean would be 5.2 C & average 43.0 C (109 F).
Yep, that’s it..
Max insolation and max temeprature don’t coincide. The earth’s surface is a heat sink and part of the insolation is diffused down into the soil where it isn’t removed until night time. This means you can’t take max insolation, stick into the SB equation, and calculate the temperature. Here are a couple of graphs from my location showing that max temperature can occur as long as 3 hours after max insolation.
So is the implication then that no more warming is possible because we have peak sunshine or are we still doomed.
My take on everything is that so long as RCP8.5 is alive in peoples minds we are going to face net zero.
RCP8.5 is complete stupidity and the foot soldier net zero is even more daft.
I say focus on the RCP8.5 and once that falls into the zone of laughable let RCP7.0 try and make it’s also weak case.
Once we are discussing RCP2.6 we are talking about real things that can be done and may even need doing. But filling oceans with coal built bird choppers is simply mad.
Central-European sunshine hours, relationship with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and forecast
Central-European sunshine hours, relationship with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and forecast | Scientific Reports
I built a couple of radiative models, with some research of the effects of humanities SO2 emissions, one for land emissions and one for shipping / oceanic. It seems to be a significant forcing that could explain a lot.
Climate Reality | NexSeis