fast
Contributor
What is the scientific consensus among those that skillfully interpret the data regarding the specific issue about whether or not the manmade impact on global warming is so substantial that it warrants costly governmental intervention?
That's a mouth full, so I'm going to break it down, and though I may be apt to make some novice mistakes, I'm still not after just any ole answer. It's not that I'm resistent to answers I don't like; I just want to make sure that my concerns are in fact addressed.
The weather is changing. Of course it is, and the climate is changing. On this, we should all agree. Essentially, the weather is something we can directly detect. Detecting a change in climate (on the other hand) requires a little bit of math. For instance, if we akin the change of global temperature as it pertains to weather, it would be like recording the actual temperatures--much like how we could record stock prices at any given time. In order to ascertain a change in climate (on the other hand) we would need to look at the trend of temperatures over time, much like how we could calculate moving averages of stocks. My point behind this paragraph is simply to distinguish between weather and climate, since the question posed includes the term, "global warming."
The climate is changing. Specifically, temperatures are changing. More specifically, the average global temperature is trending. In fact, the trend, slight as it may be, is upwards. In other words, our planet is getting hotter. It's gradual; hence the phrase, "global warming." I think most people agree with this. Few people, even those that might be referred to as climate change deniers, disagree with this. What they may or may not agree or disagree with depends on the very specific question asked. The point behind this paragraph is to point out the need to be mindful that even good answers may match well ... but with questions not asked. For example, do humans by virtue of their activities of burning fossil fuels contribute to an additional global rise in average temperatures? Yes. But, that wasn't my question.
Scientific consensus is such that they agree with me. Yes, my question includes the words, "scientific consensus," but the popular scientific consensus touted is such that there is an impact on climate by manmade activities. True, yes, agreed, but not wiping your feet before or after entering or leaving a beach by an ocean has an effect on the number of grains of sand on the beach; hence, the vast overwhelming majority of those in the scientific field are undoubtedly going to arrive at the consensus that there is at least a minimal additional effect on climate by humans.
We are in an iceage. We know this and is evidenced by massive amounts of ice on our planet, especially at our poles. Granted, we are on our way out of an iceage, and so expect temperatures to be on a gradual rise--with or without human activity.
I don't have a good enough scientific appreciation to properly appraise the abundance of information. I'm nervous of bandwagon thought. I'm highly skeptical of the interpretative skills of even those who are more knowledgable than myself. I'm afraid that stark changes over the short term is being properly put in its place. I'm suspecting that even if man were to immediately change its ways in the most pragmatically way possible, we'd only be mildly delaying the inevitable. I think we'd be helping to rush global warming if we were to relax policies on emissions, but I'm having a hard time coming to terms with the idea that even with all we do that our impact is as significant as some lead us to believe.
I'm open to scientific convincing; I'm just cautious for fear of being accidentally misled. My understanding is that Neil Tyson supports the notion most climate change alarmists embrace do, but I don't know what amidst the scientific knowledge drives the view.
That's a mouth full, so I'm going to break it down, and though I may be apt to make some novice mistakes, I'm still not after just any ole answer. It's not that I'm resistent to answers I don't like; I just want to make sure that my concerns are in fact addressed.
The weather is changing. Of course it is, and the climate is changing. On this, we should all agree. Essentially, the weather is something we can directly detect. Detecting a change in climate (on the other hand) requires a little bit of math. For instance, if we akin the change of global temperature as it pertains to weather, it would be like recording the actual temperatures--much like how we could record stock prices at any given time. In order to ascertain a change in climate (on the other hand) we would need to look at the trend of temperatures over time, much like how we could calculate moving averages of stocks. My point behind this paragraph is simply to distinguish between weather and climate, since the question posed includes the term, "global warming."
The climate is changing. Specifically, temperatures are changing. More specifically, the average global temperature is trending. In fact, the trend, slight as it may be, is upwards. In other words, our planet is getting hotter. It's gradual; hence the phrase, "global warming." I think most people agree with this. Few people, even those that might be referred to as climate change deniers, disagree with this. What they may or may not agree or disagree with depends on the very specific question asked. The point behind this paragraph is to point out the need to be mindful that even good answers may match well ... but with questions not asked. For example, do humans by virtue of their activities of burning fossil fuels contribute to an additional global rise in average temperatures? Yes. But, that wasn't my question.
Scientific consensus is such that they agree with me. Yes, my question includes the words, "scientific consensus," but the popular scientific consensus touted is such that there is an impact on climate by manmade activities. True, yes, agreed, but not wiping your feet before or after entering or leaving a beach by an ocean has an effect on the number of grains of sand on the beach; hence, the vast overwhelming majority of those in the scientific field are undoubtedly going to arrive at the consensus that there is at least a minimal additional effect on climate by humans.
We are in an iceage. We know this and is evidenced by massive amounts of ice on our planet, especially at our poles. Granted, we are on our way out of an iceage, and so expect temperatures to be on a gradual rise--with or without human activity.
I don't have a good enough scientific appreciation to properly appraise the abundance of information. I'm nervous of bandwagon thought. I'm highly skeptical of the interpretative skills of even those who are more knowledgable than myself. I'm afraid that stark changes over the short term is being properly put in its place. I'm suspecting that even if man were to immediately change its ways in the most pragmatically way possible, we'd only be mildly delaying the inevitable. I think we'd be helping to rush global warming if we were to relax policies on emissions, but I'm having a hard time coming to terms with the idea that even with all we do that our impact is as significant as some lead us to believe.
I'm open to scientific convincing; I'm just cautious for fear of being accidentally misled. My understanding is that Neil Tyson supports the notion most climate change alarmists embrace do, but I don't know what amidst the scientific knowledge drives the view.
