Question Description
Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. In this passage the author is primarily interested ina)Whether scientific truths are simply a matter of consensusb)Determining how well established the greenhouse effect is and to what degree it isworsened by human actionsc)Whether the hot spot El Niño is balanced elsewhere by cold spots`d)Determining if most scientists would be inclined to give a positive answer to the question of whether there is a greenhouse effect and if it is worsened by human actionse)Making a simple synchronic whole earth measurement more than a blip in the diachronic history of Ice Age cycles over the last tens of thousands of yearsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. In this passage the author is primarily interested ina)Whether scientific truths are simply a matter of consensusb)Determining how well established the greenhouse effect is and to what degree it isworsened by human actionsc)Whether the hot spot El Niño is balanced elsewhere by cold spots`d)Determining if most scientists would be inclined to give a positive answer to the question of whether there is a greenhouse effect and if it is worsened by human actionse)Making a simple synchronic whole earth measurement more than a blip in the diachronic history of Ice Age cycles over the last tens of thousands of yearsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. In this passage the author is primarily interested ina)Whether scientific truths are simply a matter of consensusb)Determining how well established the greenhouse effect is and to what degree it isworsened by human actionsc)Whether the hot spot El Niño is balanced elsewhere by cold spots`d)Determining if most scientists would be inclined to give a positive answer to the question of whether there is a greenhouse effect and if it is worsened by human actionse)Making a simple synchronic whole earth measurement more than a blip in the diachronic history of Ice Age cycles over the last tens of thousands of yearsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. In this passage the author is primarily interested ina)Whether scientific truths are simply a matter of consensusb)Determining how well established the greenhouse effect is and to what degree it isworsened by human actionsc)Whether the hot spot El Niño is balanced elsewhere by cold spots`d)Determining if most scientists would be inclined to give a positive answer to the question of whether there is a greenhouse effect and if it is worsened by human actionse)Making a simple synchronic whole earth measurement more than a blip in the diachronic history of Ice Age cycles over the last tens of thousands of yearsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. In this passage the author is primarily interested ina)Whether scientific truths are simply a matter of consensusb)Determining how well established the greenhouse effect is and to what degree it isworsened by human actionsc)Whether the hot spot El Niño is balanced elsewhere by cold spots`d)Determining if most scientists would be inclined to give a positive answer to the question of whether there is a greenhouse effect and if it is worsened by human actionse)Making a simple synchronic whole earth measurement more than a blip in the diachronic history of Ice Age cycles over the last tens of thousands of yearsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. In this passage the author is primarily interested ina)Whether scientific truths are simply a matter of consensusb)Determining how well established the greenhouse effect is and to what degree it isworsened by human actionsc)Whether the hot spot El Niño is balanced elsewhere by cold spots`d)Determining if most scientists would be inclined to give a positive answer to the question of whether there is a greenhouse effect and if it is worsened by human actionse)Making a simple synchronic whole earth measurement more than a blip in the diachronic history of Ice Age cycles over the last tens of thousands of yearsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. In this passage the author is primarily interested ina)Whether scientific truths are simply a matter of consensusb)Determining how well established the greenhouse effect is and to what degree it isworsened by human actionsc)Whether the hot spot El Niño is balanced elsewhere by cold spots`d)Determining if most scientists would be inclined to give a positive answer to the question of whether there is a greenhouse effect and if it is worsened by human actionse)Making a simple synchronic whole earth measurement more than a blip in the diachronic history of Ice Age cycles over the last tens of thousands of yearsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. In this passage the author is primarily interested ina)Whether scientific truths are simply a matter of consensusb)Determining how well established the greenhouse effect is and to what degree it isworsened by human actionsc)Whether the hot spot El Niño is balanced elsewhere by cold spots`d)Determining if most scientists would be inclined to give a positive answer to the question of whether there is a greenhouse effect and if it is worsened by human actionse)Making a simple synchronic whole earth measurement more than a blip in the diachronic history of Ice Age cycles over the last tens of thousands of yearsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?Q. In this passage the author is primarily interested ina)Whether scientific truths are simply a matter of consensusb)Determining how well established the greenhouse effect is and to what degree it isworsened by human actionsc)Whether the hot spot El Niño is balanced elsewhere by cold spots`d)Determining if most scientists would be inclined to give a positive answer to the question of whether there is a greenhouse effect and if it is worsened by human actionse)Making a simple synchronic whole earth measurement more than a blip in the diachronic history of Ice Age cycles over the last tens of thousands of yearsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.