This is something which sceptics have been saying for years. The radiative forcing from changes in cloud cover is at least an order of magnitude greater than the miniscule alleged contribution from GHGs. Anthropogenic forcing is entirely lost in the noise of natural variability plus limitations upon observations, yet climate alarmist 'scientists' claim to be able to discern it with precision. This is fraud. Here is what the Loeb abstract says:

"Observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) show a marked increase in Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) since 2000. At the same time, we’ve seen marked changes in numerous geophysical variables that influence EEI. While observations alone cannot quantify the anthropogenic and natural contributions to changes in these quantities, they can provide insight into how changes in different components of the climate system have led to the observed EEI trend. Using additional data from MODIS, CALIPSO, Cloudsat, and reanalysis, we find the increase in EEI to be due to decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice, which cause a pronounced increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR), and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor. The ASR increases are largest over the subtropics and mid-latitudes in regions with decreases in low and middle cloud fraction, which likely occur in response to observed increases in sea-surface temperature (SST) in those locations. We diagnose the SST changes by performing an ocean mixed layer energy budget analysis at regional, hemispheric, and global scales using TOA and surface radiation observations from CERES, SST and temperature/humidity fields from ERA-5, and ocean mixed layer depth from ocean reanalysis. This analysis suggests that heating of the mixed layer and the subsequent increase in SST stems from ocean mixing/advection rather than from surface forcing."

As clear as day. Whilst there may be some increase in radiative forcing due to GHGs, EEI since 2000 has been driven primarily by changes in cloud cover and ice cover. The ocean heat content (claimed by alarmists to be definitive evidence of man's influence) has increased as a result of the mixing and advection of the extra solar energy hitting the surface (think El Nino/La Nina). Schmidt and others CANNOT claim to have eliminated these very large natural changes in order to discern the tiny forcing due to anthropogenic GHGs. Man-made climate change is a fraud.

Expand full comment

PLEASE go on GB News and put Jim Dale in his place

Expand full comment

Yes, scientists self-admittedly can’t predict exactly what’s going to happen because of natural variation( but do take into account El Nino and La Nina as well as many other things) nothing they say is true and human made climate change is a fraud.

There's nothing to worry about because forcings of co2 are smaller compared to the larger feedback effects these tiny forcings cause.

Expand full comment

You blind us with science and act like climate scientists hadn't heard of these things.

'The point was that since this is the simplest possible model of the greenhouse effect, you can use it to test some basic things – like the notion of radiative forcing, or the difference between climatological fluxes and climate sensitivity. We can also use it to explore the possible explanations for the CERES trends (assuming for the sake of argument that they are robust, though there may still be some residual uncertainty in the retrievals and there is also an impact from the specific history of El Niño/La Niña).

Over the two decades of these changes, there is no apparent correlation to solar activity or galactic cosmic rays, so the source of the trends are most likely internal, so let’s see if the results are possibly consistent with feedbacks to the main sources of climate trends in recent decades – the rise in greenhouse gases and the recent decline (regionally) in atmospheric aerosols.

The observed downward trend in albedo (an increase in absorbed shortwave radiation by around 0.5 W/m2) is dominated by clouds – less or thinner clouds than previously, possibly aided and abetted by decreases in reflective aerosols. You will however recall clouds have impacts on the LW absorption too, so changes in clouds (depending on where they are) will likely have both SW and LW effects.

So let’s set up a case where, in the simple model, the albedo responds to temperature, but so do the LW absorbers (water vapour and clouds). To make things easier for the math, let’s actually make them linear in G\equiv \sigma T^4_{surf} (just to avoid all the quartic roots etc.). The basic equations are:

Surface: (1-a) S_0/4 + \lambda A = G

Atmosphere: \lambda G = 2 \lambda A

Planet: (1-a) S_0/4 = \lambda A + (1-\lambda) G

which just reflect the energy conservation at each level, with S_0 is the solar input, a is the albedo and \lambda is the LW absorption. The solution for the surface flux is just G=0.25 (1-a) S_0/(1-0.5\lambda). For quasi-realistic values of surface temp (15ºC), albedo (29%) and solar irradiance (1360 W/m2), we get that G=391, \lambda=0.767.

To build in the GHG and aerosol forcings ,and feedbacks on temperature we can define:

SW forcing + SW feedback: a = a_0 + \Delta a + a' (\Delta G/G_0)

LW forcing + feedback: \lambda = 2 F_{toa}/G_0 + \lambda_0 + \lambda' (\Delta G/G_0)

where F_{toa} is the LW radiative forcing imposed by the increase in GHGs, \Delta a is the change in albedo from aerosols, and \Delta G is the (small) change in the upward LW radiation (consistent with the increase in surface temperature) from the basic state (denoted by the G_0 subscript). The total radiative forcing is F_{toa}- 0.25 \Delta a S_0.

With these definitions, we can simply write down the change in the reflected SW and outward LW in this model.

Change in reflected SW: = (a' \Delta G/G_0 + \Delta a) S_0/4

Change in outwards LW: \approx - F_{toa} (1 + \Delta G/G_0) + \Delta G (1 - 0.5 \lambda_0 - 0.5 \lambda')

You should be able to see the effect of the LW forcing acting on the total temperature, the SW forcing acting on the reflected SW, and then the change in upward fluxes acted on by the existing greenhouse effect and then the feedbacks in both SW and LW. We can therefore use the observed changes to try to identify the net SW and LW feedbacks.

Over the last 20 years the LW radiative forcing change from well-mixed greenhouse gases is around 0.7 W/m2, while the warming from 2000 to 2020 is just a bit less than 0.5ºC, equivalent to a change in G of about 2.7 W/m2. The change in reflected SW is negative, but we don’t have a great estimate of how much of that is due to aerosols and how much to clouds (or surface changes), so the observations instead define a relationship between the coefficient a' and \Delta a as \Delta a + 2.7/391 a' = - 0.5*4*/1360 = -0.0015 (totaling to a net change of albedo of -0.15%). If we assume there is no change in outward LW we can calculate \lambda' = 0.711. This leads to a change in absorption of [tex]\lambda’ \Delta G/G_0 = 0.005[\tex], e.g. from 0.767 to 0.772. Thus despite the increased GHG forcing (which decreases the outgoing LW), the increase in the surface upward flux modified by the LW feedbacks, can be enough to effectively cancel out the net change in LW.

Given the simplicity of this model – notably a single atmospheric layer, no regional effects, no internal variability – and the uncertainty in the aerosol effect, we can’t really translate these numbers into precise feedbacks (for instance, if there is no aerosol effect, we’d get a 1 W/m2/ºC positive shortwave feedback and 1.3 W/m2/ºC net longwave effect, both of which are pretty large, while if the aerosols were 50% of the SW effect, it would be a more reasonable ~0.5 W/m2/ºC positive SW feedback). But qualitatively, it demonstrates how impacts to the long-wave radiation combined with cloud feedbacks can lead to big shifts in SW and almost no shift in LW at the top of the atmosphere. That conclusion stands in stark contrast to what you’d conclude if you don’t consider feedbacks at all in the analyses.'

But they have. Changes in albedo and clouds are feedbacks of long term greenhouse gas global warming and short term regional changes in aerosols.

Expand full comment

Must admit I'm not a climatologist or geophysicist but I don't see how you take Loeb's statement and translate it into "man-made climate change is a fraud." He says at the top that "we’ve seen marked changes in numerous geophysical variables that influence EEI..." and concedes that "observations alone cannot quantify the anthropogenic and natural contributions to changes in these quantities". Aside from the fact that Ceres has conflicts of interest stemming from financial relationships with Big Oil, why would changes in cloud cover have nothing to do with anthropogenic factors? Changes in cloud cover and ice cover could easily be attributed to a "greenhouse" phenomenon in tropical waters resulting in increased oceanic evaporation in those equatorial regions, thus causing increased displacement of water vapor and changes in cloud formation in higher latitudes. Why does it have to be EITHER anthropogenic OR "natural" changes? Why not both?

Expand full comment

The theory of man-made global warming is based around the primary radiative forcing associated with increasing CO2 and other GHGs - which is moderate - and the secondary (positive feedback radiative forcing) of water vapour. It is the secondary feedback forcing which supposedly makes the accumulation of GHGs 'dangerous', resulting in significant surface warming. The climate models do not satisfactorily simulate the tropical and global cloud cover response to surface warming - which can be either positive or negative. Similarly with ice cover. OTOH, there is plenty of research which links multidecadal changes in global cloud cover with ENSO, PDO, AMO and IOD - all natural internal modes of oceanic variability. As I have stated, the so-called 'enhanced greenhouse effect' (CO2 + water vapour feedback) is tiny in comparison to cloud cover changes. Thus if CERES has identified cloud cover changes as being mainly responsible for global warming since 2000, it is highly likely that natural internal variability is primarily responsible for global warming over that period, not anthropgenic GHGs. This brings into question whether indeed the accelerated warming and Arctic ice loss since 1979 (attributed in its entirety to the build up of GHGs) is also mainly due to natural internal variability. The fact that this counter information is completely ignored, even actively censored by climate scientists and the media in favour of blaming human activity is evidence that man-made global warming is a scientific fraud.

Expand full comment

Thanks, must confess I'm still a bit mystified as to how you can separate any kind of greenhouse phenomenon from cloud cover changes. You seem quite certain that human activities have not contributed to climatic instability, and yet your perspective is based entirely on theoretical modeling, which is by definition rife with uncertainties. You assert, "climate models do not satisfactorily simulate the tropical and global cloud cover response to surface warming", and yet there are probably models that contradict your assertion. Can you cite a source for that statement (other than Ceres, which could have COIs with Big Oil)? If not, do you have training as a climatologist or geophysicist? How is it possible to be 100% certain that all the carbon extracted from Earth and dumped into the atmosphere over the past century has had no substantial impact on climatic instability?

Expand full comment

another way to look at it would be to say how stable could the climate be if CO2 had that much effect and basically,..

It would be catastrophically unstable.

Which is not what we see in history.

Expand full comment

It's common knowledge that the global climate models do a very poor job of simulating clouds, and yet clouds are absolutely vital in determining whether the planet will warm or cool. They are a first order effect on climate. GHGs are a second order effect at best. It's not me that is unjustifiably certain based on theoretical modelling; it is the climate alarmists. They are modelling a second order effect and claiming that it is that which is driving "unprecedented" climate change, yet they can't even model the first order effect!

"Clouds are notoriously difficult to simulate in climate models. In the first place, cloud formation is a highly complex phenomenon with a lot of small, moving parts.

Tiny particles in the air, called aerosols, have a huge influence on how quickly clouds form, how big they get, what type of clouds they turn out to be and how long they last in the atmosphere. That‘s on top of all the other weather-related factors that affect cloud formation, including air temperature, humidity and wind conditions.

Simulating these complicated physics takes a lot of computing power and requires models to operate at a very fine scale. That‘s hard enough. But it‘s extraordinarily difficult to do in global climate models, which are designed to simulate grand-scale climate processes across the entire world.

To compromise, climate models often contain simplified, built-in information about clouds and the way they form—a kind of shortcut that allows clouds to appear without requiring the models to actually recreate all the small-scale physical processes that influence their formation."


With CERES actual data now pointing to the conclusion that, since 2000, the earth's energy imbalance has been driven primarily by decreasing cloud cover, with no plausible explanation forthcoming from CO2 driven climate models, but plausible alternative natural explanations for that change, it seems highly likely that man-made climate change has been greatly exaggerated.

Expand full comment

Changes since 2000 is too short a time.

Arctic sea-ice provides an example of albedo-change. A late spring snowstorm covers the ice with a sparkly carpet of new snow. That pristine snow can reflect up to 90% of inbound sunshine. But during the summer it warms up and the new snow melts away. The remaining sea-ice has a tired, mucky look to it and can only reflect some 50% of incoming sunshine. It absorbs the rest and that absorbed energy helps the sea-ice to melt even more. If it melts totally, you are left with the dark surface of the ocean. That can only reflect around 6% of the incoming sunshine.

That example shows that albedo-change is not a forcing. That's the first big mistake in this myth. Instead it is a very good example of a climate feedback process. It is occurring in response to an external climate forcing - the increased greenhouse effect caused by our carbon emissions. Due to that forcing, the Arctic is warming quickly and snow/ice coverage shows a long-term decrease. Less reflective surfaces become uncovered, leading to more absorption of sunshine and more energy goes into the system. It's a self-reinforcing process.

If you look at satellite images of the planet, you will notice the clouds in weather-systems appear bright. Cloud-tops have a high albedo but it varies depending on the type of cloud. Wispy high clouds do not reflect as much incoming sunshine as do dense low-level cloud-decks.

Since the early 2000s we have been able to measure the amount of energy reflected back to space through sophisticated instruments aboard satellites. Recently published data (2021) indicate planetary albedo, although highly variable, is showing an overall slow decrease. The main cause is thought to be warming of parts of the Pacific Ocean leading to less coverage of those reflective low-level cloud-decks, but it's early days yet.

Albedo is an important cog in the climate gearbox. It appears to be in a long-term slow decline but varies a lot over shorter periods. That 'noise' makes it unscientific to cite shorter observation-periods. Conclusive climatological trend-statements are generally based on at least 30 years of observations.

Expand full comment

My father has been a professor of electrical engineering for nearly 60 years. He has a very long CV of publications in top journals, and previous consultancies for Motorola, Archer Daniels Midland, NASA, Argonne National Labs, and others. He's an expert in informations theory, probability & statistics, and modelling.

When he did a deep look into the climatology literature he noticed the regression models using atmospheric temps, and estimates of human-produced CO2 in the literature were invalid. The researchers made a sophomoric error in that they did not transform the nonstationary data (time-varying mean) before doing the regression as MUST be done.

He used the same data, and submitted a paper for publication to the IPCC. For the first, and only time in his career he had to call a journal editor just to get his submission "peer-reviewed." The response was basically fuck off we're not interested.

He had been in touch with MIT's Richard Lindzen and Lindzen who told him he'd never get his paper published. Around that time my father had also signed a letter, which at the time he signed it, had 5,000 signatures from academics, and other experts questioning the head long rush into global warming. That letter did not ever get any publicity.

Anthropogenic climate change is a complete scam. There's ZERO credible evidence for it.

Expand full comment
May 13Liked by Joel Smalley

If we eliminate the politics of global warming and the desire to erase humanity from the planet, we get a "down to earth" picture of global warming...apart from the sun, nature and as of yet unexplained consequences which exert 99.99% control over climate. Man is a non-factor.

Expand full comment

Nice play on words!

Expand full comment

CO2 is a result of using power and that power is raising personal productivity.

CO2 taxes are all about the globalistas getting a big cut of the wealth we create.

Expand full comment

There is another angle:

They can't tax the air that we breathe as it is a God given right, but they can tax the air we exhale and other uses of combustion that vastly improve our living standards.

Expand full comment

I'd say you're point is almost repeating mine.

Our living standards are being lowered to raise theirs!

Our work is looted to enable their leisure

Our wealth is spent for their benefit

Expand full comment
May 13Liked by Joel Smalley

Independent scientists have been disproving the man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis for decades but the establishment simply ignores any inconvenient science which goes against their “official” narrative. This is because the climate change hoax is nothing to do with climate, it’s all about control which they hope will lead to one-world governance.

Here’s a short debunking which I’ve only just come across, based on the work of Professor Will Happer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCO7x6W61wc.

Expand full comment

Thankfully, though, more and more people are wise to it now, helped in no small part by the accessibility to information from alternative sources.

Expand full comment

Although if they listened to Jim Dale on Free Speech Nation they would come away with the message that to challenge the 'settled science ' is worthy of sanction! He said he was "passionste" about his subject, and he'd seen "the data". What that data was he never brought it in to the open. Jim knew it and that was sufficient!

Andrew Doyle exposed the shallowness of Dale's arguments and intelligence through patient non aggressive questions.

Dale is unable to articulate any coherent arguments, he is very prone to making sweeping statements, not forgetting overblown forecasts.....for the month just past in the UK ( not the Sahara Desert) we could expect a "frightening" hot summer in April "as a result of climate change". Did this materialise? I think the verdict is a Fail, Dale.

In retrospect, that interview probably helped to puncture this giant of meteorology's credibility. He sounded a whiny windbag...Force 8 increasing to Force 9.

Expand full comment
May 13Liked by Joel Smalley

Some astronomers think that albedo is influenced by the density of dust passing through our galaxy.

(dust in The Galaxy→Solar system→Earth→cloud formation→Albedo)

If CO2 is reduced, it will be difficult for plants to grow, and of course the amount of CO2 absorbed and fixed will also decrease. Is this being considered at the COP meeting?

I think that making policy decisions without understanding the basics will lead to similar results to the failure of the Covid19 vaccine.

Expand full comment

Thank you for that. Excellent piece. Let's take bets how quick Zuckerberg would take it down if you posted it! There very recently was a movie made on how climate change is just a money making scam


Expand full comment

32 years of research, and he hasn't got blue hair, perfect.

Expand full comment

Imagine the "heat island" effects of mass scale photon absorbing solar farms in place of what used to be grass most likely . . .

Expand full comment

I have lived in the North-North Central area of the U.S. most of my life (by the canadian border). I have found and seen fossils of giant palm tree leaves and other amazing "tropical" creatures and plants over my lifetime. How is it that we can literally see things like this and somehow "forget" or deny that at one time, the earth was much much warmer than it is now? I mean, these fossils are of plants and animals that need heat and humidity to live. A place where now the temperatures can be minus 40 degrees in the dead of winter used to be hot and humid. I don't think the general public who buys into all of this "climate change" nonsense and "zero carbon" crap even have a clue that there were palm trees, coconut trees, and tropical plants clear up into the great white north (Canada). That being said, as much as I hate the heat, I'd much rather have more heat than more cold. You can't grow food when it's cold. Man I wish people would get a clue. *We* are the carbon they want to eliminate. There's no doubt about it. As long as these universities, etc have to be on the "climate bandwagon" to get money for their funding, we are going to have more of this insanity.

Expand full comment
May 13·edited May 13

Ceres is an interesting organization and I'm curious to know the degree to which Loeb and others within Ceres have been influenced by their financial relationships with the oil industry -- those companies would of course seek to downplay or influence messaging around the relationship between CO2 emissions and climate change in order to protect their interests. The name Ceres originally stood for "Coalition for Environmentally Responsible EconomieS". A number of oil companies have endorsed Ceres. At this writing, according to Wikipedia, at least 13 Fortune 500 companies that have adopted their own equivalent environmental principles. Ceres founded and directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), a group of 100 leading institutional investors with collective assets of more than US$10 trillion. Members include Deutsche Asset Management, State Street Global Advisors, and TIAA-CREF, as well as the pension funds of California, Florida, and New York. Ceres coordinates the bi-annual United Nations Investor Summit on Climate Risk, which brings together hundreds of investors, financial and corporate leaders to address financial risks and opportunities posed by climate change. In 2008, nearly 50 leading U.S. and European institutional investors managing over US$1.75 trillion in assets released a 9-point climate change action plan that will increase investments in energy efficiency and clean energy technologies and require tougher scrutiny of carbon-intensive investments that may pose long-term financial risks. Hmmm, carbon-intensive investments....could such a focus and concern influence analyses of impacts of CO2 and Earth's albedo/cloud patterns?

Expand full comment

I'm curious to know how much every climate catastrophising scientist is influenced by the dark funding from a small nr of the world's multi-billionaires? Howard Hayden, Will Happer, John Clauser, Richard Lindzen, Ian Plimer don't get any funding from oil companies. These scientists are giants when it comes to science. They have zero to gain. Does that make them totally unbiased? I doubt it, because we all carry biases. Some scientists much more than others of course.... when their employment depends on it.

Expand full comment

They get them reposting crass climate denial from the Heartland Institute who are funded to protect ‘free markets’.

Free markets mean access and profits regardless of the consequences to anyone or to anything. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/the-wef-agenda-of-depopulation-and

Expand full comment

Albedo has been increasing due to human activities of cutting down forests, urbanisation and of releasing aerosols. This has a cooling effect so doesn't explain the warming since the 70s. It has only recently dipped in 2015 so can only account for any warming (or rather less cooling) since then. Its cause? 'a recent and appreciable increase in sea surface temperatures off the west coasts of North and South America has been cited. The increase has led to reduced overlying low level cloud-deck cover. That would certainly cause significant albedo-decrease. The sea surface warming is attributed to a flip in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), beginning in 2014 and peaking during the 2015–2017 period. It began to decline before the end of the decade.' So a cooling effect of albedo is expected to return.

The Milankovitch cycles are in a cooling period. Solar radiation diverged from warming in the 70s. The albedo effect, even if the changes in the PDO were not caused by human activity, can only account for a small amount of less cooling in the mid 2010s, not the steading rise in temperatures since the 70s; then the only other option is an increase in greenhouse gases.

But I'm sure you'll come up with another spurious concept from industry very soon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GRyURjqoxI&t=20s

Expand full comment

Excellent substack- a a paradigm shift is exactly what's required, but I fear the train has already left the station with a brick on the accelerator. I hope you might also enjoy my recent post on Who benefits from Net Zero.?


Expand full comment

I know this isn't what your post will say but those who benefit most from net zero are industry and the 1% who use more of the resources and makes the most emissions. This is because net zero is a scam to project any change into the future; to 2030 then it will be 2050 then it will be too late. Change doesn't have to occur now. Little Rishi Sunak is already taking a 'pragmatic' approach to net zero, ie he's not even pretending anymore and is investing in fossil fuels.

Conservative estimates of what constitutes a subsidy show fossil fuel ones are double those of renewables. Less conservative ones show fossil fuels are Goliath to renewables David.

I don't know why people think (well actually I know very well) companies investing in cleaner, cheaper, renewable and independent energy should not be supported at all, let alone to the extent that giant fossil fuel companies are.

Expand full comment

Howard Cork Hayden is a part of the Heartland Institute who are professional climate change deniers paid by industry to protect free markets. https://heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/howard-hayden/


I think you're an industry shill Joel.

Expand full comment

This is an old rehash from Watts. Albedo, ice or clouds are not a forcing, they can't dwarf forcing contributions from GHGs.

Expand full comment