Satellite data indicated that Arctic sea ice, glaciers, winter snow and Greenland's ice were bouncing less energy back to space from 1979 to 2008. The dwindling white sunshade exposes ground or water, both of which are darker and absorb more heat.The study estimated that ice and snow in the Northern Hemisphere were now reflecting on average 3.3 watts per square meter of solar energy back to the upper atmosphere, a reduction of 0.45 watt per square meter since the late 1970s. "This reduction in reflected solar energy through warming is greater than simulated by the current crop of climate models," he said.
I wonder how many climate models are out there? Then the Rooters author/editor goes on about MMGW for a couple of paragraphs.
But Flanner said that it was impossible to draw conclusions from the study about the rate of future melting, for instance of Arctic sea ice, since it was based on only 30 years of data.
So only 30 years of data is not a confidence builder?
The study estimated that each degree Celsius (1.8 degree Fahrenheit) rise in temperatures would mean a decline in solar energy reflected out to space of between 0.3 and 1.1 watts per square meter from the Northern Hemisphere's snow and ice.
Not enough precision (factor of 3) to give you much confidence, is it?Temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have risen by about 0.75 degree Celsius in the past three decades.
So only 30 years of data is not a confidence builder?
The study did not look at the Southern Hemisphere, where Antarctica has far more ice but is much colder and shows fewer signs of warming.
"On a global scale, the planet absorbs solar energy at a rate of about 240 watts per square meter averaged over a year. The planet would be darker and absorb an additional 3.3 watts without the Northern Hemisphere cryosphere," Flanner said.
Or an additional 1.375%. How much does solar output vary, year to year? I know one of you out there knows!