The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has an idea about how the Earth cools itself: when the planet’s surface warms up, it sends more heat into space as infrared radiation. They estimate that for every 1-degree Celsius increase in temperature, the Earth releases an extra 3.3 watts of energy per square meter—a natural cooling effect.
At the Earth’s average temperature of about 15°C, this balances out the heat coming in from the sun, keeping things stable. But the IPCC also says that as the planet warms, water vapour in the atmosphere increases, trapping more heat and making warming worse. This “positive feedback” leads them to predict a significant temperature rise—about 3°C—if we double the amount of CO2 in the air. But what if water vapour doesn’t always work that way?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides a foundational estimate for the Planck feedback—the increase in outgoing long wave infrared radiation (OLR) with temperature—as -3.3 W/m2/K at Earth’s average surface temperature of 288 K, where OLR is approximately 240 W/m2 (IPCC AR6, 2021). Derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (j = σ T^4), this feedback means a 1 K temperature increase raises OLR by 3.3 W/m2, a 1.4% increase, acting as a natural self-cooling mechanism. Over small temperature ranges, this relationship is quasi-linear, stabilising the climate system. The IPCC, however, assumes positive feedbacks, particularly from water vapour (+1.1 W/m2/K), reduce the net feedback to -1.2 W/m2/K, leading to an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of ~3 K for a CO2 doubling (3.7 W/m2 forcing). This positive feedback narrative drives the IPCC’s CO2-centric warming projections, but what if water vapour behaves differently?
Complicating the IPCC with Miskolczi’s Radiative Equilibrium Theory
Ferenc Miskolczi’s 2023 paper challenges the IPCC’s framework by proposing that the Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant flux optical thickness (τ ≈ 1.867), keeping OLR stable at 240 W/m2 despite rising CO2 levels. Using NOAA-R1 radiosonde data (1948–2008), Miskolczi shows that water vapour (H2O) decreases as CO2 increases (Figures 10 and 11), suggesting a negative feedback: H2O reductions make the atmosphere more transparent to LWIR, offsetting CO2’s radiative forcing. His HARTCODE simulations (Figure 9) yield an effective feedback of -2.54 W/m2/K, lower than the IPCC’s -3.3 W/m2/K due to atmospheric absorption (A = 1 – e^-τ ≈ 0.85). However, the decreasing H2O trend implies that τ may decline over time, potentially increasing the feedback closer to -3.3 W/m2/K. Miskolczi’s theory complicates the IPCC’s narrative by prioritising the hydrological cycle over CO2, suggesting that negative feedbacks dominate, potentially reducing ECS far below the IPCC’s estimate.
Comparing with Satellite Measurements: A Reality Check
Satellite measurements from AIRS and IASI (2003–2021) provide a critical test of Miskolczi’s claims. These instruments show a decreasing OLR trend of -0.05 to -0.3% per year in CO2 and CH4 spectral bands, equating to a reduction of -2.16 to -12.96 W/m2 over 18 years. By 2021, global mean OLR may have dropped to 235–238 W/m2, reflecting increased greenhouse gas trapping, which contradicts Miskolczi’s assertion of OLR stability at 240 W/m2. Additionally, AIRS estimates a clear-sky feedback of -2.2 W/m2/K, closer to Miskolczi’s -2.54 W/m2/K than the IPCC’s -3.3 W/m2/K, suggesting real-world feedbacks may be weaker due to atmospheric dynamics like clouds. However, satellites also show increasing H2O with warming, challenging Miskolczi’s negative feedback from decreasing H2O. This discrepancy highlights a tension: while Miskolczi’s framework captures some radiative balance aspects, recent observations suggest greenhouse gases are reducing OLR, aligning more with the IPCC’s view of positive feedbacks.
Proposing a New Hypothesis: Dynamic Hydrological Feedback with Regional Variability
Reconciling these perspectives, I propose a new hypothesis: the Earth’s climate system is governed by a dynamic hydrological feedback with regional variability, where the IPCC’s Planck feedback (-3.3 W/m2/K) acts as the initial stabiliser, but water vapour’s role varies spatially and temporally.
In regions where H2O decreases (as Miskolczi’s data suggests), negative feedback enhances the Planck response, potentially increasing the effective feedback to -3.3 W/m2/K or higher by reducing τ.
In contrast, regions with increasing H2O (per satellite data) exhibit positive feedback, reducing OLR and aligning with the IPCC’s narrative.
Globally, these competing effects may average to a feedback closer to AIRS’s -2.2 W/m2/K, suggesting an ECS of ~1.7 K (3.7 / 2.2), lower than the IPCC’s 3 K but higher than Miskolczi’s near-zero warming. This hypothesis accounts for satellite-observed OLR decreases while integrating Miskolczi’s insights on hydrological regulation, proposing that regional H2O trends—rather than a uniform global response—drive climate sensitivity.
Conclusion
Miskolczi’s work, particularly Figure 9, illustrates radiative transfer functions that modulate OLR, while satellite data reveals the complexity of real-world trends. My hypothesis builds on the IPCC’s -3.3 W/m2/K feedback, incorporates Miskolczi’s hydrological insights, and addresses satellite observations by emphasizing regional variability in H2O feedbacks. This perspective challenges the IPCC’s uniform positive feedback assumption and Miskolczi’s strict OLR stability, offering a nuanced view of climate regulation that warrants further research into regional hydrological dynamics.
This new hypothesis is Plank#4 of my new Theory of Climate Resilience.
This was due to be shared on Friday of this week at Substack, but taking Willis Eschenbach’s advice about being open to constructive criticism more generally, I’m putting it out a bit early and at my blog, to see what constructive criticism are thrown up in advance.
References
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
Miskolczi, F. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Theories and Observed Radiative Properties of the Earth’s Atmosphere. Science of Climate Change, 3(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202304/05.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I am in awe of those who claim to be able to put a figure on the thermodynamic processes of a globe which has discontinuous area of oceanic surface and continental surface with very large differences in reflectivity and specific heat capacity.
It is a no-brainer that the earth discards 100% of the energy poured onto the atmosphere encased solid and aqueous globe by radiation – “empty” space surrounds us and performs extremely negligible conduction and convection.
Climate theories must account for the mechanisms which keep it in meta-equilibrium between the small temperature parameters known by observation during human times and by proxies far back in the past.
Hi Jennifer,
Your hypothesis seems to lean on Miskolczi’s work and data, but you haven’t told us if you’ve actually tested this hypothesis with any data or if it’s just a thought bubble you’ve created on other people’s work.
Hi Skeptikal,
It is as though you haven’t ‘heard’ anything that I have written. Shame.
I shall repeat my conclusion, that I should think suggests that I have tested Ferenc’s hypothesis against the available data. I suggest you read the following few lines to the end.
“Miskolczi’s work, particularly Figure 9, illustrates radiative transfer functions that modulate OLR, while satellite data reveals the complexity of real-world trends.
[Hint: I’m suggesting a need for some modification of his hypothesis. What you do you think?]
“My hypothesis builds on the IPCC’s -3.3 W/m2/K feedback, incorporates Miskolczi’s hydrological insights, and addresses satellite observations by emphasising regional variability in H2O feedbacks.
[Hint: I’m going to modify and build on Ferenc’s great work by considering how much variability there is in water vapour around the globe; think deserts versus rainforests rather than a global average. ]
“This perspective challenges the IPCC’s uniform positive feedback assumption and Miskolczi’s strict OLR stability, offering a nuanced view of climate regulation that warrants further research into regional hydrological dynamics.
That is a lot to think about and respond to, I am just going to pick one sentence to respond to for now: This was written:
In contrast, regions with increasing H2O (per satellite data) exhibit positive feedback, reducing OLR and aligning with the IPCC’s narrative.
My thought on this, these same regions, with increasing H2O, exhibit negative feedback by increasing Albedo out, those clouds that block OLR increase Albedo, what is the real net change in climate energy balance. The IPCC narrative only includes part of the actual influences.
It is a strongly held belief that all the energy from the sun that enters the Earth Climate System is radiated out on a daily or seasonal or annual basis. This is not true, some energy is stored and not radiated out until many years later. Some energy is stored in biomass and not radiated out until that biomass is burned. There are huge storage of coal, oil, natural gas, methane, biomass, heat energy stored in the oceans, energy for cooling stored in sequestered ice, as well as storage of nuclear energy. These are all dynamic parameters that influence over different time spans. A useful Climate Theory that can make honest and helpful forecasts, must use the most important of these factors as best as is known. CO2 is a trace gas and has influence that is a trace and must not be used in any part of analysis other than in the influence of green plant growth and in the influence of efficient use of water in growth of green plants.
Let me think and sort things out in my head.
Indeed, it’s important to recognize the importance of location and the characteristics of that location when working out how energy from the sun is absorbed into and escapes from the Earth system.
The heating of the atmosphere is due primarily to contact with warm surfaces, chiefly the skin of landmasses and by the excitation of CO2 and ozone by outgoing long wave radiation. The gases excited by long wave radiation pass on that energy instantaneously to adjacent molecules the process dependent on atmospheric density, so fastest at the surface. This accelerates convection.
As the air rises it cools via decompression, not so much radiation. Necessarily, an equivalent volume of cooler denser air descends in the winter hemisphere over cold continents and the oceans. As the air descends it is compressed and warms, driving enhanced long wave radiation that escapes with greatest ease where the atmosphere is less dense, less humid and less cloudy. The air density at about 5 km in elevation is already half of that at the surface. It’s a fact that the air at 35 degrees south latitude between 600hPa and 200 hPa in the southern hemisphere is warmer in winter than it is in summer. That’s due to enhanced descent and compression in winter, and a small increase in ozone content.
But wait, the Earth is a sphere with an illuminated and a dark side that rotates in the space of 24 hours upon a tilted axis. So, much of the energy acquired during the day, that is variable in length, is lost overnight by radiation and convection from warm surfaces. The land is 30% of the area and the ocean 70%. However, most of the Ocean is in the Southern Hemisphere and that ocean supports the generation of high pressure cells of descending air that warms via compression and this process is most active in winter and serves to impart a small amount of warmth that is however insufficient to support the growth of vegetation to any great extent because temperatures are well short of optimal for photosynthesis outside tropical latitudes.
The Earth as a whole is appreciably warmer at the time of northern hemisphere summer when the continental landmasses heat the atmosphere. This reduces cloud cover allowing more solar radiation to reach the surface. In June and July, solar radiation is 6% weaker than in January because the sun is more distant at that time. So, it’s the cloud that really matters. And cloud cover is very likely affected by the geographical extent of high pressure cells.
The zones where convection is most active are not at the equator or over the landmasses but in the region of the Arctic and Antarctic circles where the heating of ozone by long wave radiation from the Earth is most active in the winter due to the relative abundance of ozone at that time, impacting the air in the atmospheric column above 400hPa.
The extent of convection in high latitudes changes over time. This is indicated by the reduction in surface pressure of as much as 10hPa over Antarctica and through to about 45 degrees south latitude over the period of record. This alone will change the extent of cloud cover in the mid latitudes where high pressure cells expand and contract geographically according to the volume of air that is descending.
Despite the increased atmospheric window in the mid latitudes of the southern hemisphere due to higher surface atmospheric pressure and reduced cloud cover, causing warming at these latitudes over the period of record, the average near surface temperature of the southern hemisphere has increased very little and in fact has been stable for the last three decades.
Its likely that the increased air temperature over Antarctica in the winter is due to enhanced impingement of warm air from the subtropics. In the warmest month, January, temperatures have been falling over the period of record. Its only in the warmest month that coastal margins experience temperatures above zero. The addition of ice on its margins doubles the apparent surface area of the continent in winter.
It looks likes the maths to account for all this will be very complicated and it needs to take account of the forces driving the change in atmospheric mass by latitude, acknowledged as the primary source of interannual variability in weather. And since there has been systematic change over the period of record, we need to know what is driving that. And nobody has the faintest clue at to what could be responsible. Nor it seems, are they interested.
Keep up the truly incredible work. Who would have thought that increasing temperature would reduce H2O in the atmosphere. Only a maverick. The IPCC is getting torn apart.
As an 85. year old non-scientists I think all the research in the world makes little difference at all. It is hubris in thinking humans have any effect on controlling the climate. How do we affect the sun, moon, planets, axial tilt, earth’s orbit, ocean currents, earth’s atmosphere, etc.? Trying to understand them is fine, but controlling them another matter.
Thanks Alex.
Water vapour and CO2 share various properties, but let’s use a different term, not ‘greenhouse gases’ because the atmosphere doesn’t function as a greenhouse. It makes you think of a glass building trapping heat, and that’s not how the atmosphere works.
I’ve been thinking about the need for new words as I formulate my theory.
There are such things as gases that absorb and re-emit infrared (longwave) radiation, that in my new theory of climate resilience I will call IR-Absorptive Gases. How does that sound to you?
I see there is a paper being circulated by Robert Holmes and Brendan Godwin that seems to suggest there is no such things as these gases because the atmosphere does not function as a glass house. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, don’t you think?
These IR-Absorptive Gases are atmospheric constituents that absorb and re-emit infrared (long-wave) radiation, influencing Earth’s energy balance and warming the surface. Their ability to do so stems from their molecular structure, which allows them to vibrate and rotate in ways that resonate with infrared wavelengths emitted by Earth’s land surfaces.
C02 and H20 both share these properties and according to Ferenc’s detailed calculations when one increases in concentration (eg. C02) the other reduces (eg. H20). If we accept Ferenc’s numbers, in general terms, then you can’t exclude C02 from any of these calculations.
I don’t accept Ferenc’s numbers.
Jennifer,
“Miskolczi shows that water vapour (H2O) decreases as CO2 increases”
“However, satellites also show increasing H2O with warming, challenging Miskolczi’s negative feedback from decreasing H2O”
How do you reconcile this?
“I don’t accept Ferenc’s numbers.”
That’s because you’re only using your fingers; take off your shoes and use your toes as well.
How glorious to see Ferenc rediscovered. One of his principles, an inverse relationship between CO2 and H2O atmospheric concentration and therefore a constant OD, is discussed by Clive Best with an interesting graph here:
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4871
A confounding factor is atmospheric pressure which Ferenc does touch on. This was explained on one of many threads devoted to Miskolczi’s seminal work: this one by blogger williamcg:
I will use the first law of thermodynamics (dU = dQ – dW) for an adiabatic system under the influence of a electromagnetic field (sun) and a gravitational field (Earth/Venus). For an ideal gas in an unconstrained system (constant pressure) the first law can be expressed as:
dU = CpdT or (1)
dU = CvdT – PdV (2)
I this case CvdT = dQ and PdV = W. This relationship is valid in an electromagnetic field. But for the system to be adiabatic , dQ = 0, and this is not possible for a simple gaseous system in an electromagnetic field unless the net energy flux is zero. But this is not the case in a planetary atmosphere heated by the sun. That is where the gravitational field comes in and a term for potential energy must be added to eqn. (2):
dU = CvdT + gdh –PdV (3)
Now dQ = CvdT + gdh. In the case where thermal flux is added to the system, dT is positive, the system will perform work (PdV) on the surroundings via expansion and the parcel density will decrease causing buoyancy and the parcel will rise. CvdT will decrease due to the expansion and gdh will increase due to the vertical displacement. In the presence of a gravitational field the PV work by the system on its surroundings is derived from its internal thermal energy and converted to potential energy. As a result, for a gaseous system in a gravitational field, dQ =0 (adiabatic) and dU = 0. This also true for a cooling parcel except that PV work is done on the parcel and potential energy is converted to thermal energy during subsidence (what goes up must come down). Thus in a gravitational field eqn. (1) becomes:
CpdT + gdh = 0 or
dT/dh = – g/Cp (4)
which is the lapse rate formula you guys have been working with.
The atmospheric temperature at any height is a function of the local pressure, or vertical mass (PV = nRT), and the total energy contained in the parcel via the net electromagnetic flux resulting from solar absorption/surface heating and emission to space. Radiation does not play a role in the atmospheric thermodynamics since each layer is in local thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings and there is no net radiation heat transfer between layers or between the surface/atmospheric boundary. This was covered nicely by Leonard and is empirically supported by the work of Miskolczi .
A good summary Of Miskolczi is by Prof Zagoni who the Climate Sceptics had out here in 2009:
https://nige.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/the-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-of-ferenc-miskolczi.pdf
What benefit comes to any of us to present another theoretical mathematical model?
Quarrelling about “greenhouse gasses” “greenhouse effect” is irrelevant.
Carbon dioxide and water vapour and methane in the atmosphere as greenhouse was itself an invention by someone who modelled a bare planet as part of his calculations on the back of an envelope, comparing it with mercury, mars and venus. It simply gave us a clue that atmosphere was one of the factors influencing surface temperature of earth needing some influences more than the bare thermodynamic conditions known at the time.
The HISTORICAL evidence that the earth has had no correlation between CO2 and climate over millions of years is decisive. Do not argue as if the fake climate crisis people are correct in any way, shape or form by proving one thing or another about “greenhouse”.
Looking at the large amount of water on the blue planet as being the decisive and instrumental factor as the substance acting as the refrigerant in a system with an intrinsic thermostat is promising
An entomologist has developed a New Theory of Climate Resilience.
Listen up, Karen—and all the other Karens out there. My first degree might be in entomology, and entomologists are the unsung rockstars of science.
Some naysayers might whisper that studying creepy-crawlies disqualifies me from opining on, say, astrophysics or molecular biology. Pfft. Even climate science, never mind my published papers.
Entomology, after all, is the gateway to scientific greatness.
Exhibit A: Charles Darwin. Before he was the bearded icon of evolution, he was beetle-obsessed, scouring the English countryside for shiny carapaces. His bug-hunting days didn’t just fill jars—they wired his brain to spot patterns, question assumptions, and unravel life’s big mysteries.
So, when Karen side-eyes my credentials, I just giggle and think, “Mate, I’m basically Darwin with better Wi-Fi.”
Insects are the ultimate scientific playground. They’re not just animals; they’re most of the animals—over half of all known species! Studying them is like getting a PhD in Everything. :-).
Want to crack genetics? Fruit flies have your back.
Ecology? Ants run tighter societies than that government.
Behaviour? Watch a praying mantis and tell me that’s not a soap opera.
Trained to see the big picture through tiny wings? It’s a superpower that translates to any field.
Plus, we’re tough. Try dissecting the digestive system of a blowfly, after catching, killing and pinning it. That’s what I had to do to pass third year anatomy.
So, to the doubters and Karens, who think entomology is “just bugs,” I say: buzz off!
Jennifer,
Karen hasn’t exactly been forthcoming with what her qualifications are…. that’s if she even has any qualifications at all. My best guess is that she’s nothing more than a crazy cat lady who comes in here and leaves snide comments hoping to get some interaction.
She’s obviously not here to contribute anything useful… I don’t she even knows how.
Skeptikal, you can rest assured that I have enough scientific background to know drivel when I see it.
The ‘green coffee’ price in Brazil has risen from $22 to $45 since 2024, due to the current encroaching Two Year Solar-induced Regional Orbital Dry Cycle,(drought.) Brazil produces 60% of the worlds coffee. We will soon be paying $12 for a cup of coffee,(if not already.)
The Beef Industry in the U.S. has also fallen victim to this current encroaching drought.
The wild-fires in British Columbia are a product of the same phenomenon.
This drought started from 50 degrees East Longitude,(circa Madagascar) on or about the first of August, 2024. The ‘vanguard’ has been moving Longitudinally East to West at 15 degrees per 30 Day/Night Interval Month, which currently puts it at circa 90 degrees West Longitude,(West of the Great Lakes.) It will reach Australia’s East Coast in early January 2026 and last over Australia until mid-May, 2026 – before ending at the original Start Longitude,(50 degrees East) circa August 1, 2026.
The next One Year Solar-induced Minor Dry Cycle(drought,) will start from 140 degrees East Longitude(Central Australia,) on or about November 1, 2026 – and similarly move from East to West at 15 degrees per 30 Day/Night Interval Month, ending at 40 degrees West Longitude(Africa’s East Coast,) in early November 2027. It will not reach Australia’s East Coast.
These Orbital Dry Cycles are caused by the destruction/conversion of water vapour albedo by the bombardment of Solar Particles,(see Metal/Steam Reaction.)
TW– Part 1
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VI_-2FuVXgUuObpBusFQP1j87Sc3xDJz/view?usp=sharing
TW– Part 2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nea7N5AiVoklvg9gGA1b3932Uq0-4qPK/view?usp=sharing
TW – Part 3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UqxyNzLq14Jv7-kf6ZKHDOdmjgfst9zp/view?usp=sharing
TW – Part 4
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qsbYVDYzzGFOOAfE5-cuuOlLPW8Pg3Df/view?usp=sharing
“Skeptikal, you can rest assured that I have enough scientific background to know drivel when I see it.”
Stop looking in the mirror then.
OK, I’ve remained silent for too long on this global warming scam. Jennifer does great work. But I’m thinking too many people get sucked into the IPCC scam science and work hard to find a catch clause in their modelling. All of it is extremely wrong. The reason is that the Earth’s atmosphere is an open system. It’s not a closed system with a sealed lid. If it gets hot, it simply expands and adiabatically cools.
Like at the equator, tropopause is about 60,000 ft whereas at the poles it’s like 36,000 ft, so simple conclusion, if the atmosphere gets hot, it expands and cools (gas laws). Because of this, the Earth’s atmospheric temperature is in a constant elegant balance. The Earth’s atmosphere is not a pressure cooker (or greenhouse) with a sealed lid. It is an open system that allows free expansion and maintains an equilibrium.
The main worry about increase temps is, the MSL air pressure drops. So how come IPCC rarely talks about decreasing surface air pressure? My thoughts are that normie folks don’t understand air pressure, but get the bejezzus scared out of them by temperature so IPCC want to maintain their horror BURNING WORLD scenario. Decreasing surface air pressure is a much more serious event than increased air temp, yet the two are like horse and carriage. They go together. How come IPCC doesn’t flog that horse? Go figure. It’s all political BS. It’s a political scam that attracts the world’s worst carpetbagger politicians.
The world won’t boil, Earth’s atmosphere prevents it, but we might run out of nice thick cool dense air to breath as humans. How come the IPCC says nothing about that? Evaluate.
‘Forty degrees West Longitude’ is South America’s East Coast, (not Africa’s East Coast – my error.)
Someone with stock market nous could benefit considerably by following beef, grain and coffee ‘futures’ according to the Solar-induced Orbital Dry Cycle Chronology….
English cricket commentator from Lords, before play yesterday; ‘Extraordinary – it hasn’t rained in London for three months.’
https://library.wmo.int/records/item/69455-state-of-the-global-climate-2024
“The hand of climate change is often overlooked in episodes such as these, particularly when the issue is transplanted from the realm of science to pitched political battle. In a small selection of countries-primarily Australia and the United States-climate change has been treated as a sort of partisan viewpoint rather than a unifying scientific challenge for us to overcome. The tragedy of this denial and obfuscation is that many people, and many species, will perish needlessly because political leaders have wallowed in cowardice, vested interest, and ideological posturing for decades. … But the power of all our ingrained biases is such that we can see the death and destruction predicted by science in front of us, in real time, and still find another explanation.” – The Insect Crisis
Our Fragile Dependence on the Planet’s Smallest Creatures, A New Scientist Book of the Year
By Oliver Milman · 2022
“The tragedy of this denial and obfuscation is that many people, and many species, will perish needlessly because political leaders have wallowed in cowardice, vested interest, and ideological posturing for decades. … But the power of all our ingrained biases is such that we can see the death and destruction predicted by science in front of us, in real time, and still find another explanation.”
Typical alarmist hysteria, hyperbole and unmasked misanthropy. Not a skerrick of evidence or fact, just militant, uncompromising aggression. The psychology of alarmism is a textbook example of ideological fanaticism. It is destroying the West and it is not for nothing that green groups in the West are funded by China and Russia.
Lol, drivel.
Looking in the mirror again.
Challenge still open: present one bit of evidence for alarmism. And I don’t mean regurgitating your AI search of official sites and pronouncements. I mean in your own limited words, one shred of evidence.
The Warmistas are fighting back with more dubious propaganda.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/19/planets-reflective-cloud-coverage-is-shrinking-and-amplifying-the-climate-crisis-research-finds
Just as you are on the verge of the new theory and showing that H2O increases to balance CO2 .
Coincidence, I think not.
A decrease in cloud cover has caused global warming.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL114882
Ironicman. Thanks for the reference.
In other words there is an increase in the cloud free area of high pressure cells in the mid latitudes consistent with enhanced uplift on the margins of Antarctica and possibly the Aleutian and the North Atlantic Low that is conjunctional with a fall in atmospheric surface pressure pole-wards of about 45 South Latitude.
This is consistent with my remarks above that include the following:
The zones where convection is most active are not at the equator or over the landmasses but in the region of the Arctic and Antarctic circles where the heating of ozone by long wave radiation from the Earth is most active in the winter due to the relative abundance of ozone at that time, impacting the air in the atmospheric column above 400hPa.
The extent of convection in high latitudes changes over time. This is indicated by the reduction in surface pressure of as much as 10hPa over Antarctica and through to about 45 degrees south latitude over the period of record. This alone will change the extent of cloud cover in the mid latitudes where high pressure cells expand and contract geographically according to the volume of air that is descending.