Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new study claims that people who live in tropical climates can’t be as productive as people who live in temperate climates – that 13c (55F) is the optimum temperature for human productivity. In the press release, the researchers further claim that warmer temperatures lead to poorer school results and more violence.
The abstract of the study;
Growing evidence demonstrates that climatic conditions can have a profound impact on the functioning of modern human societies, but effects on economic activity appear inconsistent. Fundamental productive elements of modern economies, such as workers and crops, exhibit highly non-linear responses to local temperature even in wealthy countries. In contrast, aggregate macroeconomic productivity of entire wealthy countries is reported not to respond to temperature, while poor countries respond only linearly. Resolving this conflict between micro and macro observations is critical to understanding the role of wealth in coupled human–natural systems and to anticipating the global impact of climate change. Here we unify these seemingly contradictory results by accounting for non-linearity at the macro scale. We show that overall economic productivity is non-linear in temperature for all countries, with productivity peaking at an annual average temperature of 13 °C and declining strongly at higher temperatures. The relationship is globally generalizable, unchanged since 1960, and apparent for agricultural and non-agricultural activity in both rich and poor countries. These results provide the first evidence that economic activity in all regions is coupled to the global climate and establish a new empirical foundation for modelling economic loss in response to climate change, with important implications. If future adaptation mimics past adaptation, unmitigated warming is expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23% by 2100 and widening global income inequality, relative to scenarios without climate change. In contrast to prior estimates, expected global losses are approximately linear in global mean temperature, with median losses many times larger than leading models indicate.
Read more: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature15725.html
According to the Washington Post;
Culling together economic and temperature data for over 100 wealthy and poorer countries alike over 50 years, the researchers assert that the optimum temperature for human productivity is seems to be around 13 degrees Celsius or roughly 55 degrees Fahrenheit, as an annual average for a particular place. Once things get a lot hotter than that, the researchers add, economic productivity declines “strongly.”
“The relationship is globally generalizable, unchanged since 1960, and apparent for agricultural and non-agricultural activity in both rich and poor countries,” write the authors, led by Marshall Burke of Stanford’s Department of Earth System Science, who call their study “the first evidence that economic activity in all regions is coupled to the global climate.” Burke published the study with Solomon Hsiang and Edward Miguel, economists at the University of California, Berkeley.
…
Assuming this relationship between temperature and productivity is correct, that naturally leads to deep questions about its cause. The researchers locate them in two chief places: agriculture and people. In relation to rising temperature, Burke says, “We see that agricultural productivity declines, labor productivity declines, kids do worse on tests, and we see more violence.”
…
However, the new work has already drawn criticism — University of Sussex economist Richard Tol called it “hugely problematic” in an email to the Post — so it remains to be seen what other researchers make of the work.
Even if we accept the study at face value, according to the abstract, unmitigated warming is expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23% by 2100 and widening global income inequality, relative to scenarios without climate change.
Given that the global economy is growing at around 1% per annum per capita, a simple projection still yields a 130% increase in per capita income by 2100 under BAU. A 23% reduction to a 130% gain doesn’t seem such a big deal, in the scheme of things.
(1 + 0.01)85 years = 2.3
2.3 (230%) – the original 100% = 130% gain
I’m concerned that this study may be ignoring a lot of political and historical context. If an equivalent study was performed in the age of the Roman Empire, when much of the world’s economic activity centred on warm countries like Italy and Egypt, it seems likely that the calculated “optimum economic temperature” would have been significantly higher than 13c (55F)
However the simplest criticism of the study is the irrefutable fact that humans are physiologically optimised to extreme tropical conditions.
How would you feel, right now, if you took all your clothes off outdoors? You might feel embarrassed – but that is a cultural response. What you would most likely feel is cold, unless it was a hot day.
We all wear clothes, for comfort, style, and most importantly, to protect ourselves from the cold. Even in my home town on the edge of the tropics, certainly in winter, and for at least part of the Summer, people have to wear clothes, otherwise they get uncomfortably cold.
If you become too hot, such as when performing outdoor physical labour on a hot day, you can adjust your clothing to optimise your body temperature, say by swapping a long sleeve shirt for a t-shirt, wearing shorts, or in extreme cases by peeling down to not much clothing at all. I’ve mowed a large hilly multi-acre lawn with a petrol push mower, on days when the temperature exceeded 110F (45c). I’ll spare you the image of what I was wearing on those days.
My point is, humans are physiologically well adjusted to handling very hot weather, without adverse effects, providing we are acclimatised, providing we stay hydrated, and providing we dress appropriately for the weather. In any climate cooler than the extreme tropics where humans evolved, we have to wear clothes pretty much continuously, to protect ourselves from the cold.
Suggesting that productivity inevitably drops off, as we approach our physiological optimum environmental temperature, in my opinion is just plain silly.
As for the productivity of other plants and animals on which we depend, tropical countries are characterised by their superabundance of natural life, including food plants and animals. Some staple crops such as oats might like it cold – but there is plenty of edible farm produce which thrives in the heat.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Stanford university and Nature publications should set their thermostats to 55 degrees.
News reports today down under talk about the warmest global September on record – about 0.9°C higher than the long term September average. No mention of how much higher than the previous record. A closer look at the NOAA website reveals that it surpassed the previous record set last year in by 0.12°C (0.19°F). Error band appears to be +- 0.10°C.
Somewhat O/T, but Is this an example of selective reporting designed to mislead, or just too inconvenient to report the full story.
The title of the original article is: “Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production”, in other words another hockey stick to beat the non believers.
How does Bangalore manage to produce all that software in that heat? I put my air-conditioner on 28C (82 F) in summer and feel excellent.
Historically, civilisation advances have been mostly in warm periods. Not difficult to see why in Mediaeval Northern Europe, but then Rome flourished in a warm period, and so did the Minoan civilisation. These were in areas that did not typically suffer harsh winters, and Crete in midsummer can be near tropical heat. Thus, it seems more likely that warm conditions suit human development.
Projection-based tripe to ‘consolidate’ previous climate-related tripe. Nothing more or less. Orwell is alive and well!
This is about the most rediculous “science” I’ve seen. Is the US society funding such science? And why are media printing this nonsense? It’s sad to see that the CO2 scare mongering seems to have no limits.
Co2 is the knob that controls temperature. Temperature is the knob that controls human prosperity. Can someone please turn of these morons’ knobs off.
They haven’t come close to explaining Roman productivity. How did the Romans do so much at well above 13C????
Well, enslaving other people’s and getting them to do all the hard work, might be one suggestion… 🙂
Apologies for the errant apostrophe. I meant “peoples”.
Every part of my body stops working at 55……it only has to do with what you are adjusted to
Even the part of you that reaches for a sweater?
Latitude:
55? Are you referring to temperature or age?
LOL……you know it’s both!
…actually I start shuting down around 75F….I’m acclimated to ~80F year round
It is appalling to see this type of shit published in Nature, when serious scientific researchers all over the world have to work really hard for years and be very successful and truly excel in their fields to get an article published in Nature. There is simply no limit to the damage that AGW theory can do to scientific standards and nobody is studying that.
There are days were I doubt if science will be able to recover its former prestige. This is one of them.
I often feel the same way. I suppose the optimistic view is that we may end up with a wider understanding of what science really is, and what it is not.
We also shouldn’t fund people to merely discover ‘new’ problems and prophesy doom, as opposed to funding those who tackle the more difficult task of discovering new solutions to old problems.
Oh, you are incorrect. We study it here almost daily…and in great detail at that.
Now tell us what the optimal CO2 concentration is. I go for 500ppm…
That seems like a cast iron case for more air conditioning for the poor people who live in places that are hot and have always been hot.
Perhaps they are making the case for forcing mid latitude countries to accept immigrants from the tropics without limits…climate refugees anyone?
There were none, so they have had to invent them!
I highly doubt the person who thinks 55 is the optimum temperature to live in keeps his house at 55 degrees in the winter.
Since the tropics tend to be populated by people of color, does that make this study racist?
Is 13 degs optimum for the outside of the human being or the inside of the human being?
Yes, but the more important question is what is the optimum temperature for the biosphere?
There is no optimum temperature. There is an optimum temperature range.
I wish that I could say that this is the dumbest piece of pretended “science” that I have ever encountered, but sadly, as someone who once listened to BBC radio and read the Gaurdian, I was introduced to several such fallacious “correlation therefore causation” papers every week for many years.
They will simply never grasp this simple correlation/causation principle and therefore they will never stop churning out such donkey-poop.
However, it will amuse everyone to know that I have in the last 90 seconds since reading the abstract, constructed an alternative paper which leaps to an even more impressive conclusion using an even more clear-cut correlation. (I worked out the exact correlation using my mind. But I will leave the calculation as an exercise for readers.)
Here is my abstract: (satire)
Growing evidence demonstrates that countries where there is a high level of Nordic/Aryan genetic influence have prospered during the post-industrial era. Whilst other countries have not benefited from the Nordic/Aryan influence and have continually suffered from civil conflict, govt. corruption and poor social and working conditions.
In this study, we assessed the influence of Nordic/Aryan genes, by using melanoma incidence as a proxy.
Incidence of melanoma is assumed to associate with light Aryan skin type.
Our study demonstrated a strong correlation (p<0.05) between melanoma rates and national GDP.
The chart of melanoma incidence is included below.
We feel that it speaks for itself, and hence we include no further data or discussion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanoma#/media/File:Worldwide_Melanoma_of_Skin_Cancer_Incidence_-_2008_Globocan.svg
Wait til the disparate impact folks get a load of this. The whole planet is anti-brown, black and muslim, but capitalists exploit it by keeping them extra unproductive. Oh, wait …
“Suggesting that productivity inevitably drops off, as we approach our physiological optimum environmental temperature, in my opinion is just plain silly.”
Regarding this bit, I wonder if it is that silly. Consider why you don’t see siestas in northern Europe – you don’t have a climate that’s suited to taking said siestas. So, if the weather is usually cold and chilly and so on compared to our optimum temperature, then wouldn’t you see more work going on? People in sunny Spain etc can live a more leisurely lifestyle because they don’t need to afford all the heating of people in Sweden, etc.
Of course, this will be very much complicated by culture, but the researchers may not be entirely wrong as to the relationship between economic productivity and temperature.
(And finally, I’ll note that I’m steering clear of whether the Swedes or Spaniards in my example have the better deal – that’s mere opinion 🙂 …)
A nonsensical study. This study’s conclusions are contradicted by empirical observations. Since the invention of residential heating and air conditioning systems, people with access to affordable energy choose to live and work in spaces with an average temperature of 72F or 22C. Humans don’t feel the air temperature, they feel the loss of heat from their bodies, and 22C feels comfortable to most people.
Oh, and 13C? That turns out to be the average outdoor temperature in California. Coincidence? The researchers live in California.
It seems to me that the focus in climate research is not to find the optimum temperature for the biosphere, but to find the optimum hype to make funding of research sustainable.
It is sad that this is what passes for science nowadays. It is nothing but grade A agenda-driven pseudoscientific grant-grubbing pablum. Their “conclusions”, which are based on false assumptions were predetermined. The idea of an “ideal” average temperature is moronic to begin with. We adapt. Always have, and always will. History, and common sense tells us that we do better during warmer periods, and fare worse during colder ones. And it is wealth that gives us an even greater ability to both adapt and thrive, and wealth is the very thing these cretins want to deprive mankind of, via making energy both more expensive and less reliable.
The productivity of a country is the result of hundreds of factors working together over 100’s of years.
Only a climate scientist would even attempt to simplify it down to a single variable.
Optimal yearly average is 13C. How do you account for seasonal variation? Some places the difference between summer and winter temperatures are a lot higher than others.
Who says it is any individual’s best interest to work even harder? Or put another way, while it may be in the best interest of an employer to overwork their forces, it’s probably not in the best interest of the individual worker. I remember some years ago reading that the average carpenter only got to draw three years of pension before they died. Maybe working in a warmer climate at a more reasonable pace would be better for each individual. Productivity is a management word. Or a soil and farm word. I’m happy to work hard and always have. Just doesn’t seem right, though, to quantify human existence by telling me that colder is better. For whom? My tomatoes, yes. More than my normal 12 hour day? Not so much.
pbh
I recently lost a major contract and another was greatly reduced. I realised that I could sell my assets, pay off my debts, and retire at 50, instead of panicking. Best thing that ever happened to me, apart from all the other best things. I don’t have much money, but I don’t have to work. And I’m in the tropics, with a year-round swimming pool. I can’t see how that could be bad, now!