Interesting development, but I still object to the subjective terms used. 'Negative' and 'adverse' for who? The earth is does not care whether it is getting warmer or colder or "just right" for humans (or any other species of plant or animal). It is just going about its earth-business like it has for trillions of years before there were humans around to complain that it is too hot or too cold or just right.
I really dislike all this anthropomorphizing or anthro-centrism in science. Scientists should know better than this.
In my neck of the woods, central CA, it felt like we experienced global moderation after the late 90’s. Doesn’t get as a hot as long as in the past, milder withers too. Not saying we don’t have our spikes, but things around just seem more moderate.
Another problem, even if we DO accept anthropocentrism (which is a theological issue — science cannot treat such questions), is what do we mean by ascribing only one number to a set of complex conditions? It might be “good” for man for one area of the earth to be warmer, another colder, at the same time. Even ideal statistical distributions aren’t described only by an average; they also have a standard deviation. Who’s been talking about the standard deviation of earth, to add even a second dimension to average?