‘Robust Evidence’ Clouds Control Earth’s Climate
Physical scientist Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. and his team claim to have found the first ROBUST evidence that decadal variations of Earth’s climate are driven by changes in cloud albedo, rather than CO2.
Nikolov is preparing a paper on his findings now, but has recently given a few tantalizing teasers on Twitter, one of which suggests that albedo variations are likely forced by the Sun’s magnetic activity.
Nikolov wrote that he and his team “tested the hypothesis that global temperature variations over recent decades were caused by fluctuations in global cloud cover.” The team have “developed a new analytic albedo-temperature model … [which] predicts departures of the global near-surface temperature from a long-term baseline as a function of Earth’s albedo deviations from a baseline reflective.”
Basically, the results show a high level of accuracy of modeled Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR) in terms of both inter-annual variability and decadal trends using 2 independent global temperature datasets (UAH and HadCRUT4), providing what Nikolov claims to be “a robust support to our hypothesis: Climate is indeed driven by changes in cloud albedo!“
Nikolov elaborates further, writing: “the essence of our findings is that cloud-albedo changes are the IMMEDIATE cause for surface temperature changes. What controls cloud variations is a different question … [the] Sun’s magnetic activity and solar wind likely play a crucial role.”
And in a succinct rebuttal to the CO2 theory, Nikolov adds: “The evidence provided by modern NASA planetary data is UNEQUIVOCAL that CO2 as a noncondensing trace gas in our atmosphere has NO effect on Earth’s climate! The atmospheric thermal effect is 100% due to pressure, not radiative properties of trace gases: omicsonline.org.”
And furthermore:
We at Electroverse have long-stated cloud cover controls Earth’s short-term climate, that incoming Cosmic Rays raining down on our atmosphere nucleate additional clouds. We also suppose that fluctuations of these incoming CRs aren’t required to impact cloud cover — that a waning of our defenses (Earth’s magnetic field) will do the job, and that this waning is exactly what we’re seeing of late with an ever-intensifying Grand Solar Minimum coupled with the beginnings of a potentially extinction-level Pole Shift (Magnetic Excursion/Reversal).
Physical scientist Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. and his team claim to have found the first ROBUST evidence that decadal variations of Earth’s climate are driven by changes in cloud albedo, rather than CO2.
Nikolov is preparing a paper on his findings now, but has recently given a few tantalizing teasers on Twitter, one of which suggests that albedo variations are likely forced by the Sun’s magnetic activity.
Nikolov wrote that he and his team “tested the hypothesis that global temperature variations over recent decades were caused by fluctuations in global cloud cover.” The team have “developed a new analytic albedo-temperature model … [which] predicts departures of the global near-surface temperature from a long-term baseline as a function of Earth’s albedo deviations from a baseline reflective.”
Basically, the results show a high level of accuracy of modeled Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR) in terms of both inter-annual variability and decadal trends using 2 independent global temperature datasets (UAH and HadCRUT4), providing what Nikolov claims to be “a robust support to our hypothesis: Climate is indeed driven by changes in cloud albedo!“
Nikolov elaborates further, writing: “the essence of our findings is that cloud-albedo changes are the IMMEDIATE cause for surface temperature changes. What controls cloud variations is a different question … [the] Sun’s magnetic activity and solar wind likely play a crucial role.”
And in a succinct rebuttal to the CO2 theory, Nikolov adds: “The evidence provided by modern NASA planetary data is UNEQUIVOCAL that CO2 as a noncondensing trace gas in our atmosphere has NO effect on Earth’s climate! The atmospheric thermal effect is 100% due to pressure, not radiative properties of trace gases: omicsonline.org.”
And furthermore:
We at Electroverse have long-stated cloud cover controls Earth’s short-term climate, that incoming Cosmic Rays raining down on our atmosphere nucleate additional clouds. We also suppose that fluctuations of these incoming CRs aren’t required to impact cloud cover — that a waning of our defenses (Earth’s magnetic field) will do the job, and that this waning is exactly what we’re seeing of late with an ever-intensifying Grand Solar Minimum coupled with the beginnings of a potentially extinction-level Pole Shift (Magnetic Excursion/Reversal).
Read more at electroverse.net
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Cap,
I agree totally with the statement “that decadal variations of Earth’s climate are driven by changes in cloud albedo, rather than CO2 ”
But the statement “the results show a high level of accuracy of modeled Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR)” cause me to ask the question: Is Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. and his team using the scattering theory proposed by Richard Feynman as he taught in his physic students how it was that clouds were white? (The Feynman Lectures On Physics, pp 32-8,9)
For, because of what Feynman taught, I consider that clouds do not reflect solar radiation as the smooth sea surface must reflect the solar radiation incident upon it. And I consider, based upon what Feynman taught. that clouds scatter more than just solar radiation. About which I written about before. If pushed, I will try to find where I wrote this at PSI. Otherwise, this comment is merely to alert Cap and Nikolov’s team that they need to look at Feynman’s ideas, if they have not yet done so.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Jerry, clouds reflect solar wavelengths.
See how easy that is? Only one sentence.
Facts can be simply stated. Pseudoscience requires endless rambling.
Which do you prefer?
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Well, I hope Dr. Richard Lindzen reads the paper….he has said he is unsure if clouds are a net plus or minus regarding temp. All clouds are not the same…all clouds are not at the same altitude…always complexity. On a cloudless moonless night, why doesn’t the starlight provide more light since there are trillions of stars? How much heat does the starlight contribute…negligible to be sure.
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi T.C.
In his lecture on “inconvenient lie-day one-dr will happer” Dr Happer states “high clouds warm, low clouds cool”.
He does not specify if during night time clouds have the same or differing effect.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Just to reinforce what you are suggesting, most people (even scientists, or especially scientists), when the issue is warmer temperatures, do not consider anything but solar radiation during the daytime.
This is easy to do when one commonly averages the temperature of a day.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
After I submitted the previous I saw I should have concluded: This is easy to do when one commonly averages the temperature of a day and do not even consider the maximum and minimum temperatures of a day. The latter temperatures simply tell one much, much more than the average temperature of the day does.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry
I considered some of your earlier comments on averaging.
Averaging is a generalization that buries knowledge and understanding.
Analogy: The average man is 5’10” tall tells us nothing about why not many African Pygmies play basketball in the N.B.A. league.
I bet you can not teach me anything else Jerry.
Kind Regards. Matt
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
For you, or I, to win such a bet. you would need to first tell me everything you know.
Have a good day, Jerry
Nick C Schroeder
| #
Oh, wow. Who woulda thunk it?
288 K (assumed average) – 255 K (assumed 0.3 albedo) = 33 C (complete garbage)
Refer to the Dutton/Brune Penn State METEO 300 chapter 7.2: These two professors quite clearly assume/state that the earth’s current 0.3 albedo would remain even if the atmosphere were gone or if the atmosphere were 100 % nitrogen, i.e. at an average 240 W/m^2 OLR and an average S-B temperature of 255 K.
That is just flat ridiculous.
NOAA says that without an atmosphere the earth would be a -430 F frozen ice-covered ball.
https://sos.noaa.gov/Education/script_docs/SCRIPTWhat-makes-Earth-habitable.pdf
(slide 14)
That is just flat ridiculous^2.
Without the atmosphere or with 100% nitrogen there would be no liquid water or water vapor, no vegetation, no clouds, no snow, no ice, no oceans and no longer a 0.3 albedo. The earth would get blasted by the full 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind.
The sans atmosphere albedo might be similar to the moon’s as listed in NASA’s planetary data lists, a lunarific 0.11, 390 K on the lit side, 100 K on the dark.
And the naked, barren, zero water w/o atmosphere earth would receive 27% to 43% more kJ/h of solar energy and as a result would be 19 to 33 C hotter not 33 C colder, a direct refutation of the greenhouse effect theory and most certainly NOT a near absolute zero frozen ball of ice.
Nick S.
With 30 % albedo: 957.6 W/m^2, 360.5 K, 87.5 C, 189.5 F (by 4, 239.4 W/m^2, 255K)
With 11% albedo: 1,217.5 W/m^2 (27.1%), 383.2 K, 109.8 C (22.3), 223.8 F (by 4, 304.4 W/m^2, 270.7 K)
With 0% albedo: 1,367.5 W/m^2 (42.8%), 394.0 K, 121.0 C (33.5), 250.0 F (by 4, 341.9 W/m^2, 278.7 K)
Reply
Nick Schroeder
| #
The atmospheric thermal resistance is little different from the insulated envelope of a house: Q = U A (Tsurf – T toa).
Clouds are part of both Q & U.
More albedo, net Q goes down, dT goes down and Tsurf goes down.
Less albedo net Q goes up, dT goes up, Tsurf goes up.
A 1% change in albedo changes Tsurf about 1 C.
Clouds are also like those draperies pulled across a large picture window.
Keeps house warmer in Fairbanks, cooler in Phoenix.
Reply