Everybody thinks they know what climate is, but I guarantee very few actually do know. If it were otherwise, those responsible for inflicting climate alarm on a mostly under-educated population would not have achieved the degree of acceptance from the general public they have – over the last few decades. Precipitating activities that would have been thought totally imbecilic in years gone by. It is not just the less educated of course who have been fooled. Even many top thinkers and academicians fell for the ruse.
So, what is climate? And have we got it right? Or are we simply wasting our time, while making others richer than they were before? Is there a need, in any way, for any kind of climate alarm?
Before I begin, let me say I am not a scientist (nor have I ever wanted to be one). I was, for more than 30 years until my retirement from paid employ, some 14-15 years ago, a much better than average computer systems analyst and programmer. But I did pass both a base level BA Maths and Technology courses with the Open University in the early ’70s of last century after joining the military on a 9 year engagement. Which kind of got in the way of me taking that study any further. Not that I wanted an academic qualification anyway. I made that decision on leaving a Grammar School secondary education at age 16 with good enough school certificate ratings to get almost any job I may have wanted. It’s just that I never quite knew exactly what it was I wanted. Which was a main part of why joined the military. Hey, looking back, it was quite a lot of fun, and I got to be a Statistician. Which led me into the fairly new at the time computing career. This is just to say that if this is of concern to you, and/or you think I don’t know what I am talking about here, you can leave at this point. Otherwise please read on.
So… Climate. There is no doubt that this has become an intrinsic part of everyday life in much of the world. Gendering increasing alarm as the rhetoric surrounding the subject expands into alarming and even catastrophic scenarios featuring the spending (and collecting) of vast amounts of money to fight whatever the current thought may be as to whatever the current peak issue is. Does the subject merit that sort of response? Is there any reason to legislate activities in order to fight whatever the problem may be thought to be? On a national or even global basis? That is what the world has been coaxed into believing may be the only way to save ourselves. From what? What is it we are afraid of? Are we chasing ghosts? Why? In order to keep the current civilisation running for a while longer? Or are we just being led down another endless path (like the endless war path) which benefits only those who already own a considerable proportion of the world’s wealth? Why? And worst situation of all, is there actually any need for any of that?
The short answer is… NO. There is no visible or even conceivable problem, once you understand what ‘Climate’ is. There is nothing to fear. No cause for alarm. No reason to change anything. NOTHING to do. So, pull up a comfortable armchair or deck lounge, lean back, place your hands at the back of your head, take a deep breath …and relax.
Of course, I am not saying that weather extremes are not currently happening. But this is nothing new. It has always been that way from time to time and place to place. Some regions have seen dramatic changes of late. Other regions see nothing out of the ordinary. This is ever the case. And it will ever continue to be so. What is more, since mankind is not responsible (in any way – and that is an important factor to keep in mind) for the appearance of these natural occurrences, there is also nothing that mankind can do to alleviate them. Other than moving to somewhere safer or more comfortable and less risky. But modern man is a stubborn beast, and will not lightly uproot himself. Ancient man, more in tune with reality, knew full well the consequences of such stubbornness, and lived a more nomadic life..
So where did we go wrong? We listened to scientists. Actually, mostly not scientists but science administrators whose pockets were lined by assorted money-grubbers and greedy corporatists (who saw the end of their current business line looming), and also those murky dark-place dwellers who control the world’s money. All of whom got a whiff of some sort of lifeline to further enhance their own futures …at our expense. But they based all this on the work of the scientists. How and why this all came about is an entirely different question, the answer for which you will have to seek elsewhere.
Ok, to the basics. What is climate? How do the dictionaries define it?
Well, I’ve looked at a number of dictionary entries and there is only one which provides anything useful. And that is the Merriam-Webster. But before I get to that, I did consult an actual printed on paper edition from 1976 (before much of the climate hoo-hah began) of the Oxford English Dictionary. It says, briefly, “prevailing conditions of temperature, rainfall, humidity, wind, etc.”, plus some other mentions of other unrelated contexts for the word. “Prevailing” – remember that word. It has a wider meaning of ‘enduring’ or ‘usual’ rather than merely ‘current’. And ‘climate’ is listed between the words ‘climacteric’ and ‘climax’ which may have somewhat coloured modern thought as to its derivation.
As to the word’s derivation, Merriam-Webster has this enlightening piece –
“If you stand at the equator and look up at the sky, the celestial pole (the point in the sky directly above earth’s North and South Poles) lies on the horizon. As you move northward, the celestial pole gradually rises above the horizon, so that the sky is in effect tilted. This tilt or inclination was called by the ancient Greeks klima (literally, “slope,” “inclination”). Because the angle of inclination is determined by your latitude on earth, klima came to mean “latitude,” and the earth was divided into seven latitudinal regions, called klimata (the plural of klima). This word was borrowed into modern European languages as clime or climate, and the weather characteristic of a particular region was also called climate.” – Merriam-Webster Dictionary – ‘Climate’
Merriam-Webster also offers this in what it describes as a ‘Kids Definition’, which, since the general consensus is that we are doing what we do (rightly or wrongly) for the children (so perhaps we ought to order our thinking to proceed from this level) – “the average weather conditions of a particular place or region over a period of years”. There is nothing else there, in M-W, of very much use to us, though what we have here is a very good basis on which I can build an argument.
Let’s repeat the definition to cement it in mind – Climate is “the average weather conditions of a particular place or region over a period of years.”
Thus we have as a basis of thought, climate is a mixture of usual weather conditions, somewhere, ‘prevailing’ or covering a ‘number of years’. That is not very specific. The only thing that other dictionary definitions have to add to this, is that some of them quote a period of years like ’30’ or ’30-40′ years. And this may form part of the basis for our current erroneous thought lines on the subject.
The ‘particular place’ in the M-W definition of climate, can of course be the whole world, and we have gathered much information about that ‘average weather, at great expense, and because we have the technology now to do so. So why are we not using that information properly, but allowing ourselves to be hoodwinked into believing something that is not correct according to the data we have collected? That data, whether from modern direct or technological contact, or through interpretation from ancient geological ground or ice records, provides us with up to half a billion (with a ‘b’) years of climate information. We can actually see that considerable planet wide history in charts and graphs (at broad scale of course – which can only be a rough guide over most of that history). But we can see in increasing detail how that tracks, by refining the scale, to see more clearly what occurred ove just a few hundred or tens of millions of years. More importantly, we can further refine and see in considerable detail, the tracking of climate data over perhaps a few millions of years back into our most recent past. Always informed by the general view over those half billion years of history.
We should also recognise and take into account the fact that, over the most recent tens and perhaps up to almost a hundred million years in the past, the surface of our home planet has undergone considerable change in the position of its continental land masses and therefore its ocean flows and weather patterns. These movements inflicting and enduring far greater local climatic changes than we are seeing today. How would we have coped back then, I wonder. There was certainly animal life present at the time.
By properly using all this collected data we can now clearly see – and many scientists would actually agree with this – exactly what is happening in relation to our global climate. Which of course can manifest in regional disturbances that cause such pain to residents of those places as we see reported in the world’s media more frequently in recent times. Using a level-headed view of current events, informed by past records, we can judge that what we are seeing is in no way a climate which is out of control but a brief period of potential disruption while the climate passes through a continual and entirely natural adjustment which I have described several times elsewhere, while its more general trend carries on unchanged in any material way. There is no danger to the world in any of this.
In any case the modern trend of climate accounting is to look at only one year – the current one – and on the basis of only readings from recent decades to make ridiculous statements that this is the hottest year on record. Which it may or may not be when viewed over such a short period of time. Are such statements in any way relevant? Of course not. even if that history of climate records was many times longer, it would still not be relevant. Why?
Climate, by all definitions, is a mixture of weather conditions over a (not yet fully specified) period of years. Weather, as we all know, is kind of like a roller-coaster (except it doesn’t do loops). The traces of any weather pattern go up and down, up and down, with an irregularity which seems to be the only regular thing about it. And that applies not only to daily local weather but to annual weather, regional and global weather over years, decades, centuries, and far longer periods of time. Studying years is useless. Decades are useful only for short-term trends. Then why do I study decades? Well, to be fair, I study much more than that. But, having established a broader scale picture of climate history (based on the scientific records I spoke about earlier), I closely study recent decades only to combat current climate alarmist hand-waving and screeching. And I only study recent years to pick up any emerging trend that may effect the current decade. Nothing more. Because I know that recent years data, taken in isolation, ain’t worth a hill of beans. And that, in itself, should take the wind out of the sails of any climate alarmist. They are wasting their time, and fooling no-one – except the wilfully and educationally ignorant. But there is money to be made of course. Why else would they do it? Well, there are other reasons – which I won’t go into here.
And what does that most recent data tell us? Well the most obvious conclusion to be drawn is that almost everything you may see in some sort of headline on climate, is actually a pack of lies, perpetrated for the reasons I mentioned earlier. You have to dig deeper to find the real information.
Let’s begin – and this is also going to be the end of this story I think (no matter how much more I say, it is not going to be complete) – with the last four decades. In those four decades it is obvious that Arctic Sea Ice has, based on decade averages, been losing out to increased melting, allowing increased maritime traffic to pass across the most northern sea route. A commercially advantageous recent opening.
A word about Arctic Sea Ice. This is not climate, which consists of far more than simply ice. But movements of Sea Ice levels are quite measurable now and were chosen as being somehow representative of changes in climate features. And so, if I can show that this change is not something to be feared, leading to far worse tipping points to a scary climate future, then that should go a long way toward dispelling general climate hysteria.
There is in fact something I can show to achieve that aim. If we look at decadal averages of Sea Ice extent, we will see that over the past four decades and in particular the most recent two decades, the pace of summer ice melting has increased considerably. That is actually scary. But research tells me it is only temporary in nature and may have occurred as a regular feature many times in the past. It is also not an indicator of climate change, nor of global warming. The planet is in fact not warming at all, in general, and is at its lowest average temperature for many millions of years. Earth is in fact now (at a little under 12°C on the trending line) only some 2 degrees above the lowest point it has ever been, throughout history. Such are the lies about global warming. But bear in mind, always, that this trending lowest temperature is based on annual global averages and, you know as well as I do, there are places on the planet which reach some 40-50 degrees higher or lower than the average temperature across a single year. That is the reality when we discuss averages. But as I usually say, there are always places you can go to be more comfortable on the surface of the globe, at any time of the year. Adapt and survive, if you can.
A word about Earth’s trending temperature line. The definition of climate refers to ‘average’ of various weather factors over long periods of years. In other words, climate measurement ignores actual data readings but forms from them ‘average’ values which are more stable and therefore more indicative of climate than the notably unstable factors of raw weather data. Some weather factors, like rainfall, may be measured in months or years – because that is their period of variance. But other factors, and climate as a whole, must be averaged over far greater interval, perhaps hundreds of thousands or millions of years – because they are slow to change. That is the main point that is missed by modern climate theory – making a farce of its predictions. The chart I normally show – look back, or search my images, to find it – to provide the most detailed of the periodic average temperatures, has a blue line to indicate the long-term average of global temperature. It shows us that line only up to around 250 thousand years ago. This means it is a 500 thousand year moving average, taking into account the data for 250 thousand years in front of the point where it ends and 250 thousand years behind that point. This is the average periodicity which scientists have chosen to give the best indication of the climate trend of global temperature. That is a significant amount of time, proving I think, that changes in climate require such a long period to be seen as meaningful. Any movement in temperature which occurs within that range of time is seen as being insignificant and to be ignored. How does that make you feel now, about modern climate theory?
One last point. What is it that I have seen in the data for this decade in reference to Arctic Sea Ice. It is this. Now that 2024 has finally begun to rapidly climb the formation of sea ice period, I can guarantee that by the end of October, and also November, that all four years of the current decade, ’21-’24, wil be above the average track of the previous decade. Which means tha their average at those points will also be above that line. Which also means that apart from September (which narrowly missed), the average for this decade so far (another 6 years to go of course) there has, all year been more ice this decade than in the previous decade. That indicates to me the likelihood that the at least 4 decade long race to destroy northern sea ice (presumably but insignificantly due to higher summer temperatures in the Arctic) has been halted and may in fact have been slightly reversed. Ok. That, with 6 years data to still collect in front of us, may be quite significant and worth watching.
And that’s climate, in a nutshell.
Not Something Else 