NationStates Jolt Archive

I couldn't find this asked anywhere, so I figured I'd ask it.

What is the 'perfect' average temperature for the Earth?

If you say there isn't one, then how can we complain about an increase in 100 years of 0.7 degrees C?

If you say there is one, what if we overcorrect and end up below that temperature? Do we then have to produce more greenhouse gases to fix it again?

A sustainable temperature.

The problem with global warming isn't the temperature, but the very fast pace at which the temperature is increasing. It may not seem fast to us but it's a global phenomenon - it should be going much slower.

Scientists say that the temperature is rising but then other studies done have shown that in history, temperatures rose without human intervention and dropped too without human intervention. Yes we may be causing it this time but there is also natural cycles.

It would be best to try and "google" it up rather than rely on NSG.

Yes, but these natural increases and decreases happened during a much bigger time, meaning nature and the enviroment had time to adapt to it.

But with the speed we are making it happen, most species and landscapes wont be able to adapt properly.

The problem is, you can't say that the planet is warming too fast or too slowly because there is no record of warming or for that matter cooling trends before roughly 100 years ago. For all we know, historically, we could be right on track.

As far as 'a sustainable temperature', are you talking the whole planet or just the western world? Seems to me, many parts of the world didn't do so well when the temperature was lower either.

I couldn't find this asked anywhere, so I figured I'd ask it.

What is the 'perfect' average temperature for the Earth?
Anything for water to remain liquid would allow life to continue in some form

If you say there isn't one, then how can we complain about an increase in 100 years of 0.7 degrees C?
Because of the speed of increase, as Eraeya said, is too fast for life to adapt to it.

If you say there is one, what if we overcorrect and end up below that temperature?
We'd all die long before we managed to get the earth cold enough for all water on the surface to solidify, assuming there was something we could do to reduce the earth's temperature
Do we then have to produce more greenhouse gases to fix it again?

No.

The problem is, you can't say that the planet is warming too fast or too slowly because there is no record of warming or for that matter cooling trends before roughly 100 years ago. For all we know, historically, we could be right on track.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
Of the temperature dependent markers the most important is the ratio of 18O to 16O. The water molecules composed of H2(18O) evaporate less rapidly and condense more readily then water molecules composed of H2(16O). Thus, water evaporating from the ocean it starts off H2(18O) poor. As the water vapor travels towards the poles it becomes increasingly poorer in H2(18O) since the heavier molecules tend to precipitate out first. This depletion is a temperature dependent process so in winter the precipitation is more enriched in H2(16O) than is the case in the summer. Thus, each annual layer starts 18O rich, becomes 18O poor, and ends up 18O rich.

This process also depends on the relative temperatures of different years, which allows comparison with paleoclimatic data. For similar reasons the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen acts the same way.

The major disadvantage of this dating method is that isotopes tend to diffuse as time proceeds.

As far as 'a sustainable temperature', are you talking the whole planet or just the western world? Seems to me, many parts of the world didn't do so well when the temperature was lower either.

Why would it be just the western world?

Why would it be just the western world?
Because we're special! :p

Because we're special! :p

Didn't someone say here that global warming was being done purposely by Bush in an effort to pwn all the brown and yellow people and restore the glory of the white man?

If you don't use a reference, there isn't one "perfect temperature". However, today's animals and society evolved based on the current temperatures and coastlines. If the overall temperature changes too much, we'll get a new, stable world based on the new overall temperatures. Most animals and humans probably will survive, but the transition will NOT be pretty.

If you don't use a reference, there isn't one "perfect temperature". However, today's animals and society evolved based on the current temperatures and coastlines. If the overall temperature changes too much, we'll get a new, stable world based on the new overall temperatures. Most animals and humans probably will survive, but the transition will NOT be pretty.

There's also the risk of initiating a positive feedback loop, with a small increase in temperature triggering a larger one which triggers a larger one... etc.

The problem is, you can't say that the planet is warming too fast or too slowly because there is no record of warming or for that matter cooling trends before roughly 100 years ago. For all we know, historically, we could be right on track.
Not really, a lot of the historical record comes to use from ice core sample from Antarctica, which stretches back for quite some time to show that things have been picking up at late.

As far as 'a sustainable temperature', are you talking the whole planet or just the western world? Seems to me, many parts of the world didn't do so well when the temperature was lower either.
The whole global warming means it's getting hotter isn't exactly what's going on or what is causing scientists to worry, it's an increase in the globe's core temp that causes massive upsets to the global weather patterns.

And even that explanation is off.

I couldn't find this asked anywhere, so I figured I'd ask it.

What is the 'perfect' average temperature for the Earth?

If you say there isn't one, then how can we complain about an increase in 100 years of 0.7 degrees C?

If you say there is one, what if we overcorrect and end up below that temperature? Do we then have to produce more greenhouse gases to fix it again?

...
Arrogant question.
A perfect temp implies
1. We know everything about the earth's full set of ecosystems ...every scientist will tell you we dont.

2. That what is perfect for "US" is perfect for the planet...that may not be the case.

There is no perfect temp for the planet...the planet will adapt, there are temps for us that are better suited...if you dont know what those are then I pity you.

The simple fact is that of course there is natural climate change, but to assume that the millions of tons of shit we pump into the atmosphere has no effect is absurd to say the least. We dont need to change the temp so bad it kills everything, just enough so that it kills...corn, wheat, soy, or rice. Or some combination of those, with a every aging pop and our ever growing need for more food all we need to run out of arable land, make the climate more suitable for parasites(take your pick), there are a thousand combinations of things that can lead to our being completely fucked.

I am not sayying nature might not arrive at one of those things all on her own...but we dont need to speed the process up.

2. That what is perfect for "US" is perfect for the planet...that may not be the case.

The idea of a perfect average temperature doesn't imply this at all.

The idea of a perfect average temperature doesn't imply this at all.

Sure it does.
Unless he means perfect for the planet without regard for the human race...which I doubt. Most people dont mean the perfect temp for the planet, they mean pefect for US. How do you figure it doesnt?

There isn't a 'perfect' temperture. For example, the dinosaurs couldn't live today, it would be too cold for them in most places, as they were reptiles.
The earth's ecosystem always balances itself out.
For example, if it would get much hotter, the sea level would rise (melting glaciers and arctic ice) and more vegetation would fall in the water and sink instead of rotting and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. There would also be more sea plants, which would remove CO2 from the air, and turn into fossil fuils with time.
There would be less CO2, therefore tempertures would sink and the sea level would sink again.

Unless he means perfect for the planet.....

What is the 'perfect' average temperature for the Earth?


You were saying?

Ummm, I made it fairly clear that I was taking some latitude in assuming when he said earth (the part of quoting me you cut out...where I said "which I doubt"...that he meant the human race "US" and not the planet without regard for a single animal group...US.

So like I said...yes it does indeed imply that.

So how do you figure it doesnt?

It's not the temperature itself, it's the rate of change. The Earth can adapt to fluctuations in global temperature provided they occur gradually; the problem is when those changes occur very quickly and the climate and ecosystem don't really have a chance to adapt to the new conditions. The result is usually some pretty severe damage to the ecosystem, and that has a bunch of nasty effects on the surviving species, humans included if and when such a thing were to happen.

An increase in our planet's temperature is probably a good thing, just not as fast as it's happening now.

Ummm, I made it fairly clear that I was taking some latitude in assuming when he said earth (the part of quoting me you cut out...where I said "which I doubt"...that he meant the human race "US" and not the planet without regard for a single animal group...US.

So like I said...yes it does indeed imply that.

So how do you figure it doesnt?

I figure it doesn't because there are more living things on Earth than humans, as I'm sure you're aware.


That and I prefer not to assume the levels of stupidity to think otherwise of people who can manage to get themselves onto the intertubes.

I figure it doesn't because there are more living things on Earth than humans, as I'm sure you're aware.
Since that was the entire point of my post...yes I am aware.


That and I prefer not to assume the levels of stupidity to think otherwise of people who can manage to get themselves onto the intertubes.

I never assumed any level of stupidity on his part.
Simply that in my experience...which is really all I can base my own existence and therefore actions on when people say "Earth" they dont mean the the entire biosphere without regard for an individual, they indeed mean "Earth" as in what is most fit for the human race.

So saying there is perfect average temp for Earth often is really seeking a perfect average temp for US...which is indeed what the question most often implies(in my eperience)...which is what I said.


Since you "prefer not to assume the levels of stupidity to think otherwise of people who can manage to get themselves onto the intertubes" how about you let him correct my assumption...if it is indeed incorrect...I mean you believe they are capable of such yes?

I posted the original statement knowing full well the OP could indeed correct me...the OP.

In my original question, I didn't mean to imply just for the US. The whole concept of "Theory of Global Warming" itself implies the entire planet.

The solutions to this problem are what really scare me. Compact Flourescent Bulbs are a horrible answer. The dirty little secret they don't tell you is they contain Mercury. This is why they are sealed in plastic in case they break. You can't throw them away, they must be recycled. I don't worry about the initial cost of the bulbs, because they do last along time compared to normal bulbs. But if you drop one and have to call the EPA to clean it up, it will cost you about $2000.

Corn Ethanol has been said to be a good renewable fuel source to replace oil, but it too has problems. Ethanol has been shown to produce more smog than oil. The price of corn is also going up at a VERY high rate which is causing problems for the nations that use it as a staple in their diet, ie. Mexico.

Hybrid cars are really being pushed but I can think of three problems. First, firefighters can't use any extraction tools on a wrecked hybrid until the battery is first disconnected or else they risk electrocution. Second, sooner or later the batteries will need to be replaced. What will the cost be and will they be able to be recycled? Third, car fires happen all the time. What will the enviromental affects of a large battery burning? Will there be health risks to people in the area? Will people need to be evacuated?

Carbon Offsets are just a joke. Send me $100 and i'll plant you a tree.

I'm not for doing nothing either, but I think there is a huge rush to try to fix something we 'think' we are the cause of. I am old enough to remember the '70s when people were wondering if we had started the next Ice Age.

No DR, not the US--UNited States....US the pronoun, us , the human race --us. That is what i thought you meant by Earth. If indeed you meant the entire set of systems that is truly the planet then indeed Ifreann is correct in correcting me. But if you meant what I thought you meant then my answer applies. Thats all.

I couldn't find this asked anywhere, so I figured I'd ask it.

look harder, this denialist talking point has been slammed before

I couldn't find this asked anywhere, so I figured I'd ask it.

What is the 'perfect' average temperature for the Earth?

If you say there isn't one, then how can we complain about an increase in 100 years of 0.7 degrees C?

If you say there is one, what if we overcorrect and end up below that temperature? Do we then have to produce more greenhouse gases to fix it again?
I believe your question should be: "What is the 'perfect' average temperature for Homo sapiens?"

Earth doesn't give a shit - but us humans are (like always) destroying what sustains us. :rolleyes:

And no, there's no way we could "overcorrect" what we've been doing with our climate and atmosphere.

look harder, this denialist talking point has been slammed before

Ahh, so by questioning what we are being told, I am a denialist? It is in our nature to question everything we are told until we have proof. People were once told the Earth was the center of the galaxy and people who denied it were often not treated very well. Same with those who didn't believe the Earth was flat.

Is there Global Warming? Quite possible. Mars is warming up too.

The question is, should I blindly believe that we are 100% responsible for it or should I question that logic?

If we do everything they are telling us we have to do, will anything change or will some people simply get rich off the hype? A certain someone seems to be doing quite well with his movie and investing in cabon offsets with his own company.

What if we do nothing? Will the trend continue?

What if we do EVERYTHING and nothing changes?

How can we believe they know what the temperatures are going to be in 50 years when they can't get tomorrow right?

If man is destroying the planet and killing himself in the process, and you really care about the planet, shouldn't we let man die off for the greater good of the planet?

In my original question, I didn't mean to imply just for the US. The whole concept of "Theory of Global Warming" itself implies the entire planet.

The solutions to this problem are what really scare me. Compact Flourescent Bulbs are a horrible answer. The dirty little secret they don't tell you is they contain Mercury. This is why they are sealed in plastic in case they break. You can't throw them away, they must be recycled. I don't worry about the initial cost of the bulbs, because they do last along time compared to normal bulbs. But if you drop one and have to call the EPA to clean it up, it will cost you about $2000.

Corn Ethanol has been said to be a good renewable fuel source to replace oil, but it too has problems. Ethanol has been shown to produce more smog than oil. The price of corn is also going up at a VERY high rate which is causing problems for the nations that use it as a staple in their diet, ie. Mexico.

Hybrid cars are really being pushed but I can think of three problems. First, firefighters can't use any extraction tools on a wrecked hybrid until the battery is first disconnected or else they risk electrocution. Second, sooner or later the batteries will need to be replaced. What will the cost be and will they be able to be recycled? Third, car fires happen all the time. What will the enviromental affects of a large battery burning? Will there be health risks to people in the area? Will people need to be evacuated?

Carbon Offsets are just a joke. Send me $100 and i'll plant you a tree.

I'm not for doing nothing either, but I think there is a huge rush to try to fix something we 'think' we are the cause of. I am old enough to remember the '70s when people were wondering if we had started the next Ice Age.

What about nuclear power?
In my opinion it's the easiest and most sensible thing to do. The nuclear waste produced is extremely dangerous, of course, but much of it can be 'recycled' to produce more fuel, and after that there are several things, none of which are perfect I might add, which we can do to try and keep the radiation away from us.
I am also reminded of a New Scientist article entitled 'Half-Life Heresy' or something in which a scientist hoped to reduce the half-lives of various radioactive substances by cooling them to almost absolute zero. It was fascinating, although I am highly doubtful of his results. Nonetheless, if he is right then it may indeed mean a nuclear revolution of the good kind.

And I think that whether or not we're the cause of it, as is almost certain, it's not exactly a good idea to not fix it.
Or would you argue that we should not stop a dangerous meteorite from hitting the Earth because we are not the cause? Or that we should not fight off an alien invasion because we are not the cause?
Or even that we should not try to save ourselves from the Sun's eventual expansion because we are not the cause? (Although that last one is unlikely for two reasons: one of which is that as the Sun's mass decreases our orbit will widen, making us cooler again though perhaps not quickly enough, and also that some event which I cannot remember threatens to wipe us out in a thousand million years or so, assuming we survive that long.

I don't mean to attack you. I'm just pointing out a flaw.

The problem is, you can't say that the planet is warming too fast or too slowly because there is no record of warming or for that matter cooling trends before roughly 100 years ago. For all we know, historically, we could be right on track.

As far as 'a sustainable temperature', are you talking the whole planet or just the western world? Seems to me, many parts of the world didn't do so well when the temperature was lower either.

There is a record in geographical information. There's no denying it: we're causing it and it's going way too fast.
It effects the whole planet, obviously (global...warming). The parts that 'didn't do well when the temperature was lower' will now do even worse. We are just completely off balance.

There isn't a 'perfect' temperture. For example, the dinosaurs couldn't live today, it would be too cold for them in most places, as they were reptiles.
The earth's ecosystem always balances itself out.
For example, if it would get much hotter, the sea level would rise (melting glaciers and arctic ice) and more vegetation would fall in the water and sink instead of rotting and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. There would also be more sea plants, which would remove CO2 from the air, and turn into fossil fuils with time.
There would be less CO2, therefore tempertures would sink and the sea level would sink again.

Have you considered the fact that we are taking all that natural storage of excessive CO2 (fossil fuels) and burning it at an incredibly fast rate? Do you really think the oceans can balance this out? We are putting ALL CO2 that is present in storage in the air. It takes thousands of years for the oceans to recover that, but we're burning it all in just a few generations.