OK, it’s the end of a month again. Quite a significant one this time because during the next month the world reaches the peak of Arctic Sea Ice melting – it being the hottest part of the year up there in the frozen North. So there should be, and is, less sea ice coverage (sea ice loss peaking mid-September, as it always has). The data relating to Arctic Sea Ice shows us that everything is quite normal, and as expected on the climate front, and may even be improving over recent decades following records of recent decades from which the uninitiated and ill-informed may have wrongly interpreted as leading the world into circumstances of catastrophic climate conditions. The raucous screeching from that ‘climate danger’ or ‘climate out of control’ mob has been growing apace in recent days. It is enough to confuse anyone who is not fully informed on climate issues. Allow me to reassure you that nothing untoward is happening, except there is a continuous right royal beat-up going on, perpetrated by those who have much to gain from the pockets of the gullible. So, what is real? And what is ‘made up’? And what is entirely the figment of birfurcated imaginations, the product of modern paucity of study and learning on the one part and the desperate search for unwarranted wealth and ‘something better, or more’ than what others have on the other.
In my view, and I have been looking into and thinking about these matters for a long time now (and I care little about whether my academic record is thought appropriate or sufficient to that task), apart from the causes I outlined above, the root of the problem lies in an incorrect picture or definition as to what ‘climate’ really means. A recognition of ‘climate’ or, more concisely, of ‘climate change’ – since climate itself is a fact of life on every cosmic body forming part of every star system, everywhere (at least those possessing some form of atmosphere), when properly defined, would not permit such profuse and divergent ideas as are in motion around the subject of Earth’s climate today. And that remains true whether or not any of those cosmic bodies contain any form of life. And we do not see any of those cosmic bodies shutting down (occasional external cosmic interference notwithstanding), nor do we have any record of advanced populations fleeing a dying planet for other refuges, as a result of climate change. And yet we think, and some of us plan, that such circumstances may be appropriate for ourselves. The level of our conceit about this is really quite amusing to contemplate.
So, finally, I am getting to the nitty-gritty. A basic definition of climate change that I have used over recent years, and to me (not my idea, I read it somewhere) it remains completely valid as a starting point, a point of departure for any discussion on the subject (and from which we must be careful not to stray too far), is…
Climate Change: Natural variations in weather patterns over long periods of time.
If you do not consider that to be a full and complete definition of climate change, there is not much point in reading any further. Nothing else I say will be of interest to you.
I believe this definition to be full and complete. Every word being essential to the meaning. If it is fely necessary to add more words than here expressed, then the result is not climate change but something else. Fix those words in your mind, and we might get somewhere.
Let’s break it down, part by part…
‘Natural variations’. That means any change which occurs naturally – by action of nature, within the system. It excludes externally introduced changes such as cometary impacts or, if your imagination stretches that far, the weapons of a Death Star. It also excludes, and this is perhaps quite important, the actions of any planetary life-form (whether self-considered to be advanced or not), since the results of such interference would always be highly over-estimated by such a conceited life-form when, in reality, there is no risk to the planet from such activity.
‘Weather patterns’. As I said earlier, ‘weather’ is a fact of life, on Earth, as elsewhere in the heavens. And it seems quite natural there will be variances to the patterns of weather as we travel at many thousands of Kph, along with the other objects of our star system through the vast universe of which we are part. There is nothing special about that. It is part of life for all life-forms, if such there be, wherever they exist in that turbulent and particularly unfriendly space governed by the same laws of physics as we ourselves are (as far as we know). It is interesting to consider that we are never at any time situated at the same location within that great expanse where we were located at any previous time-point in our own or earlier history. So why would we, using that very basic logic, expect the weather patterns of our planet to remain the same for any length of time? That is not the only reason of course. Nothing lasts for ever. Our own planet is itself undergoing the function of aging as it revolves about its axis while also continually circling its central star at differing season altering radii, with its planetary siblings doing the same in a never ending dance of constantly differing positions of mutual influence on each other. Every day, indeed every second of every day, producing and subjecting us to new and interesting conditions. Thank goodness all this activity of change is conducted at such a slow pace that we hardly notice it happening, other than we sometimes need to wear more and other times less clothing, and occupy ourselves in differing activities in order to survive and flourish. Which brings us to the final part of the breakdown of the definition of climate change.
‘Long periods of time’. I hope that all I have said so far has built a degree of realisation around the most vital part of this appraisal. How long does it take to visualise changes in our weather patterns and recognise those which represent real climate change? My answer to that question would be about half a billion years. No less. That may at first be considered to be nonsense, but let me express it another way. I was at first, back in the ’70s of last century, caught up in the relatively new dawning of realisation that humanity was entering a period of growth which would become unsustainable in the measurable long run. That unsustainability culminating during the twenties of this century in a form of global collapse of life-sustaining systems for humanity leading to catastrophic conditions for our survival – based on a new book: The Limits to Growth. I was, at the time, undergoing tuition on a Technology Foundation Course at the newly formed Open University (while also engaged in military service and married with a family of two children). It was a time of serious reflection for me. ‘The Limits to Growth’ did not say much about climate change. That came later, and fell into lock-step with the ideas of being on the wrong path and eventual collapse of civilisation. But with the arrival of the ’20s, and no changes appropriate to moderating the path of humanity, I began to question the dialogue. There were less than 4 billion people on Earth in the early ’70s and today there are more than twice that number. Yes there are signs of collapse now, but not for the reasons given earlier of shortage of resources for the projected number of people. And even with the newer assumed factors of climate change taken into account and loudly proclaimed, nothing was being done to address the perceived problems. We could do nothing about the population. New resources were, and still are, being discovered all the time in the one area – energy – that was being pursued energetically. But was the looming climate situation really a ‘real’ danger? A few years ago I decided to look into that. And yes, I had to go back half a billion years to find the answer.
We have records going back half a billion years? Certainly we do. And even though the degree of accuracy of those far back records may not be relatable to those more recent technological developments permit us to engage today, they are still recognised as being worthy of the best that science could provide – using uniquely different measuring techniques. And they do provide a continuous ‘long term’ view of climate patterns across that time distance which the definition of climate change demands. I will endeavour to explain. But, of course, I have already done that a number of times previously. I think it is worth another attempt.
Before I do that, I was going to provide my monthly sea ice report here, but I didn’t expect this writing to go the way it has, so I will reserve that report until tomorrow.
I have always used four specific images to bring the patterns of climate (through the mechanic of global average temperatures). I see no reason to change that now, although I do have other material which I may introduce before this ends. These four images all begin at different starting points in time but all end at exactly the same time. Out time. Now (more or less). That means you can see even the most recent image represented at the tail end of every preceding image, giving context to its own increasingly higher scale of revelation as part of the whole half billion years of climate history. The main point being – and I can’t emphasize this enough – that nothing about today’s climate is unusual across that whole covered period of 500,000,000 (half billion) years. No matter at what scale you view the details. If you see that, my job is done.
Now, try to see where 65 million years ago is situated on the top part of the above image. That is where the image below begins, and with its expanded scale more clearly shows more detail of that period of Earth’s history to the present day. The blue lines show the ups and downs of the actual data while the less volatile red line shows the movements of the average global temperature. A lot of other relevant data is contained within this image, which may surprise.
Now, try to see where 5 million years ago is situated in the above image. That is where the top part of the image below begins, and with its expanded scale more clearly shows more detail of the most recent 5 million years of Earth’s history, more or less to the present day. It is much easier now to see how the data varies above and below over shorter term periods (the blue line) around the global average (pale blue line) which is still falling.
In the lower half of this image we see a further scale expansion of the most recent 800,000 years, which begins a little to the right of the 1 million year mark on the scale of the upper part.
I could take this one step further to reveal what has happened during the Holocene as marked to the right on the above image. But I will do that in my next post, since this one is becoming too long already.
Do you not see that these images, properly registered in the mind, illustrate the foolishness and deceptiveness of modern climate theory?
Not Something Else 
Leave a comment