Not the End of the World as We Know It

In spite of what the MSM regularly trumpets, not even all the Euros buy into the Glowbull Warming religion, as indicated by this report from der Spiegel. Starting with a historical trace of the development of the current Glowbull Warming hysteria, the piece goes on with a rational examination of the science involved.

Largely unnoticed by the public, climate researchers are currently embroiled in their own struggle over who owns the truth. While some have always seen themselves as environmental activists aiming to shake humanity out of its complacency, others argue for a calmer and more rational approach to the unavoidable. One member of the levelheaded camp is Hans von Storch, 57, a prominent climate researcher who is director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht in northern Germany. “We have to take away people’s fear of climate change,” Storch told DER SPIEGEL in a recent interview. “Unfortunately many scientists see themselves too much as priests whose job it is to preach moralistic sermons to people.”

Keeping a cool head is a good idea because, for one thing, we can no longer completely prevent climate change. No matter how much governments try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it will only be possible to limit the rise in global temperatures to about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. But even this moderate warming would likely have far fewer apocalyptic consequences than many a prophet of doom would have us believe.

For one thing, the more paleontologists and geologists study the history of the earth’s climate, the more clearly do they recognize just how much temperatures have fluctuated in both directions in the past. Even major fluctuations appear to be completely natural phenomena.

In spite of AlGor’s and Rosie’s assertions that “the science is in” it is noted

A healthy dose of skepticism is a good idea, especially when scientists become all too confident and make themselves out to be oracles. But there can be a wide gap between their predictions and the end result — a fundamental weakness of all computer simulations that present only incomplete pictures of reality….Other factors that can either weaken or strengthen the greenhouse effect are still not fully understood today.

Noting some of the contradictory phenomena, the big gorilla of the situation is noted:

But the main problem lies in correctly calculating the effects of clouds. The tops of clouds act as mirrors in the sky, reflecting sunlight back into space — thus cooling the planet. But the bottom sides keep the heat radiated by the earth from escaping into the atmosphere — causing temperatures to rise. Which of the two effects predominates depends primarily on the altitude at which clouds form. Simply put, low clouds tend to promote cooling while high clouds increase warming. So far scientists agree on only one thing, namely that more clouds will form in a greenhouse climate. They just don’t know at which altitude.

Even the most powerful computer models are still too imprecise to simulate the details. However, the clouds alone will determine whether temperatures will increase by one degree more or less than the average predicted by the models. This is a significant element of uncertainty.

Confessing to being a wanna-be beach bum, the Chief says “Bring it on & warm it up!”