People send me stuff.
Reader Kurt writes:
I just found your excellent website and have book marked it and will visit it often for updates. One simple question the global warm-mongers have never been able to answer is…
…that if in fact warming is taking place as they claim, what then is the optimum temperature of the Earth? Can they give us a number? is it 55 degrees? 78 degrees? 85 degrees? 98.6? Al Gore says the Earth has a fever – then what is the “normal” temperature?
==============================================================
I thought about that long and hard, and thought to myself that it is sort of like a “Goldilocks” subjective temperature for porridge:
At the table in the kitchen, there were three bowls of porridge. Goldilocks was hungry. She tasted the porridge from the first bowl.
“This porridge is too hot!” she exclaimed.
So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.
“This porridge is too cold,” she said
So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.
“Ahhh, this porridge is just right,” she said happily and she ate it all up.
But what is “just right” for Earth’s temperature? Depending on who you might ask, I suspect you’d get different answers.
The Neanderthals, who lived through the last ice age, 10,000 to 70,000 years ago, might say “uggghaa bok mak!” or in present language “warmer than it is now!”.
Ancient Greece, living in their age of enlightenment, which flourished during the 5th to 4th centuries BC might remark “είναι σωστό τώρα, τον πολιτισμό μας ευδοκιμεί” or “it is correct now, our civilization is thriving”.
The Romans, who lived through the Roman Warm Period from 250 BC to 400 might say “frigus quam praesens placere” or “cooler than the present please”.
During the Islamic Golden Age of expansion, 622-750AD, They might argue the temperature was “just right” for them.
In the Medieval Warm Period, from about AD 950 to 1250, when humanity started to thrive, they would probably say the porridge was “just right”.
Right after that, the Vikings in Greenland would probably have asked Onan Odin for some extra warmth.
During the Little ice Age, from 1300-1850 it would seem certain most people would ask for it to be warmer, especially since it had such a well documented negative effect on human history.
As for now for 1850 to present? Well, it just safe to call it the tail end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum although some people think it is too warm and are actively campaigning to reduce Earth’s temperature.
After thinking about how those previous civilizations in time might perceive their preferred temperature, and thinking about Kurt’s question, I realized that it might very well be an intractable problem, aka the Gordian Knot:
“Turn him to any cause of policy,
The Gordian Knot of it he will unloose,
Familiar as his garter”
(Shakespeare, Henry V, Act 1 Scene 1. 45–47)
Or as Dr. Judith Curry once remarked to Congress:
Climate change can be categorized as a “wicked problem.”
As to the answer to Kurt’s question, the best answer I can offer would be this:
A temperature at which the widely geographically varied and widely climate adapted human civilizations and cultures can go about their lives without undue hardship.
But what is that optimum “just right” temperature numerically? Well, first it is a local-versus-global problem. A local temperature suitable for the Eskimos isn’t likely to be suitable for the indigenous people of the Amazon. Second, it is a question of global average.
The average temperature of the Earth is said to have been and is:
Between 1961 and 1990, the annual average temperature for the globe was around 57.2°F (14.0°C), according to the World Meteorological Organization.
In 2011, the global temperature was about 0.74°F (0.41°C) above that long-term average, according to the WMO’s estimates.
Source: UCAR/NCAR
So if we are to accept those numbers, our current global temperature is 57.2 + 0.7 = 57.9°F
Between 1961 and the present, Earth’s human population has gone from 3 billion to 7 billion, more than doubling, and in that time the global temperature changed only 0.7F according to UCAR/NCAR. Given the population growth, you could say that slight temperature rise has increased the human condition to a more favorable environment.
But, honestly, I don’t think the global temperature matters much in the scheme of things, because despite gloom and doom predictions of global warming to kill millions by 2030, the projections are still upwards:
![pop_005[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/pop_0051.gif)
I think it is science and adaptation that matters more than global temperature:
![World_Population_Chart[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/world_population_chart1.jpg?quality=83)
Source: http://econosystemics.com/AphetaBlog/?p=9
So probably, the best path forward from here is to shrug our shoulders at global warming, and to simply adapt, as mitigation (given the performance we’ve seen from current schemes to reduce Earth’s temperature) will be a true Gordian knot that will likely bankrupt us in the process.
Besides, our current warming from posited greenhouse gas effects may actually be helpful to us, because in climatic terms, there’s this maxim of mine:
If you don’t like the Earth’s climate, just wait a millennium.
And that is not too far ahead it seems, E.M Smith writes in Annoying Lead Time Graph
This graph from TheInconvenientSkeptic bothers me.
It bothers me because of what it says.
What it says, by two different modes of reading, is that we have no business being warm right now…
![LI-Holocene[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/li-holocene1.png?quality=75)
Click to enlarge
Reader Kurt. Where have you been all these years.??
crosspatch says:
January 1, 2013 at 12:23 pm
Nice. I think this qualifies as an excellent summary for John Kehr’s e-book ‘The Inconvenient Skeptic’ which I am currently reading. Everything you say plus much, much more in the book.
The process of human migration, especially from equatorial regions, is a process of exporting warming. A person in a hot environment has little in the way of a demand for heating say but in the temperate zone there occurs a greater reliance. The individual making that move has just made the world unnecessarily warmer. But who can gainsay dauntless man? He can succeed in any environment. Today we look back on world history, to Ancient Greece and the great Arab civilisations and are made aware that they lived and flourished in a warm, neigh, hot world, by choice. Warm countries have generally more equitable societies. In times of prosperity especially, the Spanish society has tremendous family values and tends to live an outdoor existence in the milieu whereas those in colder climates tend to be more secretive and withdrawn and temperamentally unsuited to social flows. Perhaps there are unintended oversights in the condemnation of the ‘maybe’ warming planet. Perhaps we forget the lowering of the use of power in a warming environment that will equalise temperature change to some degree, everything does not have to be exponential. But any environment that promises better relationships seems to have a value beyond more esoteric argument.
More to the point, what is the ideal CO2 concentration? (Apologies to all/any who’ve asked this above). Plants remove CO2 from the air, and the ensuing rotting of animals and plants returns most of it. But some is sequestered (as seashell, coal. oil and gas), which is then returned much later by spasmodic vulcanism. Is the level (c275 ppmz) obtaining when Jame Watt fired up his engine, starting the industrial era) really the optimum for us?
I don’t know what the optimum temperature of the Earth should be but here is how one small area of the world reacted.
From what recall the causes of the PETM are still unclear.
A must read! (an MP)
100 Reasons why CAGW i wrong!
http://www.europeanfoundation.org/my_weblog/2009/12/100-reasons-why-the-copenhagen-governments-and-other-proponents-of-man-made-global-warming-theory-of-climate-ch.html
The question is similar to the question ‘how old is old?’, the answer to which is, of course, ten years older than I am.
Kurt says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:01 am
It is an honor and a thrill that my email has touched off such an amazing thread of thought-provoking debate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kurt, some of us are jealous of such success, especially from a newcomer. Welcome to the fun and games.
There is no generalized “optimum”. Nature’s optimum is always what is, wherever you are looking. Every spot on this planet, at any moment in time, is nature’s optimum for that place and time, at the moment you look at it. Anything else is a perturbation, and can’t be sustained without some kind of input. Environmentalists have never understood environmental entropy and homeostasis. It has never been a fixed environment. Creating fixed environments according to some perceived “optimum” is to make museums, not ecosystems. “Optimum” is an “engineered” term – its an abstraction of preference against some arbitrary narrow set of references. You can’t “fix” a process, and the earth is a nothing more than a huge set of chaotic processes, always in flux.
I suspect that those who worry about global temperature rise will say that any temperature change caused by humans is “bad”. I doesn’t matter whether it is up or down. Humans are evil; Nature is nice.
Hrmph. Optimum global temperature? Optimum global population? I don’t think you’re going to find genuine consensus on either.
Some people love to be out and about on a good brisk -20 degree F day. When it gets up to freezing, they start worrying about malaria, yellow fever, encephalitis, tsetse flies, parasites… Some people start layering on poofy coats when it dips to 65 degrees F.
Some people feel comfy only when they’re constantly brushing up against others; give them some room and they start feeling anxious and stressed… and, uh, clingy. Some people only want to see, hear, or smell other people a couple times a year; more and they start feeling crowded and stressed.
Some people see farms, forests, pastures and fields and think: undeveloped waste-land. Some people see packed metropolises and start thinking of what would be required to clear out all that waste-land and haul away all that scrap to be able to plant trees, bushes, hay crops and/or veggies.
> Some people see farms, forests, pastures and fields and think: undeveloped waste-land. Some people see packed metropolises and start thinking of what would be required to clear out all that waste-land and haul away all that scrap to be able to plant trees, bushes, hay crops and/or veggies.
A very astute observation, mib8! When people find themselves in the middle of a desert, they plant trees and bushes. When they settle in the middle of a dense forest, they slash and burn. But they never clear the forest completely or pack their desert patch with as many trees they can get. In both situations, they stop approximately when their new habitat begins to resemble the African savanna where we are thought to have evolved. Those of us who are already settled in the African savanna don’t seem to feel the urge to do anything about it.
ROFLMAO
That Onan type-o is the funniest TIC Fruedian slip evarrr. I could make a rude comment about who you were subconciously referencing about wasted seed, but won’t.
Anthony, well played, seriously. I’m laughing every time I think about it. Started my year off great.
Seem to have forgotten a few civilizations that are no longer with us. Some of those are believed to have failed due to climate change. It could be that your favorite civilization is going for a premature collapse.
Since the whole point of climate skepticism is a refusal to adapt I cannot believe you are serious when you speak of adapting. Adapting could mean learning to live in a desert minus the SUV you love and cherish.
“Between 1961 and the present, Earth’s human population has gone from 3 billion to 7 billion, more than doubling, and in that time the global temperature changed only 0.7F according to UCAR/NCAR. Given the population growth, you could say that slight temperature rise has increased the human condition to a more favorable environment.”
Or you could say that a doubling of the human population has only increased the global temperature by 0.7 F.
James Davidson says:
“The Earth reaches an equilibrium temperature when the energy it loses to space as infra-red radiation is the same as the energy it receives from the Sun. This equilibrium temperature is -18C. The actual average surface temperature of the earth, as you say, is 14C, – a difference of 32C. This 32C difference is the greenhouse effect.”
We see this old saw trotted out regularly. What we do not see is the maths (regular generally accepted math) to back up that -18C figure. The reason that you do not see the math, aside from laziness and ingenuity, is that it is impossible to come up with a valid number. What also gets ignored is the temperature arising from gravitation – air pressure that would exist were the sun to shine or not. Instead what we do see is black magic – the supposed greenhouse effect.
Surely though, an increase in porridge consumption would be a direct measure of cooling…
E.M.Smith says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:15 am
@Phlogiston:
I liked the article Gail wrote too… and I’m no Gail, but I think I can take a shot at answering your question:
That is over-simplistic.
Thanks for your helpful reply. Clearly CO2 is no more a single dominating factor in plant ecology than it is in global climate. The truth as always is more complex and more interesting.
BTW it is notable that the Sahara / Sahel appears to be greening over the last few decades:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
needless to say the article in the highly politically-correct Nat. Geog. did the predictable political two-step, first ascribing the change to CAGW, but then – not wanting to ascribe anything positive to CO2 – adding the predictable epilogue that more CAGW can be expected to turn it back arid again (“CO2 hath given, CO2 taketh away, praise be to CO2”).
However it raises the question – does increasing CO2 have any role in this? Probably no simple answer (except for perhaps “no”). More rain is the most likely proximate cause. This might in turn result from by increased transpiration by more vigorous CO2-boosted vegetation, among other factors changing climate.
It is well established that plant cover including trees acts to cool climate, both locally and globally. Thus if the growth of human populations does cause warming (local or global) it seems to me much more likely this is due to loss of vegetative cover than to CO2.
Never ask, “Oh, why were things so much better in the old days?” It’s not an intelligent question. Ecclesiastes 7, v. 10 [The Bible; Good News translation]
The biosphere expands when the planet is warmer and contracts when it is colder. There is a reason why, the warmest period of this interglacial is called “Climate Optimum”.
This is the fourth quarter of the extreme AGW paradigm game Vs the sun. In the past when there was an abrupt slowdown in the solar magnetic cycle the planet cooled. My bet is the sun will win.
75% of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. Check the last solar thread for links to papers which support the assertion that 75% of the 20th century warming was caused by the sun. Planetary cooling has started.
Comment: Climate Optimum occurred 8000 years ago at which time the planet was roughly 1C warmer than current.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
The solar large scale magnetic field is also declining.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
http://www.solen.info/solar/
As Leif Svalgaard, notes slide 19 and slide 20 in the attached power point, “Something is happening with the Sun” and “if so, exciting times are ahead”.
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
Slide 19
“Something is happening with the Sun”
“We don’t know what causes this, but sunspots are becoming more difficult to see or not forming as they used to. There is speculation that this may be what a Maunder-type minimum looks like: magnetic fields still present [cosmic rays still modulated], but just not forming spots. If so, exciting times are ahead.”
William:
As note in the power point presentation, Livingston and Penn have found the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is declining.
Slide 20
“Sun is perhaps entering a new very low activity Regime
•Fewer sunspots for given F10.7 flux
•Fewer sunspots for given Magnetic Plage Index
•Fewer spots per group
•Fewer small spots
•Less magnetic field per spot
•These changes have been progressive and accelerating since ~1990
•If continuing => possible Maunder Minimum”
I would think the optimal climate would be that which would provide for bountiful crops in the world’s breadbaskets. The surface temperature of the earth ( 14C ) that is being discussed by James Davidson is actually the merged land-air-sea surface temperature. It’s debatable if that is the appropriate number for calculating the extent of the greenhouse effect since it doesn’t take into account the cold of the abyssal ocean. 32 degrees, being the difference between a theoretical surface temperature and a measured surface temperature, is probably a significant overstatement of the earth’s greenhouse effect. The cold of the deep ocean IS a result of temperatures at the surface. It is due to the down-welling of the polar ocean waters in the oceanic conveyor belt system.
I think that there is somehow a problem whit what will be the right temperature on earth.
There are several ways to look at it.
1) The easy way.
You look at history to what were the warmest and what where the coolest temperatures. Probably will be there WATS best. Often cal d the climate optimum is the time the temperature is right for everything both flora and fauna and human life. The Egyptians the Romans and the middle ages had a climate optimum. This was about 16 degrees Celsius.
The other way around we can call it the climate minimum are the dark ages whit a temperer of 9 degrees Celsius. So thats the easy way around. Now you see whit a temperature of 11 degrees where closer to the climate minimum then the optimum.
2) This one is tricky. If you look at the planet whit no atmosphere you see a cold place whit -18 C. if you put the atmosphere around it you see warming and that is 33 C so -18+33=15. The earth has a best temperature around 15C. If everything is alright that is. However there is some arguing about the numbers. Is the earth whit no atmosphere -18 and whit at its maximum heat +33C?
The fun thing is that if you look at the recent history you can see that method 2 whit an outcome of 15C matches the historical upper temperature of 16C.
“Warm-mongers.” I love it.
Kelvin is the temperature scale used by hard-core scientists. Fahrenheit is for people born before 1960. Please can’t we specify Celcius as the default on WUWT?
Ken Harvey says:
January 2, 2013 at 5:25 am
“What also gets ignored is the temperature arising from gravitation – air pressure that would exist were the sun to shine or not.”
I have tried to make that point as well. The thickness of the atmosphere has a direct affect on the surface temperature as a function of pressure. All things equal, a thicker atmosphere is warmer at the surface than a thinner atmosphere. Just ask Venus and Mars.
Love the article, and it’s nice to see that my “Global warming thought experiment” of three years ago is still relevant: http://www.jpattitude.com/100222.php.
@Ken Harvey. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of WUWT commenters are intolerant of noobs and will simply ignore any request for links to tutorials. I have had to learn it all myself.
Go to http://www.marathon.uwc.edu/geography/100/rad-temp.htm for the math you requested.
Also check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
Regrettably for us skeptics, the science behind the Greenhouse Effect has been proven millions of times over in the laboratory. It’s not just talk.
Finally for the most comprehensive rebuttal of global warming alarmist available on the net: http://www.zimbio.com/Ponder+the+Maunder
I wasn’t looking for a tutorial – I was asking for some real world maths that doesn’t start with the Stephan Boltzman Law and degenerate from there. If you hear a whirring sound that is Boltzman turning in his grave every time someone attempts to apply his law to a gas.
You state that “Regrettably for us skeptics, the science behind the Greenhouse Effect has been proven millions of times over in the laboratory. It’s not just talk.”. The greenhouse effect is bunk. It has never been demonstrated by rigorous experiment once. Not one single time. Conversely it has been demonstrated by rigorous experiment on several occasions by some eminent scientists not to exist. What is regrettable is that so very many people believe in a chimera that cannot exist without overturning a lot of science. No one has attempted to do that.
Sir Arthur Eddington, he of so many quotes, and one of the most eminent thinkers of the twentieth century said, and I abbreviate, “If your theory is found to be against the second law of theromodynamics, I give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation”.
theduke says: “There is no sign that deviations are “major.” There has been a slight increase in temperature readings in the past century, which doesn’t necessarily mean the earth has heated in any meaningful way. The idea that “deviations”–major or minor–will be “expensive and inconvenient” has not been proven. What has been proven to be expensive are premature attempts to mitigate indeterminate “global warming,” particularly when you consider that there may not be any crisis at all.”
I agree with (almost) everything you say here and i never climed otherwise. We were talking aout the hypothetical reasons for alarm. As Kurt points out,’The earth is getting too hot’ or ‘Gaia has a fever’ are intellectually vacant but seem to be the foundation of a lot of alarmist foolishness, at least in the pop culture.
My point is that we have built a lot of stuff very close to the oceans and if the oceans were to rise, that would be expensive and inconvenient. (You say this is not proven, suit yourself.I don’t need a study to tellme that a puch in the nose will ruin my day) This is about the only hypothetically valid case for alarmism that I can see.
As to the link between fossil fuels – increasing temps – rising oceans, I agree that it is unproved at best,and is all but disproved. Good enough for you?
Jeff Alberts said: “Oh well.” Again I agree. We can only guess what the future sea levels will be, and I have zero confidence in the hockey team’s guesses. To think that we have our hand on the climate steering wheel, or that we could gain it is silly hubris. When/if the time comes, we will adjust as necessary.
T-berry