[ExI] scaling global warming

spike spike66 at att.net
Thu Jan 24 05:26:14 UTC 2013


A thought occurred to me today as I was reading about a deep lingering cold
snap in upstate New York.  We discuss the notion of global warming, which is
based on an average temperature over the year.  But the thermometers are not
evenly distributed.  They are generally more concentrated near population
centers.  But it is entirely likely that the concentration factor is
insufficient: the distribution of thermometers should be proportioned
according to the local human population.

 

Reasoning: I have a correspondent who lives in upstate NY, who told me of
the terribly cold weather they have been having, very unusually cold.  I
pointed out that they are singlehandedly rescuing the planet from global
warming by lowering the average temperature.  But the number of data entries
into the temperature average may be inappropriately high for that sparsely
populated area.  If we scaled it according to population density, then most
of the climate stations in New York State would be located in New York City
and the surrounding areas, with rural upstate NY being nearly irrelevant in
the average temperature.  It just doesn't feel right to me that a few people
upstate could be saving the world from global warming without even very much
overall suffering.  The nearly deserted Wyoming gets as much data into the
average as down here on the California coast where there are so many proles
per square kilometer.  It just doesn't seem fair somehow.  More people
should equal more data in the global average temperature.

 

spike 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130123/60664d9a/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list