Another observational analysis finds the shortwave effect of clouds is the “the dominant term of the recent increase in absorbed solar radiation” explaining 2001-2024 warming.
According to the authors of a new study, clouds are the primary modulators of the Earth’s shortwave and longwave radiation. Thus, the radiative effects of clouds “play a crucial role in determining the Earth’s energy balance” and “dominate the radiative balance trends.”
Satellite observations indicate that from 2001-2024 there was a 0.45 W/m² per decade increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. This 1 W/m² rising trend in absorbed solar radiation was primarily caused by declining cloud cover.
“The increase in the absorbed solar radiation is driven primarily by a decrease in the reflection of SW radiation by clouds.”
The shortwave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) is thus regarded as the “crucial missing piece” in explaining 21st century warming.
“[C]hanges of only a few percent in the relative coverage of the [cloud] regimes produce large cloud radiative signatures that can dominate the radiative balance trends”
This video uses MODTRAN to make the points of this article.
https://app.screencast.com/lEzV7u9cJugzc
Facts are, the oceans are warming. Backradiation from CO2 won’t warm the oceans. The oceans control the climate. What warms the oceans warms the climate. It is that simple.
What warms the oceans? Incoming shortwave visible radiation between 0.4 and 0.7 Microns. What blocks those warming rays? Clouds. Remove clouds and you get more warming. It is that simple and supported by the evidence.
Once again, this video explains it in excruciating detail.
https://app.screencast.com/lEzV7u9cJugzc
testing
Global dimming and brightening from variable cloudiness is nature’s sunscreen.
ETH Zurich leads the research effort.
https://rclutz.com/2025/06/23/2025-evidence-of-natures-sunscreen/
District judge orders Trump to bring the clouds back.
I’ll get my coat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORyzsMZPPUg
I have a problem with this statement: “…explaining 2001-2024 warming.” There was no warming from 1999 to 2016, a period of the time referred to as hiatus. You can check this on Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog. https://www.drroyspencer.com/ Just scroll a bit down until you will get to the graph.
I thought that 1997-2013 was a GW Hiatus.
So Hiatus or warming?
Because I well remember that those years were quite cold: in particular in 2001 we had -37°C here and in 2007 1 meter snow downtown.
60% of the warming since 1975 was TMIN
Not affected by clouds.
40% was TMaX.
Affected by clouds
Also affected by reduced air pollution.
There’s no way to differentiate between the two causes.
This study is false and not supported by accurate data.
The greenhouse effect does not heat oceans, it impedes ocean cooling, just like it impedes land cooling. Conservatives don’t do themselves any favors by claiming CO2 does nothing or claiming there is no greenhouse effect.
What “accurate data” do you have available to refute it?
What does a study of the shortwave radiative effects of clouds have to do with politics or “conservatives”? Absolutely nothing. Where was CO2 even mentioned in this article? Nowhere.
“60% of the warming since 1975 was TMIN
Not affected by clouds.”
This myth that overnight temperatures have no dependence on planetary absorbed solar radiation is total nonsense. Think about it.