A Question of Clouds: Fuelling Climate Change Scepticism, By James Reed and Brian Simpson

From a climate change sceptic's perspective, the issue of clouds in climate models highlights significant uncertainties and potential flaws in the mainstream narrative that carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the primary driver of global warming. The study referenced in the Natural News article, based on NASA's Terra satellite data and published in Science, underscores how poorly understood cloud dynamics expose the limitations of current climate models. Here's our detailed breakdown of the problems clouds pose for these models, emphasising a sceptical viewpoint against climate change alarmism and its quest to deindustrialise the West.

Sceptical Take: The study reveals that shrinking storm-cloud zones account for 80% of the alleged increased solar heating since 2000, dwarfing the role of CO₂. This suggests that natural atmospheric processes, like cloud cover changes, may be far more significant than greenhouse gas emissions in driving recent warming. Sceptics argue this challenges the CO₂-centric dogma, as clouds' reflective properties (albedo) have a massive, immediate impact on the Earth's energy balance, 0.37 Watts per square metre of additional solar radiation due to cloud contraction alone, compared to the much smaller radiative forcing (i.e. temperature increase) attributed to CO₂ increases.

Problem for Models: Climate models struggle to accurately simulate cloud formation, movement, and dissipation. The 1.5–3% per decade contraction of storm-cloud zones was not predicted by models, as noted by NASA's George Tselioudis, who said they "didn't see this coming." This failure indicates that models are missing critical atmospheric dynamics, undermining their reliability for long-term predictions.

Sceptical Take: The study hints at potential feedback loops where warming itself may destabilise clouds, as suggested by physicist Helge Goessling. Sceptics argue this introduces a circular problem: if warming alters clouds, which in turn amplify warming, the models' linear assumptions about CO₂'s role are overly simplistic. This complexity suggests natural variability, such as ocean cycles or jet stream shifts, could be driving cloud changes, not just human activity, casting doubt on the attribution of warming to anthropogenic CO₂.

Problem for Models: Models fail to capture large-scale atmospheric shifts, like narrowing equatorial storm belts or midlatitude cloud zone contractions. University of Chicago's Tiffany Shaw admitted uncertainty about whether these trends will persist, highlighting that models cannot reliably predict cloud behaviour. This gap means projections of future warming may be exaggerated or understated, as cloud feedbacks could either amplify or dampen temperature changes in ways models don't account for.

Sceptical Take: The study points to factors like reduced sulphur emissions from shipping and natural ocean cycles as contributors to cloud contraction. Sceptics argue this supports the view that natural processes and unintended consequences of human actions (e.g., cleaner shipping fuels) may outweigh CO₂'s influence. For instance, cleaner skies from reduced pollution allow more sunlight to reach the surface, mimicking or exceeding CO₂'s warming effect. This challenges the narrative that human CO₂ emissions are the sole or primary culprit.

Problem for Models: Climate models prioritise CO₂ and other greenhouse gases but undervalue natural variability and non-CO₂ human impacts, like aerosol reductions. The study's finding that 80% of reduced reflectivity comes from shrinking cloud coverage, not cloud properties (e.g., dirtier droplets), contradicts model assumptions that pollution changes are the main driver of albedo shifts. This discrepancy suggests models are misallocating warming causes.

Sceptical Take: The reliance on flawed models has led to a "carbon myopia" where policymakers focus narrowly on CO₂ reduction, ignoring the broader, messier climate system. As Judith Curry and John Christy note, pouring trillions into carbon taxes or renewable energy may be misguided when natural factors like clouds play a larger role. Sceptics argue this misdiagnosis diverts resources from practical adaptation strategies, like infrastructure resilience, and reflects hubris in assuming we can control the climate by regulating one variable.

Problem for Models: The study's revelation that models understated cloud dynamics means their warming projections, used to justify massive policy shifts, are dubious. If cloud trends continue, as Max Planck's Bjorn Stevens warns, warming could exceed projections, but if natural cycles reverse (e.g., cooling in the eastern Pacific), the opposite could occur. This uncertainty undermines the confidence placed in model-driven policies like those from the UN Climate Conference.

Sceptical Take: Sceptics point out that climate science has a history of overemphasising CO₂ while sidelining other factors, as seen in the study's suggestion that 50 years of research may have misdiagnosed planetary heat regulation. The admission by scientists like Shaw that "the real world will show us the answer" reinforces the sceptical view that climate science is far from settled and that natural processes, like cloud variability, remain poorly understood.

Problem for Models: The inability to model clouds accurately reflects a broader issue: the climate system is chaotic and nonlinear, with countless interacting variables. Models are simplified approximations that cannot fully capture phenomena like jet stream shifts or storm-cloud contraction, as evidenced by their failure to predict the observed 60% energy imbalance from cloud changes since 2000.

From a sceptic's perspective, the cloud contraction findings expose a critical weakness in climate models: their inability to account for the dominant role of clouds in regulating Earth's temperature. By fixating on CO₂, models have overlooked natural and complex atmospheric processes, leading to potentially flawed predictions and misguided policies. The uncertainty surrounding cloud dynamics, coupled with the study's revelation that they drive 80% of recent solar heating, bolsters the sceptical argument that climate science is not settled, and natural variability may play a far larger role than acknowledged. This calls for humility in policy approaches and a shift toward adaptive strategies rather than costly, CO₂-focused interventions that may not address the root complexities of the climate system. Measures like abandoning fossil fuels must be rejected as mythology, and a dangerous one, threatening Western civilisation in the face of the communist Chinese challenge, itself fuelled on fossil fuels.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-06-24-the-cloud-contraction-conundrum-earths-unsettled-science.html

A study reveals shrinking cloud cover, not CO2 alone, drives 80 percent of recent solar heating.

Satellite data shows storm-cloud zones have been contracting 1.5 to 3 percent annually since 2000.

Declines in shipping pollution and natural cycles may contribute, but feedback loops from global warming are feared.

Climate models understate cloud dynamics, undermining policy decisions.

Scientists warn current warming projections may be too low, demanding urgent reevaluation.

Scientists have long jousted over the drivers of planetary warming, but a bombshell study published in Science last month has reignited debates over the role of clouds and exposed critical flaws in climate models reliance on carbon dioxide as the dominant factor. The research, led by NASA's George Tselioudis, reveals that shrinking storm-cloud zones account for 80 percent of increased solar heating since 2000, with profound implications for climate policy. As satellites detect a worldwide contraction of midlatitude and tropical storm-cloud bands, the findings suggest a messy, unpredictable climate system — one where carbon-centric solutions may be dangerously incomplete.

The cloud contraction finding: A new paradigm in solar heating

Observations from NASA's Terra satellite reveal a radical truth: the Earth's reflective "sunscreen" is failing. Over the past two decades, storm-cloud zones — critical for reflecting sunlight — have shrunk by 1.5–3 percent per decade. This contraction has allowed 0.37 Watts per square meter of solar radiation to penetrate, driving a startling 60% of the energy imbalance fueling recent warming.

"Nobody can get a number that's even close [to explaining this deficit] until now," said Tselioudis, emphasizing that cloud dynamics, often sidelined in climate discourse, are now center stage. The study attributes roughly 80 percent of reduced reflectivity to shrinking cloud coverage rather than changes in cloud properties — such as dirtier, darker droplets — undermining assumptions that pollution reductions alone explain the trend.

Yet the causes remain tangled. While reduced sulfur emissions from shipping (a public health victory) may be brightening skies, natural ocean cycles and jet stream shifts — possibly worsened by warming itself — could also be at play. "It's a complex soup of processes," said NASA's Norman Loeb, whose team corroborated the cloud-albedo findings in August's Climate Dynamics study.

Climate models under fire: Ignoring Earth's dynamic clouds

The research delivers a stinging rebuke to climate models, long hailed as policymakers' guides. Existing simulations poorly capture the role of large-scale atmospheric shifts like narrowing equatorial storm belts or midlatitude cloud zone contractions. As Tselioudis noted, models "didn't see this coming," leaving their warming projections — used to justify trillions in carbon mitigation — increasingly dubious.

At the AGU Fall Meeting last week, University of Chicago climate dynamicist Tiffany Shaw confessed, "We don't know if these cloud trends will continue." The eastern Pacific, for instance, has paradoxically grown cooler, strengthening regional winds that could slow cloud-shrinkage, while other regions show weakening patterns. "The real world will show us the answer," she conceded — a tacit admission of models' limits.

Worse, if warming itself is destabilizing clouds — a "Feedback Loop Dilemma" posited by physicist Helge Goessling — the study implies prevailing warming forecasts are alarmingly conservative. "If the trend holds, we're in trouble," warned Max Planck scientist Bjorn Stevens, citing unprecedented feedback potential.

Policy implications: Carbon myopia vs. complexity

The study's publication coincides with a troubling milestone: 2024 became the hottest year on record, with oceans absorbing unprecedented heat. Yet policymakers continue to pivot on CO2 alone, even as Tselioudis' work highlights the far greater impact of shrinking cloud cover.

"This underscores how narrow our climate strategies are," said former EPA scientist Judith Curry. "We're treating warming like a single-variable equation when the real world is infinitesimally more complicated."

Critics argue that funneling trillions toward carbon taxes or wind farms ignores this complexity—and risks diverting funds from adaptive measures like seawalls or drought-resistant crops. "You can't regulate cloud feedbacks," noted climatologist John Christy. "We need humility, not hubris."

The cloud over climate science

As debates over the 2023 UN Climate Conference in New York continue, the new findings force uncomfortable questions. Could 50 years of climate science have misdiagnosed planetary heat-regulation? Has the fixation on CO2 blinded researchers to atmospheric processes that are "literally determinative of future warming," as Goessling warned?

For now, the message is clear: Our skies remain unpredictable, our models faltering. As clouds shrink and scientific consensus cracks, one truth emerges: The climate future is stranger — and more uncertain — than we imagined."