2. 考研
  3. Among the phrases you really, really do not want to hear from climate scientists are: "that really shocked us," "we had no idea

Among the phrases you really, really do not want to hear from climate scientists are: "that really shocked us," "we had no idea

admin2022-06-29  135
问题     Among the phrases you really, really do not want to hear from climate scientists are: "that really shocked us," "we had no idea how bad it was," and "reality is well ahead of the climate models." Yet in speaking to researchers who focus on the Arctic, you hear comments like these so regularly they begin to sound like the thumping refrain from Jaws: annoying signs of something that you really, really wish would go away.
    Let me explain the phrases above. The "shock" came when the International Polar Year, a global organization studying the Arctic, froze a small vessel into the sea ice off eastern Siberia in September 2006. Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen had done the same thing a century before, and his Fram, carried by the drifting ice, arrived eastern Greenland 34 months later. IPY scientists thought their Tara would take 24 to 36 months. But it reached Greenland in just 14 months, stark evidence that the sea ice found a more open, ice-free, and thus faster path westward thanks to Arctic melting.
    The loss of Arctic sea ice is well ahead of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast, largely because emissions of carbon dioxide have topped what the panel—which foolishly expected nations to care enough about global warming to do something about it—predicted. "The models just aren’t keeping up with the reality of CO2 emissions", says the IPY’s David Carlson. Although policy-makers hoped climate models would prove to be alarmist, the opposite is true, particular in the Arctic.
    The IPCC may also have been too cautious on Greenland, assuming that the melting of its glaciers would contribute little to sea-level rise. Some studies found that Greenland’s glacial streams were surging and surface ice was changing into liquid lakes, but others made a strong case that those surges and melts were short-term aberrations, not long-term trends. It seemed to be stuck. More reliable data, however, such as satellite measurements of Greenland’s mass, show that it is losing about 52 cubic miles per year and that the melting is accelerating. So while the IPCC predicted that sea level would rise 16 inches this century, "now a more likely figure is one meter (39 inches) at the least," says Carlson. "Chest high instead of knee high." Hence the "no idea how bad it was."
    The frozen north had another surprise in store. Scientists have long known that permafrost, if it melted, would release carbon, aggravating global warming, which would melt more permafrost, which would add more to global warming, on and on in a feedback loop. But estimates of how much carbon is locked into Arctic permafrost were, it turns out, woefully off. It is about three times as much as was thought, about 1.6 trillion metric tons, which has surprised a lot of people," says Edward Schuur of the University of Florida. That 1.6 trillion tons is about twice the amount now in the atmosphere. And Schuur’s measurements of how quickly CO2 can come out of permafrost, reported in May, were also a surprise: 1 billion to 2 billion tons per year. Cars and light trucks in the US emit about 300 million tons per year.
    In an insightful observation in The Guardian this month, Jim Watson of the University of Sussex wrote that "a new kind of climate skeptic is becoming more common": someone who doubts not the science but the policy response. For instance, the G8, led by Europe, has vowed to take steps to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by reducing CO2 emissions. We are now at 0.8 degree. But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already enough to raise 2 degrees. The only reason it hasn’t is that the atmosphere is full
    of crap (dust and aerosols that contribute to asthma, emphysema, and other diseases) that acts as a global coolant. As that pollution is reduced for health reasons, we are going to blast right through 2 degrees, which is enough to aggravate droughts and storms, wreak havoc on agriculture, and produce a planet warmer than it’s been in millions of years. The 2 degree promise is an illusion.
The main reason of the loss of Arctic sea ice ahead of what the IPCC forecast is that the climate models________.
选项 A、were proven to be alarmists
B、lacked supporting theories
C、failed to keep up with the actual CO2emissions
D、neglected the effort on dealing with global warming
答案C
解析 本题关键词是loss of Arctic sea ice，IPCC forecast和climate models，问题是：北极海冰融化早于IPCC预测的主要原因是什么?定位到第三段。根据第三段第一句，北极海冰的融化早于联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会的预测，很大程度上是因为二氧化碳排放量已经超过(topped)委员会的预测；紧接着第二句补充道，气候模型赶不上(aren’t keeping up with)现实中二氧化碳的排放量。由此可见，选项C“没有赶上(failed to keep up with)二氧化碳实际排放量”与原文属于相同含义，为正确选项。选项A属于正反混淆，根据第三句，尽管政策制定者们希望气候模型会被证实为危言耸听(prove to be alarmists)，但结果却不遂人愿，即气候模型(climate models)并不是危言耸听。选项B属于无中生有，原文并未提及气候模型(climate models)的理论基础(supporting theories)的相关信息。选项D也属于正反混淆，第一句的插入成分指出，委员们曾天真地期待各国会对全球变暖趋势足够关心并采取一些减排措施(care enough about global warming to do something about it)，可见气候模型并没有忽略(neglect)应对全球变暖而做的努力，而是一直在关注。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/vJi4777K
0

考研英语二

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)