What is the optimum global temperature?

Question

For those of you who feel we are doomed if something is not done now to correct the Global warming trend, I ask you this. What is the correct temperature? Should it be bit cooler? Stay the same as in the 20th century? Is it true that most plants and animals benifit from warmer temperatures?

Answer 1

The 'correct' temperature doesn't exist, but is one that can sustain the greatest diversity of species. That's a moderate temperature, as found in the 20th century.

It wasn't so cold that plants couldn't survive, and not so hot that deserts formed and reefs died. Were talking a few degrees global average each way.

If our influence were minimized, temperature changes could take place over mellenia, rather than mere decades; this gives species time to adapt to climate conditions.

That way, the most diverse populations could survive for any given temperature.

Coral can only withstand temperature variations of 3-4 degrees, and hotter temps are worse than colder. Huge die-offs have already occurred and are ocurring now. Coral reefs are the largest, most diverse ecosystems on earth. If they die, trillions of fish, trillions of mollusks and trillions of various other species will die with them.

Many believe that this will be the tipping point, that man will die with them. No matter what, it won't be pretty; what life there is that does survive will be miserable.

Rather than accept answers here though, you should do some research of your own. BE CURIOUS ENOUGH TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH: Tens of thousands of scientists believe global warming is real and that it's deadly, versus a few wackos (mostly paid by oil companies) that say it's fake. Oh, and a few idiots like Rush Limbaugh (a noted scientist!), and Fox News Channel.

It's not that hard to find answers, and it is YOUR life, after all.

But I have to ask, if there's even a POSSIBILITY that 99.975% of the scientists are actually right, that global warming is real, wouldn't it be PRUDENT to not take any chances, since extinction of mankind is the most likely outcome if we do nothing?

AND aren't the things that they're asking us to do the same things we have to do eventually anyways?

Answer 2

80

Answer 3

Should be around what it was 10-15 years ago, all animals on the world then benefit, the animals in antartica, and those in the warm areas.

Its too hot for greece its starting to get alot of bush fires which it never had, thise fires are not benefiting the animal instead they are killing them and leaving them homeless

Answer 4

I don't think that anyone could say what the optimum global temperature could possibly be.

Different species have different conditions and requirements for their 'optimum' environment.

What may cause one species to thrive may cause another to struggle or cease to exist.

I would say in general that warmer temperatures are preferable to most species.

There is no way of telling what earth's average temperature has been in it's long history, or whether we are currently above or below that mean temperature.

I personally hope that if 'Global Warming was real, that it would hurry up so I can afford to keep relatively comfortable in the winter since I can no longer afford the extortionately high fuel prices to heat my home.

Answer 5

Your thinking is twisted.

There is no "optimum" global temperature.  Each region of the globe has its own ecology based upon a balance of biodiversity and geographic conditions.  When we change the temperature this creates an adverse condition where the ecology must adapt or die.  It affects our ability to provide food for the masses.  It adversely affects our economy.  It makes water scarce.  It destroys cities.

Raising the global temperatures may sound like a good idea for Canada, but even that would wreck havoc upon its ecology.

Answer 6

there isn't an optimum global temperature. there is a temperature than man prefers, if you look at climate history (not hundreds of years but millions) you will find the temp varies greatly throughout

Answer 7

Nobody can say what the optimum temperature should be since nobody knows what natures optimum should be.

What I prefer may not be the best for nature in general.

Generally I think warmer temperatures, are better for most species, providing there is sufficient food and water for their survival.

Answer 8

There is no optimum global temperature, but there is an optimum global climate.

That is one where the net of all anthropogenic forcings is zero.

The current net of all anthropogenic forcings is +1.6 Watts per square meter.

And climbing.

With no end in sight.

Answer 9

The global temperatures of the 20th century are typical of the interglacial periods.  Most of the earths time is spent at temperatures up to 10 degrees C cooler than that.  Humans evolved during the last period Ice Age and thrive best at around 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  If you garden you know there are bands, or zones wherein different species thrive.  Not everything would find our ideal temperature ideal.  As far as an ideal global temperature, I don't know.  We and most other species handle colder better than we do warmer.  For our "civilization" the temperatures we've had for the last few hundred years is probably best.  That doesn't mean its best biologically.

Answer 10

The optimum temperature is the temperature that the dominant species thrive in.  

That means, whatever is best for bacteria, viruses, insects, fish, and plant life.  They are the dominant species, with their numbers and longevity unmatched by any other species on earth.  Human beings only like to pretend they are the singular dominant species.  We aren't.

It's been recently discovered (and recreated in the labratory) that oceanic bacteria regulate the atmosphere.  Whatever the sun throws their way, whatever the mix of gasses in the air, whatever pollutants there are in the ocean, they are the species that responds and cleans it up.  And their incredibly massive numbers allow for these smallest of organisms to do the job faster than even mechanical man-made systems can do, and more efficiently.  We owe our existence to these creatures.  And frankly, they couldn't care less about our polluting ways.  It's just another day at the office for them.  They deal with naturally caused oil spills, volcanic gasses, and other toxins every day, and they easily clean it up.  Having perfected the job millions of years ago, they deliver the atmosphere that we have.  We owe them our lives.

Discovery Science also did a great show about what would happen if man suddenly vanished from the planet, and it really drove home the power of plant life.  Within 100 years, not a single city would be standing, and the entire planet would be covered with plants.  They even showed a real life example:  Chernobyl.  Crumbling and being completely overtaken by plants.  And take a drive anywhere in Southern USA and see the same thing happening everywhere.  Old chicken houses covered with thick jungles of green (and not just Kudzu).

Man is fantastic for all that he can do, and we SHOULD be good stewards of the land and appreciate our guest status here.  (And as viruses have shown, they can wipe us out in an instant when they feel we've overstayed our welcome.)

But we need to get away from this religious fantasy that we can "control" anything relative to nature.  We can't.  The only ones who CAN are a million times smaller than us, and a trillion times larger in numbers.

And they couldn't give a rat's **** about "global warming"or "climate chaos".  To them, it's all good.