New research shows internal or natural changes in cloud structure have allowed more solar radiation to reach the surface in recent decades, as documented by the widespread increase in sunshine duration (SD). [some emphasis, links added]
The increase in SD has been the primary driver of warming since the 1980s, explaining both temperature variability and the trend.
“…the main factor driving the rise in temperature after 1988 was also a radical increase in sunshine. These results indicate the fundamental role of changes in cloud structure, and consequently sunshine, in shaping the observed rise in air temperature.” …
“The regression analysis revealed that the variability of the three considered factors – SD, the intensity of the western circulation in winter (NAO), and radiative forcing (∆F) – completely explained (within the estimation errors) the observed increase in annual air temperature in Kraków.”
Changes in cloud cover are far more influential than increases in modern CO2 concentration in shaping the climate.
“…even small changes in cloud cover can have a greater effect on Earth’s radiation balance than corresponding changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.” …
“van Wijngaarden and Happer (2025) estimated that the role of low cloud cover in shaping the transfer of solar energy to Earth’s surface is even greater, and a reduction in low cloud cover by just a few percent produces the same effect as doubling the CO2 concentration.”
Indeed, CO2 forcing has only a “marginal” (~6%) contribution to warming trends and only a 3.6% contribution to the variability.
“The analysis indicates that the strong rise in SD has resulted from changes in cloud structure since the late 1980s. … SD variability explains 58% of the variance, NAO index variability accounts for 7.7%, and ∆F variability contributes 3.6%.” …
“The role of the anthropogenic factor, namely the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, described by radiative forcing, in driving the increase in air temperature in Kraków is statistically significant but marginal in terms of its importance.
“It does not introduce interannual variability and only slightly increases the trend of temperature rise. Similarly, in Wrocław, located ~250 km from Kraków, a small impact of radiative forcing on temperature increase (~6%) was detected (Marsz et al. 2021).”
Another new study indicates an overall increase in solar radiation reaching the surface since 1983, which is consistent with other studies that have found “a generalized increase in downwelling shortwave radiation (DSWR) across Brazil between 1980 and 2016.
“Trend analysis indicates a generalized increase in SDU [Sunshine Duration] over Brazil since the early 1980s.”
And yet another new study (Budnukaeku, 2026) finds a significant increase in sunshine duration across Nigeria between 1970 and 2022, primarily due to declining cloud cover.
“This study investigates the temporal variability of sunshine duration and cloud cover across Nigeria from 1970 to 2022, leveraging satellite-based and ground-observed datasets to elucidate climatic trends and their implications for renewable energy, agriculture, and climate adaptation strategies.
“Using data from the Meteosat-based SARAH-2 climate data record, ERA5 reanalysis, and Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NIMET) ground stations, we analyze long-term trends, seasonal patterns, and spatial disparities in sunshine duration and cloud cover.
“Results indicate a significant increase in sunshine duration in northern Nigeria, averaging 0.5–0.7 hours per decade, driven by decreasing cloud cover, particularly during the dry season (November–March).”
Read more at No Tricks Zone
More absorbed solar radiation cannot explain
the majority of warming since 1975
which is at night (Tmin)
The fact that the stratosphere is cooling
can only be explained by the fact
that greenhouse warming is more
than absorbed solar radiation warming
What factors create decreasing cloud coverages in the areas that has been observed?
Since CO2 does not and cannot influence the climate, anything will have a greater influence. The short half-lives of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere (about 5 years) also makes it s non-issue. ignoring that its concentration and emission/absorption spectrum is totally unsuited for what is claimed to be happening. In addition, the tropical upper troposphere “hotspot, which the IOCC grifters claim is warming the planet, has never been detected over decades of trying. Instead, NASA reports that it has been gently cooling for decades. This is the nature of junk science, as it is essentially lies and very easy to disprove.
There is no mention here of the fact that we stopped warming in 1989, experienced a plateau of about 12-15 years (just as we did in the 1940s after the previous warming), and been cooling since 2006.
No mention of the loss in the early 1990s of almost 2/3rds of temperature-monitoring sites (mostly rural and thus high quality). This caused an artificial warming in the data due to poor siting and the urban heat island effect, which should be compensated for every year as it grows but really only was token-adjusted once decades ago.
No mention of the dishonest cooling of the past and warming of the present by the data handlers. These people think a jet turning around on a runway and the exhaust temporarily warming a thermometer is evidence of record-setting climate change.
The wheat-killing frosts in Scandinavia cannot honestly be ascribed to warming, but they do it anyhow. The scare-mongering persists and is even becoming more shrill as the world realizes the nature of the AGW scam.
BTW, the El Nino that is being hyped as “super” might cause a hot coming season, but the records show that these events correlate closely with cooling. Sorry, Greta.