Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

What is the God Temperature?

Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 2:14:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What I mean to say is, what is the absolute optimal average global temperature to sustain human life comfortably on planet Earth.

Is it exactly 14 degrees Celsius?

How about 14.5?

Is 13.5 the optimal temperature?

I asked this before and the only response I got was some flip guy that just said "the optimal temperature is what it is right now."

Now we know human existed varying average temperatures, I want to know what is the best average temperature for humans,
and why that number is so?

If you can't answer this, at least be honest.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 3:53:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 2:14:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
What I mean to say is, what is the absolute optimal average global temperature to sustain human life comfortably on planet Earth.

Is it exactly 14 degrees Celsius?

How about 14.5?

Is 13.5 the optimal temperature?

I asked this before and the only response I got was some flip guy that just said "the optimal temperature is what it is right now."

Now we know human existed varying average temperatures, I want to know what is the best average temperature for humans,
and why that number is so?

If you can't answer this, at least be honest.

Man...don't a goin' use that celsiu crap. You will confuse all the Americans here. LOL.

I am not sure what "optimim" would be.

I can tell you that Between 1961 and 1990, the annual average temperature for the globe was around 57.2"F (14.0"C), according to the World Meteorological Organization.

I would think we are now--despite the cries of Global Warming alarmists--right in the "sweet spot" for our optimal temp. It would be difficult to say, as we are, after all, speaking of "average" temps. So we could have huge swings on the high and low ends--ones that would wreak some climatological havoc--and yet the "average" could stay the same. I think.

I am taking an Environmental Biology class this Fall at my local CC. I will ask my proff this question. AS it is an interesting one. Then again, we could probably find the answer on the Web with a bit of research.

Drew
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 3:57:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 3:53:00 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:14:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
What I mean to say is, what is the absolute optimal average global temperature to sustain human life comfortably on planet Earth.

Is it exactly 14 degrees Celsius?

How about 14.5?

Is 13.5 the optimal temperature?

I asked this before and the only response I got was some flip guy that just said "the optimal temperature is what it is right now."

Now we know human existed varying average temperatures, I want to know what is the best average temperature for humans,
and why that number is so?

If you can't answer this, at least be honest.

Man...don't use that celsius crap. You will confuse all the Americans here. LOL. We are Farenheit guys!

I am not sure what "optimim" would be.

I can tell you that Between 1961 and 1990, the annual average temperature for the globe was around 57.2"F (14.0"C), according to the World Meteorological Organization.

I would think we are now--despite the cries of Global Warming alarmists--right in the "sweet spot" for our optimal temp. It would be difficult to say, as we are, after all, speaking of "average" temps. So we could have huge swings on the high and low ends--ones that would wreak some climatological havoc--and yet the "average" could stay the same. I think.

I am taking an Environmental Biology class this Fall at my local CC. I will ask my proff this question. AS it is an interesting one. Then again, we could probably find the answer on the Web with a bit of research.

Drew

PARROT.....I just got this tidbit.........Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53"F (0.85"C) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers - PDF). Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most. In the Northern Hemisphere, where most of Earth's land mass is located, the three decades from 1983 to 2012 were likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:06:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 3:53:00 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:14:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

I am taking an Environmental Biology class this Fall at my local CC. I will ask my proff this question. AS it is an interesting one. Then again, we could probably find the answer on the Web with a bit of research.

Drew

So I believe specifically when we decide what this optimal temperature is for humans, we at least answer these basic questions.

What temperature allows for the least energy units consumed to keep our houses around 70 degrees year round.

What temperature allows the maximum global harvest of human staples such as corn, rice, and wheat. What temperature allows for the maximum amount of arable land.

What temperature allows for the efficient farming and housing of the livestock and fish humans consume.

See what your professor has to say, I'd like to know. Thanks!
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:10:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:06:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:53:00 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:14:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

I am taking an Environmental Biology class this Fall at my local CC. I will ask my proff this question. AS it is an interesting one. Then again, we could probably find the answer on the Web with a bit of research.

Drew

So I believe specifically when we decide what this optimal temperature is for humans, we at least answer these basic questions.

What temperature allows for the least energy units consumed to keep our houses around 70 degrees year round.

What temperature allows the maximum global harvest of human staples such as corn, rice, and wheat. What temperature allows for the maximum amount of arable land.

What temperature allows for the efficient farming and housing of the livestock and fish humans consume.

See what your professor has to say, I'd like to know. Thanks!

So, by optimal, are you talking of "average?" Or.....if we could stay at ONE precise temp ALL day and night long, what would it be?

If you are asking the later, my guess is around 72F. (?)
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:12:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:10:42 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:06:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:53:00 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:14:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

I am taking an Environmental Biology class this Fall at my local CC. I will ask my proff this question. AS it is an interesting one. Then again, we could probably find the answer on the Web with a bit of research.

Drew

So I believe specifically when we decide what this optimal temperature is for humans, we at least answer these basic questions.

What temperature allows for the least energy units consumed to keep our houses around 70 degrees year round.

What temperature allows the maximum global harvest of human staples such as corn, rice, and wheat. What temperature allows for the maximum amount of arable land.

What temperature allows for the efficient farming and housing of the livestock and fish humans consume.

See what your professor has to say, I'd like to know. Thanks!

So, by optimal, are you talking of "average?" Or.....if we could stay at ONE precise temp ALL day and night long, what would it be?

If you are asking the later, my guess is around 72F. (?)
Optimal Average. I'm assuming sometime in the next 100 years we should have the technology be able to control even in a limited sense the average global temperature.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 1:46:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 2:14:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
What I mean to say is, what is the absolute optimal average global temperature to sustain human life comfortably on planet Earth.

Is it exactly 14 degrees Celsius?

How about 14.5?

Is 13.5 the optimal temperature?

I asked this before and the only response I got was some flip guy that just said "the optimal temperature is what it is right now."

Now we know human existed varying average temperatures, I want to know what is the best average temperature for humans,
and why that number is so?

If you can't answer this, at least be honest.

Humans are very adaptable and can adapt to a great variety of temperatures as evidence shows all around the world with people living in extremely hot and cold climates.
The best temperature for each individual is the one they are most comfortable with.
That also varies from one individual to another.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 1:52:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:10:42 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:06:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:53:00 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:14:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

I am taking an Environmental Biology class this Fall at my local CC. I will ask my proff this question. AS it is an interesting one. Then again, we could probably find the answer on the Web with a bit of research.

Drew

So I believe specifically when we decide what this optimal temperature is for humans, we at least answer these basic questions.

What temperature allows for the least energy units consumed to keep our houses around 70 degrees year round.

What temperature allows the maximum global harvest of human staples such as corn, rice, and wheat. What temperature allows for the maximum amount of arable land.

What temperature allows for the efficient farming and housing of the livestock and fish humans consume.

See what your professor has to say, I'd like to know. Thanks!

So, by optimal, are you talking of "average?" Or.....if we could stay at ONE precise temp ALL day and night long, what would it be?

If you are asking the later, my guess is around 72F. (?)

Some plants cannot grow at only one temperature. They need a variety of temperatures to cause germination of seeds etc. some germinate in heat and some in cold. Heat also kills some germs and causes others to breed while cold kills others and causes some to breed. Therefore a balance of hot and cold is needed but that does not mean lukewarm is best. It means a change from one extreme to the other is best. Mother Nature "knows" what is best. That must be why opposites exist. She is a wise old lady. ;-)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 2:26:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 2:14:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
What I mean to say is, what is the absolute optimal average global temperature to sustain human life comfortably on planet Earth.

Civilised human life depends on agriculture and access to potable water, Grey.

I haven't seen global temperature records going back before 1850, but we know that human life sustains comfortably with little technology at around 1850 levels of temperature -- so, say 13.6C We're also doing okay (for now) at the current average of 14.6C, the warmest in thousands of years. Bear in mind that agriculture itself is only 12,000 years old, with only about 3,000 of that documented. So outside temperatures we've experienced in that range, we're flying blind. But we also know from local agricultural history that minor changes in climate either way can produce huge impacts on crops across decades, so small changes are worrisome.

However, we also know that our current population levels cannot possibly sustain with 1850's agricultural technology. We're stuck using 20th century fertiliser and agricultural methods at present population levels. Essentially, a population of 7 billion, compared to an 1850s population of 1.5 billion, is an industrialised population. There's no hope (if it ever were a hope) of back-to-nature tree-hugging without mass starvation.

So let's forget carbon emissions for a moment. They're a byproduct of inefficient industrialisation times consumption times population size -- and those are the three terms we have to play with: efficiency, consumption and population.

The smart question is, can we sustain a population as big as we have (projected to about 9 billion by 2080), consuming as much as people do now, with a technology that doesn't put the temperature into ranges where we no longer know how to do agriculture, and may not be able to learn fast enough to produce food?

Or put another way: can we be more efficient when we don't have to be, to avoid mass starvation when we don't have time enough to learn?

If we think we can, we should start early. If we think we can't, we need to make the hard call in scaling back population and/or consumption, or run a serious risk of inflicting mass starvation on grandkids or great grandkids.

To our credit, we're great at producing and sustaining human life. Will we remain great at feeding it?

Simple question.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 4:01:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 2:26:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:14:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
What I mean to say is, what is the absolute optimal average global temperature to sustain human life comfortably on planet Earth.

Civilised human life depends on agriculture and access to potable water, Grey.

I haven't seen global temperature records going back before 1850, but we know that human life sustains comfortably with little technology at around 1850 levels of temperature -- so, say 13.6C We're also doing okay (for now) at the current average of 14.6C, the warmest in thousands of years. Bear in mind that agriculture itself is only 12,000 years old, with only about 3,000 of that documented. So outside temperatures we've experienced in that range, we're flying blind. But we also know from local agricultural history that minor changes in climate either way can produce huge impacts on crops across decades, so small changes are worrisome.

However, we also know that our current population levels cannot possibly sustain with 1850's agricultural technology. We're stuck using 20th century fertiliser and agricultural methods at present population levels. Essentially, a population of 7 billion, compared to an 1850s population of 1.5 billion, is an industrialised population. There's no hope (if it ever were a hope) of back-to-nature tree-hugging without mass starvation.

So let's forget carbon emissions for a moment. They're a byproduct of inefficient industrialisation times consumption times population size -- and those are the three terms we have to play with: efficiency, consumption and population.

The smart question is, can we sustain a population as big as we have (projected to about 9 billion by 2080), consuming as much as people do now, with a technology that doesn't put the temperature into ranges where we no longer know how to do agriculture, and may not be able to learn fast enough to produce food?

Or put another way: can we be more efficient when we don't have to be, to avoid mass starvation when we don't have time enough to learn?

If we think we can, we should start early. If we think we can't, we need to make the hard call in scaling back population and/or consumption, or run a serious risk of inflicting mass starvation on grandkids or great grandkids.

To our credit, we're great at producing and sustaining human life. Will we remain great at feeding it?

Simple question.

So long answer short, with our current technology, can we grow more food at 13.6 or 14.6?

Also, I am not too worried about potable water, as most areas have the technology to get water Israel style with efficient desalination plants.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 4:07:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:12:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:10:42 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:06:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:53:00 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:14:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

I am taking an Environmental Biology class this Fall at my local CC. I will ask my proff this question. AS it is an interesting one. Then again, we could probably find the answer on the Web with a bit of research.

Drew

So I believe specifically when we decide what this optimal temperature is for humans, we at least answer these basic questions.

What temperature allows for the least energy units consumed to keep our houses around 70 degrees year round.

What temperature allows the maximum global harvest of human staples such as corn, rice, and wheat. What temperature allows for the maximum amount of arable land.

What temperature allows for the efficient farming and housing of the livestock and fish humans consume.

See what your professor has to say, I'd like to know. Thanks!

So, by optimal, are you talking of "average?" Or.....if we could stay at ONE precise temp ALL day and night long, what would it be?

If you are asking the later, my guess is around 72F. (?)
Optimal Average. I'm assuming sometime in the next 100 years we should have the technology be able to control even in a limited sense the average global temperature.

Yeah. Right. I'm still waiting for those flying cars they promised us. LOL!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 5:01:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 4:01:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:26:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Can we be more efficient when we don't have to be, to avoid mass starvation when we don't have time enough to learn?
So long answer short, with our current technology, can we grow more food at 13.6 or 14.6?
Right now we're inefficient at produce food at either 13.6C or 14.6C, because producing the yields we need from the arable land we have can't be done sustainably yet.

A higher temperature will likely reduce land yield for present crops (since they're adapted for the temperatures we have, and we don't have replacements), requiring us to spend more resources (water, fertiliser, energy) we can't yet produce efficiently, and move food from further away, increasing the overhead of delivery.

So we already have a problem. Unless you believe in lucky breaks (and nature's history is rather harsh in this respect), further climate change exacerbates it in ways that may be hard to quantify.

Also, I am not too worried about potable water, as most areas have the technology to get water Israel style with efficient desalination plants.

Desal is mostly coastal, Grey, and can be very expensive depending on conditions. In many places, recycling sewage and grey water is much cheaper, and can even produce some usable energy on the side to offset. But... there's presently very little Western appetite for it (it's different in Asia.)

There's also some great work being done on indoor produce-farms (indoor growth of produce like lettuce and tomatoes that doesn't need to be grown outdoors, and doesn't really benefit from that.) A lot of smart efficiency ideas pay off in the short term and the long term. It's our strategic energy and water questions, along with our strategic choice of crops, that need political attention.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:13:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 5:01:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Desal is mostly coastal, Grey, and can be very expensive depending on conditions. In many places, recycling sewage and grey water is much cheaper, and can even produce some usable energy on the side to offset. But... there's presently very little Western appetite for it (it's different in Asia.)

There's also some great work being done on indoor produce-farms (indoor growth of produce like lettuce and tomatoes that doesn't need to be grown outdoors, and doesn't really benefit from that.) A lot of smart efficiency ideas pay off in the short term and the long term. It's our strategic energy and water questions, along with our strategic choice of crops, that need political attention.

Desal may be coastal, but we already pipe lots of other resources such as oil and gas thousands of miles all over. I don't see it as a limiting factor. The amount of arable land would be a factor though.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:15:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 5:01:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:01:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/26/2015 2:26:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Can we be more efficient when we don't have to be, to avoid mass starvation when we don't have time enough to learn?
So long answer short, with our current technology, can we grow more food at 13.6 or 14.6?
Right now we're inefficient at produce food at either 13.6C or 14.6C, because producing the yields we need from the arable land we have can't be done sustainably yet.

A higher temperature will likely reduce land yield for present crops (since they're adapted for the temperatures we have, and we don't have replacements), requiring us to spend more resources (water, fertiliser, energy) we can't yet produce efficiently, and move food from further away, increasing the overhead of delivery.

So we already have a problem. Unless you believe in lucky breaks (and nature's history is rather harsh in this respect), further climate change exacerbates it in ways that may be hard to quantify.

So what would be an optimal average global temperature (or estimation) for maximum arable land?