Today, a new world is being formed in Kazan, Russia, as BRICS nations and BRICS aspirant nations attend a summit meeting. However, the new organisation which will emerge from this grouping of some of the world’s most powerful nations, as far as I can ascertain, still harbours a mostly western ideological doctrine based, and therefore colonialist, imperialist, corporatist and globalist leaning view of climate change. This is a recipe for waste and misuse of resources at a minimum, and disaster in extreme. What can we do to circumvent that?
There is no doubt that modern climate change doctrine is falsely based. And we understand why and how that has come about. So why is the world, and even this newly forming world model, so reluctant to give up on the outdated western understanding of climate?
I tried to outline some thoughts on that in my previous essay on this site. For a full understanding, this follow up post should be read in conjunction with that essay. I will refer to and enlarge on something I said in the penultimate paragraph of that piece. But first I must clarify that my arguments there were not based on Sea Ice data primarily – although that is a useful guide to climate movements – but on the vastly more extensive, historically important and widely accepted in scientific circles, Global Mean Surface Temperature records which provide for us as complete a picture of climate movements for the past half billion years as is possible to currently ascertain. There is no equivalent body of data available to us for the purpose of studying climate issues and for formulating a realistic view on climate matters.
I will make one further critical point before getting down to business. On a planetary scale, nothing, with the possible exception of cosmic impacts, changes with any speed. So any study on natural systems must inevitably take the long view rather than fiddling with recent occurrences (which in the overall scheme of things may be completely irrelevant and misleading). We have tended, in climate science, to take the short view, to our extreme cost. This is a plea for the world’s leaders to discard anything which arose from that myopic situation and begin to formulate what is inevitably the correct view based on the long-term data at our disposal. It is also a plea, as I will explain, for that long-term data to be refined (at the sharp end at least) in order to gain a better view of where we stand today. An understanding of where we are and what to expect, is just as important as knowing where we came from and what has been. We don’t have that right now, at least not in sufficient detail. But I will show how it can be achieved.
I am going to reintroduce here, two chart type diagrams which I have used many times in pieces over the past 18 months in which I have been formulating this discussion. No other images are required at this stage for a complete understanding of the situation.
The first chart shows mainly Earth’s Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) – actual and a trend line – plus various related information over the past 65 million years. That is a period of real climate change. And the implications are clear and unmistakable. The Earth has been cooling for at least the last 50 million years. The time-scale for what most modern climate change projects cover is hidden somewhere in the last pixel at the rightmost edge of the chart. Comparison is pointless.
But if you look carefully at the enlarged rightmost region of the chart in the next image, you will see that the red trend line does not go as far as that rightmost pixel. There is a knowledge gap here. Which means that modern climate scientists are working completely in the dark as to what is the real current position on climate change. They only have the rightmost blue pointed peak to work from – which is in fact not the temporary peak of global heat we are currently living through (so beloved by climate alarmists and their backers as a pointer to climate doom). This rightmost peak and the one just to the left of it are actually those of the ‘Holsteinian’ and ‘Eemian’ minor climate cycles.
Incidentally, ignore the label ‘Last Ice Age’. We have been in an Ice Age for the past 40+ million years. Modern climate charters have little idea what they are talking about. They are good at drawing charts though.
I am continually refining my knowledge over time as I look back at charts such as this, and one thing I have noticed recently is that our current cycle is not even represented here. I understand the chart above was drawn up around 2011. The two peaks I just mentioned, are labeled in the second chart I want to reintroduce today, further below, and they can clearly be seen to have reached around 1°C higher than our current one (labeled ‘Holocene’).
Further, that which we think of as the current global mean temperature is an annual figure, calculated in arrears from daily global averages (means) for the previous year. We don’t actually know, and cannot calculate, what the trend position of the global mean is, using that data. The data is too erratic and results in similar peaks and troughs as is shown in these charts (except that they are averaged data points which cover something like 100,000 years – or at best some thousands of years in the most expanded scale of the second row of data in the second chart – rather than a single year).
Do you begin to see the utter stupidity of basing human climate related activities on data covering only a few current years? Or even the commonly used 150 years since industrial activity bloomed? Those who base statements on such data are either crackpots or evil and unprincipled schemers.
As I mentioned in the second last paragraph of my previous essay, the nearest calculated point on that trend line refers to conditions at a point some 250,000 years ago. At that time, my best guess (from the red line in this first chart and the blue line in the second featured chart [which can be clearly seen to end 250,000 years ago in the upper part of that chart]) would be that it (the GMST) stood at around 11.75°C at that point. Which doesn’t help us much if we want to know where it stands today [as we should]. Equally clearly, it can be seen that the trend line, up to that point, was still descending, at a more realistic rate (due to the expansion of the time scale), losing around a little over 4°C across that 5 million year period.
Now here is something that I think you will find very interesting. If the cooling trend line were to continue to fall at the same average rate for several more million years (a not outrageous possibility), and given that the base level of such falls has always been to around a 10°C GMST, then the Earth will still be cooling for up to another 2 million years, before levelling out and beginning to rise (only just beginning to rise – not swiftly but at the same slow pace) for several more millions of years. Is that likelihood (i.e. being more than a mere possibility) not worth considering and perhaps exploring further? It certainly beats tormenting ourselves over a scenario of rapid, uncontrolled heating, which is mostly fictitious and for which there is no real data support.
But, what to do about gathering more assurance that this is what is actually happening?
How can you be sure what the current position is when all you have to go on is an average point plotted at 250,000 years ago of less than 12°C (which incidentally was calculated from 500,000 years of data, as a moving average – looking back from whenever the chart was drawn to half a million years ago – I’ll explain that further in a minute), an average annual point for last year (only) at less than 15°C, and a similar annual average point from around 17,000 years ago (the previous trough) of less than 10°C?
That, our currently gathered, though apparently totally ignored knowledge, gives a spread of some 5°C for current global average temperatures. From which the most accurate value apparently being the central position of the long-term average at under 12°C. But we need to refine that knowledge to see whether the planet is still in a cooling trend or not.
How to do that?
Well, my proposed solution (and I have no intention of doing this myself) would be to refine the moving average used in calculating the trend. There is no need to go backwards in time. Beginning from where the plot ends (250,000 years ago), which means we have to fill that gap as far as possible or as far as necessary to the present day, with sufficient data points to provide some meaning which is sufficiently satisfying to meet our needs. I believe it only requires one or perhaps two such data points.
The first step I would take is to reduce the moving average from 500,000 years to 250,000 years. This will give us a plot point (to my understanding at least) half way across the gap. That is at 125,000 years ago. Interestingly, this approximates the length of the small scale climate cycles of heating and cooling, and may be the only plot point we need – since anything less than that backwards in time would (or actually ‘may’) only produce unwanted noise. Which would only confuse things.
Although, interesting as well, that single plot would be situated around the peak of the Eemian period. It could be engineered to occur at exactly the best fit point to leave a full micro cycle of data rising and falling (and one in which there are few disturbances to interfere with the result). The moving average for that calculation would be for a 125,000 year period, providing a plot point at some 60,000 years in the past. It could then be inferred from these two newly plotted points a guide as to where all the data we currently possess is leading our progressive climate. No further refinement would be required, or in fact be desirable. The line drawn from 250,000 through 125,000 to 60+ thousand would provide a good indication as to where we are going. I believe they would show, from a slight downward slope to a more or less horizontal line – with no possibility of an upward (heating) indication.
And there you have it.
Not Something Else 
Leave a comment