首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
The scientific name is the Holocene Age, but climatologists like to call our current climatic phase the Long Summer. The history
The scientific name is the Holocene Age, but climatologists like to call our current climatic phase the Long Summer. The history
admin
2011-06-24
54
问题
The scientific name is the Holocene Age, but climatologists like to call our current climatic phase the Long Summer. The history of Earth’s climate has rarely been smooth. From the moment life began on the planet billions of years ago, the climate has swung drastically and often abruptly from one state to another—from tropical swamp to frozen ice age. Over the past 10,000 years, however, the climate has remained remarkably stable by historical standards: not too warm and not too cold, or Goldilocks weather. That stability has allowed Homo sapiens, numbering perhaps just a few million at the dawn of the Holocene, to thrive; farming has taken hold and civilizations have arisen. Without the Long Summer, that never would have been possible.
But as human population has exploded over the past few thousand years, the delicate ecological balance that kept the Long Summer going has become threatened. The rise of industrialized agriculture has thrown off Earth’s natural nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, leading to pollution on land and water, while our fossil-fuel addiction has moved billions of tons of carbon from the land into the atmosphere, heating the climate ever more.
Now a new article in the Sept. 24 issue of Nature says the safe climatic limits in which humanity has blossomed are more vulnerable than ever and that unless we recognize our planetary boundaries and stay within them, we risk total catastrophe. "Human activities have reached a level that could damage the systems that keep Earth in the desirable Holocene state," writes Jo-han Rockstrom, executive director of the Stockholm Environmental Institute and the author of the article. "The result could be irreversible and, in some cases, abrupt environmental change, leading to a state less conducive to human development."
Regarding climate change, for instance, Rockstrom proposes an atmospheric-carbon-concentration limit of no more than 350 parts per million (p.p.m.)—meaning no more than 350 atoms of carbon for every million atoms of air. (Before the industrial age, levels were at 280 p.p.m.; currently they’re at 387 p.p.m. and rising.) That, scientists believe, should be enough to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, which should be safely below a climatic tipping point that could lead to the wide-scale melting of polar ice sheets, swamping coastal cities. "Transgressing these boundaries will increase the risk of irreversible climate change," writes Rockstrom.
That’s the impact of breaching only one of nine planetary boundaries that Rockstrom identifies in the paper. Other boundaries involve freshwater overuse, the global agricultural cycle and ozone loss. In each case, he scans the state of science to find ecological limits that we can’t violate, lest we risk passing a tipping point that could throw the planet out of whack for human beings. It’s based on a theory that ecological change occurs not so much cumulatively, but suddenly, after invisible thresholds have been reached. Stay within the lines, and we might just be all right.
In three of the nine cases Rockstrom has pointed out, however—climate change, the nitrogen cycle and species loss—we’ve already passed his threshold limits. In the case of global warming, we haven’t yet felt the full effects, Rockstrom says, because carbon acts gradually on the climate—but once warming starts, it may prove hard to stop unless we reduce emissions sharply. Ditto for the nitrogen cycle, where industrialized agriculture already has humanity pouring more chemicals into the land and oceans than the planet can process, and for wildlife loss, where we risk biological collapse. "We can say with some confidence that Earth cannot sustain the current rate of loss without significant erosion of ecosystem resilience," says Rockstrom.
The paper offers a useful way of looking at the environment, especially for global policy makers. As the world grapples with climate change this week at the U.N. and G-20 summit, some clearly posted speed limits from scientists could help politicians craft global deals on carbon and other shared environmental threats. It’s tough for negotiators to hammer out a new climate-change treaty unless they know just how much carbon needs to be cut to keep people safe. Rockstrom’s work delineates the limits to human growth—economically, demographically, ecologically—that we transgress at our peril.
The problem is that identifying those limits is a fuzzy science—and even trickier to translate into policy. Rockstrom’s atmospheric-carbon target of 350 p.p.m. has scientific support, but the truth is that scientists still aren’t certain as to how sensitive the climate will be to warm over the long-term—it’s possible that the atmosphere will be able to handle more carbon or that catastrophe could be triggered at lower levels. And by setting a boundary, it might make policymakers believe that we can pollute up to that limit and still be safe. That’s not the case—pollution causes cumulative damage, even below the tipping point. By focusing too much on the upper limits, we still risk harming Earth. "Ongoing changes in global chemistry should alarm us about threats to the persistence of life on Earth, whether or not we cross a catastrophic threshold any time soon," writes William Schlesinger, president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, in a commentary accompanying the Nature paper.
But as the world attempts to break the carbon addiction that already has it well on the way to climate catastrophe, more clearly defined limits will be useful. But climate diplomats should remember that while they can negotiate with one another, ultimately, they can’t negotiate with the planet. Unless we manage our presence on Earth better, we may soon be in the last days of our Long Summer.
The following are the threats to the Long Summer EXCEPT______.
选项
A、Industry.
B、Agriculture.
C、Human population.
D、Environmental change.
答案
D
解析
此题是事实题。由第二段可知。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/88YO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
EducationalValuesLifeisratherhecticforstudentsduringthefirstweekatNorthAmericanuniversities.However,students
A、AsitsaiditcouldleadtoWebsiteswithcontentharmful.B、Asitsaiditcouldbebeneficialforchildren.C、Asitsaidit
TheHistoryofAmericanIndiansWhenEuropeansdiscoveredtheWesternhemisphere,theydiscoveredaraceofpeople.【1】______
Oneofthemajorproblemsofnuclearenergyistheinabilityofscientiststodiscoverasafewaytodisposeoftheradioactive
HarryTrumandidn’tthinkhissuccessorhadtherighttrainingtobepresident."PoorIke---itwon’tbeabitliketheArmy,"
TheInternetisnowplayingaveryimportantroleinourlifeandwork.Whileitismakingourlifeandworkenjoyableandeffic
ErnestHemingwaywasoneofthe20thcentury’smostimportantwriters.Hissimple,directstylegreatlyinfluencedotherwriters
HowtoConductEmploymentInterviewsGenerallyspeaking,thepurposeofemploymentinterviewsarethree-fold:a.tomatchac
Disasterstruck250millionyearsago,whentheworstdevastationintheearth’shistoryoccurred.Calledtheend-Permianmasse
随机试题
资料:2012年3月31日A公司现金日记账余额8000元,4月1日共发生如下现金收支业务:(1)用现金购买行政办公用品400元;(2)从银行提取现金5000元备用;(3)用现金支付销售商品市内运费800元。要求:根据上述资料编制
小李与小张2008年9月结婚,婚后购买了60平方米的房屋一套,产权证上权利人一栏写着小李40%,小张60%。2009年底二人起诉离婚,离婚时房屋的市场价值100万元。则该房屋属于()。
某公司某部门的有关数据为:销售收入50000元,已销产品的变动成本和变动销售费用30000元,可控固定间接费用2500元,不可控固定间接费用3000元,分配来的公司管理费用为1500元。那么,该部门的利润中心负责人可控利润为()元。
2018年国务院政府工作报告指出,过去五年,我国坚持实施积极的财政政策。在财政收支矛盾较大情况下,着眼“放水养鱼”、增强后劲,我国率先大幅减税降费。下列哪项措施不属于我国采取的财政收支加减法?()
“怪味鸡”是()代表菜。
建设中国特色社会主义的政治,就是在中国共产党领导下,在人民当家作主的基础上()。
A.条件(1)充分,但条件(2)不充分。B.条件(2)充分,但条件(1)不充分。C.条件(1)和(2)单独都不充分,但条件(1)和条件(2)联合起来充分。D.条件(1)充分,条件(2)也充分。E.条件(1)和(2)单独都不充分,条件(1)和条件(2
校园网内的一台计算机只能使用IP地址而无法使用域名访问某个外部服务器,造成这种情况的原因不可能是()。
Whycouldn’tthespeakermeetMr.JordanwhenhewasinSanFrancisco?
Wheredidthisconversationmostlikelytakeplace?
最新回复
(
0
)