Claim: The Optimum Average Annual Temperature for Humans is 13c (55F)

temperature change

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.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/21/sweeping-study-claims-that-rising-temperatures-will-sharply-cut-economic-productivity/

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
353 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Catcracking
October 22, 2015 6:51 am

“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.”
What a load of BS!
These folks need to go up to Northern Alberta in the winter and see how productivity is impacted when the temperature often reaches minus 40 C and work sites need to be “horded in ” to allow craftsmen, who are all bundled up in felt lined boots, heavy gloves, and heavy down jackets, struggle to construct facilities which extract oil from the oil sands.

Jim G1
Reply to  Catcracking
October 22, 2015 7:07 am

“global income inequality”, There’s a clue to who these people are.

notfubar
October 22, 2015 6:52 am

Not too cold, not too hot… I think Goldilocks still had to put on a jacket to declare 13c (55F) ‘just right.’

Tom in Florida
October 22, 2015 6:52 am

Methinks this is a study done to contradict the “warmer is better” argument.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 22, 2015 7:10 am

Yes, it is a political document.

peyelut
October 22, 2015 6:54 am

What an absurd waste of resources to make an argument against KNOWN reality. These people need to be mercilessly mocked.

Eliza
October 22, 2015 6:58 am

Of course adversity, pain etc *ie COLD induces humans to be productive. Who the hell wants to live like that.! I live in the tropics and I is very happy. I would never live anywhere near Europe, Canada ect. Also we have the happiest people on earth so XX yours IPCC, nature ect LOL

Jer0me
Reply to  Eliza
October 22, 2015 7:14 am

I is very happy in the tropics too!

Severian
October 22, 2015 7:01 am

Well, based on this they can relabel all the people streaming from North Africa to the EU “climate refugees” thereby fulfilling a core prediction of the CAGW movement, rather than saying they are fleeing the war and instability brought about by US and European meddling in the area.

Robert of Ottawa
October 22, 2015 7:08 am

The Jesuits in Brazil had constant problems trying to get the natives to wear clothes. There was no need for them.

Jer0me
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 22, 2015 7:13 am

I can sympathise. I keep a dressing gown for emergency use when the postie or similar has to come up the drive to deliver something. The rest of the time, it is shorts or nothing at all, I’m afraid. Why bother when you are in and out of the pool, and you have no neighbours?

Jer0me
October 22, 2015 7:11 am

I have to agree.
I do tend to laze about in my hammock under the mango tree, and occasionally dip into the pool to cool myself down. I’m not sure this is a product of the tropical climate, but just my inherent ability to gain joy from doing very little.
In the words of AC/DC, “people say I’m lazy, but doing nothing means a lot to me”

tommyterroir
October 22, 2015 7:13 am

The headline could just as well have been…”A new study claims that people who live in tropical climates don’t need to be as productive as people who live in temperate climates.

peyelut
October 22, 2015 7:13 am

I guess these IDIOTS have never heard of “room temperature”.

PB-in-AL
October 22, 2015 7:14 am

If we confine our economic observation to the US only, so how do they explain the falling productivity of the “industrial” northern states, and the recent booming industrial economies of the southern states? Us lazy ole southerners, we ain’t worth much in the way o smarts or work…. Right, tell that to Mercedes, Hyundai, BMW, VW, Honda, Remington, Boeing, etc., etc.

JimB
Reply to  PB-in-AL
October 22, 2015 7:28 am

I would like to see a similar study that examined the capital investment per capita. Bet I know which end of the spectrum would show the most productivity. Idiots. “Over-educated fools” is what my dad used to call them. PhD…piled high and deep.

peyelut
October 22, 2015 7:19 am

Further, these IDIOTS seem to think energy resources used to manipulate the micro climate, e.g., heating and cooling, are not impacting the definition of “optimum”. I guess agricultural “optimums” don’t factor into the “optimum” for humanity.

jsuther2013
October 22, 2015 7:23 am

All Schools, Homes andOoffices should try reducing their temperatures to this ‘optimum’, and see how long it would survive, along with the credibility and popularity of the so-called researcher .

JimB
October 22, 2015 7:27 am

I would like to see a similar study that examined the capital investment per capita. Bet I know which end of the spectrum would show the most productivity. Idiots. “Over-educated fools” is what my dad used to call them. PhD…piled high and deep.

October 22, 2015 7:27 am

“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.”
What? So everywhere (North, South and especially in-between) is at the optimum and this is about to change?

jsuther2013
October 22, 2015 7:29 am

We should insist they set the thermostat for their COP21 meeting in Paris in December to this temperature.

AB
October 22, 2015 7:36 am

TG Mcoy. The Greenies will just rewrite history and tell us the pyramids are really in Norway. (:-0)

John G.
October 22, 2015 7:43 am

I can’t help but think studies like this are meaningless nonsense. The whole reason we humans are not naked and living in a small belt in the tropics is because we got smart and learned how to control our immediate environment with clothes, shelter and energy. That enabled us to live and thrive anywhere on earth (we go into volcanoes and the bottom of the ocean) and off (we go to the moon and eventually other planets). The local temperatures are meaningless unless you specify limits of clothes, shelter and energy . . . which really, there aren’t many anymore.
The Greenies who obsess over temperature one must conclude would have us naked and constrained to those narrow belts in the tropics so that our use of energy won’t warm things too much and destroy the planet . . . a silly fear given we are moving out of an interglacial and back into an ice age. But even if we weren’t it’s still silly. What? We would be less productive? Isn’t that what they want?

Jim Dodson
October 22, 2015 7:44 am

Climate scientists and their political and journalistic co-religionists in CAGW like to have their biggest conferences- usually twelve days each- in beautiful, remote tropical places with fabulous beaches nearby and lots of heat- Bali, Rio, Dubai, Cancun, etc. From now on, they should schedule conferences in cooler, more “productive” locations. Svalbard might be good.

G. Karst
October 22, 2015 7:51 am

It is about time, for scientific inquiry into the question of the ideal climate. No efforts to “adjust” climate should ever be attempted until such information is clearly shown and supported by unambiguous data. This study is NOT it but hopefully will stimulate such research and inquiry.
The next thing we need is a working and validated climate model. Only then, can we dare to consider climate or weather control. Until then, we should keep our hands in our pockets. GK

bh2
October 22, 2015 7:54 am

Another “study” trumpeting conclusive results creatively extracted from inconclusive data. Never mind the sample period beginning 1960 is too short to generalize about relative “productivity” of human civilizations which have been widely dispersed over time and distance.
Disregarding advancements by ancient high civilizations like those which arose in the fertile crescent, the Indus Valley, and China is academic criminal neglect. Or worse.
All this “study” conclusively demonstrates is sorely lacking means to recover public funds from academic institutions sponsoring blatant fraud.

Paul Westhaver
October 22, 2015 8:00 am

The thermometer scale in the image is off.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 22, 2015 9:58 am

It’s the new IPCC model thermometer for temperature measurements. The ‘F’ scale is actual and the ‘C’ scale is what you use to log the data, that way there’s no need to adjust the data afterwords.

ulriclyons
October 22, 2015 8:02 am

UK workplace guidelines suggests a minimum of 16ºC or 13ºC if employees are doing physical work.
Wiki:
According to the West Midlands Public Health Observatory (UK) an adequate level of wintertime warmth is 21 °C (70 °F) for a living room, and a minimum of 18 °C (64 °F) for other occupied rooms, giving 24 °C (75 °F) as a maximum comfortable room temperature for sedentary adults.[4] At temperatures below 20 °C (68 °F), increased risk of death has been observed, and winter deaths reportedly rise at a rate of about 1.4% per degree below 18 °C (64 °F).

GTL
October 22, 2015 8:52 am

Correlation is not causation.
Is productivity higher because of a 13c temperature or does higher productivity happen to occur where the temperature is 13c for other reasons?
A lot of productivity occurs in the US mid-west and great plains (breadbasket) because terrain, soils, water, and climate are ideal and humans are attracted to the area due to the ideal growing conditions. The high crop yields are due to favorable conditions, not because people are more productive at 13c.
Productivity is likewise effected by technology. Humans are adaptable, largely through the use of energy. The South West could not developed to the extent it has without air conditioning.
How did Burke, Hsiang & Miguel isolate temperature from the infinite other variables that can affect economic output?

Brian J in UK
October 22, 2015 9:04 am

What about acclimatization? Working in the UK coal mines many years ago, I became accustomed to working in heat levels much higher than 13 degrees C, and shoveling up to 20 tonnes of coal each shift. A great deal of sweat was lost, drinking several pints of water each shift to replace that. Also in this age of machines now doing much of the manual work, there is a lot less chance of suffering heat stroke or other adverse effects because of the decline of manual labour – at least in the West.