As the planet heats up, there will be an increase in water vapour. This, in turn, will cause more clouds to form, and these will reflect away more of the sun’s rays, thereby reducing some of the heating effect of CO2 emissions. In other words, clouds will act as automatic stabilisers, saving us from the worst impacts of global warming. There is therefore nothing to worry about.
Fact:
This argument was put forward by two of the world’s leading climate sceptics, Professor Richard Lindzen and Professor Roy Spencer, in 2011.
The science of cloud formation is complex and not well understood. Low level clouds (like cumulus) do increase albedo (reflection) and therefore have a cooling effect on the planet. High-level clouds (like cirrus) absorb heat (given that they are composed of water vapour) and consequently warm the planet. In a hotter world, the overall impact will depend on which type of clouds form. The current view is that more cirrus clouds will form than cumulus ones, meaning the warming impact will be slightly greater than the cooling effect. But even if that were not true, and only low-level clouds were formed, this would have a marginal impact on the climate.
But even without a full scientific investigation, the flaw in Lindzen’s and Spencer’s argument should be obvious. If clouds really did negate the effects of temperature changes, how could we have had temperature changes in the past? In other words, how could the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period have occurred – let alone actual ice ages and thaws? Surely changes in cloud cover would have prevented these changes from happening. So, clouds are not our saviours.
Finally, it should be noted that Spencer and Lindzen are not just sceptics when it comes to climate change. Spencer also rejects the theory of evolution, while Lindzen rejects the notion that second-hand cigarette smoke is dangerous to health. Both are mavericks in the scientific community.