What temperature is the Earth supposed to be?
By Eoin O'Carroll | 06.26.09
If we don’t get our act together and slash greenhouse gas emissions, the UN climate change panel tells us, average global temperatures could rise by as much as 10 degrees F. by the end of the century.
But would that really be so bad? Sure, much of the South would be unbearable during the summer months (as would many of those tropical countries), but think of all that beautiful real estate in Alaska that we’d open up! And many of us here in Boston would willingly trade a dozen or more 100-degree F. days each year to wear shorts and flip-flops through October. Less snow shoveling, more Frisbee tossing. What’s not to like?
Who decreed that average global surface temperatures have to stay at the 58 degrees F. or so that modern humans are used to? After all, we’ve experienced temperatures much higher than that in the past (by “we,” I mean multicellular organisms living a half-billion years ago), and we’ve also had our share of ice ages. What is the “right” temperature for the planet?
Climate-change deniers love posing this question (economist Mark W. Hendrickson asked it earlier this week in a Monitor op-ed), because it makes those who try to answer it sound sentimental and unscientific. There is no “supposed to be” in nature. It is what it is.
But the question also misses the point: The alarming thing about global warming is not how high the average temperature will be, but how fast it’s rising.
And it’s rising really fast, compared to historical temperature shifts. The planet’s surface has warmed about 1.4 degrees F. since 1880, most of it in the past 30 years. And it’s accelerating. According to Britain’s Met Office, which has been recording temperature data since 1850, the next 10 hottest years after 1998 were, in order, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997, 2008, and 1995.
When the temperature shifts this rapidly, living things may not be able to keep up. For instance, many insects, birds, and mammals time their breeding and migration based on temperature, while the many species of plants that they eat time their growth according to the sunlight. When this synchronicity gets thrown off, animals arrive on the scene before their meal is ready, the plants don’t get their seeds propagated, and species start going extinct. Whether we like to admit it or not, humans are part of this ecosystem.
This has happened before. About 250 million years ago, 9 of 10 marine species and 7 out of 10 of terrestrial species suddenly went extinct in what paleontologists call “The Great Dying.” They don’t know exactly what caused this mass extinction, but in all major proposed scenarios – an asteroid impact, a giant volcanic eruption, and changes in the composition of ocean gases – it was the resulting shift in the earth’s climate that, by throwing ecosystems out of whack, ultimately did in these creatures. Indeed, climate changes played a major role in all of the mass extinctions in the planet’s history.
None of this is to suggest that global warming will wipe out humanity. Homo sapiens, while perhaps not always living up to its name, has proven itself to be a highly adaptable species so far. But if we continue to allow our atmosphere to rapidly destabilize, will we be able to provide enough food and water, much less a measure of prosperity, for most of the 8 or 9 billion people predicted to be living here by midcentury? Do we really want to find out?
—
The Fail Whale won’t be going extinct anytime soon, but you should still follow Eoin on Twitter.
<< Can large wind farms tweak weather downwind? | MainComments
2. dennis | 06.26.09
Yes, humans are adaptable, but as the author also points out, other creatures may not adapt so well. When you consider that the loss of bees would mean worldwide food shortages and catastrophic social disintegration, our wonderful ability to adapt suddenly doesn’t seem all that impressive. That isn’t a doomsayer statement. That’s a snapshot of our likely fate if we fail to act, as described by thousands of scientists around the world. When scientists of the same caliber send a rocket to Pluto or create a super-computer the size of a loaf of bread, we accept their expertise. When they tell us we’re heading for climate catastrophe, why are they suddenly “unreliable”? Making climate change a political football is insanity. It’s a scientific fact, Flat Earthers aside. Few want to fully accept the ramifications of climate change because, as Al Gore notes, it’s inconvenient. I don’t think we yet know the meaning of the word “inconvenient.” But if we don’t take strong, concerted action soon, we will.
3. Anti-Social | 06.27.09
Typical hysteria opinion piece. Change happens. For the Chicken Littles out there, the question isn’t what the temperature of the Earth’s supposed to be, but how to maintain the desired temperature chosen by a political process.
4. Mike | 06.27.09
Global warmers are a bit like landloving holiday makers who go to the seaside and get cut off by the tide and then shout: “its a tsunami”. Global temperatures vary. That’s a known fact and is proven by all the glacial features around us. It is also proven by the peat bogs that were laid freexing a prehistoric landscape when the weather turned colder in Scotland. It’s also proven by the little ice age, the settlement of Greenland.
The longer you wait, and you’ll get massive natural temperature fluctuations and short term the fluctuations are smaller. The rate of warming at the end of the 20th century was not unusual - it happened just before the 1940s. The apparent rate of warming in the 20th century is nothing more than a statistical aberration of comparing apples with oranges: real measurements with the reduced sensitivity of proxies like tree rings which are affected by wet/dry as much as cold/hot - and in many cases dramatically underplay the actual change due to statistical effects.
Global warmers are nothing more than modern day quacks who are peddling fake medicine to solve a problem that doesn’t exist and like any fever, if we wait long enough the present cooling trend in the 21st century will “solve” the problem.
5. tom | 06.27.09
If you look at the US record, 1998 is tied with 1934 record as the hottest. Also, the trend from 1930 to 1997 was down, not up:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/nationaltemp_midsize.jpg
Since the end of WWII the US has arguably had one of the fastest rates of urbinization in the world, which will influence temperatures upward. The US also has the longest and most complete temperature monitoring record in the world. So the country that has the best records seems to be warming slower than the world? People will counter that the arctic is where the fastest warming is taking place, and the global average is what matters. I agree, but the global temperatures have really only available since we’ve been able to measure them via satellite–about 30 years, and especially with regards to the arctic.
My point is, it seems to me that we are just now being able to understand the big picture of ‘global’ temperatures. The data in the old records is incomplete. In the US, the recent warm years are not that different from the 1930’s, and now seem to be turning cooler.
6. parallel | 06.27.09
There is no proof that doubling the amount of CO2 would raise global temperature by more than about one degree. The high numbers seen quoted by the global warmers are based on an unproven positive feedback from CO2 on water vapor. If you search around, you will see that proof for this positive “forcing” has been requested many times and so far no one has answered the question.
There are several other fallacies that are covered well by Professor William Happer, linked below. His scientific expertise is beyond question and certainly equal to Dr. Hansen, who is an astronomer by training. See “Global Warming and Climate Change in Perspective: Truths and Myths About Carbon Dioxide, Scientific Consensus, and Climate Models.”
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5441
7. Kelly | 06.27.09
“…present cooling trend?”
So sometime before 2100, we can walk outside and do normal activities between 10am and 6pm here in Texas during the months of June and August because there won’t be an ozone or heat advisory? The elderly and young can walk freely outside and not worry about not collapsing due to heat stroke within 45 minutes of exposure.
I’ve lived in this state for over 50 years. There’s no cooling trend. This is mucked up. And there’s always people who don’t want to people it cause it’s our fault it is or they heard some scientist say “oh no, it isn’t so….”
You keep on smoking your denial-dope, bucko. Or check into some legit sites on the climate change and read a little (books, that is).
This isn’t “alarmist” dialogue. It started a dozen years ago, if not more. We’ve had plenty of time to listen.
8. Anastasia | 06.27.09
I tire of battling with denial.
For the heck of it, I googled “earth’s cooling trend” to see how much longer this God-forbidden summer will last here in the South (it used to last 3 months - it’s more like 5 now).
Anyway, gotta say, results are pretty scary for ya.
Not much scientific validity out there.
I’ll stick to inconvenient truth.
9. Chuck C. | 06.28.09
Several questions that I have do not seem to have an answers.
People of earth have been keeping records of temperatures by means of technological gadgets for a very short time. Maybe 200 years. How reliable are those “gadgets”? Especially the gadgets used prior to the last 50 years? How reliable based on…Gadget errors,Placement errors, Transcription errors, verbal errors, missing records, made up records, political or war errors…where is the accuracy?
10. mceltix2000 | 06.28.09
The author titles the piece, and then forgets to either reject the notion put forward, or at least mitigate it with an even “more important” notion.
You knew when the 4th paragraph started: “Climate-change deniers…”
Who the **** is denying the climate is changing?!?
All us “Climate change deniers” are trying to get at, is that trying to alter our global climate by reducing carbon emissions is *** NOT *** supported by *** ANY *** actual data. It is suggested by (what we believe) are highly compromised computer models, that are not accurate.
11. Brad Smith | 06.28.09
I just love it when some objective journalist acts like he is not going to take sides, only to take a side based on misguided information. Anyone who has taken even basic statistics can tell you a simple fact. There are lies damn lies and then statistics. Anyone with access to the stats can quickly manipulate them to their advantage.
For all you chicken littles I would suggest doing some actual research, which includes checking out who funds your so called “proof”. You will find that time after time your experts are bought and paid for and can not replicate any of their data other than with other bought and paid for “experts”. Thousands of non bought and paid for scientists have debunked this global warming alarmist quakery over and over again. However, you constantly claim we are not being scientific, well part of science is replication (and not on some simulation) and allowing people to see who signs the checks.
So far the only evidence of global warming that hasn’t come from a computor similation or a funded research project is based on temperature increases in urban centers. Well no kidding, if you pave over 100 square miles with black ashpalt it will get warmer. The same records taken from outside of the city have shown cooling.
One other point, it’s all about the sun. It will be getting cooler due to lack of sunspot activity, it will then get warmer when the sun heats up again. Now that’s the fact Jack!
Get real people and stop relying on the first study you hear about. Read both sides of the argument rather than cherry picking what helps make your case. That’s what I did and I quickly learned that what I had been led to believe was one big lie.
Peace!
12. Allen | 06.28.09
WAIT A SEC! The 10 hottest years “after 1998″ included 1995 and 1997? And what do the 10 hottest years after 1998 have to do with anything? There have been exactly 10 of them.
13. Fang1944 | 06.28.09
One thing to remember is that the North Pole is melting. That isn’t alarmism. It’s not somebody’s theory. It’s observed fact.
For another thing, insects in the Northwest are eating up the trees because the winters are not cold enough to kill them off. So the colder parts of the country are not benefiting.
And here in the South we’re staying inside in the air conditioning.
14. Wally | 06.28.09
It will be difficult enough feeding 9 billion people by year 2050, let alone cope with drought, flooding, and infestations brought on by climate change. Our species, leading the charge in an encore “Great Dying”, does not deserve the title “**** sapiens”.
15. Todd G | 06.29.09
If the US passes cap and trade, we will be at an ever further disadvantage economically compared to the rest of the world. It will create huge incentives for US based companies to move more of their manufacturing ops overseas - which will further prolong the current economic downturn.
And, if you have been in Boston over the last few years, you are really wondering “What Global Warming?” It has been snowier and colder here over the last 10 years then the previous 10. I am one Yankee who would be glad for more warmth!
16. Nick | 06.29.09
Hey Fang1944,
Check yer facts. The North Pole is not ‘melting’. It is where it has always been.
And the icecap at the South Pole is increasing.
17. Martin Ruzicka | 06.29.09
Hmm. Yes. The earth is warming up. And what about it! Who cares anyway. I mean it won´t affect the first world that much so why I should be using smaller car. The scientific community and the UN is saying it’s bad for us. But maybe we´ll be able to finally decrease the Earth´s population. Isn´t that great?
18. Nick | 06.29.09
>>>> But the question also misses the point: The alarming thing about global warming is not how high the average temperature will be, but how fast it’s rising. <<<
Well if NASA would fire the criminal HANSEN and his corrupt crew and put some ethical, unbiased scientists in charge of the numbers then we wouldn’t see this false rising.
This whole concept of an ‘average temperature’ is misleading. Temperature is not an accurate measure of enthalpy. For example, stating that the average temperature is 0 C (32 F) doesn’t tell us if the water is frozen. It takes a lot of energy (cooling) to change water from a liquid to a solid.
Second, in any given position on the globe, the temperatures change 20 degrees between day to night. A simple average of all the temperatures during the day is not an accurate measure of the energy content of the air for that time period.
Third, the temperatures for any given position on the globe change a lot from summer to winter. Again, a simple temperature average is not a valid measure of the heat content of the area. Dry air and Wet air hold different amounts of heat.
Fourth, there has been a dramatic increase in the accuracy of our ability to measure temperature over the last 100 years. Records before that time period are extremely inaccurate. Claims of accurately knowing the weather over 100 years ago are subject to a lot of scientific discussion.
For example, there is still a lot of discusssion about whether the medieval warm period really existed. This period is reputed to have been hotter than current temperatures. Until the ‘warming fanatics’ took over and erased this period from the historical records, this period was the hottest time in recent history.
In the 70’s, the same ‘climate scientists’ were hollering that we were all going to starve because the earth was entering its next ice age. The earth we were told had been cooling for the last 30 years. Oh no, what ever should we do. Newsweak, going with the great alarm of the day, found scientists to suggest that we cover the entire arctic icecap with carbon black to help warm the earth. The arguement was that we must do ’something’ because the consequences of doing nothing were so horrendous.
Well, we ‘did nothing’ then, and now they are trying to tell us, ‘oops, we were wrong’ we is getting hotter not colder.
Well, what can you expect from a group of scientists that recently proclaimed that a month was the ‘hottest ever’ - only to be caught red handed using the previous months data for all of Russia !!!
Gee wiz guys. CHECK YOUR DATA BEFORE YOU PUBLISH…
19. Hairy Larry | 06.29.09
Mass extinctions due to climate abruptly changing in the past is made evident if only through viewing evolutionary species diversification.
20. Brian | 06.29.09
I find it fascinating - a sort of society-wide psychological case study - that people will argue whether we are better off leaving the Earth as clean as possible for future generations or just dirty the place up and let someone else clean it up. Following the “Global Warmers’” advice would result in 1)lower utility bills 2)a new green industry 3)the exploitation of hard-earned technological gains 4)a cleaner environment for the future 5)the neutering of more than a few anti-Western, oil-dependent regimes. Who knows, maybe one day we’ll be able to eat the fish we catch in any given river or bay.
Or we could do nothing, know the world will at the very least be dirtier and somewhat less inhabitable and hope for the best. I don’t know what to say, the “wait-and-seers” sound nothing short of insane or lazy. I am truly sorry to employ such a base argument. I just can’t comprehend.
Who cares if the Earth is getting hotter or colder - save some money, do the right thing. Be a decent human being and think of others as you move through this life as you share a home with 6 BILLION+ other people just like yourself. Get a grip!
21. Dan Birdsall | 06.29.09
Allen - I’m just a guy reading a blog, and claim no expertise. But I believe the point is that, since data collection began in 1850, 1998 was the hottest year on record, followed, in order of average temperature, by the ten years Eoin specifies - not necessarily years occurring after 1998. So, most of the hottest years on record since 1850 have occurred in the last decade. It seems pretty reasonable for Eoin to underscore that kind of correlation, don’tcha think?
22. Brad Smith | 06.29.09
20. Brian, I understand your desire to leave the Earth a better place. However, I think your the one missing the point. The “Global Warmers” advice is based on lies. Why do they find it neccessary to misinform the public to push their adgenda? It puts all of their advice in question, how can you not see that. If your argument is against pollution make your argument be against pollution. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. So not only are the alarmist feeding us misinformation they are wasting their time and ours by fighting the wrong fight. If YOU wish to leave this world a better place spend your time wisely. Fight against real pollution not CO2. Most people’s argument isn’t that we should “do nothing” it’s about doing the wrong things based on BS. By spreading their misinformation they are diverting valuable energy and resourses from reaching areas were it could actually do some good.
This whole global warming thing, (oh wait that’s not right anymore) I mean Dramatic climate change, reminds me of the anti-nuclear scare. Because of unrealistic fears we have refused to develop and use recycled uranium. Instead of turning bombs into fuel or reusing our waste we are wasting resources and increasing the stockpiles of nuclear “waste”. What that ignorant alarmist attitude has done has not only made us more relient on coal and oil but actually increased the amounts of toxic waste. The problem with alarmist misinformation is the unintended consequences.
Your contention that it doesn’t matter if the alarmist are right or wrong is misguided at best. Your supposing that people will somehow make the right decisions based on misinformation and that’s just not how things work.
Peace!
23. JP | 06.30.09
Thanks to the CSM for pointing out the all-important RATE of climate change. This is the crucial thing to understand, yet it is rarely heard in the public discourse.
24. Captain Kirk | 07.05.09
We know the planet has undergone hot/cold cycles for the past million years or so and that the inter-glacial period we have been in for roughly 20,000 years won’t last as we are in a warming trend. For the sake of argument, let’s agree that humans are contributing during this warming trend to an increased rate of warming. If humans didn’t exist, the planet would still be warming, just more slowly. Because we’re here we speeding this up. So we’re really trying to stop a closer generation from needing to deal with these effects but at some point one of the future generations will need to deal with it anyway. Shouldn’t we just figure out how we are going to cope because it’s going to happen.
While we’re at it, let’s stop pretending that we’re some special caretakers capable of saving the planet. At some point humans will be long gone and the planet will be just fine. We’re trying to extend our parochial interests here not save the planet. Mars may have had life at some point, perhaps even intelligent life. Today there is no atmosphere, no magnetic field to deflect deadly cosmic radiation but the planet is doing fine. It can’t support life like earth can but the planet is OK. Ever stop to think about our egotistical arrogance when it comes to matters such as these. Maybe it’s time to realise that there really are just too many of us for our own good and deal with it. Talk about an inconvenient truth.
25. 4TimesAYear | 07.05.09
There is no “global temperature”; there is no one place you can put a thermometer and get a one-size fits all temp. It doesn’t exist. Which of you checks the global average temp before deciding to put on a coat? Well, the planet doesn’t work that way either.
26. Chip Kussmaul | 07.09.09
I’ve been asking this question all over the place, and I have yet to get an answer: what is the ideal level of atmospheric CO2? Everyone is in a panic that there is too much, but no one seems to have a clue how much is enough. I’ll consider contributing my share of the trillions of dollars in cost in abation of CO2, just as soon as the “experts” out there come up with real solid answers to the most obvious questions of all.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Cool Green Morning: Monday, June 29 | Cool Green Science: The Conservation Blog of The Nature Conservancy | 06.29.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. John Collins | 06.26.09
There is one line in this article that is not supported by the data: “And it’s accelerating.” In fact the trend in global temperatures has been flat for a decade. You can see this in the list of dates in the subsequent sentence. 2008 was cooler than every year since 2000.
Global warming could indeed be a significant problem, and this article correctly points out the impact of the rate of change, rather than the absolute magnitude. And we hear a lot about the scientific evidence supporting claims that there is a problem. But the scientific evidence is lacking on this point.