Political Dogs: What is the Earth's Normal Temperature?

What is the Earth's Normal Temperature?

by Steve
6/26/2006 10:10:00 PM

In light of all the discussion on global warming, if human beings never existed on this planet, what would the temperature be today? Would it be cooler?

If the global warming community knows that our climate is getting too hot, then it stands to reason they'd know what the correct temperature should be.

Considering that temperatures are different all over the Earth, and that temperatures change through the seasons, you'd have to take recordings all over the Earth, throughout the year, and average them out.

But we also know that the Earth goes through warming and cooling trends in cycles ranging from hundreds to thousands of years. We also know that the Earth has experienced climactic changes that take place throughout millions of years.

Therein lies the problem.

Mankind hasn't recorded global temperatures on a consistent basis until the late 1800's (in the 1890's to be more precise). We just don't have enough empirical data to figure out what the Earth's temperature should be.

But, we do know that the Earth's temperature has risen. The Environmental Protection Agency says the Earth's temperature has increased an average of 1°F since the late 1890's.

Question

Is the Earth's current temperature exceeding its normal temperature, or is it returning to its normal temperature?

Answer

Consider that the last remnants of the Ice Age, the ice sheets in Canada, receded only 6,000 years ago (source USGS)...
Although the Great Ice Age began a million or more years ago, the last major ice sheet to spread across North Central United States reached its maximum extent about 20,000 years ago. Waning through a succession of retreats relatively minor advances, it lingered in Canada until about 6,000 years ago when it finally melted.
Since then, the Earth has been warming up. Is it still warming up from that period?

The USGS has some more interesting things to say about glacial retreat...
Prior to the 19th Century, observant Swiss peasants concluded that the glaciers in the Alps had formerly been much larger. They noted that the existing glaciers were slowly transporting and depositing down-valley and correctly inferred that the boulders strewn about their pastures had been transported and deposited in the same manner long ago.
In other words, glacial melting has been occuring as far back as the 1700s. The melting of glaciers is not something that happened only in the last few decades.

The problem is that we don't have daily and reliable temperature recordings going back far enough. Hence, we cannot make valid conclusions on what the Earth's temperature should be.

Moreover, if you were to live 100,000 years ago, and were able to record temperatures for 500 years (assuming you could live that long), the average temperature you'd calculate would be much different than in the present era. So, what was normal 100,000 years ago, is a lot different than what is normal today.

Global Warming

But what about the warming trend we're seeing today? Will Mankind suffer from it?

I'm not arguing that we're not headed for rising ocean levels and rising temperatures. Indeed, it looks like we are. My question is, is this something that Man is responsible for?

If you take a step back, and consider the history of the Earth, you'd realize that rising and falling ocean levels is something that has happened for millions of years. Perhaps billions of year.

If the Earth has experienced this cycle many times over, then why isn't this recent trend also part of a cycle?

What Do We Do About It?

If the recent warming trend is part of a natural earthly occurence, then what can we do about it? Nothing obviously. Instead, you prepare for it.

If you believe that Man is responsible for this recent warming trend, then again, there's nothing we can do about it. How do you change the livelihoods of billions of people? How do you get a free society like the United States, to stop its people and its businesses?

3 Comments:

How come I don't see the effect of the Krakatoa eruption on the temperatures in the late 1800s and early 1900s and if that has anything to do with a rise in temperature today in any of the global warming stories?

By wantstoknow, at 12:27 AM, July 30, 2006
My understanding is that scientists have taken core extractions of both polar ice caps. I'm sorry, but I can't remember how long the core samples are, but color changes along the cylinder of ice, indicates how cold or warm the earth was at a particular point in time. Apparently, ice crystals form differently at various temperatures, causing variations in color. The length of each color segment indicates how long a particular warming or cooling trend lasted. By more minute changes in color at each end of a segment, scientists can determine when a temperature shift began and when a shift has leveled off. Also, each segment is tested for chemicals.
Because of all the information gleaned from the ice core, scientists have concluded that the earth
1) is warming faster than ever before and
2) the most recently formed ice has chemicals not found in older segments.
An apparent lack of any other striking differences found when the most current segment is compared with all others from the past, most considered-to-be reputable scientists place the probability that there is a correlation between the pace of temperature change and the increase of man-made chemicals in the atmosphere very high.
With an absolute fact that a rise in temperature of 3.5 degrees would result in large areas of populated land mass underwater, there is a sense of urgency. If the upward temperature trend continues at its current rate, 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit could occur in the relative near future.

Of course, the scientists have no way of predicting if the temperature will rise 3.5 degrees, as well as no way of predicting that it won't.

The concern is not for Mother Earth. The concern is that if we reach the point where the earth's population is squeezed into an area too small to feed it, that man will have rendered itself extinct.

There are certainly many unknowns, but scientists fear that the stakes are too high to take a wait and watch attitude while the clock is ticking, when there is no known downside to lowering greenhouse gas levels.
If the scientists are right, and we act on their recommendations, future generations may be left with air to breathe of equal or better quality than the air breathed by the current generation.
If the scientists are right, and we don’t act………………well bye, bye great grandchildren.
If the scientists are wrong, and we act on their recommendations, future generations may be left with air to breathe of equal or better quality than the air breathed by the current generation.
If the scientists are wrong, and we don’t act…………..then, the people of the earth, at the very least, have proved themselves to be steely-nerved gamblers.

By Anonymous, at 2:31 AM, April 20, 2008
I'm sorry Anonymour but you are rather wrong in almost everything you say. The color thing is wrong. The gases trapped in the ise is wrong. The Earth is warming faster than ever is wrong. There's so little you say which has any basis in fact that it's difficult to know where to begin. Needless to say, your mind has been taken over by the media. You are a useless bobblehead and should not bother trying to learn anything through reading. Fear not. There are enough of us out here to one day save your soul. But please don't post anymore unintelligible comments in cyber space. You're an idiot. We'll get to you and undo your brainwashing at a later time.

By Dave, at 3:42 AM, April 20, 2008

Sponsored Links

What is the Earth's Normal Temperature?

3 Comments:

Previously on Political Dogs