A very good point, life seems to have been much more pleasant during the Roman warm and Medieval warm periods, when grapes were grown in England and the Vikings lived in Greenland, I would even say maybe 2 degrees C warmer would be better.
The evidence we can glean from the fossil record suggests that rapid temperature changes (more than 1 degree/century) are associated with mass extinctions. This suggests to me that, in a meaningful sense, the optimal temperature for the Earth is less than a degree from what it was a century ago, whatever that temperature was.
ahhh (in the voice of Maxwell Smart) "The old Optimum temperature for the earth"
question
Not sure how many times this need to be explained to deniers, those like Kano will trot out the usual empty references to grapes in England during the Roman warm period, one that I'm sure always amuses anyone familiar with the current English wine industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_t...
or the pretense deniers seem to have about what life was like for the Viking in Greenland it was harsh even during the MWP only a slight change made it un livable but enough about the past fibs deniers have tried about that.
There is no Optimum temperature for the earth, never has been one, this is an utter denier myth, the planet and the life on the planet responds to the input of the Sun and the composition of the atmosphere when it's warmer different life dominates and there are few or no glaciers when it colder the extremes at the poles become unlivable and life tend to move closer to the equator just as it did during the last iceage.
The difference between one and the other was only ~8c (globally) on average.
So that's a then global average of ~+7c compared to the current +15c and back beyond the 2.5 million years of the glacial cycle. to periods when we had no glaciers at all and then global average temperatures where up around 25c.
So denier moth pieces like Lord Mockingtone try to confuse their followers by referencing much earler periods and saying "look higher CO2 but no higher tempertures" This is a con on people with little scientific understanding as the periods Mockingtone refer's to ar in the order of 500,000,000 (half a billion) years ago.
Of course he falls to mention many relevant bits of information when making these claims like the small fact the Sun put out ~5% less energy, when deniers now get their knickers in a twist over the 0.01% change in a normal solar cycle.
He also fails to mention no life on land (no plants, animals, nothing) so the albedo of the planet was very different to today. Then you have the position of the continents themselves again totally alien to what we see today again affecting the planets climate changing both albedo and ocean currents, regardless of the CO2.
Science is not "alarmism." Get past that brainwashed fossil fuel industry anti-science delusion, and try asking a real question. What you are trying to do is like trying to say that financial markets are nothing but a myth, hoax or conspiracy, because economic analysts do not agree on what the "optimum" level of the Dow Jones Index is.
They don't and they've never claimed to. You must have been asleep or new to this forum, because this exact same question has been asked and answered in here dozens of times before.
There is no "optimum" temperature. What intelligent people are alarmed about is that a significant CHANGE in our climate will cause serious problems. We (humans) have built our civilization based on the climate that we're used to from the 20th century. If that changes, we will need to rebuild our infrastructure at a cost of many trillions of dollars. It may also cost human lives.
Then there are the rest of the living plants and animals on Earth. It may not be so easy for them to rebuild. A forest and its inhabitants can't get up and move in a short time period. Sea life may not be able to build their shells in water with lower pH than they're used to.
Personally I LIKE warmer weather, so perhaps my "optimum" is higher. But there was never an optimum temperature--that is a misconception at best, and a lie at worst.
EDIT for Gary F: I agree. If some of these people made half the effort to learn something as they do to remain stupid, they could ask some intelligent questions...but they don't.
EDIT for Mike: yes, that's pretty much it, but I would add that even change is ok--it's RAPID change that is a problem (over a few generations).
They don't because of the fauna and flora diversity range. Which is (regional) +/- thermal and/or precipitation classification: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...
Here's a link that considers exactly what your asking but not on the global scale...at least not for now.
So according to Pegminer, there is no optimum temperature, but it is optimum that temperature not change.
Climate science knows it has been much warmer and much cooler in the past. Changes in temperature do not matter to them. What matters to them is the continued flow of dollars to research "anything". The science industry is not and never has been a profitable venture. They rely on Government money.
Catastrophic weather events are valued in dollars and lost lives. They forget that almost 9 million Chinese died in the 1870s because of a major drought when CO2 levels weren't even considered.
They have built the biggest computers in the world yet they still can not predict future climate states, but as long as they are getting money to research it, then they will perpetuate their claims that humans are causing the climate to change catastrophically.
" ... “Not one of our better forecasts,” admits Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center’s acting director. The center grades itself on what it calls the Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfection) to -50 (monkeys throwing darts would have done better). October’s forecast for the three-month period of November through January came in at -22. Truth be told, the September prediction for October-December was slightly worse, at -23. ... "
You'd think that climate scientists would know what they are talking about when it comes to "knowing" through climate modeling and how much money we "give" them. LOL!
" ... NOAA’s Mike Halpert said that the winter isn’t likely to be too memorable or unusual, except in the South where drought should deepen in the Southwest and develop in the Southeast. ... "
" ... Private weather forecast companies also cited mixed and lack of signals in their forecasts, which ranged from warm to cold. ... "
ROTFLMAO!!!! Duh!! How stupid do they think people are? Nobody knows. That's the problem.
78 degrees
I would say that since the ice caps are melting it is becoming too hot. perhaps a few degrees cooler would be ideal.
How do they know that it is not 1 degree higher than now? How do they know that it is lower than our current temperature? What is the evidence or proof to back up such a conclusion?
They do not know but there is good evidence that the optimum temperature is warmer than now. History shows that people were always much better off during warmer periods. In fact the moderately warmer weather we've had over the past couple of decades has proven very beneficial.
We've had longer growing seasons and thus more food.
Bumper crops WORLDWIDE has been the result of the slightly warmer weather along with the CO2 enriched atmosphere. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
The world is becoming more green.
Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/de...
Tornadoes at record lows:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/20... and http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/i...
Hurricanes also low compared to the past:
http://www.real-science.com/quick-hurric...
Sea level rise is normal, virtually stable sea level conditions:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2013/07/th...
And I know of no catastrophic event during the last 30 years that could be empirically tied to so called man-made Global Warming.
Will we miss global warming when it's gone and it's going fast. There was never any man-made Global Warming.
-----------------------
