By Jo Nova
Here’s a spooky graph of annual hours of sunshine on Krakow, in Poland. Hours of sunshine have been rising since 1980 — much like temperatures. It’s almost like CO2 has been irrelevant all along.
Thanks to Kenneth Richard at NoTricksZone. He writes that cloud cover changes are far more influential than man made CO2 is. The clouds have cleared over the last 46 years with the people of Krakow enjoying 500 more hours of sunlight each year and about 2.3°C of warming.
The research team, Marsz et al., 2025, estimate that radiative forcing by CO2 explained only 3.6% of the variance of temperatures, while changes in sunshine hours explained a whopping 58%.
Look at this graph~!
What if, all around the world, the clouds cleared in the last 40 years which let in more sunlight, and warmed the world, and all the carbon obessessed models were barking up the wrong tree. And the clouds in turn, were controlled by something like phytoplankton releasing cloud seeding particles, magnetic field changes, or jet streams shifting?
Kenneth Richard noticed another paper about Nigeria that reported a similar trend. And another in Brazil that showed that most regions also had less cloud cover now than they used to have.
In most regions of Brazil, sunshine hours are increasing
REFERENCES
Budnukaeku (2026) Temporal Variability of Sunshine Duration and Cloud Cover over Nigeria from 1970 to 2022, Paradigm Academic Press, ISSN 2788-7030 MAR. 2026 VOL.5,NO.
Gava (2026) Sunshine Duration in Brazil From Meteosat (1983–2020): Climatology, Variability and Long- Term Trends, International Journal of Climatology,
Marsz et al (2025) The Role of Increased Sunshine in Shaping Air Temperature rise in Krakow. Quastetiones Geographicaue, 44(3), 2025.
Looks like Good Science to me and no Modelling.
340
Are the higher temperatures in Krakow, in Nigeria and Brazil, driving the clouds extinct?
It is the “Great Sixth Dying” [or some such wild claim] after all.
Correlation is not causation.
But this certainly needs more investigation; it is much more likely that plant food being the sole control knob of the universe, after all.
Auto
170
And Jo had looked at clouds some time ago:
https://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/
See also:
https://australianclimatesceptics.com/?p=109
20
Thanks Cohenite, a flick back to the past.
From earlier, https://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/#comment-1130169
this Cohenite bloke and Jo sure used a lot of references.
30
Less cloud results in lower night-time temperatures due to radiative energy loss. The paper is arguing that the temperature increase is partially due to change in cloud structure. This is likely a localised phenomena.
244
Simon, If lower night-time temperatures result, then the overall temperature will be reduced.
And by the way, the effective radiation range of Carbon Dioxide is about 30 metres. That’s why, years ago, CO2 lasers wasn’t adopted for tranmission lines between Vic & SA.
Mind you, with the current lunacy of Labor spending, putting towers every 10 metres apart might appeal to them.
340
Changes in albedo due to cloud cover is not just a “localized phenomena”…CERES satellite data demonstrates it is a worldwide phenomenon.
https://x.com/NikolovScience/status/1918014415666069871
180
Perfect example of Nikolov’s climate commentary Tom. This from one of Ned’s Posts from 2 days ago, which is a repost.
When I first joined up to Twitter(2012) Tony Heller was one of the first commentators I subscribed to. Via his posts this led to NN.
140
‘This is likely a localised phenomena.’
In fact blocking high pressure is behind the phenomenon and its a universal problem.
51
“Cloud condensation nucleus (CCN)—an atmospheric aerosol particle with a diameter typically less than 1 μm that facilitates the condensation of water vapor.
The presence of cloud condensation nuclei is essential for the formation of cloud droplets in the atmosphere and, consequently, for the formation of clouds themselves. The spontaneous coalescence of water molecules without the involvement of cloud condensation nuclei is highly unlikely and requires a partial pressure of water vapor many times greater than the saturated vapor pressure—conditions that practically never occur in the atmosphere.”
The main source of CCNs are organic sulfur compounds produced by oceanic phytoplankton:
“Marine phytoplankton produces DMSP (dimethylsulfonylpropionate), which breaks down into dimethyl sulfide (DMS). DMS is released into the atmosphere and initiates cloud formation, influencing the Earth’s climate.”
260
This has to be combined with the vast amount of water in the air which is NOT clouds. People don’t know this. Across most of the planet, invisible water vapour at 1% to 4% is the third biggest gas after Nitrogen 78% and Oxygen 22% and Argon 1%. Coalescing molecules into droplets and thus visible clouds requires an aerosol particle.
The only places I have been with 0% water are the deserts of the Middle East where you have to consume water continually, about a litre an hour because of the loss of when breathing. It’s scary stuff but does not happen in most of Australia. (Percent by Volume in Australian deserts: Usually hovers between 0.5% and 1.5% during the dry winter months)
311
>presence of cloud condensation nuclei
I remember near London in 1968 waking up to see the car covered in little black spots after rain.
The hygroscopic aerosols there were soot particles.
(Actual carbon pollution as distinct from the imaginary so-called carbon pollution attributed to the CO2 feared by alarmists nowadays).
Here in regional Australia the droplets often condense around dust particles and in the warmer months you’ll wake up after rain to find your nice clean car covered in brown dust after the drops have evaporated and left the dust behind.
260
We see this often at the top of the Blue Mountains west of Sydney. Westerly winds carrying dust from the Western Plains farmlands rise up over the Mountains, often forming rain clouds in the middle of the day. The resulting showers invariably leave dust deposits on horizontal surfaces, including my car.
20
This was Lord Christopher Monckten’s thesis more than a decade ago. As likely as any other explanation for very slight warming of the ocean associated with very slight warming of the air and very slow monotonic increase in CO2 content. And not an End of Days alarmist religion like man made CO2 driven rapid tipping point Global Warming.
The imminent catastrophe was proposed by Al Gore in 1988 along with many, many predictions of disasters, all of which have proven wrong over 40 years. Comedy in 1990 It was funny at the time.
However Australian politicians and public service scientists don’t know how to take a joke. (BOM, CSIRO, Chief Scientist,Universities)
Meanwhile now billionaire and ex Vice President Al Gore is still laughing all the way to the bank. And invited to repeat his most famous tales of imminent disaster. For old times sake and a bit of a chuckle. Just like Snowy II, the greatest show in Australia since the Gold Rush of 1851 when 40% of the World’s gold came from Melbourne.
360
There is also a possible effect of pollution control, which started over 50 years ago.
Battersea (Old Smokey) in London.
My father came back from a trip to Los Angeles and complained that his eyes had watered all the 3 days there.
110
And perhaps ironically that idea would mean that humans really can control the weather.
First by the pollution increasing cloud cover then then by the reduction of pollution decreasing cloud cover.
As always the question then becomes one of scale of humans v the scale of natural forces.
200
Sulfur compounds in the air are highly hygroscopic, which is why they serve as good condensation nuclei. It is likely that air ionization can also influence the formation of water droplets, just as the burning of coal and wood does.
100
Could this be why they were reducing the sulphur content in diesel fuel?
Cunning, eh.
130
The rise in temperature in a specific region of the continent is also influenced by the blocking of the zonal circulation. For example, this circulation is currently blocked over the Atlantic, where stationary low-pressure systems prevail and the surface temperature of the North Atlantic is low. In contrast, a high-pressure system formed by the jet stream prevails over Western Europe. The prolonged persistence of this high-pressure system allows the continental surface to heat up to extreme levels.
https://max.nwstatic.co.uk/gfsimages/gfs.20260623/12/15/hgt300.png
120
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
50
‘ … a high-pressure system formed by the jet stream prevails over Western Europe.’
Is the blocking high pressure forcing the jet stream to meander?
02
The jet stream in the tropopause encounters no obstacles, and its path is influenced by the distribution of ozone in the lower stratosphere and stratospheric circulation. Therefore, it is the jet stream, as it meanders, that causes the formation of high- and low-pressure systems. Behind a northward-curving bend, a high-pressure system forms, drawing in additional masses of hot tropical air.
41
Thanks IP.
21
Take a look at the distribution of ozone in the tropopause over North America.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_150_NA_f000.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
20
“jet streams ”
What about contrails pumping all that exhaust heat into the atmosphere that has raised the temperature up there so the clouds can’t form.
It’s as good a theory as many of the others, and who knows what else they put in them.
sarc/
82
As the great Joni Mitchell sang …
I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions, I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all
230
Wonder if vitamin D levels have changed in these populations over this time, too.
130
And perhaps melanin levels?
90
I thought this was a well accepted thesis. The UK has seen pollution levels drop dramatically as sunshine levels increase.
Various artists used to come to England in the 19th century and painted surrealistic pictures that clearly showed the pollution effects other atmosphere. Hubert lamb wrote about this some decades ago.
110
There are only a couple of small regions of the globe where cloud is more. That is over Antarctica and a few degrees north of the tropics.
Aerosols and sulphur are irrelevant to what is happening globally. Even in the UK, the CET has shown rising temperature since its inception around 400 years ago.
The UK atmosphere was its worst from 1850 to 1950. But the warming started well before 1850 according to CET and supported by sea level rise. So atmospheric opacity is a likely cause of increasing surface sunlight over UK and industrial Europe but not over the oceans of the Southern Hemisphere.
70
It is indeed global. In a formal paper i had to be very cautious about drawing conclusions, but if you read carefully it is very likely that decreasing cloud cover caused nearly all the warming:
https://wjarr.com/content/clouds-independently-appear-have-much-or-greater-effect-man-made-co2-radiative-forcing
140
Thanks for that link Mike and I’ll have to try and further understand this very simple idea compared to the co2 control knob alternative.
80
Premier Sir Charles Court cut down many trees in Western Australia to make way for farmland in the late 70s
At the rabbit proof fence treeless WA had no clouds, South Australia and Northern Territory with trees still had much cloud cover.
Transpiration is not possible where there are no clouds
100
Biomass and especially trees have transformed Earth’s climate over millennia. Currently about 500,000,000,000 tonnes of growing matter.
Remove trees and the climate changes. Wind farms and transmission lines get a free pass when it comes to removing trees.
WA wheatbelt is a very sensitive environment and loss of trees is now recognised as a cause of increased surface soil salinity. Cropping with low saline water is the fastest way to recover arable land. That would require irrigation water from northern catchments. Would be a lot smarter way to spend boat loads money than building more wind farms and the useless SH2.
150
Indeed, as I posted in 2013: Land clearing caused drop in rainfall in South West of Australia
Australian trees pump out many volatile organic compounds that can seed clouds, and on the vast flat land that is WA, trees that are 100m tall are important.
130
We’ve encountered this story before. Al Gore claimed in the 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth that because of CO2 the snows of Kilimanjaro would disappear within the decade.
Reports demonstrated a substantial shift in vegetation dynamics on the mountain over the past century. Kilimanjaro has lost nearly a third of its forest cover, etc. …
In any case, the Mountain has snow and got a dusting this week.
30
Sort of a reverse version of what settlers in SA anticipated.
The idea was that the rain would follow the crops. And it did for a few years.
Turned out they were just lucky with the rainfall for the first few years. Then Mr Goyder drew his line.
Not much has changed since then.
10
Ned Nikolov said all that years ago, plus contradicted all the major claims of the global warming / climate change debate.
Basically debunked the whole CO2 radiative theory as just that- theory, without any major scientific substantiation. There is no “greenhouse” effect, the earth is warmed via the fact our planet has an atmosphere. (I’m paraphrasing here ). The cloud thing was one of his most strident claims and proven by satellite data and he stated any recent warming ( 1980’s->) was due to changes in cloudiness. He was the guy that first posted that photo of Mount Kilimanjaro that I saw, showing hot plains with giraffes in the foreground with the snow on the mount in the background. A perfect example of the lapse rate and atmospheric heating effect at ground level. Nothing to do with heat trapping at the top of the atmosphere- that’s just nonsense. Ned works (or worked )as a physical scientist for the US Forest Service and understood atmospheric physics in a practical fashion because I assumed his input predicted wild fire potential.
He is also great on vaccines and diet.
90
The moon is the same distance from the Sun as the Earth … but the moon has no atmosphere. Thus the moon is both significantly hotter and also much colder than any place on Earth because what Earth’s atmosphere primarily does is carry heat sideways, away from the equator and towards the poles.
That’s why terrestrial temperatures are livable, while lunar temperatures are not (almost all of the moon is either too hot or too cold, and the daily temperature swings are huge).
We could talk about average temperatures … but as many have pointed out, the comparison isn’t really meaningful when the extremes are so different.
20
In the present era, the tropics, 30S to 30N, gets 4ZJ more sunshine than the region received at the bottom of the precession cycle back in 1255. The energy increase in the tropics represents a relentless trend that will continue for at least another 7,000 years. 4ZJ spread across the tropics corresponds to an addition 6mm of water column.
The result is more moisture in the air over the tropics but it has not increased the monsoon markedly so not much increase in monsoon cloud. The increase in monsoon cloud is only noticeable just north of the equator.
But the atmosphere has more moisture and, correspondingly, is more energetic because it absorbs more sunlight so it is able to transport more heat poleward. Ocean heat content increase outside the tropics is dominated by heat uptake in the condensing regions of the Ferell cells around 45S and 45N.
The additional heat directly from the sun in the tropics and indirectly from poleward heat advection has warmed the surface so the entire atmospheric column is more energetic over most of the globe. The relative humidity over oceans has not changed much but is lower over land resulting in less cloud over land. But not over northern Australia in summer. It is getting enough moisture now to support monsoon over northern Australia.
70
Rick, Northern Australia, NT and Western Australia has had much higher rainfall over the last 50 years and most of Australia as well.
Here’s the BOM anomaly link for Northern Australia since 1900.
https://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=naus&season=0112&ave_yr=7&ave_period=6190
50
If CO2 was the climate control knob, why would you want to reduce it.
The BoM are liars by deception. They do not tell the real story. They just latch onto the bigger extremes rather than the trend. If the trend is upward then it simply follows the extremes will be greater.
As a noted above. Precession is driving the observed changes by shifting sunlight. Tropical sunlight is on a relentless upward trend and that makes the atmosphere more energetic until monsoon kicks in. Australia now gets regular monsoon over NT in summer and it extends further south.
130
Those rainfall anomalies can be directly related to La Nina years.
10
If the Krakow graph is representative, the next question I’d ask is what made hours of sunshine decline from 1950 to 1980.
The graph certainly suggests sunshine and temperature are connected (well, gosh, who’d have thought) but something is driving both. It’s clearly not CO2 (the data/graph(s) simply don’t support that idea at all. It is probably something beyond our control…and it’s probably a good thing anyway…but I’d quite like to know…whatever the driver is, it’s nothing to do with CO2
110
Jo gives a hint to that
There’s also cosmic rays which has been proposed as increasing cloudiness. Or lack of, leading to less clouds. These are the know unknowns. But there’s probably a lot of unknown, unknowns as well.
80
Yes, it seems that secondary galactic radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, especially at high latitudes, may have a significant impact on cloud formation. Here is a graph from Oulu. During this solar cycle, GCR levels have declined.
https://i.ibb.co/gFBQfmfC/onlinequery.gif
30
‘ … sunshine decline from 1950 to 1980.’
Perhaps a negative AMO produced more clouds.
https://chaac.meteo.plus/en/climate/amo-index.png
11
Wow. Someone better inform Chicken Little that the sky isn’t falling- it just has less clouds in it.
70
https://x.com/NikolovScience/status/1918014415666069871
https://x.com/NikolovScience/status/2028247255598387404
90
fascinating
22
Well, since we are speculating, I’d go with what several others above alluded to regarding pollution -smog particulates etc. Industrialization made a lot of it especially mid last century before we started cleaning it up.
34
Changes in surface sunlight over land in the NH has increased in line with reduced aerosols. But cloud reduction has been observed across almost all latitudes.
The ToA sunlight over the tropics has been increasing since 1255AD – middle of the period when perihelion aligned with December solstice. It is a relentless upward trend now. 2024 received 4JZ more sunlight over the tropics than 1255AD. That represents 6.3mm increase in evaporation. And the trend in sunlight has been rising since 1255AD. There was a time lag before the increased sunlight translated to heating but CET shows heating since its inception almost 400 years ago. Similarly the ocean rise has been steadily upward for the past 300 years.
Atmospheric opacity was associated with industrial development in the NH. Reduced cloud is observed across all latitudes apart from a small region near the south pole and a band of a few degrees just north of the equator.
90
We can all agree that tighter air pollution control has made a difference, but something bigger is happening and its to do with blocking and meandering jet streams.
This kind of recalcitrant behaviour has nothing to do with a benign trace gas, perhaps an internal dynamic is behind it.
51
Easy to prove wrong in this example … look at the graph Jo provided … the graph trend clearly shows a turning point around late 1970’s to early 1980’s.
Poland under Communism (pre 1990) ran notoriously high particulate pollution, mostly unfiltered coal stacks and also other types of aerosol pollution from chemical industries. Now we happen to have a very sharp transition in terms of modernization BUT it only really kicked in after Poland joined the EU in approx 2000 and that’s when Western investment cranked up. There wasn’t a precise year when all the investment suddenly turned up … but there was an intense decade of upgrades from 2000 to 2010.
Going from infrastructure upgrades, through change in particulates and then to temperature would be a lagging indicator for sure … but the graph doesn’t even come close to matching that. Temperature is on the rise well BEFORE 2000 and therefore the particulate story can safely be rejected.
30
Tell me when the clean air acts banning cloud forming SO2 were introduced?
They’ve always known what actually caused the warming, but they didn’t care, because the real goal had nothing to do with the climate.
20
In addition to Poland, Romania, under Nicolae Ceaușescu, was a major source of industrial pollution with heavy metals (documented, especially, since 1970 in the Baia Mare region). Further search would likely show many of the eastern European countries were big polluters.
10
There are two recent examples of the reductions in contrails resulting in daylight temperatures increasing and nighttime temps deceasing. The prime example is the suspension of civil aviation after 911. The second is the suspension of civil aviation around 2015 following volcanic ash from an eruption in Iceland.
These are well documented.
The undersea volcanic eruption near Tonga seem to have effects on rainfall around the world.
50
Again, we have the problem that the warmists and Leftists in general believe in a primitive Aristotlean static earth world view where nothing has or ever will change even though we have evidence of natural warming in historical times such as the Minoan, Egyptian, Roman and Medieval climate optima and disastrous periods of global cooling such as the Little Ice Age.
As the earth and solar system travel through the galaxy (no Lefties, it’s not supported on the backs of elephants or turtles) it encounters areas of different levels of cosmic radiation and interstellar dust which affect the sun’s heliosphere causing it to compress or expand and altering its protection against cosmic rays.
Evidence for this comes from isotope traces like iron-60 and plutonium-244 in deep-sea sediments, lunar soil and Antarctic ice.
It is hypothesised that cosmic radiation influences cloud formation. This mechanism of galactic cosmic radiation seeding cloud formation is known as the Svensmark Hypothesis.
It is unremarkable that radiation in general causes nucleation of clouds, after all, this is the operating principle of cloud (Wilson) chambers. And cloud seeding uses a similar principle of creating nucleation centres.
Research of this hypothesis is probably is not well funded or researched well enough as it doesn’t provide an excuse to destroy the energy supply of Western countries which is the ultimate objective of all this madness* and also doesn’t conform to the Aristotlean “never changing” world view that the Left believe in.
*If it were about Climate, why is China, which is by far the world’s largest CO2 emitter (not that it matters) exempt from emissions restrictions?
Ref:
Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage — a missing link in solar-climate relationships Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (1997)
110
Carbon 14/Carbon 12 level is an absolute measure of % of fossil fuels in the air, the single origin of the alleged man made CO2 warming. It’s radio cabon dating.
Today the C14/C12 level is identical to what it has been for 100,000 years!
Whether inceased CO2 produces additional warming and whether we can change CO2 if we wanted to do so are moot points.
The allegation that increased fossil fuel CO2 in the air has caused warming at all is categorically false. Because it hasn’t changed. It’s not open to debate.
60
And UN President Guterres now demands $1.3Tn ($1.3 million million) to ‘fight’ Climate Change. Presumably by giving it to his friends. Humans cannot change atmospheric CO2 levels. It’s basically the vapour pressur of a gas 98% of which is dissolved in the ocean. And NASA can tell him that vast forests are growing with increased CO2. When according to UN science, vast forests should mean CO2 goes down, not up. It’s all about the money, millions of millions of dollars. To do nothing.
80
Perhaps we can sell Snowy II to the UN for $1Trillion? That’s what it will cost.
60
The only people who get rich in Socialism are the people who run the system. Like Albanese, Bowen, Bourke, Wong and all those hundreds of senior public servants on half million dollar salaries and government indexed pensions for doing nothing at all. It’s all for their benefit. Talk about unearned wealth.
70
‘Talk about unearned wealth.’
AI hubots can do their jobs at a fraction of the cost and without political bias.
21
Kudos for mentioning Svensmark’s work about the feedback on cloud cover by the variation of solar magnetism impinging on cosmic galactic rays that seed cloud formation. As far as I know, that hypothesis was confirmed by experiments carried out by Svensmark’s team in Copenhagen, and then by CERN under the direction of CERN scientist Jasper Kirkby. As far as I know Svensmark’s confirmation of his hypothesis was never rejected. It was just buried by the media and the UN’s IPCC et al.
10
Simon just phoning it in now.
60
https://i.ibb.co/Kcsh3pvn/gfs-z50-sh-f00.png
Wonder when the positive southern annular mode will flip the script to negative?
In winter, the stratosphere descends so low over the pole that a strong polar vortex drives the SAM. Ozone above the polar circle is distributed evenly under the influence of a strong magnetic field (because it exhibits diamagnetic properties). When the magnetic field of the solar wind weakens, ozone can accumulate in areas where the Earth’s magnetic field is weakened. As a result, the polar vortex in that area weakens.
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
20
SAM just experienced a spike, hasn’t been this positive in quite a few years. It should fall back to neutral within a week or more and I don’t know when its likely to go into a sustained negative phase.
In an Australian context the models are saying that ‘persistent positive phase southern annular mode causes Australia wet weather and delays drier El Nino effect.’ (Climate Impact Company)
Against the trend, I’ve got my money on a Modoki El Nino.
11
Comments on Al Gore’s 2007 Nobel Prize winning and double Acadamey Awards/Oscar winning Inconvenient Truth after 20 years. He insists today that it was ‘spot on’ when not a single dire prediction came true.
So Democrats win Nobel Peace Prizes. Gore and Obama. Why is the only puzzle.
The only thing missing from this demolition of An Inconvenient Truth is that it came out 20 years after the first warning, so it’s now a 40 year old Science Fiction.
50
Global warming has nothing to do with science and both democrats and republicans are in on the pretense. It didn’t matter what science said, as it clearly didn’t matter which party supposedly controlled the US, because the same policy was going to be foisted on the gullible public in the west.
30
No, no, no…surely it is much hotter on cloudy days which is what the models say. Of course in the UK – well the south and south-east anyway – is under a hysterical warning that it will be very sunny and a heatdome is taking us up to the fake temperature records level. Discussion on GB News about making our infrastructure more resilient using things such as aircon but the point was raised that Building Regs frown on installing aircon in buildings, and if that wasn’t enough we do have the most expensive electricity in the World which makes running it a huge cost.
20
Sorry…
SAT24
https://i.ibb.co/Kp2KxgYK/Zrzut-ekranu-2026-06-24-145151.png
https://max.nwstatic.co.uk/gfsimages/gfs.20260624/06/00/hgt300.png
10
Looking at the charts, while there is a line showing upward movement, it really is two lines for most of them with an inflection point around 2000. 2000. Hmm. When wind turbines really began to be installed in increasing numbers. How do wind turbines generate energy? They withdraw it from wind. We know beyond any doubt this is fact, because wind turbines installed downfield of other turbines, are far less effective (the wind power has already been reduced). Which means, less energetic wind, less movement of the gases and moisture up there, less energy for formation of clouds. Less cloud cover. Higher radiation (sunlight) reaching the ground, increasing surface temperatures. We have done this to ourselves. In the name of Green.
30
What is the ice cover like in Hudson Bay on the first day of summer?
https://i.ibb.co/8nd7gGTr/masie-all-r10-4km.png
10
There is a low probability of a hurricane forming in the cool tropical Atlantic.
https://i.ibb.co/ch9kdXYh/goes19-ir-atl.gif
10
Fewer clouds would result in cooler nights, but since 1975 there has been more warming at night than during the day
Greenhouse warming mainly effects nights. Greenhouse warming is the only warming that causes stratospheric cooling, which we have had for the past 50 years
00
Warming at night is an effect of the Urban Heat Island which has been rampant around many sites.
Stratospheric cooling also occurs with depletion of the ozone layer.
But even though CO2 has increased and undoubtedly causes some stratospheric cooling, that only proves what we already know, that CO2 has increased in the stratosphere.
The hot spot that was supposed to be there at 8-10km up over the tropics wasn’t there. The models can be right about stratospheric cooling, but still wrong about global warming.
20
Jo, is the northern hemisphere a giant heat island? I remember maps where the “hot” areas are bright red, always in the north.
20
Klimat Mysteriet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kmlVDpb-Qc&t=25s
00