Yes, ocean acidification is too little - known, and, like
the overall problem of climate change, too often considered to be something for the future only.
Not exact matches
Mike Wallace's talk was about the «National Research Council Report on the «Hockey Stick Controversy»... The charge to the committee, was «to summarize current information on the temperature records for the past millennium, describe the main areas
of uncertainty and how significant they are, describe the principal methodologies used and any
problems with these approaches, and explain how central is the debate over the paleoclimate record within the
overall state
of knowledge on global
climate change.»
Ultimately, our species will only be able to implement one
overall «solution» to the
problem of climate change, so that means a contest to decide on the most promising candidate solutions makes sense.
The IPCC range, on the other hand, encompasses the
overall uncertainty across a very large number
of studies, using different methods all with their own potential biases and
problems (e.g., resulting from biases in proxy data used as constraints on past temperature
changes, etc.) There is a number
of single studies on
climate sensitivity that have statistical uncertainties as small as Cox et al., yet different best estimates — some higher than the classic 3 °C, some lower.
Overall, Democrats and liberals are more likely than Republicans and conservatives to say the Earth is warming, human activity is the cause
of the
change, the
problem is serious and there is scientific consensus about the
climate changes underway and the threat it poses to the planet.
Overall, the consensus in the scientific literature is that
climate change will increase the number
of people exposed to extreme events and, therefore, to subsequent psychological
problems, such as worry, anxiety, depression, distress, loss, grief, trauma and even suicide.
The statement that
climate modeling is solving a boundary value
problem is an expression
of the view that the
overall constraints determine the main lines
of changes in
climate.
Predictably, regressive
climate change subsidies in fact impoverish bill payers and the economy
overall to make CO2 emissions avoidably wose and damage vast areas
of «the environment», versus better existing solutions to the claimed
problem, that are now made artificially less profitable by law.