I just have simple question that has bugged me for a long time, and relates to all this global warming stuff..??
What is the "normal", "optimum", "best" temperature that planet Earth should be??
Is the normal best temp what it is now..? What it was 100 yrs ago? 1000 yrs ago? 1,000,000 yrs ago, 100 yrs from now?
Who gets to decide this incrediby important number, which all the hopes, hysterias and fears of everyone involved in this "climate change" issue is dependent on??
The planet earth has never stayed the same temp, it's forever changing, due to natural cycles, solar events, and many other factors... So what is the perfect Earth temperature, and why is any deviation today in our lifetime from that (so far)non-existant "perfect temperature" a sign of trouble?? What is "that perfect temprature?)
There have been times on the planet when temps were much hotter than they are now, scientists have found tropical fern leaves beneath glaciers in the arctic, at times when the planet was as much as 20-25 degees warmer than it is today, millions of years ago when plant and animal life was much more concentrated and flourishing in many parts of the planet that today are only deserts or sheets of ice... Was that the optimum planet temp then..? Should we strive to get there again..? Was the perfect temp when it was much cooler, and different species and life lived and flourished in different places..?
So why do humans in they're arrogance think that somehow if the temp of the planet today changes slightly, even only a degree or fraction thereof, think that it's a catastrophy of some sort?? The temp of the planet is always changing, and it always has, with no help from humans the majority of the time, and most often the changes were the most drastic and abrupt when no human activity was present...
I just wondered who gets to decide..? What temp planet Earth should be at, who gets to dial in the planetary thermostat, which scientist, or the UN, or which government gets to decide, and try to regulate it..? And why do the arrogant human race think the Earth shouldn't be changing temps, or doom will result, when it never has before, even when we weren't here..? And more importantly, why do humans think we can somehow change that cycle of temp change, and change the planets climate, when we can't even acurately predict next weeks weather, much less have any effect on the storms that might be in that forcast...?
What is the normal planet temp?
-
Snidely Whiplash
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
What is the normal planet temp?
I think you are asking the wrong question.
The "best" temperature is the one that best matches the needs of the plants and animals across the globe and as you say, it's constantly changing: several degrees colder in the last Ice Age, but perfect for the Mammoths and Neanderthals who lived at the time and iirc 4 degrees C warmer in the Pleistocene (6,000,000 years ago I think) which was perfect for the animals and plants that were around at the time.
Usually climate changes very slowly - a degree every million years or so - so the plants and animals have a chance to migrate and adapt; but what is scaring many of us now is that we are looking at a change of 2 or 3 degrees in the next 100 years. In the past changes of that magnitude and speed were associated with meteor strikes and/or increased activity from volcanoes and resulted in mass extinctions.
So there is no "normal" temperature for the planet in the way you seem to be talking about it. What is important is that the temperature is appropriate to the life forms that exist at the time, and the worry is that this happy state of affairs is ceasing to be. I seem to remember reading that we might lose 25-33% of all species currently in existence on the planet. Probably qualifies as a mass extinction.
The "best" temperature is the one that best matches the needs of the plants and animals across the globe and as you say, it's constantly changing: several degrees colder in the last Ice Age, but perfect for the Mammoths and Neanderthals who lived at the time and iirc 4 degrees C warmer in the Pleistocene (6,000,000 years ago I think) which was perfect for the animals and plants that were around at the time.
Usually climate changes very slowly - a degree every million years or so - so the plants and animals have a chance to migrate and adapt; but what is scaring many of us now is that we are looking at a change of 2 or 3 degrees in the next 100 years. In the past changes of that magnitude and speed were associated with meteor strikes and/or increased activity from volcanoes and resulted in mass extinctions.
So there is no "normal" temperature for the planet in the way you seem to be talking about it. What is important is that the temperature is appropriate to the life forms that exist at the time, and the worry is that this happy state of affairs is ceasing to be. I seem to remember reading that we might lose 25-33% of all species currently in existence on the planet. Probably qualifies as a mass extinction.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
What is the normal planet temp?
Snidely Whiplash;850710 wrote: I just have simple question that has bugged me for a long time, and relates to all this global warming stuff..??
What is the "normal", "optimum", "best" temperature that planet Earth should be??
Is the normal best temp what it is now..? What it was 100 yrs ago? 1000 yrs ago? 1,000,000 yrs ago, 100 yrs from now?
Who gets to decide this incrediby important number, which all the hopes, hysterias and fears of everyone involved in this "climate change" issue is dependent on??
The planet earth has never stayed the same temp, it's forever changing, due to natural cycles, solar events, and many other factors... So what is the perfect Earth temperature, and why is any deviation today in our lifetime from that (so far)non-existant "perfect temperature" a sign of trouble?? What is "that perfect temprature?)
There have been times on the planet when temps were much hotter than they are now, scientists have found tropical fern leaves beneath glaciers in the arctic, at times when the planet was as much as 20-25 degees warmer than it is today, millions of years ago when plant and animal life was much more concentrated and flourishing in many parts of the planet that today are only deserts or sheets of ice... Was that the optimum planet temp then..? Should we strive to get there again..? Was the perfect temp when it was much cooler, and different species and life lived and flourished in different places..?
So why do humans in they're arrogance think that somehow if the temp of the planet today changes slightly, even only a degree or fraction thereof, think that it's a catastrophy of some sort?? The temp of the planet is always changing, and it always has, with no help from humans the majority of the time, and most often the changes were the most drastic and abrupt when no human activity was present...
I just wondered who gets to decide..? What temp planet Earth should be at, who gets to dial in the planetary thermostat, which scientist, or the UN, or which government gets to decide, and try to regulate it..? And why do the arrogant human race think the Earth shouldn't be changing temps, or doom will result, when it never has before, even when we weren't here..? And more importantly, why do humans think we can somehow change that cycle of temp change, and change the planets climate, when we can't even acurately predict next weeks weather, much less have any effect on the storms that might be in that forcast...?
Where on Earth do you get that from?
When live started to evolve 3,500,000,000 years ago (give or take one or two) the sun's output was about 23% less than it is now - as the sun's composition changes with age so its output is increasing fairly steadily. The concept that, at any time during its life baring existence the average temperature has been in the mid thirties is a claim I have never seen elsewhere.
Also, I've never see a suggestion that there is a specific "best" temperature. I've seen optimum ranges of temperature quoted - generally around 11 - 16 degrees and I've seen current actual figures of around 15 degrees. I've also seen suggested trigger points where catastrophic events are likely to take place - often related to the average temperature of the sea but I really have never seen anyone say that the absolute temperature should by X.
As you say, the average temperature of the Earth has varied (slightly) throughout the ages but global warming is less about the absolute temperature (assuming we avoid the trigger points mentioned above) as about the rate of change of temperature which is running higher than life systems can adapt and far faster than at any time in history outside of past extinction events.
What is the "normal", "optimum", "best" temperature that planet Earth should be??
Is the normal best temp what it is now..? What it was 100 yrs ago? 1000 yrs ago? 1,000,000 yrs ago, 100 yrs from now?
Who gets to decide this incrediby important number, which all the hopes, hysterias and fears of everyone involved in this "climate change" issue is dependent on??
The planet earth has never stayed the same temp, it's forever changing, due to natural cycles, solar events, and many other factors... So what is the perfect Earth temperature, and why is any deviation today in our lifetime from that (so far)non-existant "perfect temperature" a sign of trouble?? What is "that perfect temprature?)
There have been times on the planet when temps were much hotter than they are now, scientists have found tropical fern leaves beneath glaciers in the arctic, at times when the planet was as much as 20-25 degees warmer than it is today, millions of years ago when plant and animal life was much more concentrated and flourishing in many parts of the planet that today are only deserts or sheets of ice... Was that the optimum planet temp then..? Should we strive to get there again..? Was the perfect temp when it was much cooler, and different species and life lived and flourished in different places..?
So why do humans in they're arrogance think that somehow if the temp of the planet today changes slightly, even only a degree or fraction thereof, think that it's a catastrophy of some sort?? The temp of the planet is always changing, and it always has, with no help from humans the majority of the time, and most often the changes were the most drastic and abrupt when no human activity was present...
I just wondered who gets to decide..? What temp planet Earth should be at, who gets to dial in the planetary thermostat, which scientist, or the UN, or which government gets to decide, and try to regulate it..? And why do the arrogant human race think the Earth shouldn't be changing temps, or doom will result, when it never has before, even when we weren't here..? And more importantly, why do humans think we can somehow change that cycle of temp change, and change the planets climate, when we can't even acurately predict next weeks weather, much less have any effect on the storms that might be in that forcast...?
Where on Earth do you get that from?
When live started to evolve 3,500,000,000 years ago (give or take one or two) the sun's output was about 23% less than it is now - as the sun's composition changes with age so its output is increasing fairly steadily. The concept that, at any time during its life baring existence the average temperature has been in the mid thirties is a claim I have never seen elsewhere.
Also, I've never see a suggestion that there is a specific "best" temperature. I've seen optimum ranges of temperature quoted - generally around 11 - 16 degrees and I've seen current actual figures of around 15 degrees. I've also seen suggested trigger points where catastrophic events are likely to take place - often related to the average temperature of the sea but I really have never seen anyone say that the absolute temperature should by X.
As you say, the average temperature of the Earth has varied (slightly) throughout the ages but global warming is less about the absolute temperature (assuming we avoid the trigger points mentioned above) as about the rate of change of temperature which is running higher than life systems can adapt and far faster than at any time in history outside of past extinction events.
What is the normal planet temp?
I don't know SW (;)) but I do know this... that the locations for
temp gauges have changed quite a bit in the last oh, say 100 years
or so.
There is a town not too far from me that has temp gauges on the
ROOF of a building... I've seen a photograph, a ton of ASPHALT
parking lot, building reflections and even huge expanses of
metal-sided air conditioning units. HELLO? Historically, that
gauge in the 1800's would have been in a FIELD.
:-6
temp gauges have changed quite a bit in the last oh, say 100 years
or so.
There is a town not too far from me that has temp gauges on the
ROOF of a building... I've seen a photograph, a ton of ASPHALT
parking lot, building reflections and even huge expanses of
metal-sided air conditioning units. HELLO? Historically, that
gauge in the 1800's would have been in a FIELD.
:-6
-
Snidely Whiplash
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm
What is the normal planet temp?
Clodhopper;850733 wrote: I think you are asking the wrong question.
The "best" temperature is the one that best matches the needs of the plants and animals across the globe and as you say, it's constantly changing: several degrees colder in the last Ice Age, but perfect for the Mammoths and Neanderthals who lived at the time and iirc 4 degrees C warmer in the Pleistocene (6,000,000 years ago I think) which was perfect for the animals and plants that were around at the time.
Usually climate changes very slowly - a degree every million years or so - so the plants and animals have a chance to migrate and adapt; but what is scaring many of us now is that we are looking at a change of 2 or 3 degrees in the next 100 years. In the past changes of that magnitude and speed were associated with meteor strikes and/or increased activity from volcanoes and resulted in mass extinctions.
So there is no "normal" temperature for the planet in the way you seem to be talking about it. What is important is that the temperature is appropriate to the life forms that exist at the time, and the worry is that this happy state of affairs is ceasing to be. I seem to remember reading that we might lose 25-33% of all species currently in existence on the planet. Probably qualifies as a mass extinction.
I understand your reply and the concernes many people today have... But there seems no one set of facts that everyone agrees on? I've read articles in major news outlets and scientific journals stating that in the past year alone there has been as much world wide cooling as there has been global warming in the past 100 years? There are lists of web page articles and news articles from all over stating this...That cooling trend is happening far faster than global warming has, so isn't that just as big a worry if "drastic" temp change is whats bad? There are thousands of pages of online reports and articles from all over saying the past few years have been the coldest, harshest, longest winters in modern times..? In my home town in Utah they had one of the worst winters in memory, and the snowpack is double normal at 170 inches, or almost 20 feet of snow in one season..? Why does Antarctica have the thickest most expansice ice pack in the past 100 years today..? I really don't know what to think about all these things..? I don't really know what reports are all true, or if some are not, just that there seems like a lot of well to do people in the field have some very strong hesitations on just what is really happening with the tempratures and climate.. Thats why I don't understand particularly why some have such set in stone views on climate change,especially those in the enviromental movement, or why it is necesarily such an upcoming catastrophy?
I don't know where all these extincions are supposed to take place..? Like polar bears that we're told are one step from extinction..? 50 years ago there were 5,000 polar bears, today their are 25,000, but still environmentalists want them added to the endangered list, even though they're numbers are rapidly expanding, even with hunting in some places...
I realize that some here will think my views are also stuborn, but my view is only that I don't buy into man made global warming until theres evidence that can stand up to all the scrutiny by most everyone, and so far there are countless pages, papers and articles that seem equally credible on both sides of the debate..? Thats why I don't know if I believe anyone knows what they're talking about at this point, what will happen to the climate, or where the climate should really be temp wise?
.....................................................
Bryn Mawr;850779 wrote: Where on Earth do you get that from?
When live started to evolve 3,500,000,000 years ago (give or take one or two) the sun's output was about 23% less than it is now - as the sun's composition changes with age so its output is increasing fairly steadily. The concept that, at any time during its life baring existence the average temperature has been in the mid thirties is a claim I have never seen elsewhere.
Also, I've never see a suggestion that there is a specific "best" temperature. I've seen optimum ranges of temperature quoted - generally around 11 - 16 degrees and I've seen current actual figures of around 15 degrees. I've also seen suggested trigger points where catastrophic events are likely to take place - often related to the average temperature of the sea but I really have never seen anyone say that the absolute temperature should by X.
As you say, the average temperature of the Earth has varied (slightly) throughout the ages but global warming is less about the absolute temperature (assuming we avoid the trigger points mentioned above) as about the rate of change of temperature which is running higher than life systems can adapt and far faster than at any time in history outside of past extinction events.
That was a good reply.. That looks like good info... I am still skeptical though..?
...........................................................
valerie;851038 wrote: I don't know SW (;)) but I do know this... that the locations for
temp gauges have changed quite a bit in the last oh, say 100 years
or so.
There is a town not too far from me that has temp gauges on the
ROOF of a building... I've seen a photograph, a ton of ASPHALT
parking lot, building reflections and even huge expanses of
metal-sided air conditioning units. HELLO? Historically, that
gauge in the 1800's would have been in a FIELD.
:-6
Hi Valerie. Temps in the past can be fairly acurately found by drilling deep sea sediment cores. By taking cross sections at various depths scientists know aprox how old that slice of the core is. They then count the number of a species of planktonic organisms called diatoms, they sorta look like tiny snowflkes.. Certain species of these diatoms like cooler water, and some like warmer water, so if there is a large number of either species, the temp of that water at that time in history can be determined...
CO2 levels are found in a similar way, with ice core samples drilled in glaciers... The ice is sliced at various depths and is melted in a chamber, and the amount of CO2 that is released can be measured, and compared to similar ice of today, where we know our CO2 level... Anyways, thats the jist of it... I agree that thermometers of 100 years ago were probably less than acrurate most of the time, and placed is questionable places, at least to get the detailed readings needed for this...
The problem I see with this, is that CO2 levels don't preceed temp changes, from the graphs I've seen CO2 levels follow behind temp changes by 500-800 years, a lag time that the oceans take to adjust to the changing air temps, which kinda confuses this whole issue of CO2 causing global warming for me..?
Those were great posts, thanks for the info...
The "best" temperature is the one that best matches the needs of the plants and animals across the globe and as you say, it's constantly changing: several degrees colder in the last Ice Age, but perfect for the Mammoths and Neanderthals who lived at the time and iirc 4 degrees C warmer in the Pleistocene (6,000,000 years ago I think) which was perfect for the animals and plants that were around at the time.
Usually climate changes very slowly - a degree every million years or so - so the plants and animals have a chance to migrate and adapt; but what is scaring many of us now is that we are looking at a change of 2 or 3 degrees in the next 100 years. In the past changes of that magnitude and speed were associated with meteor strikes and/or increased activity from volcanoes and resulted in mass extinctions.
So there is no "normal" temperature for the planet in the way you seem to be talking about it. What is important is that the temperature is appropriate to the life forms that exist at the time, and the worry is that this happy state of affairs is ceasing to be. I seem to remember reading that we might lose 25-33% of all species currently in existence on the planet. Probably qualifies as a mass extinction.
I understand your reply and the concernes many people today have... But there seems no one set of facts that everyone agrees on? I've read articles in major news outlets and scientific journals stating that in the past year alone there has been as much world wide cooling as there has been global warming in the past 100 years? There are lists of web page articles and news articles from all over stating this...That cooling trend is happening far faster than global warming has, so isn't that just as big a worry if "drastic" temp change is whats bad? There are thousands of pages of online reports and articles from all over saying the past few years have been the coldest, harshest, longest winters in modern times..? In my home town in Utah they had one of the worst winters in memory, and the snowpack is double normal at 170 inches, or almost 20 feet of snow in one season..? Why does Antarctica have the thickest most expansice ice pack in the past 100 years today..? I really don't know what to think about all these things..? I don't really know what reports are all true, or if some are not, just that there seems like a lot of well to do people in the field have some very strong hesitations on just what is really happening with the tempratures and climate.. Thats why I don't understand particularly why some have such set in stone views on climate change,especially those in the enviromental movement, or why it is necesarily such an upcoming catastrophy?
I don't know where all these extincions are supposed to take place..? Like polar bears that we're told are one step from extinction..? 50 years ago there were 5,000 polar bears, today their are 25,000, but still environmentalists want them added to the endangered list, even though they're numbers are rapidly expanding, even with hunting in some places...
I realize that some here will think my views are also stuborn, but my view is only that I don't buy into man made global warming until theres evidence that can stand up to all the scrutiny by most everyone, and so far there are countless pages, papers and articles that seem equally credible on both sides of the debate..? Thats why I don't know if I believe anyone knows what they're talking about at this point, what will happen to the climate, or where the climate should really be temp wise?
.....................................................
Bryn Mawr;850779 wrote: Where on Earth do you get that from?
When live started to evolve 3,500,000,000 years ago (give or take one or two) the sun's output was about 23% less than it is now - as the sun's composition changes with age so its output is increasing fairly steadily. The concept that, at any time during its life baring existence the average temperature has been in the mid thirties is a claim I have never seen elsewhere.
Also, I've never see a suggestion that there is a specific "best" temperature. I've seen optimum ranges of temperature quoted - generally around 11 - 16 degrees and I've seen current actual figures of around 15 degrees. I've also seen suggested trigger points where catastrophic events are likely to take place - often related to the average temperature of the sea but I really have never seen anyone say that the absolute temperature should by X.
As you say, the average temperature of the Earth has varied (slightly) throughout the ages but global warming is less about the absolute temperature (assuming we avoid the trigger points mentioned above) as about the rate of change of temperature which is running higher than life systems can adapt and far faster than at any time in history outside of past extinction events.
That was a good reply.. That looks like good info... I am still skeptical though..?
...........................................................
valerie;851038 wrote: I don't know SW (;)) but I do know this... that the locations for
temp gauges have changed quite a bit in the last oh, say 100 years
or so.
There is a town not too far from me that has temp gauges on the
ROOF of a building... I've seen a photograph, a ton of ASPHALT
parking lot, building reflections and even huge expanses of
metal-sided air conditioning units. HELLO? Historically, that
gauge in the 1800's would have been in a FIELD.
:-6
Hi Valerie. Temps in the past can be fairly acurately found by drilling deep sea sediment cores. By taking cross sections at various depths scientists know aprox how old that slice of the core is. They then count the number of a species of planktonic organisms called diatoms, they sorta look like tiny snowflkes.. Certain species of these diatoms like cooler water, and some like warmer water, so if there is a large number of either species, the temp of that water at that time in history can be determined...
CO2 levels are found in a similar way, with ice core samples drilled in glaciers... The ice is sliced at various depths and is melted in a chamber, and the amount of CO2 that is released can be measured, and compared to similar ice of today, where we know our CO2 level... Anyways, thats the jist of it... I agree that thermometers of 100 years ago were probably less than acrurate most of the time, and placed is questionable places, at least to get the detailed readings needed for this...
The problem I see with this, is that CO2 levels don't preceed temp changes, from the graphs I've seen CO2 levels follow behind temp changes by 500-800 years, a lag time that the oceans take to adjust to the changing air temps, which kinda confuses this whole issue of CO2 causing global warming for me..?
Those were great posts, thanks for the info...