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
2020-05-01
53
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 Johan 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 ripping 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
由第二段可知。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/CMbK777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
AudienceAwarenessofWritingI.Introduction—contents,【T1】______andstylesdependontheaudience【T1】______—theimportance
A、ItsfieldsofstudiesarethebestamongalltheuniversitiesinCanada.B、Ithaseducatedmanyfamouspeopleinvariousfield
A、Byfillinginsomeonlineformsaboutlocalcrashhistory.B、Byidentifyingsomeblackspotsofthelocalcommittees.C、Byrec
A、Tohighlightphonenumbersinthenotebook.B、Tostorescissorsineverysingleroom.C、Toclipthreadsbeforeyougoout.D、
PASSAGEONEWhatdoestheauthormeanbysaying"Iwasoverheadandears"inPara.6?
However,whatheneedsistobefittedintoahighlyorganizeduniversitysystemquitedifferentfromthoseathome.
Itisaknownfactthatphysicalactivityimprovesoverallhealth.Notonlydoesitimprovecirculation,increasebloodflowto
TheAmericanmedicalschoolisnowwellalonginthesecondcenturyofitshistory.Itbegan,butformanyyearscontinuedto【S1
TheAmericanmedicalschoolisnowwellalonginthesecondcenturyofitshistory.Itbegan,butformanyyearscontinuedto【S1
A、Reducingvehiclenumbersonhighways.B、Forbiddinghonkingthehornloudly.C、Improvingdrivers’behaviors.D、Restrictingspac
随机试题
考核组织的职责是()。
古诗《长恨歌》的作者是唐代诗人_______。
男,35岁。左颌下区被拳击伤,随即伤区出现肿胀、淤斑;扪诊有波动感,张口度及咬合关系正常
吗啡对咳嗽中枢有选择性抑制作用,常规用于各种原因引起的咳嗽。()
甲乙二国建立正式外交关系数年后,因两国多次发生边境冲突,甲国宣布终止与乙国的外交关系。根据国际法相关规则,下列哪一选项是正确的?(2010年卷一29题)
地形图修测1)工程概况位于华北平原的××新城为完成总体规划修编工作,需要对规划范围内老城区l:2000地形图进行修测,并测绘新城区和开发区的1:2000地形图,建立基础信息数据库。测区范围西至龙凤河道左堤;北至龙风新河右堤;东至京津塘高速公路;南至京山
理财师在为客户提供教育保险购买建议时,需向客户说明()是教育保险无法达成的。
在资源开采过程中,要认真贯彻落实(a)的精神,遵循市场规律,采取法律、经济和必要的行政措施,分配和规范各类市场主体合理开发资源,承担资源补偿、生态环境保护与修复等方面的责任和义务。要按照“谁开发、谁保护,谁受益、谁补偿,谁污染、谁治理,谁破坏、谁修复”的原
WhydidtheU.S.TreasuryDepartmentissueamemorandum?
SpaceTourism[A]Makeyourreservationsnow.Thespacetourismindustryisofficiallyopenforbusiness,andticketsaregoi
最新回复
(
0
)