Svensmark's theory explains arctic - antarctic ice coverage dichotomy
Mike Jr
"Cloud tops have a high albedo and exert their cooling effect by
scattering back into the cosmos much of the sunlight that could
otherwise warm the surface. But the snows on the Antarctic ice sheets
are dazzlingly white, with a higher albedo than the cloud tops. There,
extra cloud cover warms the surface, and less cloudiness cools it.
Satellite measurements show the warming effect of clouds on
Antarctica, and meteorologists at far southern latitudes confirm it by
observation. Greenland too has an ice sheet, but it is smaller and not
so white. And while conditions in Greenland are coupled to the general
climate of the northern hemisphere, Antarctica is largely
isolated by vortices in the ocean and the air.
The cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis therefore predicts that
temperature changes in Antarctica should be opposite in sign to
changes in temperature in the rest of the world. This is exactly what
is observed, in a well-known phenomenon that some geophysicists have
called the polar see-saw, but for which “the Antarctic climate
anomaly” seems a better name (Svensmark 2007). To account for evidence
spanning many thousands of years from drilling sites in Antarctica and
Greenland, which show many episodes of climate change going in
opposite directions, ad hoc hypotheses on offer involve major
reorganization of ocean currents. While they might
be possible explanations for low-resolution climate records, with
error-bars of centuries, they cannot begin to explain the rapid
operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly from decade to decade as
seen in the 20th century (figure 6). Cloud forcing is by far the most
economical explanation of the anomaly on all timescales. Indeed,
absence of the anomaly would have been a decisive argument against
cloud forcing – which introduces a much-needed element of refutability
into climate science.
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~nvdelden/Svensmark.pdf
--Mike Jr.
Sam Wormley
Ida know, Mike-- 2009 was the second-warmest year on record, and
by far the warmest in the southern hemisphere, despite the record
solar minimum. Solar signals for the past 25 years is not just
small but negative (cooling), but this has not noticeably slowed
down global warming.
Moreover, there are many unknowns remaining, and the largest
uncertainties concern clouds, cloud physics, and their impact on
climate. It is ironic that some people still rely on the cosmic
rays argument as their strongest argument against AGW – it does
involve poorly known clouds physics!
leona...@gmail.com
ø The Worm doesn't know much at all. '09 was
not extremely warm except in the computers of
GISS/NASA and Hadley/CRU.
ø It says that no matter how it is cooling, the globe
is warming. How silly can it get?
ø The 10,000 year interglacial period ended 3,000
years ago, and we have been on a cooling trend,
ever since. Sure, nothing in nature runs in a
straight line, but reglaciation is due and will
begin sometime in this century, AGW
notwithstanding.
ø Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation
Get used to it!!
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes