Foxfyre wrote:That's right they did and I was remiss in not mentioning it. I don't know any more about that than I know of the other theory. I do know that Anarctica is one of the most studied regions in the world, however, and given how they track the ozone layers and the changing conditions of the ice and the winds and the temperature etc., you would think they wouldn't have to guess so much about those things.
The one theory they didn't propose is that the phenomenon may be one of those natural cyclical fluctuations to be expected in the grand scheme of things.
So what do you think about it?
I doubt that Antarctica is one of the most studied regions in the world. It's been of great interest. But that's true for the moon, too. I don't think that you can equate that with "most studied".
But that aside, I think the reason that NASA didn't propose an explanation along the lines of "it's just one of those natural cyclical fluctuations to be expected in the grand scheme of things" is probably that this wouldn't be an explanation at all.
It's like answering the question about "Why does the Earth revolve around the sun?" with "Well, it's just one of those natural cycles. It's always been like that, you know."
Even if the observed temperature changes are one of those natural cyclical fluctuations (and I wouldn't necessarily doubt that), it would be interesting to find out about what
causes those fluctuations.