TIME TO REFRAME THE ECO-TERMS

I believe this continual reference to averages is hurting the eco debate.  Few people will react to 1 or 2 degree increase in the average planetary temperature because its not dramatic enough to understand the severity which that represents and also because its still too easy for lay persons and scientists on some polluters payroll to muddy up or dismiss as within a natural set of normal variances.

But I'll bet the extremes of hot and cold and their length are not only greater than they have been in the poles but would better represent the crisis. 

If the temperature spikes or there are more days of above melting temp weather AND the drops are colder than normal or there are more days of severe cold weather then the average wouldn't move much but the impact of the extremes would be devastating.

Anyone who has spent any time in the prairies knows that extremely cold air is unlikely to have snow in it as the crystals need a near 0c temp to form.

Anyone who has spent time in northern California knows that extremely warm air not only eliminates rainfall and speeds up the evaporation of the glaciers but dries out the forests until they're kindling. 

If the poles aren't getting as much snow because the temperature shifts to extreme cold quicker, a temp less likely to have snowfall, and then stays that way longer now; AND the summers are hitting highs or staying warmer longer than they used to then the average temp could still be within norms but the effects from these extremes would be dramatic to say the least.

That's the information that I'd like to see because most Canadians might not relate to "global warming" right now but no one can argue that the weather hasn't been getting more and more extreme more and more often.  And once you frame the discussion so that everyone can relate you’ll get a lot more traction on the issue.