Robert B. writes via email with a question that we’ve just never asked readers to weigh in on here before in post, though has been bandied about in comments. I figure it is about time to put it to rest by asking up front.
He asks:
What is the perfect temperature of Earth? I’m assuming that climate change-related taxes will be used to bring our planet back to the perfect temperature, and I need to know when that has been reached.
I recommend the average temperature in San Diego..
Well if the inflow of taxes to the politicians is the benchmark against which the perfect temperature is to be measured my bet is that it will just never quite get there. Send more taxes please.
30 F on Mt. Baker, so I can snowboard.
72 F near where I live so I can bike and hike and have fun outside without getting too hot.
80 F on the beach in …. oh, anywhere lovely, how about the Bahamas?… to enjoy the vacation I will someday take… .
#(:))
Heh, heh, well, that IS what you were asking wasn’t it?
NO?!!
Oooops — wrong party! (red faced)
…. move along, move along, nothing to see here…..
Ask the climate change lobby, they must know
Go to the top with questions such as these. Al Gore will know. Al? AL? Earth to Al.
Can you tell that we think that is a silly question? LOL. Well WE DO!
#(:))
I think our weather of the past 20 years is near perfect–so I would vote for the weather to remain like has been for the past two decades. BTW, I live in the north east of the USA
I have to go with DanJ’s suggestion. However in 1969, it did snow there.
In reality, the perfect temperature for government is when they have all the money, and the people have none.
If there was a single perfect temperature and we strove to attain it globally, we’d loose all biodiversity; and that’d upset someone.
The exact perfect temperature of the Earth will not be revealed until it has been achieved. After maintaining the perfect temperature for a period of time, of which you will be informed of when it is reached, it will be published in the important media outlets. The decision of the perfect temperature will be made by intellectually elite bureaucrats serving in powerful, but unelected, positions of Government supported by equally powerful non-governmental organizations.
Just sit back and relax while all the decisions are made for you. After all, a few smart people backed by the power of Government know much better what is good for the masses.
What is the Goldilocks temperture for Planet Earth.
We need a lot of hot air to keep us entertained.
Which begs the question:
What IS “the temperature of the Earth?”
Once you realize that there is absolutely no way to obtain a reading that you can call “the temperature of the Earth,” then the whole game is moot.
My air con is at 26C, so that’s good …
I like Cuernavaca’s… Known as the “City of the Eternal Spring”. Mangos grow wild in the streets, you stick a broom in the ground and get a tree, rain on the evening, mist in the morning…. I’d miss the snow of Alberta, though
72 degrees in every area where people live. Seriously, more important would be the level of CO2 , with respect to our planet’s abilty to feed itself. According to one opinion, a return to pre-industrial CO2 levels (260 PPM) means the starvation of billions.
I’ll side with Janice Moore. I like it cold in the winter. I also like it warm in spring…and hot in the summer…and cool in the fall. And to tell you the truth, if it hadn’t been for all this nonsense about global warming, I would NOT have noticed the slight change we’ve seen, because where I live there are 55 deg C (100 deg F) swings every year.
It is of course the wrong question. The temperature is fine and not likely to get much hotter. The right question is: “What is the ideal carbon dioxide level?”
The answer to that is the higher the better. Farm productivity all round the world must be up 10 to 15 % according to several careful studies. It may be higher. There is also a saving in water consumption of plants. There is no down-side that I am aware of.
What temperature will proponents of AGW *NOT* object to?
In the second world war, In Britain, we were having a tough time. very tough.
The government started a programme of collecting pans, plates, railings, old nails, screws.
The idea was that we needed the metal to make more spitfire aircraft to help us win the war.
Of course the people who made the planes looked at the metal and threw it straight into the bin, it was useless.
But that wasnt the point. It was all about the sacrifice. It made everyone feel a part of something big and it made everyone feel that they were ‘doing their bit’
like these taxes really. totally useless for their stated objective, but thats not the point. The sacrifice, in the greenies mind, means that ‘at least we are doing our bit’
Nobody asked it because it is a stupid question. The best answer is the stupidest and that was provided by All Gore who asked Goldilocks who asked the Mama bear who said not too hot, not too cold, just right. This is the height of intelligence of a man who came within 1500 votes of being President of the US. As Adlai Stevenson said, “In America, anyone can become president. That’s one of the risks you take.”
A really good thought provoking question by ‘Robert B’.
The perfect temperature was in the geological past when most carbon was unsequestered in the earth-atmospheric system.
John
What sort of small minded person would ask “what is the perfect temperature”? The Earth isn’t some sort of dwelling that you can feel comfortable in your zone. As if there is a perfect global temperature without extremes in ludicrous. I have very few prejudices in my life, but “ignorance” is top of my list
“What is the perfect temperature of Earth?”
Plain biology – it depends where you are. Spieces has adapted to differnt temperatures and can adapt to some variations. A single average number is therefore no sense.
It’s the wrong question, of course. No one cares what the “perfect” temperature for the Earth is, if there were such a thing.
The right question is what temperature is best for our human civilization? The answer is the range that has existed since human civilization started several thousand years ago, or at least changing at a pace that can be adapted to. Sea level rise, widespread changes in weather patterns that impact food supply, or any of a number of other changes that increased greenhouse gases might push outside that envelope are what policies are trying to avoid.
Policies aren’t trying to “bring back” temperatures anywhere. They are trying to keep us from sending them some place we can’t get back from.
What room is the thermostat going to be installed in?
The perfect temperature would be so nice, it would comfort even the most uneasy. The neurotic & self-pitying would be satisfied by this temperature. They would feel so happy they would simply try to live their lives, and not try to run anyone else’s.
They wouldn’t have to fly around the world organizing the change the temperature. They could stay in their air-conditioned homes and post on the internet about the ozone layer, or something.
Oh wait, 70F is too hot and 69F is too cold. Nevermind.
One to two degrees warmer than current (average planetary temperature) with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes. (i.e. The same as Holocene optimum.) The biosphere expands when the planet is warmer and contracts when the continental ice sheets return.
It appears regardless of our pool of preferred average planetary temperature that we are going to experience what causes the termination of the interglacial periods, a Heinrich event. All of the past interglacial periods have ended abruptly. As the planet resists forcing changes abrupt cooling requires a very rapid powerful forcing mechanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Holocene climatic optimum
The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.
The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).[1] The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.[3
The temperature achieved when 100% of global GDP/year is spent to slow CO2 rise.
Heretic!
Like the Global average temperature, the perfect temperature for earth is dependent upon your faith.
Or the 6-7 billion faces of God.
I too am fascinated by what answer the “team” IPCC TM would give, if we could get them under oath.
No good asking me.
32°C and 50RH is comfortable. 29°C and 90+RH is uncomfortable. If it drops below 16°C I start dreaming about frost-covered hillsides and my bones start to ache.
Disembarking from a plane a while back, they gave the temperature outside as 12°C. I (and a few other locals) started pulling out warm jackets. Another passenger commented “Ooh hear that? it’s lovely and warm up here … “
He knows very well there is no such thing as a perfect temperature no matter how you define it and striving for something that does not exist is an impossibility. Think about it.
Mr. Mann, et al. have already answered that question. It would be the long flat part of the hockey stick. So, just call your local politician and tell him that you want the shaft.
I suggest which ever temperature will bring in the most tax money will be the choice.
Sydney’s temperature range in the Spring and Autumn.
Also I am sure Al would like to know that it never snows in Sydney.
Great question – I too wonder what is the so called base line temperature best for the planet? No one seems to know. The AGW people keep telling us its too warm then what is their base line temperature they base that tidbit on? And where is that supposed to occur? Then what are the rest of our temperature supposed to look like? Where?
Bloody good question. It should be put to all the active alarmist players. I’m sure the assortment of answers will delight us and confuse and outrage them due to disagreement. Could be a good show in it. Not likely to be a consensus, however, no matter how hard they try. 🙂
Do you think O’Bummer might know the answer?
Who cares and for whom? Evolution made most of us tolerant of a range, pick a place. For those whose range is narrow, c’est la vie. Something else will fill the space. Nature abhors a vacuum, except between MM’s ears, in which she takes great delight in keeping it as devoid of anything as possible.
I would like them to skew the Earth’s axis hourly so that it is always exactly 74 degrees where I live.
(Please don’t tell me I don’t understand the physics and the energy involved; neither do the climate alarmists!)
Perfect for what?
Since in this brilliant new world of ours we can in essence vote on what climate we prefer, I’m partial to the Mesozoic Era when the dinosaurs roamed, who clearly had a good thing going. It was much warmer than today by about 10 degrees C. I’ve read, with little difference between summer and winter.
Might be too hot for some, but I’m a warm weather guy.
Whatever it was the week before all those wooly mammoths froze would seem to be a good level.
Nobody has that answer, and they spend billions of dollars insulting anyone who dares to ask.
Sorry, question should be- what is the wrong temperature?
FIRE AND ICE
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Robert Frost
The real question is:
What climate is optimum for the maximum biosphere and consequently… our food supply?
The answer is:
The climate – that is a little warmer – a little wetter – and an atmosphere which contains a little more plant food (CO2). Giant-ism in our food crops would also be nice.
Mankind’s food supply must always remain our prime directive. Man’s comfort, while sitting on the sofa, in his underwear, worrying about CAGW… NOT SO MUCH! GK
Answer: warmer than it has been the past few months in the central eastern US.
First, we would have to find a suitable orifice to insert a thermometer. Where is Gore when you actually need him?
To answer the question, I don’t think there is one. However, humans demonstrate everyday and in every zone where we have a footprint that we can prepare for and handle extreme cold and extreme heat and anything in between.
“EternalOptimist says:
March 7, 2014 at 5:44 pm”
And there was so much aluminium left over from aircraft manufacture that gave birth to London Transport’s Route Master Busses.
I think this is more likely to mean, what is the optimal average temperature such that the benefits exceed the costs integrated across the planet. When we talk AGW one must speculate that the trillion dollar benefits of CO2 fertilisation, must be included. The IPCC says the optimal is about 17 degrees two degrees above today, if I recall, which implies (assuming symmetry) that it’d have to reach 4 degrees before the costs would exceed the benefits relative to now. So that’s at 1600 – 3200 PPM at current trajectory with optimal in 225 years and break even in something like 1000 years time on IPCC figures. On my figures, never springs to mind, because at a sensitivity of 0.5, you could barely force enough warming from CO2 to cause 4 degrees of warming before you ran out of oxygen for combustion.
Yep, its really urgent, NOT!
According to “scientists”, whatever the temperature was when they first measured it is the permanent, natural, perfect temperature. Any deviation from what they first measured is a man-made, catastrophic, desecration of nature.
Already answered in the HitchhIkers Guide to the galaxy, duh!
42
@Chief – Celsius or Fahrenheit?
Tis a dang good question, and those proclaiming they can calculate that it is starting to get to hot should undoubtedly provide the answer. If they cannot, how can they proclaim what is ‘too hot’?
Personally I think we can easily handle a couple of degrees of (average) increase, as I have seen evidence that both ends of the planet are in fact frozen solid, and a little expansion of the space where and the time when things can grow seems unlikely to be a bad thing.
And it also appears that the tropics will not get warmer, there is little evidence storms are getting worse, and there is little confidence in the predictions that droughts will worsen.
Warmer seems a lot more attractive to me than cooler.
The ideal temperature is about 0.5 degrees warmer than now, with a CO2 level at about 500 ppm. If we can keep the green crowd from ruining our economies, and the sun cooperates, we will achieve that in about 2050. Otherwise it’s Ice Age time.
Stupid assumption.
Have we found the 21st century’s Voltaire? What a wonderful question.
Actually, there can NEVER be a ‘perfect temperature’ or they wouldn’t be able to continue wringing your tax dollars out of you…
I don’t know what the ideal so-called “global average temperature” is, but I do know it’s not warm enough yet. Everybody keep warming the planet, please. I’ll tell you when to stop.
A range,perhaps, plus/minus 5 degrees F?
Best temp for the planet or humanity or plant life or what?
I presume the question assumes what the perfect temperature of the earth is during an interglacial, not during the transition to the next glacial, or within the next glacial. Naturally such perfection does not include consideration of whether we are discussing the perfect summer, perfect fall, perfect winter and perfect spring temperature(s), but an annual global average of some kind or the other.
This is actually a very loaded question if you are a true environmentalist. If you really are for and of gaia, then you simply cannot risk impeding onset of the next glacial inception. It’s just that simple. If we were to inadvertently leave the CO2 climate security blanket (aka CO2) up there then the possibility exists we might delay, or heaven forbid, avoid the next ice age! Will the true environmentalists that prefer a perfect temperature instead of the normal natural interglacial/glacial wild climate ride please stand up!
Which makes pegging a “perfect” temperature a very different proposition, doesn’t it?
The perfect temp is what Mother Nature decides. We obviously can’t model it.
Just sayin. I have been colder than I like to be too often. I prefer sweating to shivering any day of the week. I believe it is healthier too!
Video redacted due to cold temperatures in Sarasota in March. I gotta move South》》》》
As well as the answer to the question: What is the perfect temperature of Earth? I would also like to know: What is the current temperature of the earth, right now?
Then when I ask again next year at this time, I will know for sure if it is warming or cooling.
The perfect temperature is about M30 Celcius as in Winnipeg for the past couple of months. We have 700 houses with no water due to frozen water lines and we have not heard from the AGW crowd about the last dozen years being the warmist in history.
To be honest I think it doesn’t matter within a few degrees either way. On the other hand I am pretty certain that temperature differentials in the ocean and between the land and the ocean are what drive our prevailing weather, which over time comes to be known as our climate.
Only God knows what the ideal temperature is. And he doesn’t care what mankind thinks it should be. His creation is incredibly complicated and is way beyond our ability to understand. To think we as humans can influence the trajectory of our atmosphere is laughable.
Let’s see: there’s a perfect temperature for golfing, a perfect temperature for duck hunting, a perfect temperature for snow skiing, a perfect temperature for water skiing, a perfect temperature for… Heck, it was 65F here today, so I like the temperature we’re at now. Problem solved.
Richard Tol has a graph showing a curve fit to 14 studies calculating net benefits/losses vs. temperature. The curve shows net benefits out to about 2.2 C higher than present, dipping below zero for higher temps. I can’t remember where the peak of the curve occurs, but it is probably just above 1 C higher than present.
Whatever temperature raises the shoreline to be just outside my back door.
Chief says:
March 7, 2014 at 6:17 pm
Already answered in the HitchhIkers Guide to the galaxy, duh!
42
Yeah, yeah … but what numeric base?
One has to have defined seasons friends. Or your deciduous trees won’t have a dormant period to regenerate, and you will have no fruit or nuts. Depends which country you live in, animals and trees etc., have adapted, so can humans. An no skiing season for some. Even Cyprus has a skiing season in winter, on the Troodos mountains. So does Australia. But the hotter it is, the more rain we can expect with higher humidity. So long as you live close enough to sea.
It is a good question that can never be answered, which is why it suits the alarmist dogma so well. Only in religion can you have the perpetual question that can never be answered definitively.
On a more practical level, there is no such thing as a global temperature.
http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/local-vs-global.pdf
Ah, you beat me to it!
The perfect temp is whatever the agerage temp was when babyboomers were kids as that seems to be recurring reference point. (See Al Gore).
You’re missing not only the perfect temperature but the perfect variability too. Right now it’s all about exteme weather, so what temperature swings around the perfect temperature would be considered not extreme?
In Washington, D.C., the temperature should be eternally -5F. No government business should ever be allowed to be conducted ANYWHERE else.
Bob Tisdale says:
March 7, 2014 at 5:42 pm
“I would NOT have noticed the slight change we’ve seen, because where I live there are 55 deg C (100 deg F) swings every year.”
Not quite that much, but here in SE Virginia we saw a 52 °F swing in less than 24 hours in January. Not sure I would have noticed a +/- (almost nothing) change either.
Warmer than now, that is for sure. We are still dangerously close to tipping back into ice age. But since it won’t warm evenly everywhere and warming will do interesting things to rainfall and local climate you really need to take it slow and see what you get in the way of local climate in different places. Lets get back to the temperatures of the Roman or Minoan warm periods first, when civilization was booming in areas that are now desert. See how that goes and then think about if it might be worthwhile striving for the even higher temperatures of the holocene optimum. Not that we really have much control eh. But it is nice to imagine we could choose.
Kent Clizbe says:
March 7, 2014 at 5:39 pm
What IS “the temperature of the Earth?
It varies between 12.0 C and 15.8 C from January to June.
See: http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2013/03/misunderstanding-of-the-global-temperature-anomaly/
So the coldest July in the 1800s was warmer than the warmest January in the last 20 years.
But in answer to the posted question. Who am I to be thinking of? This range is too warm for polar bears and too cold for tropical fish.
Wbrozek,
What IS “the temperature of the Earth?
It varies between 12.0 C and 15.8 C from January to June.
See: http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2013/03/misunderstanding-of-the-global-temperature-anomaly/
But you’re describing AVERAGE temperature.
My point is that the concept of “AVERAGE temperature of Earth” is completely meaningless.
The “Average Temperature of Earth” is a fake construction of fake scientists. The numbers thrown around today do not take into account temperature readings from places located at the top of the Himalayas, nor from the remote steppes of Siberia, nor from the Gobi, Sahara or other deserts, where there is no human presence.
Even if the “data” included temperature readings from those places, which part of the day/night reading do you include in the “average?” If it is 125 F for 12 hours, then drops to 0 F for an hour, then climbs back up to 100 for 11 hours–what is the “Average temperature” for that day? Do you weight the time that the temperature stayed at 125, or 0, or 100? Or do you just average the maximum and minimum? Or do you create an equation that captures the range of temperatures experienced for each minute/second/hour of the day? Regardless of how you do the math, the result is meaningless. A human in that place would have gone from extreme, life-threatening heat
to extreme, life-threatening cold in one day. “Averaging” the temperature extremes provides no information of value–essentially, it is a meaningless number.
Or an even more obvious demonstration that “Average temperature” is a meaningless “measure,” how about this example:
During a 24 hour day, the temperature at our measuring station peaked out at 645 degrees F. At night, the measured temperature dropped down to negative 515 degrees F. Those two extreme measurements AVERAGE out to a very comfortable 65 degrees F. So, there’s our ideal “climate,” right?
What nonsense!
First, “Average temperature” is a completely meaningless concept. Locally, or globally, the number provides no meaningful information.
Second, even if “average temperature” was a useful number, how do you capture the data necessary to calculate that value? Do you just ignore the places that you do not have measuring devices–the peaks of the Himalayas, the jungles of Borneo, the rolling sand dunes a hundred miles north of Timbuktu? If you do ignore the fact that you don’t have measurements for those places, do you then just fake measurements for those places? Or do you just fake the whole thing?
Global Average Temperature is a meaningless concept used by fake scientists in their scheme to destroy Normal capitalist culture.
Don’t play their game!
23°C, no seasons allowed.
“What is the perfect temperature of Earth?”
Whatever it was before white men, capitalism, and SUVs.
There is no perfect temperature.
To cleanse the Earth, the average temperature needs to drop to 22 degrees so ice and Glaciers can grow and chill the Earth. This brings Perma-frost about as far south as Atlanta during the Ice Ages.
On the other hand with the right distance from the Sun, a good tilt in the Axis and Sunspot Acidity of 900 total average sunspots for a 11 year cycle, we have a very strong and active hurricane seasons. This pushes temps up above a 33 winter temp.
Just depends on what one is looking for. We just had the best it will get and that was from 1997 to 2006 in terms of global warming and the greatest expansion of Topography know to modern man.
The Vikings had it this good and better. They sailed around Greenland and established their colonies maybe as far west as Lake Superior.
There is no perfect temp. Many options.
Paul
The perfect temperature is where most people fly in fossil fueled aeroplanes on holiday – or to warm-mongering conferences. Apart from Copenhagen…
It doesn’t matter as all temperatures are equal, it’s just that some are more equal than others.
Frank Legge says: @ March 7, 2014 at 5:43 pm
It is of course the wrong question….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am with you there. I would like to see a CO2 level of ~ 1500 ppm.
Temperature?
No lower than we are now. Excessively high temperature is not really in the cards for the next few thousand years with the current point in the Milankovitch cycle.
Our CAGW friends are about 9000 years too late in their concerns about GoreBull Warming. GRAPH
We cracked the freezing mark today south of Boston. People are walking around in teeshirts.
What is the ideal temperature?
There isn’t any, because no matter what it is the alarmists will scream “global warming.”
How about just leaving that for nature to decide, you mollusks? (The alarmists, I mean.)
There’s no such a thing as a perfect temperature for the planet, but only for specific regions in specific times of the year. Same goes for the perfect climate, it would be one in which daily conditions are always near the average conditions of that place at that time of the year. Which means lack of extremes, which has never happened anywhere in our planet at any temperature.
I think this is just about right, don’t touch a thing:
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png?w=636&h=294
Oh, I don’t know. Just so long as it’s never hot enough to satisfy the catastrophic cults.
We ought to offer those catastrophicists special deals on houses; specifically their own glass house greenhouses. There they can learn that yes the days can get quite toasty, but not to worry, greenhouse nights cool off just as quick.
So much for excessive CO2 effects.
I’m reminded of this little bit of news this year as the extra cold nights are tough on my orchids that were expecting March and are getting February instead.
it really does not matter. tell em they have to pass the tax to find out.
they’ll scream about it but they’ll pay. we call it ‘riding the gravy train’.
Or; I’ll settle for Janice Moore’s temperature mosaics.
Just like race reparations — even though in many areas Caucasians are a minority (by the numbers), we still feel pressure to “make it right” and “undo the wrongs of previous generations”. But there’s no standard, no idea as to how we would know we’re even making any progress whatsoever.
An excellent question. The followup, I believe, is: “How much will it cost to achieve, and what is the guarantee that the tax level selection will each the desired weaher?
Perfect temperature for the comfort of a naked human would be 22.2 degree C at 55%RH at 99kPa (embarrassment factor notwithstanding).
The Earth’s ideal temperature is 0.01 Standard Atom Bombs*.
*Denialists will no doubt complain that the Standard Atom Bomb is a unit of heat rather than temperature, but this serves only to illustrate only how out of touch with mainstream climate science they are.
3°C and it should be made law in every city and town on earth.
“What is the perfect temperature of Earth?”
This question is so absurd, I’m certain there has been a typographical error. Obviously, the question intended was, “What is the prefect temperature of Earth? The few Earthly prefects I have met had, most likely, a temperature of 98.6°F.
“I’m assuming that climate change-related taxes will be used to bring our planet back to the perfect temperature.”
Given that assumption is provably false, the pointed question is considerably less pointy than it might otherwise be.
However we can say that it is very likely during the bitter northern winters of 2035 the world will fondly remember today’s pleasant climate and yearn for the days of the Roman Climatic Optimum.
In the shivering community soup lines there will be no place for “council CO2 abatement liaison officers”. The useless would be well advised to study more practical “greenhouse issues”. A reading of “Polyethylene greenhouse construction and maintenance for beginners.” or “Snow-loading and greenhouses in high wind areas – a design guide.” would be a good start. For those with lower skill levels, the fields are always an option, although a copy of Dr. Stumps excellent (if somewhat short) work “If it’s black it’s time to hack – a field guide to frostbite” would be highly recommended.
By working together I’m sure the adversity will be overcome. Even the most useless, “climate communicators” such as Romm or Appell, should be able to make a contribution. I imagine tallow candles will be making a comeback 😉
Perfect for who or what is an important question. According to some notorious “optimizers”-a term I use derisively for people who believe the task of economists is to add “utility functions” and find the global maxima-the number would actually be slightly higher than the present temperature.
I mean. You can’t add or compare utilities across persons. But that’s an entirely different discussion.
It varies in direct proportion to James Hansen’s honoraria for speaking engagements.
72.3 degrees Fahrenheit.
You can’t prove it’s not true!!!!
Depends when and where you were brought up and how old you are now. Anything from -Brrr to +Phew +/- IIRC.
The perfect temperature is what ever God makes it. He is in charge anyway, not green nutters.
Have you lost your mind?
Have you gone stark staring mad?
Are you trying to start a war?
The auto industry invented dual zone climate control so that we don’t have to answer this question! And you want an answer for the whole planet? Nothing good can come of this…
Gotta keep the mosquitos and bugs at bay. So winters have to be cold to save the trees from beetles in the mid and high latitudes.
Gotta have diurnal T variation to allow heat cycling from daytime solar heating
Gotta have enough growing season to make grains and fruits. But apples have to so many days of freezing to make fruit.
Gotta keep the riff raff out of northern climates. Tropics breeds indolence in people. (Where my margarita again? It’s always 5-oclock somewhere in Margaritaville, etc).
Since temperature distribution is a bell curve, we want tails that extend to 5 sigma,
My ideal global average temp in 16 deg C.(60.8 F) should do it.
16 deg C (global average). That’s 1 deg C higher than current. Should be there around 2080. But I’ll be dead then. Oh well.
The standard to be applied is the state of global climate in the District of Columbia on March 31, 1948 (when Al Gore was born).
Thank you, A Theo K, for your generously kind characterization of my “temperature mosaic,” lol.
#(:))
Here’s a better “mosaic” to illustrate my point:
Parts I and II
Ski to Sea — 2011, Mt. Baker –> Bellingham
And, Part III, …. someday…. (sigh)
P.S. Hope those orchids make it — congratulations to you for having the skill to raise those lovely plants.
42
Bill Parsons says:
March 7, 2014 at 7:45 pm
It varies in direct proportion to James Hansen’s honoraria for speaking engagements.
Duh, I might add.
Per: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_actaul_temperature_of_planet_earth#slide=2&article=What_is_the_actaul_temperature_of_planet_earth
“The average temperature on the earth is twenty four degree Celsius and if it is changed a little more or less the results will be affected all over the world.”
This means that trillions must be spent to reduce CO2 back to about 300 ppm or less to avoid multiple dooms days (excessive rain/droughts/extreme weather/rising oceans/dying flora,fauna etc). Then finally the models (which by then will be run by android computers) will declare that the climate has finally reached stable “natural variation” levels and at last humans are no longer to blame.
P.S.: A minimum of 20% of the trillions will be required for “scientific climate study” grants to continue insuring that there is no repeat of the near doomsday conditions caused by those previously high CO2 levels.
Since the Earth is a spinning ball that receives most of its influx of radiant heat near the equator, then rejects substantial heat near the poles, it is pointless to choose one temperature for the entire Earth.
If the evolutionists are correct, humans survived through more than one ice age and the warmer interglacial periods. With lower sea levels and higher sea levels compared to today, humans managed just fine.
P.P.S. FULL SCREEN works great for the beaches. (click on the exploded square icon in lower right of control window)
Its 15C today. our civilization has developed over a period where this ranged from perhaps 13.5 to 17C.
So that range has proven to be good. trying to optimize this ( what is perfect) would be a fools errand. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 13.5C to 17C has been pretty good.
Knowing that, who but a fool would want to risk going above 17C. There be dragons.
So, a 17C cap makes some sense. As a good engineer we are are going to want some buffer around this.. so 16.5 C.. dont do anything that has a chance of taking us above this line.
Dont burn all the coal, switch to gas until we understand the problem better.
So “what is the perfect temperature? well a temperature that our civilization has experienced would be a good start.. keep things around there.
No complaint by me about being out of touch with the exploding SAB.
With the earths poles still glaciated, and from a long term geological perspective-we are now living in an Ice Age. I just don’t think this is it?
Warm enough so that girls wear the absolute minimum. Or even less.
10 degrees warmer than my girlfriend’s feet.
Humm,
we should be able to derive an equation for this, because no matter what the perfect temperature is, my wife’s toes will be 20 degrees F less
I know what the perfect temperature is my children. Listen closely and be prepared to put your tithes in the wicker basket being passed around. When enough green paper and jingley thinks have accumulated within the basket I will retire to my mountaintop temple accompanied by the fairest of the fair maidens among you. I will then perform the ritual exercises necessary to unlock that knowledge within me.
And then get my a.. over to Las Vegas.
The late Everett Dirksen would probably hold that the ideal temperature is the point at which politicians, feeling the heat, begin to see the light.
There’s a temperature for work
and a temperature for play,
a temperature for planting
and a temperature for making hay.
There are temperatures for fishing,
on the ice or from a boat.
There’s a temperature for bikinis
and a temperature for down coats.
If you’d know the perfect temperature
heed what I say!
The perfect temperature is……
What’s the temperature today?
The global thermostat should be set a 75F in the summer and 69F in winter… to save energy.
It was the temperature during the Roman Warm Period.
Whatever temperature drives the lawyers, politicians, snakes and rats into hibernation sounds good to me.
Perfection is the enemy of good.
In trying to achieve perfection we ignore all the good alternative, while never achieving perfection. As a result, by seeking perfection we do more harm than good.
This is the problem with over regulation. Having achieved good, regulation seeks to achieve perfection, and in this they do more harm than good.
For example, clean air and water is good. But sterile environments, completely devoid of harmful effects is actually quite bad for humans. Study after study shows that we have been genetically selected over many generations to co-exist with a dirty environment. Children that play in dirt and eat dirt end up healthier, with less allergies, than children raised in hypo allergenic environments.
We see something similar in vaccination. By exposing healthy children to low levels of pathogens, they become resistant to larger levels later in life. While children that receive antibiotics early in life develop sensitivities to their environment later in life.
90% of the cells in our bodies are not our DNA. They are the bacteria that keep us alive. It seems perfectly reasonable that we develop the 90% that are not “us” from our environment. When these “friendly” bacteria are not available, we suffer poor health.
The Holocene Optimum was the ideal temperature. That is why the Holocenians called it Optimum.
Ask the Oak trees, my children, and heed their wisdom. They know in their Oaken hearts that when the temperature remains too steady, the squirrels multiply without limit, consuming the acorns with insatiable appetite until there are no new Oak trees, and so both species perish from the smiling face of the Earth. But when the temperatures swing in a violent and unfriendly manner, then verily the squirrel populations are diminished, and thus both species flourish like — well — Oak trees.
Steven Mosher;
Dont burn all the coal, switch to gas until we understand the problem better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Is there a magic wand by which we could accomplish this? Just wave it, mutter some incantations, and PRESTO! we’re off coal and onto natural gas? Seriously?
I saw a sign in a winery once “The best wine is the one you like” Substitute temperature for wine and you have it.Warm is wonderful. <:o)
I think you have to start by recognizing existing extremes, and the fact we have adapted on every continent to those extremes.
North America temperatures have the second widest span, ranging from 134 F High (at Furnace Creek Ranch, Death Valley) to -63 F Low (at Snag, Yukon Territory)
The Australian temperature range is relatively narrow, in fact the narrowest span of any continent, hovering between 123 F High to – 9.4. (a mere 132 degree swing!)
Asia (the greatest span)? 129 F to – 90 F.
But if the Great Gore is to save the Great Antarctic Penguin Civilization, he should keep it between 59 F to – 129 F, where temperatures are – and probably have been for eons.
When dinosaurs roamed the planet the temperature was around 10 degrees warmer than today, and when the temperature dropped following a meteor impact they were unable to survive, but smaller mammals boomed. So, from a planetary perspective you could say that nature adjusts and flourishes in a different form depending on the conditions and temperature.
Now, if we could find a temperature that killed all warmists but allowed the remaining humans to survive then I would say that WOULD be perfect !!!
The heck with what the perfect temperature should be, I want to know who gets to decide and how I do I get his job.
(Any objections if I make long springs in New England? It seems we currently often go straight from spring into summer.)
“… don’t do anything that has a chance of taking us above this line.” Mr. Steven “Precautionary Fallacy Pete” M-o-sher
Nothing has ANY proven “chance” (of any meaningful significance) of taking us anywhere, climate-wise, dear Mr. Mosher. So….. chill, man. Take a joy ride in your Corvette, grab a pizza, and watch a great movie like…..
…. “South Pacific” (inspired by Mac’s cute poem (same basic meter):
“Oh, there’s a temperature for work….
and a temperature for play…. and a temperatures for plantin’ an’ a …”
sounds like
“We Ain’t Got Dames” — Rodgers and Hammerstein
(yeah, yeah, I know — and some of you are d–n glad you ain’t got one of those blankety blank, annoying, stops-me-from-doing-my-work, dames… LOL — and that’s just fine. Glad you are happy just the way you are.)
(just a little Friday night fun)
#(:))
It is an idiots quest and question.
It is impossible (and undesirable) to have the same temperature everywhere (don’t we define death as reaching and maintaining ambient temperature?).
For all of live to thrive we have to have cold regions and warm regions. Some crops and animals require cold, some warmth, some alternations.
What a stupid question.
Here in Coffs Harbour NSW the average summer temp is 28C and the average winter temp 18C.
I find that quite pleasant.
I like Coffs Harbour, but a little North, Fraser Coast, is more my kind of climate. We’re still swimming in bathtub warm water when Coffs Harbour is shivering. Think Gulf of Mexico, without the winter.
I used to like colder climates, I grew up in Melbourne. But once your body adapts to a warmer climate, it is simply wonderful – you never get up cold, you can always wear lightweight summer clothes, you never have to burn expensive power heating the house, and you can always go for a swim in the ocean if you get too hot.
After all, hot weather is what we evolved for – in anything other than a tropical climate, we need clothes to stay warm.
According to Al Gore, the Earth is suffering a horrible fever since the interior of its sphere is at millions and millions of degrees Fahrenheit. Let’s bring down its core temperature first and then see if its forehead cools off. Take two ass burns and call me back in the morning.
I understand that the planet’s average temperature in the 20th Century used to be 15C. This was changed to 14C by James Hansen which is now the baseline from which Earth’s temperature variations are measured.
Maybe I got this all wrong but 14C seems like the currently accepted “ideal” temperature.
The perfect temperature in my book is just not being in an ice age….
Raw or adjusted? Please be specific. This here’s a science blog, for heaven’s sake.
The perfect temperature will be reached when hell freezes over.
The perfect temperature for us life-forms is the one produced by a climate system which has been shown to best support life. This is a circular answer to a tricky question. It means essentially the climate system that we have had over the last 600 million years at least. Even including the climate catastrophes that have on about five occasions wiped out most of the biosphere. Evolution of life in its current state and diversity has benefited from these catastrophes which shake up the mix in evolution and stimulate innovation and new species. We humans would certainly not be here without the K-T disaster that killed the dinosaurs. And they in turn would never have existed without the great P-T event which finished off most of the Permian lizard-pigs.
And what is the perfect temperature that this climate has produced? answer – no. This climate is a chaotic system producing a constantly changing temperature best represented by a Lorenz oscillator.
In general this oscillating temperature over the last half billion years has tended to be attracted to two mean surface temperatures, 12 and 20 C. These correspond to ocean states with cold and warm deep water respectively. The cold state is better for life in the sea (more nutrient upwelling). The warm state with forested poles is better for life on land.
Steven Mosher says:
March 7, 2014 at 7:59 pm
Its 15C today. our civilization has developed over a period where this ranged from perhaps 13.5 to 17C.………
Dont (sic) burn all the coal, switch to gas until we understand the problem better.
Steven,
Oh my! Such a narrow range….. for a ‘perfect’ temperature. It’s… well, boring and so… narrow. You need to learn to embrace diversity, Steven! Diversity of temperature… and diversity of atmospheric CO2 content!
I LIKE ice fishing, when it’s so cold the snow squeeeeeks under foot and you have to keep dipping the ice fishing hole to keep it from freezing back up! ILIKE whahines in bikinis… and a cold, rummy fruit drink with little umbrellas planted in the almost-too-hot sand next to me. Embrace temperature diversity, Steve! It’s soooooo liberating!
What ‘problem’ are you referring to, Steven? Worried about CO2? I’d personally LIKE more CO2 in the atmosphere of this CO2 starved planet because I LIKE lush vegetation, sycamore trees with 10 foot diameter trunks along the Meramec river, muscadine grapes nearly as big as golf balls up in New York, heads of lettuce the size of a peck basket in Wisconsin, 140 feet tall douglas fir trees in the Cascades and all of these things grow better with MORE CO2, as do nearly all flora on the planet. I am far more concerned about the onset of the next major glaciation period than I am about any other planetary climate concerns and that is a ‘problem’ we know with certainty is in our geologically near future. If 600ppm CO2 delays that for another 1000 years, it’s the best bargain on the planet, bar none Steven! As for humans, we are already adapted to CO2 concentrations greater than 5000 ppm (How did THAT happen?), so there’s really no down side, beyond irrational fear.
Free the CO2, Steven! Carbon is the basis of all life on this planet. It’s not pollution. It’s the Staff of Life. Feed the plants and free your mind from that narrow, limiting, wrong-headed perspective!
Embrace Global Climate Diversity, Steven.
I asked a similar question, or set of questions at Climate Audit on unthreaded a few years ago, and I don’t think anyone there responded. Here is the link:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/15/unthreaded-39/#comment-303614
And here is the text:
I have another question/concept, courtesy of my friend Tom Lawrence:
Climate/Temperature Optimum
Has anyone done any work, or in any way attempted to quantify what would be an optimum global temperature, or more broadly, an optimum global climate?
I could even break it down a little bit more into
1. Optimum for people? or
2. Optimum for every living thing on earth other than people? or
3. Optimum for both?
Oh, and I almost forgot, does anyone even try to define “optimum” at all, or otherwise characterize what an optimum climate would be like? I’m assuming that this concept of “optimumness” would be expressed in global average terms, but maybe it wouldn’t.
Tom is wondering why the AGW people are so focused on there not being any climate change, when no one has explained if the exact climate we have now is optimum or not. He wonders if maybe we should warm it (the planet of course, by simply twisting whatever knobs we need to – carbon taxes, regulations, total slavery, whatever) up a few degrees, or cool it down a few degrees, and THEN we can freeze things right at the optimum.
It sure seems to him that it is an awfully strange coincidence that this exact climate we have right now seems to be so imperative to maintain. Are we at any sort of optimum climate stage or state right now? If so, Why?
Are there any papers, discussions or even sophomoric musings on record that address the climate change issue in these types of terms?
Thanks
This is a question loaded with uncertainty, since the ‘optimum’ temperature can produce wildly differing climates depending on the standard deviation of temperature measurements across the globe, the difference in temperature between summer maximum and winter minimum and the seasonal distribution of rain, allied to the percentage of rain coming in torrential downpours.
The question presumably must take account of the optimal temperatures for growing food in the regions where the best soils for agriculture exist and deviations from that temperature may increase productivity to the south or north whilst doing the reverse in the opposite direction.
It must also take account of the tree coverage of the earth, since the ground temperatures will be radically affected by the presence of a forest shade.
My personal view is that there is a range of temperature within which climate is likely to be optimal, a range of percentages of forest coverage on earth and a series of water management strategies which ensure that such climate is utilised most effectively.
Of course, if biotech and Big Ag are moving toward the production of liquidised foods synthesised chemically, salads produced hydroponically, meat grown in laboratories, then all this may be irrelevant. We can just become a bunch of pleasure-seeking hedonists.
At that point your optimal temperature depends on your genetics, notably the genes which determine your production levels of melanin.
Complex question being posed here………
42…
The answer has been know for several decades.
Finally, we know the question that should have been asked.
“What is the perfect temperature.”
“What is the perfect temperature of Earth? I’m assuming that climate change-related taxes will be used to bring our planet back to the perfect temperature, and I need to know when that has been reached.”
Huh? How about first asking what is the temperature of Earth now? I dare to say not one single person on Earth even knows that figure so how could you even ask what it should be..
Janice Moore says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:58 pm
Janice,
OK! You got me! I was laughing out loud!
No – There’s nothin’, absolutely nothin’ like a Dame!
Mac
Sydney’s climate is near perfect year round. Here are the figures. For other places, however, you have to figure out how to limit max-min range to 10 degrees C. only. This could be you main problem. Ranges of 40 degrees C from Max to Min. just won’t do it for you! However it won’t kill you either. People can live in the Sahara, the Tundra and all places in between, so chill out. For the last 16 years, CO2 has just wimped out on its task and we cannot look there for any help.
Sydney Long-term Averages Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann
Mean Max (°C) 25.9 25.8 24.7 22.4 19.4 16.9 16.3 17.8 20.0 22.1 23.6 25.2 21.7
Mean Min (°C) 18.7 18.8 17.6 14.7 11.5 9.3 8.1 9.0 11.1 13.6 15.6 17.5 13.8
Mean Rain (mm) 102 118 130 127 120 132 98 80 68 77 84 77 1214
Median Rain (mm) 79 94 97 92 91 100 75 55 52 57 67 58 1159
Mean Rain Days 12.2 12.5 13.6 12.9 13.2 12.7 11.3 10.4 10.5 11.6 11.7 11.5 143.6
42
Human core temp is ~ 37C We are basically descended from monkeys and should be ALL living in tropical; areas. Also nearly 90% of all living things are in the tropics subtropics between 30 South and 30 degrees North latitudes. Temperatures within those latitudes at sea level oscillate between 18-22C at night and 28-32C at day.
My answer:
When the Middle Class have been bankrupted; leaving the correct balance of elite to slaves.
@ Mac — glad I gave you a chuckle. And thanks for sharing all your creative writing talent with us on WUWT. “… not the swiftest boat in the water…” — still chuckling at that. Janice
What is the perfect temperature of Earth?
86 degrees F., from pole to pole.
It’s not going to happen though, I live in the real world.
We also need to know the perfect orbit of the Earth and an appropriate level of solar activity. And the correct number of humans on Earth, with quotas for each race. These things must be properly administered.
What was the temperature at that island where the Minnow was shipwrecked? Think Mary Ann and Ginger and skimpy outfits.
http://januarybryant.tumblr.com/post/64663276473/mary-ann-ginger-mary-ann-summers-dawn-wells
Guinness should be served at 6-7 degrees centigrade.
http://www.guinness-storehouse.com/en/FAQs.aspx#faq23
Colorado Wellington says:
March 7, 2014 at 11:30 pm
“We also need to know the correct number of humans on Earth, with quotas for each race. These things must be properly administered.”
I fixed the comment you made. you’re welcome!
LOL, just remember the majority of this planet’s population don’t have electricity!
The ideal climate place-wise would have to be maritime, temperate and Australian – surely! There’s long been a theory that the ideal is either Port Macquarie on NSW mid coast or Mollymook on the south coast. My nomination might be Laurieton on the mid coast, with plenty of waterways and a big mountain to block off those inland westerlies. That’s the geographical ideal.
The problem with finding an ideal time or era is that it simply does not exist. Gaia has always been a vicious old hag, who usually does her worst in times of global cooling. Just check out Africa and Asia during the LIA, or that Sahel Drought back in the cool 1970s, when the climate bedwetters were getting ready to burn Santa to stay warm.
The perfect temperature of planet earth should be just right! that’s why we keep ourselves warm when it gets cold and why we are cool when it gets warm.
noaaprogrammer says:
March 7, 2014 at 9:32 pm
According to Al Gore, the Earth is suffering a horrible fever since the interior of its sphere is at millions and millions of degrees Fahrenheit. Let’s bring down its core temperature first and then see if its forehead cools off. Take two ass burns and call me back in the morning.
———————————————————————————————————-
We should plant some willow tree woodlands. That should help.
Robert B. has given us the best riposte to any CAGWarmist. “What is the perfect temperature for the planet?” It’s unanswerable, as demonstrated in all the comments above & below this. It’s just so, so. so, Sophist!!
Well done Robert B,
Perry says:
March 8, 2014 at 12:25 am
“Robert B. has given us the best riposte to any CAGWarmist. “What is the perfect temperature for the planet?” It’s unanswerable, as demonstrated in all the comments above & below this. It’s just so, so. so, Sophist!!
Well done Robert B,”
My answer wasn’t Sophist ya pretentious little git. lol
Sometimes it’s helpful to look at a problem from a more remote perspective, so as to be more objective. So let’s slightly reframe the question: Suppose you led a mission to a nearby uninhabited star system, to prepare it to receive billions human colonists. You found an uninhabited planet in the Goldilocks temperature zone, marginally acceptable i.e. it’s just like Earth is at present. Thus it could sustainably support two or three billions, but you need it to support three times that number — and your team of paleontologists on the surface reports that the planet had much more life on it some 30 million years ago, than it has now. How would you alter this planet so as to maximise its human carrying capacity?
What’s the perfect temperature for the planet? What’s the optimum CO2 level? If I could adjust these, I think I would set them so as to maximize the amount of living biomass on the planet, i.e. to maximise what biologists call the net primary productivity. With more biomass, humans would make up a smaller fraction of the biomass and so would have generally less impact on the ecology.
NPP falls during ice ages, and was decidedly higher before the planet developed its present permanent ice caps. NPP seems to have been much greater than now during Earth’s carboniferous period. So I’d melt the ice caps, and raise the CO2 level to maybe 3000 ppm. I’d try to get forests growing like weeds, as they did here during the carboniferous.
Warmists would strenuously oppose such a plan on Earth. They fear “tipping points” at some threshold temperatures, at which the climate will spontaneously shift to a different climate regime. To explain abrupt temperature changes in the paleo record, they decided the climate is a “dynamic, nonlinear system”. They would oppose optimizing the Earth’s temperature because they fear a tipping point lurks just a degree or two above present temperatures. Hogwash.
For most of the time that life has been on this planet, there have been no ice caps, atmospheric CO2 has been many times current levels, polar temperatures have been temperate, and NPP has been high. The climate never tipped into a runaway greenhouse warming. There is no global warming tipping point.
There is, however, definitely a cooling tipping point. The planet has more than once gotten frozen over. We’re overdue for the next glaciation of the current ice-age. The glaciations have gotten progressively deeper (colder). A glaciacion now would reduce the planet’s carrying capacity, probably to well under a billion humans. Curtains on industrialized civilization. Yet that’s not the worst danger. Our planet is teetering on the brink of the next Snowball Earth event, the fatal tipping point, as is evident from the paleotemp record: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Have just seen Steven Mosher says: March 7, 2014 at 7:59 pm
Sorry sport, your answer is too generalised, to vague, too wishy-washy. The question is simple. We want to know the perfect temperature, not a range of temperatures, because inaccuracy creeps in, craps & creeps out. You have supposed yourself inerrant in previous comments. If you can’t do better now, then break camp & slope off.
I first posted that question in 2011. Here is an extract from a rather lengthy article I wrote then:
15. Every global warming advocate and politician should also be asked these two Killer Questions:
– what is the optimum global temperature; &
– what is the optimum concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?
If we do not know the destination we seek, how will we know when we arrive there? Frankly, the world is too cool at present and the optimum for CO2 should be multiples higher than it currently is! If it is impossible for real scientists to determine then surely they are also unfairly tough questions for even the seriously dedicated cultists?
What is the temperature destination the cultists so desperately seek that we are willing to destroy the Australian economy to achieve it? What is the expected outcome and the key performance indicators (KPI’s) we can measure when we get there?
So, please review the science and decide at which point can we ascribe both the perfect temperature & optimum level of CO2 concentration? Here is a clue in an exchange I had with a Labor Member of Parliament and the Minister for Climate Change & Silly Walks, (G C):
“Greg & Andrew,
The AVERAGE global temperature is currently a paltry 14.9° Centigrade.
What is the optimum global temperature if any rise is thought to be somewhere between dangerous to catastrophic? Surely if we don’t know where we are going how can we formulate a realistic plan to get there?
Several years ago I did a rough study by trawling some websites on CO2 and its effects on humans and plants. The personal conclusion I reached is that 2,000ppm – 4,000ppm is the optimum level of CO2 for the majority of life on the planet, with a probable/maybe rise of 2° – ‘3° centigrade increase in temperature, mainly in the temperate regions. To help you out, please note that US nuclear armed submarines operate with a CO2 level up to 8,000ppm for extended periods without harm to the sailors breathing it. The USN has set a maximum limit of 12,000ppm before they become concerned, so no doubt that still contains a safety margin.
So, to seriously answer the question I think we need MORE CO2 – and soon as the quiet Sun is going to cause havoc in the coming decades with serious cooling the result. Ah, skiing in Melbourne, now that would send Flannery and Garnaut (Australian warmists) into a new series of incantations would it not? I await your reply with interest, especially if you can explain your ‘scientifically settled’ answer with references to the science supporting your view
I swear that if you can give me a scientifically supportable answer I will vote Labor at the next election. Otherwise, if you cannot I will join the vast majority.”
The exchanges ended here as I did not receive a reply from either of them.
However, if the graphic I provided is any indication then the optimum temperature (when life was at its most prolific) is about 18°C with an error bar of +2°C, but preferably at the higher end of the scale. This is >3°C warmer than at present.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere:
In 1800 it is thought that the atmosphere contained about 280ppm. In 2011 it is 390ppm and rising by 2ppm/year.
So, as we must stop this dastardly gases inexorable rise, can anyone tell me the actual ‘tipping point’ concentration after which catastrophe is inevitable? An open goal for the cultists to score I would think. What will the temperature be at this point and at what level of CO2 will the temperature stabilise into boringly perfect weather? The killer Question is:
What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
000ppm
100ppm
200ppm
300ppm?
As we are approaching 400ppm it must obviously be less than that. Also, as plants stop growing at 250ppm the ‘Goldilocks Zone’ must be somewhere between the two. I am breathlessly awaiting the answer from a scientist climate deceiver, but I am not expecting to receive one any time soon.”
The whole article called “The Political Agenda of the Climate Deceivers” is available if you wish.
I vote for a return to the Roman Warm Period temps….the north of England will be the new Burgundy…Manchester Merlot, Sunderland Shiraz….mmm.
This should be a fairly easy answer. The objective should utilize the largest amount of land mass possible for all life. Since most of the land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere it is only logical to raise the temperature to get the most useable space.
Then there is the whole continent Antarctica that isn’t even being used at all.
The optimum temperature would probably be around 10 Deg C greater then today or around 24 deg C. Weather would be a little more difficult to manage but got to take the good with the bad.
Here is another Sophist question.
Is it safe?
oops I mean High in the northern Hemisphere. wish I could edit sometimes 🙂
my beer frig better stay at 34*F… that’s all that matters.
The question just shows how most people have lost sight of the basics, which is to be expected when the arguments became so divisive and tactical.
The perfect temperature is obviously that magical 0deg line on all anomaly graphs.
I would also like to know, to how many tenths of a degree the perfect temperature can be calculated for anomaly each grid and if that magical 0deg already exists for each grid. If it doesn’t then the whole global anomaly argument is completely bogus anyway.
I’m going to take a hot shower. Perfect!
The average of the 5 previous interglacials. 😉
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
davidmhoffer says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:43 pm
“Is there a magic wand by which we could accomplish this? Just wave it, mutter some incantations, and PRESTO! we’re off coal and onto natural gas? Seriously?”
Unfortunately there is such a wand and the EPA is about to wave it. It is called CCS technology. Poof… just like that, we are off coal. Unfortunately, your electric bills will increase by 80%… that is when you even have electricity.
It’s whatever I say it is!
What is the perfect temperature of Earth?
This is an important question. I think he meant “what would be the perfect average temperature of the planet earth”? A related question is “what should be the level of CO2 in the atmosphere”?
I think that the earth needs to warm at least 10C and that CO2 should increase to about 1500 ppm. “For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances.” (from greenhouse experts on what level to have in your greenhouse)
“There were crocodiles above the Arctic Circle and palm trees in Alaska.” Studies show that the earth has been much, much warmer than present. So being at least 10C warmer than present is a good start.
I don’t think humans have any say in this matter; and CO2 plays at best a minor, trace role in the average temperature of the planet. So; it will warm, not warm, or get colder depending on what nature gives us.
The perfect temperature will never be known, because the environmenatlists want us of the planet. That will be the day the earth can recover and obtain it’s perfect temperature again, but then there will be no-one left to measure is.
@azleader
That’s not nearly enough. We’ll have to borrow a lot more, increasing public debt further.
You are asking for a mean surface temperature, isn’t it? Put a thermometer on every square inch of the earth, on land and on sea, from the lowest valley till the highest mountain. Do readings on all of them every second and enter the values in a giant data matrix. No problem but what should we take as time interval? One year is too short. Let’s take the time our solar system needs to make one round in the milky way. The mean should be 15 degrees Celsius but 14 or 16 is also OK.
Temperature is always one standard deviation away from perfection.
As with all such questions, we must first answer the question “Perfect for whom?”
Excellent answer, what was the question?
RoHa says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:07 pm
Warm enough so that girls wear the absolute minimum. Or even less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well that sure isn’t the climate now. (The heater broke last night and it is below freezing outside – so added a jacket on top of the sweatshirt…. Darn it I moved south to be WARM!)
The temperature needs to oscillate around 19.5 deg c so as my wife moves to turn the heating up the temperature rises in advance so she changes her mind, it should then cool quickly enough to ensure I don’t have go and check she hasn’t turned the heating up.
Well, I don’t care right now because whoever is smoking “wacko” in my condo building is smoking so much I too am feeling the “effects” of that “wacko”…
Most of the commenters here are thinking empirically, in terms of thermometer ranges. But that is not how this question came about. To use the popular alarmist terminology, I’ll “reframe” the question.
What temperature is “acceptable” or “unacceptable” to the alarmist camp?
For many of them, the answer is not defined by effect, but by cause. For many of them, any global temperature influenced by man is not acceptable. That is not a scientific viewpoint. It is a philosophical or religious one. Our actions have “upset” the “balance of nature”. We have “violated” Mother Earth.
So the “perfect temperature”, for them, is one with no “discernible” human influence. If it’s man-made (even in part) it is automatically bad. That is, I think, why they are not interested in doing a cost-benefit analysis of any particular change in climate.
Global warming/climate change/whatever, (i.e. the social phenomenon) will change with the weather, but it will never go away.
I think the perfect temperature is when Greenland is finally green again. That way Minnesotans for Global Warming will get their wish, too.
But according to all these stupid “temperature anamanalnamaly” graphs (why aren’t we just comparing the temperature itself anyways?), the ideal temperature was passed some time in the seventies when all the ecoterrorists and climate scientologists were higher than a kite and sleeping naked in a love in on the quad at UCLA. Why do we give these idiots the microphone? I think someone needs to turn the air conditioning temp so low that Hansen has to wear a winter jacket to give his testimony. And someone then needs to ask HIM the question. “Do you prefer this temperature which corresponds to the “Little Ice Age” we are coming out of, or the fake heat wave you created when you gave your last testimony.”
The answer from us Michiganders is, at least 20 degrees F warmer than it is right now!
Sillies! When you control temperature with taxes, the temperature is adjustable. You’ll just have to pass the tax to find out what temperature is in it.
The “perfect” temperature, obviously, is what it was during the LIA, before the Industrial Revolution, and before man started spewing his evil CO2 into the
atmosphere. So, by their calculations anyway, roughly 0.8C cooler than now. We had to go and mess things up with our improved standards of living, longer lifespans, and all of the trappings of modern life, including cars and planes. It was an idyllic time, with lots more ice and snow. But, just imagine; without cars we’d be getting around by horse-drawn sleighs, and skis, snowshoes, and skates. After which, we’d come home to our cozy tiny homes heated with wood harvested from our own individual woodlots and have a hot beverage of some sort (probably not cocoa, since that wouldn’t be locally sourced, and not “sustainable”). It would be great. Fewer people around too, to annoy us. /sarc
First, tell me why hot dogs come in packages of ten and hot dog buns come in packages of eight. Then I’ll tell you the perfect temperature of the earth.
Mike P says: 42
Good one!
Seriously though, although I understand that it would not be a popular move here, a look at the Manufacturer’s Handbook gives the answer straight away, i.e:
“While the Earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease.” (Genesis 8 v 22)
But that DOES raise the question of why YHWH said this “in His heart” and why He saw fit to have His musings recorded for our benefit. The only rational explanation I can think of is that these were all unprecedented in Noah’s experience (and, yes, I did see the recent debate on the word ‘unprecedented’). Need some justification? Let’s start at the end and work back, with some help from the scribe who wrote down the book. (My apologies in advance to Moses if I have put anything into his mouth that should not be there.)
“Moses, in Chapter 8 verse 3a of your book ‘Genesis’ you wrote “And the waters receded continually from the earth.”
“Correct.”
“But hang on Moses, you had just written “And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered (Gen7 v 19)” Even I know that water flows downhill, so if ALL the hills were covered, how could the waters recede?”
“The hills rose up and the seas got deeper.”
“Huh?”
“I had also just written “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened”. What do you think caused that?”
“A meteor strike?”
“Bigger. Much bigger.”
“How big?”
“Big enough to knock the Earth out of its orbit close to the Sun into the orbit it has now. Big enough to collapse the water mantle that protected the Earth’s surface when it was closer to the Sun (“the waters which were above the firmament”) and to cause the first rains, which lasted worldwide for 40 days and 40 nights. Big enough to slow down the velocity of the Earth around the Sun. Big enough to leave a ‘ring of fire’ around its impact crater, which you call the Pacific Ocean. Big enough to tilt the Earth’s axis of rotation and thereby create conditions of cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night, none of which had previously been experienced on the dry land at the poles before. Big enough to provide the energy to shatter the continents that then existed into jigsaw puzzle pieces. Big enough to penetrate the mantle and cold enough to create the convection currents that sent the pieces scudding around the Earth’s surface. Big enough to keep the cracks widening and molten for long enough for the jigsaw puzzle pieces to relocate to their new positions. Big enough to give those pieces the momentum to cause the impact crumple zones that you know as mountain ranges, when they collided with each other. Big enough to significantly increase the mass of the Earth. That big.”
“Cataclysmic seems too mild a description!”
“Absolutely. Your movie-makers haven’t even come close, by many orders of magnitude.”
“So before The Flood there were no mountains?”
“The ‘mountains’ then were only 15 cubits higher than the ‘high hills’ – read Verses 19 and 20 of Chapter 7 of my first book. Originally, the waters covered the Earth, but were “gathered together into one place” which let “dry land appear”, just as I was instructed to write in Genesis 1 v 9. No mention of mountains is there? And if the waters were in one place, how many places do you think the dry land occupied?”
“One, or at most two. And it, or they, must have been at the poles.”
“Right. You call them Pangea, or Gondwanaland and Eurasia.”
“Which was it?”
“Put the jigsaw back together and consider each piece’s movement and its impact with others, then you’ll know.”
“OK. So if the Earth is now travelling slower and its orbit is longer that explains why the antediluvians lived longer?”
“Right – they didn’t. Methusela’s 960-odd years and my 120 years were much the same in absolute time. His year was about 45 days long. But it didn’t happen overnight, or even during the Flood period. Check the ages of the post-Flood people – they reduced from 960 years to 480 years, to 240 years and ended up at 120 years, just as YHWH determined beforehand and told me to record it in Genesis 6 v 3.”
“And that makes nonsense of trying to extrapolate any timeline for current events back through the Flood event?”
“Correct. Totally pointless, and bound to lead to incorrect ideas. Evolution is a religion, not science, and of the three things YHWH abhors most religion is probably top of the list. The others are politics and economics.”
“So what is the ideal temperature for the Earth?”
“Conditions were ideal before the Flood. Good enough to support the growth of vegetation that was turned into gigatonnes of coal. The water mantle ensured that conditions were uniformly warm over the whole surface of the Earth. But those conditions can never be recreated, just as those conditions could never support the formation of a rainbow.”
“And the burning question of this hour – what was the carbon dioxide level then?”
“Burn ALL of the coal, ALL of the wood in your furniture and houses; cremate ALL of the 7 billion bodies in excess of eight; empty ALL of the CO2 fire extinguishers, and release any other sequestered atmospheric carbon and you will have a good idea of what ideal conditions were like, and how much carbon dioxide affected them. As Smokey used to say before he spontaneously combusted and came back as his alter ego “The only effect that can be definitively connected with the increase in CO2 is rising agricultural production.” That is why there are gigatonnes of coal”.
I think Ed Cook of Climategate fame has the answer. Or at least he has AN answer that may be the best possible answer to this question. 😉
The temperature wherever I’ve been has always been fine with me. I’m adaptable.
H.R. says:
March 8, 2014 at 5:12 am
First, tell me why hot dogs come in packages of ten and hot dog buns come in packages of eight. Then I’ll tell you the perfect temperature of the earth.
Because meatpackers sell by the pound, and a typical hotdog weighs 1/10 pound, thus the ten hotdogs, while buns are typically baked in 8-roll pans. You just have to buy 5 packages of hotdog rolls and 4 packages of hotdogs to get them to come out even.
And the perfect temperature of the earth is…..?
Well once you come to the proper temp, I see the bigger question to be….. What is the perfect CO2 level that we have to maintain to keep it there? We will have build a world wide system of carbon pollution collectors, and then transport the evil carbon to other areas for release through our new carbon injection system. I am sure they are programing the model now to keep the planet in harmony. With the science of CO2 we will now be able to heat or cool any area to fit the need of the people. Control must be maintained by our leaders at the UN, to keep evil people from using CO2 as a WMD.
To me the perfect temperature would be when we don’t even get a frost here in Ontario. In other words, much warmer than what it is now.
Warmer is better.
How that would translate into a global average I don’t know and don’t really care.
RoHa says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:07 pm
Warm enough so that girls wear the absolute minimum. Or even less.
Finally, a well thought out, science based response.
@Bruce Cobb says:
March 8, 2014 at 5:57 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/07/a-pointed-question/#comment-1585579
So you think, Bruce, but what about 12oz packages of hot dogs? And family-size packages of buns? But since you gave it such a good go…
Fact: at every given moment, some thermometer somewhere on the earth is registering the perfect temperature. Simply go look at that thermometer and Bob’s your uncle.
If I recall correctly, NASA administrator Michael Griffin ended up resigning by saying something similar to this. I think he questioned whether global warming was a problem, saying that to say that warming was a problem was to assume that today’s temperature was the optimum temperature. I think he was forced out of office for these remarks, that is for not agreeing with the warmistas.
H.R. says:
March 8, 2014 at 6:25 am
Fact: at every given moment, some thermometer somewhere on the earth is registering the perfect temperature.
There you go – one just has to keep moving around to always experience the “perfect temperature”.
I was told that Charles II while he founded the Royal Society was obliged to do some original research and present it for “peer review” so he could qualify to be a Fellow. His subject was this very question.
He collected weather data from all over the known world and his analysis showed that the English climate was the optimum, as a man could work outside for more days in the year than in any other country.
So if the climate is good enough for Charles II FRS, and does not seem to have changed very much since his time … then England’s climate is the one to aim for.
[PS I heard Bing Crosby being interviewed on why he liked coming to England for his golf … and he said “it’s the weather .. England is the only place in the world where you can experience all four seasons in one day”]
Like Monty Python’s dinosaur theory: Hot in the middle and cold at each end.
Cooler than it was in most of the US in February, since the anomoly was still positive
At which layer?
Actually, this is easy. Start with the human population of earth and divide by the distance from the deepest part of the oceans to the upper portion of the stratosphere in ft, Divide this again by the circumference of the Earth in miles, This will give us roughly 1,65 C or 55.77F….
Now, if we take into consideration all the uncertainties, the lack of data and the gaps in knowledge, this should bring us to approximately 68.36 F. The perfect GAT.
Here it is again, but certainly on topic here, and always a good read:
The accepted ‘mean global temperature’ of the historic past has apparently changed markedly over the last few decades:
In 1988: the average global temperature was said to be 15.4°C
Der Spiegel, based on data from NASA.
http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/image/show.html?did=13529172&aref=image036/2006/05/15/cq-sp198802801580159.pdf&thumb=false
1990: it was 15.5°C
James Hansen and 5 other leading scientists claimed the global mean surface temperature was 15.5°C. Also Prof. Christian Schönwiese claimed the same in his book “Klima im Wandel“, pages 73, 74 and 136. 15.5°C is also the figure given by a 1992 German government report, based on satellite data.
1999; 14.6°C
Global and Hemispheric Temperature Anomalies – Land and Marine Instrumental Records Jones Parker Osborn and Briffa http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html
2004: 14.5°C
Professors Hans Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf in their book: “Der Klimawandel”, 1st edition, 2006, p 37, based on surface station data from the Hadley Center.
2007: 14.5°C
The IPCC WG1 AR4 (pg 6 of bmbf.de/pub/IPCC2007.pdf)
2010: 14.5°C
Professors Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf in their book: Der Klimawandel, 7th edition, 2012, pg 37 based on surface station data.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html
2012 14.0 °C
Press Release No. 943 World Meteorological Society Globally-averaged temperatures in 2011 were estimated to be 0.40° Centigrade above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14°C. http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_943_en.html
2013 Wikipedia: 14.0°C
Absolute temperatures for the Earth’s average surface temperature have been derived, with a best estimate of roughly 14 °C (57.2 °F).[11] However, the correct temperature could easily be anywhere between 13.3 and 14.4°C (56 and 58 °F) and uncertainty increases at smaller (non-global)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/21/coming-ice-age-according-to-leading-experts-global-mean-temperature-has-dropped-1c-since-1990/
I’m with Prof Dyson on the validity (or lack therof) of a “global average temp”. That said I’ll be happy with anything that keeps us
A) Out of another ice age.
B) Not destroying agriculture
Now ice ages do a lot more damage than warmth to agriculture but if you look at the eras when plant and animal life abounded the average was substantially higher (20+ C instead of our current 14 C) so just to be safe lets pick a number in between as it is as valid a SWAG as anything else. 17 C it is. This is subject to change as the science improves.
What was the average temp in 1979? That seems to be the point of all origin.
been asking warmenists this for years ” What is the “Right” average temperature of the Earth, and when have we ever been that temp for more than a Decade? … you know, I never get a clear answer to that.
The question is pertinent and ridiculous all at the same time. It’s ridiculous that it has to be asked.
The perfect temperature would be the temperature it was at the time of taking it.
And the perfect climate would be the range that includes all anomolies.
Averages i’m uncertain about…it’s like my car averaging 20MPH while not moving.
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments
Another question could be, “How does one go about calculating the Earth’s current temperature?” We’ve see plenty of statistical gymnastics to calculate an average temperature, but how does that number relate to actual observed temperatures around the planet?
Paul,
That’s my response as well.
The answer seems to be: The “Average temperature of the Earth” is a meaningless crock.
That number could be calculated so many ways, with infinite possibilities for fraud and faking (as we’ve seen), that it is totally meaningless.
I’m sure Robert B. meant the average temperature of the earth (currently estimated at ~15C after Hansen reduced it to 14C for early 20th century to show greater warming). Assuming the goal posts don’t get shifted again, we can make the green movement stop clambering for taxing carbon (dioxide) if we chop off the 0.7C we’ve experienced since the 19th C. Yes, this is what all the fuss has been about, the reason globe graphics are all orange and red. Maybe they could be made to be happy if they could be convinced to accept the flat temps of the last 1/6 of a century – it would be a relief to their anguish over it and probably a relief to their spouses and small pets (borrowed from remark a few years ago by a commenter – IIRC it was gunga din).
I think “perfect temperature” is dependent on ones position. If your a CAGW nut then it will always be higher and the taxes your forced to pay (to make you feel good) will be 100%. You make it we take it, as long as it is those who dont believe in CAGW who are the ones taxed to death and you receive a hand out.. CAGW’ers are all about taking from others to support themselves with no change in their lifestyles.. Stalin, Mao, Marx, Hitler all had similar versions of this same tactic as it was never about the earth but whom they could control. Ottmar Edenhofer pulled back the curtain for us all.
” But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore,”
Opp’s i forgot attribution for Edenhofer’s remarks: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/11/18/u-n-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/
Tim Ball says:
March 7, 2014 at 5:44 pm
“Nobody asked it because it is a stupid question. ”
It is nevertheless the question that the warmists must answer. They claim that more than a 2 deg C rise (from here? from a 30 year average?) must not be exceeded. Fine. Let’s have the exact absolute temperature and make the IPCC declare it as the desired perfect temperature of the planet; 2 deg C above which lies thermal runaway and the end of all lifeforms.
Gary Pearse says:
March 8, 2014 at 8:30 am
“I’m sure Robert B. meant the average temperature of the earth (currently estimated at ~15C after Hansen reduced it to 14C for early 20th century to show greater warming). ”
You are off by 1 deg C… Hansen DID cool the past much more; because we are ALLEGEDLY now at…
14 deg C…
Absolute temperature of the earth
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/21/coming-ice-age-according-to-leading-experts-global-mean-temperature-has-dropped-1c-since-1990/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/26/why-arent-global-surface-temperature-data-produced-in-absolute-form/#comment-1550024
Our global temperature is often depicted as an ‘anomaly’ ie +0.7 C …. so much above or below the mean global temperature: 2012 Press Release No. 943 World Meteorological Society. Globally-averaged temperatures in 2011 were estimated to be 0.40° Centigrade above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14°C.
But, the accepted ‘mean global temperature’ has apparently changed with time: From contemporary publications:
1988: 15.4°C
1990: 15.5°C
1999: 14.6°C
2004: 14.5°C
2007: 14.5°C
2010: 14.5°C
2012 14.0 °C
2013: 14.0°C
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11/
“Global Highlights
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F).”
So we were at 12.9+0.78 = 13.68 deg C in NOV 2013.
So NCDC admits that in NOV 2013 the globe was coolest since beginning of Global Warming Research.
This Global Warming is sure a wicked thing.
1988: 15.4°C
Der Spiegel, based on data from NASA.
http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/image/show.html?did=13529172&aref=image036/2006/05/15/cq-sp198802801580159.pdf&thumb=false
1990: 15.5°C
James Hansen and 5 other leading scientists claimed the global mean surface temperature was 15.5°C. Also Prof. Christian Schönwiese claimed the same in his book “Klima im Wandel“, pages 73, 74 and 136. 15.5°C is also the figure given by a 1992 German government report, based on satellite data.
1999 14.6°C
Global and Hemispheric Temperature Anomalies – Land and Marine Instrumental Records Jones Parker Osborn and Briffa http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html
2004: 14.5°C
Professors Hans Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf in their book: “Der Klimawandel”, 1st edition, 2006, p 37, based on surface station data from the Hadley Center.
2007: 14.5°C
The IPCC WG1 AR4 (pg 6 of bmbf.de/pub/IPCC2007.pdf)
2010: 14.5°C
Professors Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf in their book: Der Klimawandel, 7th edition, 2012, pg 37 based on surface station data.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html
2012 14.0 °C
Press Release No. 943 World Meteorological Society Globally-averaged temperatures in 2011 were estimated to be 0.40° Centigrade above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14°C. http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_943_en.html
2013 Wikipedia: 14.0°C
Absolute temperatures for the Earth’s average surface temperature have been derived, with a best estimate of roughly 14 °C (57.2 °F).[11] However, the correct temperature could easily be anywhere between 13.3 and 14.4°C (56 and 58 °F) and uncertainty increases at smaller (non-global)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/21/coming-ice-age-according-to-leading-experts-global-mean-temperature-has-dropped-1c-since-1990/
Apparently the correct answer is whatever the global temperature estimate was for 1950, since that’s what we keep comparing to to show how bad things are getting.
Sparks says:
March 7, 2014 at 11:47 pm
Well, thank you belatedly, although I’m not sure if you’ve just fixed my informal language or if you reject my boldness and ambition to also demand the proper administration of solar activity and Earth orbit.
The perfect temperature would be the one that maximizes the growth of good plants but minimizes the growth of bad plants, it would leave only thick old good ice but never thin fragile bad ice, glaciers would all be healthy and growing, not sickly and shrinking, and obviously would minimize the need for energy so that all carbon foot-prints would be minimized because Carbon is a pollutant. Oh, and the correct temperature would keep bad diseases contained in the south so they can’t spread to the north, and all ski resorts would have lots of snow, and there will never be droughts or storms ever again… I think that is the perfect temperature…yup.
(I still do not get what a “carbon foot-print” is, but its really important)
for the warmists temp is linked to rise in sea levels so they would ask how much higher do u want your sea level? 5M? so easy question for them to dodge
If you don’t like the temperature, just adjust the temperature data. Much easier to do. (just in case it is not understood, sarc)
You are welcome; but seriously, you laid out some thought provoking mental images of climate comfort and exhilaration.
Definitely supports those mental images! And yes, sigh!
Did a bonefish trip to the Bahamas; there is something otherworldly about wearing shorts and short sleeves in pleasantly warm winter nights, pleasantly warm days, short periods of warm heavy rain followed by warm sunshine. ;->
Not a skill, perhaps a little knowledge; but orchids are generally tough buggers and greatly appreciate being left alone, perhaps even ignored. Those growers who dote on their plants with frequent water and fertilizer are the ones who have difficulty with orchids. Nothing kills many orchids quicker than an over attentive water can wielder.
That and knowing which orchids will not like your home climate/environment. I mainly stick to the Cattleya tribe with a few phragmipediums and paphpedilums thrown in.
Now my fruit trees are suffering from a lack of attention…
Nah, won’t work. My wife’s feet are also cold until the temperature is 90F or higher.
We bought those buckwheat pillows that you hit with a dose of microwave energy and they exude warmth for a long time. They’re a modern version of the coal pan bed warmer or hot water bottle. We often joke about making some buckwheat boots for her. She has a couple pair of Ugg wool boots that she wears darn near all year. It does make setting the A/C temperature somewhat exciting at times. Did I mention she is a redhead?
Robert of Texas says:
March 8, 2014 at 9:24 am
I know what it is and you are right, it is important. I was burning slash once as part of fire mitigation on our property. I needed something from the house and left carbon footprints all over the floor. Also, our dog did it later that day. I remember we were both talked to about these incidents.
Ideal temperature?
About 2C warmer than it is here (Thames Valley near London, England, UK).
We’ve been told for years that we’ll eventually get to the same climate as the Loire Valley in France if we achieve this increase.
Bring it on! Seems to me that the Loire has a near perfect climate. Not too cold in winter, nor too hot in summer. And the many historic chateaux built there suggest that the French aristos agreed with me
En Passant says:
March 8, 2014 at 12:36 am
The whole article called “The Political Agenda of the Climate Deceivers” is available if you wish.
===============================
Where can i find your article? do you have a link?
The Perfect temperature for Earth, hmmmmm, I say that would be one where the arctic and antarctic sea ice maximums and minimums never exceed nor recede beyond 1000 sq km in either direction ever in any season, relative to the 1979 to 2000 base line mean. That the temperate zones are always temperate and the tropics are never too hot nor too cold and that the trade winds are always perfect speed and duration so that neither an el nino nor la nina event may ever occur. Of course this perfect temperature will have completely mitigated any cyclonic action thus eliminating the need for armies of wind turbines. The perfect temperature of earth will also make seasonal rains run absolutely on time like a German train schedule. Floods and droughts of course will be also eliminated as well. The ultimate answer to the ultimate question is of course 42.
The question is as “stupid” as the observation ; The Emperor has no clothes.
Question underscores basic problem with temperature. Temperature is not a measurement of heat. At what pressure and humidity is this temperature to be measured ? If we dry out the atmosphere it would be easier to maintain an average temperature. However heat loss at night wouldn’t be pleasant nor would the high needed to get that average. As far as I have seen this mythical global temperature is nonsensical as it does not account for pressure or humidity. How do you get a model to output a useful result when you ignore the two biggest influences on your output? Heat is not equal to temperature; it is not even a linear relationship. Why do we attempt to model heat retention of the earth using it?
ATheoK says:
March 8, 2014 at 9:43 am
Same problem with setting the temperature in our household.
Reminds me I forgot to mention my wife’s hair color when I noted how the dog and I were talked to about carbon footprints in the house.
Last 30 years.
NASA earth observatory – “northern hemisphere greening over the last 30 years”
{MOSTLY OFF-TOPIC — just scroll on by for more high-value comments}
#(:))
@ Lord Wellington of Colorado (re: yours of 9:13am today re: yours of 11:30pm yesterday)
I don’t see what was “fixed” either. Changed, yes,… . Hm. Maybe he has neighbors like that Patrick guy, lol. Re: “carbon footprints” — lol.
@ A. Theo K. — Thanks — AGAIN #(:)) — for affirming my illustrations as pertinent. Much appreciated. Orchids are a hardy, resilient, tribe. Most house plants need a little watering every day not a BIG DELUGE (not to say that you do this with your orchids, just what many people do with the average houseplant) of it once a month. Hm. There’s lesson in there for many husbands, I think… (Note: this is not sexist — it is about a bona fide, generally observable, trend in the data). Ignore……… ignore……… nothing………. ignore……….. nothing…………ignore…………. nothing………….. LE GRANDE GESTURE 3 TIMES A YEAR (Christmas, birthday, Valentine’s Day). Tends to make a relationship wither. Little things mean a lot — to the average woman. I guess, what most men need is an orchid-type woman; hardy, resilient, and highly independent of his attention. Woo, hoo, wouldn’t THAT be a delightful domestic situation? lol
********************END OF OFF-TOPIC stuff******************
A couple of weeks ago I attended a lecture on exactly this topic.
Drilling for Human Origins: Understanding Climate’s Influence On Human Evolution
video – 1 hr 29 min
The bottom line was that extreme climate change was necessary for human evolution and that if it never occurred we would not be here today!
If the perfect tempature were to be speeding away from each of us at the speed of light we might just be fast enough to catch up and see it once we caught up on our real fast hockey skates.
As the President and Founder of the TPPS (Tropics from Pole to Pole Society) I can speak for the entire membership in asserting the ideal temperature for Earth is 22 °C.
In any event we do not need to know the tempature, we have twitter.
Put that in your temp a ture and smoke it.
Janice Moore says:
March 8, 2014 at 11:10 am
“I guess, what most men need is an orchid-type woman; hardy, resilient, and highly independent of his attention.”
_____________________________
While Orchids are really neat, they smell kinda funny. But then, so do I.
@ John West — lol.
@ F.O.B. Danger Close — Do you ever check your blog site? I think perhaps you haven’t been there for quite awhile (ahem)… .
#(:))
42
the answer is always 42
@ Alan Robertson — a match made in heaven. lol
I’ll take the Roman Optimum, please. Thankyewverrahmuch.
John West says:
March 8, 2014 at 11:41 am
As the President of the Flat Temperature Society I am advising you that our membership insists on 70°F as the ideal global temperature.
Janice Moore says:
March 8, 2014 at 11:10 am
My Fair Lady Janice,
I feel gratified that your keen eye did not see the “fix” either. It could be some obscure factional thing.
I suppose, for men, it is the temperature that keeps a woman’s fanny and feet warm so they don’t have to.
Kent Clizbe says:
March 8, 2014 at 4:10 am
Global Average Temperature is a meaningless concept used by fake scientists in their scheme to destroy Normal capitalist culture.
Don’t play their game!
Satellites make up for many of the shortcomings you mention. And much of what you say about temperature can also be applied to anomalies in that it is easier to raise -40 to -39 than +39 to +40. However we need to play their game to prove warming is not happening lately.
My dear Lord Wellington,
How kind of you to say so.
Janice (just can’t put that “Lady” there — blush)
The earth’s temperature is perfect as is – whatever that may be. The wonderful organisms living on this planet are designed to find a way… and they will either adapt or move on to make room for what ever can. Don’t forget the Yellowstone Park history where man tried to preserve it.
Standard Temperature (ISA) – pilots and aviation use a standard temperature of 15C for sea level with a lapse rate of 2C per 1000 feet of altitude to do all sorts of calculations. Perhaps this is the perfect temperature for earth’s pilots.
It is a very good question, although its connection to AGW, which has always been about dollars, not degrees, is tenuous at best.
For the panic-merchants, the ideal temperature is whatever the current temperature is not.
I need to know: Who is Robert B? He asks an important question. Certainly important enough to be asked in his own real name.
Is the “sweet spot” for Global temperature the point where excess death due to cold conditions equals the excess death toll due to warm conditions? And if we could adjust global temperature to that, how do we keep it there for the 100,000 years (+ or -) for the climate change cycle indicated by the Antarctic ice cores to reach the next minimum?
According to the IPCC the perfect temperature for the earth is the current temperature, and 2C higher will be catastrophic.
This however does not explain the phrase “tropical paradise”. Why do we never hear of the “temperate paradise” or the “arctic paradise”?
Quite a bit of the earth needs much more than 2C to become a “tropical paradise”.
I’m guesstimating very roughly 3C to 5C higher than currently — on a global-average scale.
To put the question another way; Is locking a whole continent up under a whole pile of ice really a practical use of valuable real estate? When I look at those emperor penguins huddling together through the winter – I don’t think they look very happy with the temperature as it is.
But to answer the question though, I think we should remember that we are a planet with a bioshpere that relies on photosynthesis for the survival of all. My recomendation is to not ask the parasitic oxygen breathers what they would like – but to ask the photosynthesisers what they would like.
Thats who we should optimise the planet for – and the rest of us will get on just fine.
It’s not the heat it’s the humidity…
Colorado Wellington says:
March 8, 2014 at 9:13 am
“Well, thank you belatedly, although I’m not sure if you’ve just fixed my informal language or if you reject my boldness and ambition to also demand the proper administration of solar activity and Earth orbit.”
No I got your sarcasm, I just think that administrating solar activity and Earth orbit is a little outta reach. 🙂
Good luck with that lol
What some scientists don’t want to admit, that the Neaderthals were adapted to extreme cold, and our present group, most probably came over from Africa where there was less in fact they never needed to adapt to the cold other than clothes, as they had superior weapons. And we Europeans and Asians would have dark skinned ancestors, who got paler over 40,000 years. Ha Ha, I do think a film with Gerard Dupardeu and Singoray Weaver, (excuse the spelling of their names) made a French film that translated ‘One man and two women’ it was hilarious when a paleoanthropological find Gerard made in France, (not Africa) was presented to an a science institute audience and when he revealed she was black, the audience erupted in dismay and ridicule (the white persons) and smiles from the Arabs and black scientists. Worth a look.
zonga100 says:
March 8, 2014 at 4:59 pm
It’s not the heat it’s the humidity…
___________________
And you get a Thread Gold Star next to your name.
This has been a lot of fun – thanks Anthony and thanks Robert B. But something puzzles me. I checked “Notify me of follow-up comments via email” and now I want to stop receiving the notifications. I found a place where I could “unsubscribe” and did so but the notifications keep coming. The only thing that seems to have happened is that the place to alter my settings has disappeared. What have I done wrong and how do I fix it?
Absolutely, under no circumstances should the average temperature of the planet be allowed to exceed 86° F. (30° C). I do not want my Ghirardelli Chocolates to melt.
Tommy for heavens sake put you chocs in the fridge! LOL or get expensive air conditioning.
Already there, perfect temp for 17 years and 6 months so far and still ongoing, see that money did make a difference after all 😉
“bushbunny says:
March 8, 2014 at 6:12 pm”
Our mDNA has been traced back to people in what is now East Africa, specifically Ethiopia and Afar depression. The entire global population and it’s racial diversity can be repopulated with DNA from people in East Africa. Well, that is what geneticists/theorists are suggesting anyway.
Theories suggest that climate/temperatures did change causing trees to be superceded by grasses forcing “Lucy” to walk upright and on land. This was about 4mya. If this is true, we’ve come a long way in such a short time, geologically speaking.
Please dial it in at:
24 to 32 Summer, with rain on Mondays only.
16 to 24 in Winter. No rain.
Thanks.
Robert B: I’m not sure your question has a meaningful or useful answer. Temperature is an intensive quantity, so in theory can’t be summed or a mean calculated. It’s unknowable. I suppose one could calculate a median value by dividing the earth’s surface into a large number of equal area boxes (or its atmosphere into a large number of equal volume or equal mass boxes) and using the temperature of the box in the middle of the range. The first might be somewhere between 10C and 20C at the moment, and likely has been both higher and lower in the past. As I understand it, climatologists tend to use temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. This has the advantage that you don’t have to know what the average temperature is.
Depends where you measure it from
But here’s a straight average from the same 2438 NOAA weather stations updated hourly since the start of 2011
http://www.theglobalthermometer.com
Let’s just say at the moment it’s not getting warmer (averaged over one complete orbit of our local, currently less active, star)
Comparing apples with apples and no wild extrapolation, guaranteed.
(I already have over 70,000,000 raw temperature recordings in a lovely database I don’t intend to lose c.f. the dog ate my homework/ I deleted the raw data after performing the “adjustments”)
Dave
Patrick says:
March 8, 2014 at 8:03 pm
“Theories suggest that climate/temperatures did change causing trees to be superceded by grasses forcing “Lucy” to walk upright and on land. This was about 4mya. If this is true, we’ve come a long way in such a short time, geologically speaking.”
Today, Lucy doesn’t count as an anchestor of humanity anymore. They never found a hand or foot bone of Lucy and only assumed it was a hominid. No proof it walked upright or had opposing thumbs or anything. Just some old monkey bones. Great hype for the time. Great success.
bushbunny says:
March 8, 2014 at 6:12 pm
“What some scientists don’t want to admit, that the Neaderthals were adapted to extreme cold, and our present group, most probably came over from Africa where there was less in fact they never needed to adapt to the cold other than clothes, as they had superior weapons. And we Europeans and Asians would have dark skinned ancestors, who got paler over 40,000 years.”
Kaukasians are mixtures of Neanderthals and Homo erectus as gene analysis shows.
Patrick says:
March 8, 2014 at 8:03 pm
“The entire global population and it’s racial diversity can be repopulated with DNA from people in East Africa.”
Well, given that you find all races on Sansibar – due to millenia of seafaring trade – that’s kind of trivial. You could do it just as well with the current population of Hamburg or any other large port city.
Well it seems clear we should put the question to a global vote, since it affects everyone on the planet. Of course, since more than 50% of the world’s population lives between 25 deg north and 25 deg south latitude, they may vote to lower the earth’s temperature by 3-4 deg C. Since I live in Singapore I’d like to see the temperature here drop by about 6 deg C. Of course my friends in the far north and far south may object (virtually all of the US, most of China, Europe, etc) but as long as it’s democratic I’m sure it’s OK. Probably the UN could hand this, don’t you think?
I live in central Arizona. My perfect temperature is highs of 115 in the summer, and 70 in the winter. Lows of 90 in the summer, and 40 in the winter.
More global warming please!
Please can we leave it just as it is until after I have been to Antarctica next Feb! After that, 3 degrees walmer in the UK wouldbe nice.
The temperature that would maximise global food production. Plug that into your 3 trillion byte supercomputer, UEA, make it useful for something.
We’re going to need it.
Lerner and Loewe probably said it best:
It’s true! It’s true! The crown has made it clear
The climate must be perfect all the year
A law was made a distant moon ago here
July and August cannot be too hot
And there’s a legal limit to the snow here
In Camelot
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot
By order, summer lingers through September
In Camelot
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it sounds a bit bizarre
But in Camelot, Camelot
That’s how conditions are
The rain may never fall till after sundown
By eight, the morning fog must disappear
In short, there’s simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it gives a person pause
But in Camelot, Camelot
Those are the legal laws
The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear
In short, there’s simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot
davidmhoffer says:
March 7, 2014 at 7:50 pm
Have you lost your mind?
Have you gone stark staring mad?
Are you trying to start a war?
The auto industry invented dual zone climate control so that we don’t have to answer this question! And you want an answer for the whole planet? Nothing good can come of this…
+++++++++
BINGO! Essentially, it’s like asking the three bears – Mama Bear, Papa Bear and Baby Bear…
Steven Mosher says:
March 7, 2014 at 7:59 pm
Its 15C today. our civilization has developed over a period where this ranged from perhaps 13.5 to 17C.
So that range has proven to be good. trying to optimize this ( what is perfect) would be a fools errand. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 13.5C to 17C has been pretty good.
Knowing that, who but a fool would want to risk going above 17C. There be dragons.
So, a 17C cap makes some sense. As a good engineer we are are going to want some buffer around this.. so 16.5 C.. dont do anything that has a chance of taking us above this line.
Dont burn all the coal, switch to gas until we understand the problem better.
So “what is the perfect temperature? well a temperature that our civilization has experienced would be a good start.. keep things around there.
+++++++++++++
There’s something in the language that I find a bit too socialist, dangerous and offensive to me. Forcing the world to act in such a way until “we understand the problem…” and to “…keep things around there” presumes that we can and should control people in an attempt to control something that’s uncontrollable based on all evidence. If you want to do a rain dance to get rain – by all means do it. For all I’ve seen the rain dance would be more effective than what CAGW climate scientists are telling us to do. But don’t tread on me and the lives of free people with this nonsense (as it has been applied to the argument of climate science) precautionary principle.
Perfect for what? To maximise the amount of vegetation? Define perfect. If you are going to say for human survival then don’t bother – we can survive in any temperature that the planet might reach within the next million years.
Adam not exactly right. Inuits like the ancient Neaderthals lived well on a diet of protein and blubber, very little carbohydrate, until introduced to a western carbohydrate rich diet. Most of us can not live well in a cold climate like the Arctic and Antarctic on a diet like this. Nor can we change our bodies overnight to adapt to a different metabolism. So another glacial period would affect crops and pastures for stock, and that spells zero population growth, energy restrictions or starvation. Or move to the Southern Hemisphere and enjoy kangaroo meat.
Many orchids would not like that daily watering, not unless other factors are near ideal.
High humidity is somewhat critical, but most will tolerate brief low humidity periods. Some lithophytic laelias and cattleyas are flooded at night when dew coalesces into runoff; during the day when temperatures climb, these plants are exposed to low humidity conditions such as one finds in Arizona.
Air movement is critical. The higher the air movement level the better they like frequent watering. Think plants like phalaenopsis living along waterways and waterfalls where they may be misted continuously but dried by the constant air movement.
It’s cactus that prefer brief deluges every month or so, though as usual is a family as large as Orchidaceae there are species evolved to live in similar conditions.
My first instinct was to run and hide. Didn’t you mention before that you’re a redhead? A man can get gunshy pretty quickly about setting off redhead tempests. Especially when he’s good at it, male or female redheads.
Besides recommending the book “Men are from Mars…” all I can offer are trivialities. Most men are not raised with personal interactions and relations as central to existence. Rather the opposite. Add to that the male’s complete lack of understanding subtle hints and things get dicey when ladies meet men.
As a side side off topic story: A friend of mine was upset, very upset about some supposed slight where her house party gift was considered inadequate causing a rift between friends requiring goodness I don’t know what for repairs.
This lady friend lamented to me that men don’t understand such inter-lady issues because they never give such gifts between friends nor are such gifts expected.
I disagreed with her, but put the interaction between men as entirely informal with no strings involved regarding what such gifts mean. Or as she put it, are such gifts even required.
A guy brings a six pack of beer, usually cheap, or a package of snacks, e.g. chips, cheetos etc. (no dip, no napkins, no bowls, just plain in the bag or box), or maybe some sodas in the bottle or can. That’s it. Don’t like the beer, chips or soda? Fine, let’s go get what you want or maybe hit the bar.
A man hates overt formal familiarity whereas many women require it. Yes, a base generality, but a working proposition where interactions are involved. Surely you don’t think men thought of proposing while kneeling?
Consider; in stories regarding mythical court life involving heroes, warriors, princesses, princes, courtiers, ladies in waiting and the whole time of derring-do worlds. A romantic idée fixe is the bold athletic hero; his being expert in court intrigues helps but is not necessary. The reality of the whole court thing is that the sinister fops are the ones who specialize in intrigue, slights, and subtlety, not the guy who is outside doing heavy physical training.
Yeah, there are heroes who combine multiple disciplines; there are also DaVincis’ in every town…
Ever read about the pioneer woman? Want to bet those histories were written by men?
“Colorado Wellington…”
Perhaps I should own up to similar?
Once, while living at a friends house; a lovely family of eight kids; two boys, six girls, three of them redheads. Their mother who is one of my most revered adult mentors went and splurged installing her idea of dream carpet, lush bright white deep pile carpet.
I got home from work as busboy/short order cook and sometimes waiter about two in the morning, parked in the garage and walked across the garage out the door, in the house, across the living room and up the stairs to where I slept.
I was awakened rather suddenly several hours later, something about black footprints that led to my bed.
It seems that I had blindly walked across the large oil leak spot in the garage, it was dark after all, and tracked old used car oil through the house.
Most of the foot prints were never fully cleaned out of the carpet and after a long while, generally ignored. My best friend whose room’s floor I was sleeping on thought the whole thing hilarious. Of course, he was not the one in the center of the brouhaha for once.
Second, I was given the task of checking out a shop on the way home to look for second hand tread mills for my wife and I to exercise on. (her description)
The shops tread mills were very tired so I passed them by and checked out the other gear. I bought a weight set for my use.
I was juggling the weights and trying to unlock the door when my wife opened the door for me.
I didn’t get to finish saying ‘thank you’ getting interrupted about ‘th.
An hour later, I was laughing almost constantly mostly because there were no opportunities for edgewise words, when the phone rang. I answered it and it was my Mother-in-law; I told her that her daughter was busy yelling at me and couldn’t talk to her. Whatever did I do, she asked and started laughing when I told her I bought a weight set. I told her that her daughter would call her when she was finished.
Almost three hours after I got home that night I finally got a chance to try and explain that I bought the weight set for me, not her. Try…
I still laugh when I remember it, my son borrowed the weight set almost a decade ago.
The perfect temperature must have been in the Garden of Eden, where nature thrived and Adam and Eve ran around naked.
Life on earth thrived to a much more widespread level when, in the geologic past, all that carbon that is currently sequestered in fossil fuels was active in the earth atmospheric system.
That was an optimum time for life. The temperature ranges experienced then was ‘optimum’, so that would be my thought on what ‘perfect’ means.
John
Isn’t that a bit like having a bucket of scalding hot water and a bucket of frozen water and pretending like you’ve got two buckets of lukewarm water?
What I mean to say is, there’s no one “right” temperature, especially given seasonality concerns. The appropriate amount of variation about a mean that is within a relatively narrow range would seem to be the appropriate answer.
Otherwise you’re trying to find the best temperature for Venus or Mercury.
Bob,
Great point.
By engaging in the discussion about a “right temperature”, we’re empowering the man-caused-catastrophic-global-warming fanatics who want to destroy the civilization we’ve built on oil/gas/coal energy.
The concept of “average global temperature” is the first step into their nightmarishly illogical and human-hating fantasies.
First, an “average global temperature,” assuming it could actually be measured, is meaningless.
Second, it is impossible to obtain such an average.
Don’t play their game by seriously (although many responses here are in jest, the fact that the concept is accepted as a valid topic for discussion just validates it) considering their fantasies.
We must reject all the catastrophic AGW team’s misanthropic fantasies wholesale. Don’t play along!
I have to laugh when I read about how people will not be able to adjust to climate changes. And the “not be able to adjust” sounds like they will just drop over dead. When I got married a dozen years ago, my husband moved from a rather hot climate, that he had grown up with, to a cold climate at nearly a mile-and-a-half elevation. The first two years were pretty hard on him, but he has acclimated so well that he sometimes goes out, in the middle of winter (single digit F temps) with just a T-shirt and jeans on (he’s learned he really can’t go out without shoes). If he’s going to be out any longer than five minutes, he will dress appropriately with a thick long coat and a hat that covers his ears.
The point is, that people have always adapted to whatever environment they are thrown into. It is what we do. We put on more clothes, or less. We use different lubricants in our vehicles. We might even eat different foods. The point is that humans deliberately adapt to changing circumstances. Always have, always will. If there are more tornadoes, we’ll build underground houses. If the seas rise, we’ll build walls on the shore.
As for a perfect temperature. I’d say go back to basics. Absolute Zero. Easy to know if we get to it, as pretty much everything stops moving. No confusion, no chaos, just a perfect temperature.
@Janice – Unlike your husband, I never learned I cannot go out without shoes. I still do. I only wear them when I have to SHOVEL the snow, and then to avoid stubbing my toes. 😉
+Janice says:
March 10, 2014 at 8:25 am:
++++++++++
Ah – Janice – As you correctly imply, Humans have adapted to be able to thrive on this planet because we harness energy to provide the things you mention. The climate has little to do with whether humans can survive – conversely it’s that as humans, we adapt our surrounds to suite our needs.
Ray Tomes says:
March 7, 2014 at 5:59 pm
Perfect for what?
*****
A nice 75 mile bike ride then a few beers along side the grille.
Advertising the “average global temperature” as the average of temperatures measured at the planet’s surface (even by satellite) is akin to taking the average of readings of the silver foil on the insulation in your attic to be the “average domicile temperature” for your house.
I do admit it may matter to the microbes living on the foil.
Regards,
Bob
The perfect temperature is that which allows the unicorn to thrive.
42
Dear Mr. A. Theo K.,
LOL, that was Pamela Gray who once told us that she is a redhead. My hair has some red in it, though (and in the summer, when the sun shines on it a lot, it gets redder!!!!)… . So…. WATCH OUT! Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaa!
Just kidding (sort of). Hey, your thoughtful comment at 10:45pm yesterday (sorry I didn’t come back here today until now) has about 65 issues we could merrily discuss for DAYS, lol. Lots of fun theorizing about why “most men” or “most women” do what they do.
I’ll just pick one of your points to comment on: “Most men are not raised with … .” Personally, and this is ONLY from a lifetime of anecdotal evidence and from reading of biographies, etc…, I think it’s in the DNA. And I say, as long as two people love each other (“Love is patient… keeps no record of wrongs” kind of love) and agree to be candid and honest, that they can work anything out — even the daily watering vs. the 3-times-a-year deluge issue. Forgiveness is the key.
Just in case ANYONE might see this post and really wishes things could be better … . They can! YOUR marriage CAN make it. Have hope. Love truly does conquer all. If there is no love (in one or the other partner), well, then, eventually, that plane is, indeed, going to crash. LOVE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING OF ALL.
And here are two songs that sum it up nicely:
That’s What Love Is For — Amy Grant
“… talk us down from our ledges… .”
I Will Be Here — Steven Curtis Chapman
(play this for your wife and she will melt… if she has a heart…)
DON’T GIVE UP, DEAR MARRIED PEOPLE!
Your marriage is worth fighting for!
*****************************************************
If you are being abused (emotionally or otherwise) , however, …. take the way out when it comes. And don’t look back… . GOOD THINGS LIE AHEAD!
#(:))
With agape and hoping that all the WUWT marriages are healthy and happy ones,
Janice
“DirkH says:
March 9, 2014 at 5:13 am”
Do you have anything outside Wikipedia to support that statement? I’ve not found anything, but I do have pictures of “Lucy” in Ethiopia.
“Janice Moore says:
March 10, 2014 at 10:27 pm”
Once bitten, twice shy!
Yes, indeed, dear Patrick (at 1:12am). Believe me, I know what you mean.
However, as Samuel Johnson said of the man who married a second time after a horrible marriage, it is “… the triumph of hope over experience.”
Keep hoping.
She’s out there, Patrick. Start looking around! She may be that nice lady down the street from you … or sitting two seats away at that meeting … or in the office on the next floor. Just open your eyes to the possibility. And, this time, ask your friends what they think and LISTEN TO THEM, lol.
Remember: Freedom has a price — loneliness. We humans are (unless given a gift for happy singlehood) only happy if tied (to a healthy, loving person of course!).
Well, enough of that, huh? (smile)
I wish you all the best in that department.
I’d say: pray and ask God to bring you two together, but, IIRC (from a Christmas Day comment or two), you’d think that would be a huge waste of time. So… I will pray for you! (and do let me know if God — in my view, I mean — says “Yes”)
#(:))
Janice
btw: Patrick, you’ll have to take my word for this, of course, but, I prayed for months (after getting to know her a little from some of her posts) that Pamela Gray would find a man who would love and cherish her — AND SHE DID!
And so, recently, did my 70-something former English professor! The first time she’d had a boyfriend in decades. I had been praying for her for YEARS. God can do ANYTHING. “With God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26)
Of course, there are many on my prayer list of singles who are still waiting… .
Keep on believing! Hold on to hope with both hands.
Perhaps the questioner should have differentiated between “what is the perfect temperature for the planet?” and “What is the perfect temperature for humans?”
I would suggest the perfect temperature for the planet is the historical average, somewhere between 22 and 25 degrees C. This is clearly the temperature at which plant and animal life have done well and is also the sustained temperature during which those species have developed. That would be the objective answer. The planet’s species doesn’t like cold, and we are cold, let’s be honest.
If I were a climate scientist then I suppose not 0.1 degree higher than it is today would be the perfect temperature!
What’s right for the planet may well not be right for us. But the planet and all other species were here long before us and at higher temperatures. It will return to the historical trend at some point – empirical evidence says so.
Like I said, I have a knack for irritating and bringing out the red in redheads. That could be one reason they like to keep me around.
My bad for confusing who said what. I know, I know; I should have checked my sources…
Remember? I said I was laughing while getting ‘talked to’. My wife is not, nor are many redheads for that matter, one who festers and goes into a sulk. Issues get talked out and sometimes I even get to be right. Our marriage is a wonderful thing. I share your hope that all WUWT denizens get to share similar happiness and joy.
Life is to be enjoyed, not feared or borne in dread or drudgery. I’d match some of the jobs I’ve worked with almost anyone’s for dirty or hard and sometimes both.
I once had a job at US Steel where I’d get so dirty that workers in the open hearth made us sit by ourselves at lunch. we were living caricatures of Peanut’s Pigpen who shed clouds as he moved about. Laundries didn’t like me either as my work clothes held so much iron ore that users after me got iron stains and sulfur smells. Ever get disinvited from a Laundromat? Who’d thought they wouldn’t want my money?
I still smiled and laughed, especially about getting kicked out of group lunch and the Laundromat. (we used high speed drills to clean tubes in the waste heat boilers. Waste heat boilers capture the heat rising from steel furnaces to make steam generated electricity that powered the plant’s needs. The heated air carries a lot of dirt which is mostly captured via flues before entering the boilers.
Open hearth laborers get to clean the flues using picks and shovels when the furnace’s go offline for maintenance. Shoveling Iron cinders is heavy dirty backbreaking labor and it was these dirty folks who complained we got them dirty and grit in their food.
So sad; heh heh heh.
Hi, A. Theo K.,
Glad to hear that your marriage is a happy one. That’s great. LOL, you did not make this auburn-haired woman mad by your guessing wrong about me. Not in the least. Yes, I realize that my remarks were not likely pertinent to you personally. Just to (possibly) Patrick and ANYONE … . (smile)
You are to be highly admired for having stuck with such a hard job. Whew! Not everyone could have hung in there. Way to go! That is something to be proud of.
Take care,
Janice
Dirk – Lucy was an Australopithicine. Didn’t make tools of any kind, and was no doubt a scavenger and fruit eater. But the position of her spinal cord and long legs proved she walked upright. Where ever one finds primates (not all) like the higher apes, one will find there is some evidence that there were archaic hominids. Some lines died out and became extinct. The Toba eruption 70,000 years ago, did or was expected to kill humans on a great scale. Most finds have been from Africa. Accept one, Homo florensies or the Hobbit. My late lecturer Prof Mike Morwood headed a team who found her. They lived until 18,000 years ago and killed by a volcanic eruption or a homo sapien sapien influx that killed them off. This upset a lot of so called palaeoanthropologists who tried to even change the fossil remains deliberately? They did make tools though, were isolated and the island of Flores even had tiny elephants that they killed to eat.
Cro Magnon humans came from Africa, and there were never any Neanderthals there. The climate was warmer too, so the body structure was such, they were not thick set to sustain cold like the Neaderthals or Inuits. Even the eastern Asians like Chinese, who adapted to their corner of the woods, can only trace their DNA back 70,000 years. There are three races only, but with divisions of course, Caucasians, Negroes and Asian. Your North American Indians have Asian roots, and so do Polynesians. Sub continent Asians and Aborigines are actually in the Caucasian group. Anyway we interbreed OK, meaning we are the same species, and the environment has over the millennium dictated our physical features and metabolisms to survive on the food available to us. I read on one racist site, from America, that some do not believe the out of Africa scenario to explain the development of white people and Europeans. I won’t repeat their comments, but it was very nasty, that white people could not have evolved from such a backward black human.
Not a chance Janice. Even today there are millions doing the dirty work necessary to keep the world spinning. I was not alone, nor in any unique. If anything I am slightly odd in that I take a perverse humor in still being amused when all grotty. One of my Brothers used to get a laugh when we’d get in line for ice cream after working with cows along with their inputs and outputs. Especially on Sundays when the Sunday drivers and parishioners would be in line all dressed up.
People are people and only pampered urbans can not deal with the indelicates of life. Take your hat off and give them any deserved praises. I did finally migrate from blue collar to white collar work.
One of the reasons I greatly appreciate WUWT is the sheer breadth of real world experience amongst it’s members! Shame we can’t get dark beer on tap while participating here.
Cheers!
Bushbunny:
Australopithicine is the latin name given to the bones nick named ‘Lucy’.
“…Didn’t make tools of any kind…” That is conjecture just because tools have not been identified ‘in situ’ with Lucy’s bones.
“…and was no doubt a scavenger and fruit eater…” Make up your mind. Was she a scavenger and therefore omnivorous or was she a fruit eater similar to chimpanzees?
Let’s take the topic a little further along; why would Lucy be an upright walker is she was either omnivorous or fruit eating? Yes, omnivorous bears can stand upright, but they’re clumsy at ambulating on two legs and primarily move by using four legs. If fruit eating why should they ever stand upright, climbing to reach fruit worked well.
The sad fact is that paleontology sciences, especially anthropology have massive gaps in their findings. Studying tiny bone fragments and sections of skeletons serious anthropologists can derive immense amounts of information from small details. Only there is far too many who jump into adding assumptions that seem to give ‘life and imagery’ to the findings.
Study the facts they uncover and ignore the fables. Almost every new primate bone uncovered sends the scientists into a tizzy trying to place it into the family tree. Until DNA research is perfected (did we ever mention that statistics are fundamental to DNA research?), just give the bone scientists a lot of leeway.
I read you, A. Theo K. Cheers! And thanks for the conversation.
(raising my glass of diet cola): And, here’s to you, A. Theo K., one of WUWT’s finest!
((*clink!*)) #(:))
(and you won’t persuade me otherwise, sir)
Go you tell ’em bushbunny. Well said! 🙂
ATheoK,
Every Archaeologist knows that every artifact found during a dig is an Item our ancestors worshiped. i.e unexplained.
Absolutely! I’d love to return after future civilizations decide we 21st Century rustics worshipped in our bathrooms.
No doubt they’ll believe the oils and unguents (deodorant and creams) were for anointing sacrifices.
Just a thought to help keep archaeologist declarations in perspective.
Stop that! You make me blush!
…Silly thoughts just so you can raise a toast. ;->
Here’s to you Janice! I’m toasting with apple cider, the fresh squeezed thick kind.
May you continue to find, question and challenge loose logic and odd science for many more decades!
Thanks, A(pple cider) Theo K. — and, you, too, keep up the good work!
#(:))