Are degrees of latitude as valid a metric for discussing climate policy alternatives as those of temperature? Whether Fahrenheit, Kelvin, or Celsius, one degree of warming may shift your environment roughly as much as moving a Degree or two farther from the North or South Pole. Any re-examination of the issue in terms of biogeography and shifting biotremes and human ecology needs an uncontroversial a point of statistical departure.
It may not be easy to come by, because just
as the concept of "average " global temperature is
scientifically , statistically and semantically ambiguous, it's hard to get a
firm handle on the "average" temperature the whole of humanity experiences.
Because demography is changing faster than climate .
The .6 degree C the Earth has warmed in the past century is about one five hundredth of its absolute temperature - nominally 293 Kelvins. In that century it has seen not just massive population growth, but mass migrations- in both cases the numbers are in the billions.
In Teddy Roosevelt's day, half of
But without it , who can define the "temperate zone " in terms of the normative climate distribution experienced by the most people- the demographic middle of the climatic bell curve of today-- and tomorrow?
My blog's " Climate Of Here " category is now a year old, I hope that with an answer augmented by Sci Am and 60 Seconds' omnivorous readership, I may be able to provide an answer good to one significant digit by the time Adamant enters its terrible twos.