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
28
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.
Which of the following is NOT true about the new article in Nature?
选项
A、The current loss rate of wild species has threatened the ecosystem.
B、We will be safe within the nine planetary boundaries identified in the article.
C、The limits identified in the article can help policy makers to make a new global treaty.
D、We are now in a dangerous situation unless we take strict measures to prevent climate change.
答案
B
解析
由第八段可知,地球变化是渐进的,即使现在在界限之内,也不能保证安全。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/RMbK777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
A、Wealth.B、Beauty.C、Passion.D、Health.D根据句(9)可知,大卫认为,在能让人幸福的事物列表上,健康居于首位。因此答案为[D]。
A、Havingaviewshift.B、Identifyingtheregret.C、Doingsomethingtochangethepresentsituation.D、Forgettingallaboutther
AskingQuestionsEffectivelyI.ReasonAskingtherightquestionshelpsimprovecommunicationskills:—collectingbetter【T1】__
AdviceforStudents:HowtoTalktoProfessorsI.IntroductionA.Professors:normalpeople,justlikeeveryoneelseB.Student
A、Bykeepingtripsshort.B、Byconsultingthetravelagent.C、Bystayingonaplane.D、Byarrangingforstopovers.D本题问的是如何避免夜间旅
Globalwarminggetsblamedforjustabouteverythingthesedays;notenoughsnow,toomuchrain,risingsealevels,whatever.He
TheAmericanmedicalschoolisnowwellalonginthesecondcenturyofitshistory.Itbegan,butformanyyearscontinuedto【S1
(1)Don’talwaysbelievewhatscientistsandotherauthoritiestellyou!Beskeptical!Thinkcritically!That’swhatItellmys
A、Reducingvehiclenumbersonhighways.B、Forbiddinghonkingthehornloudly.C、Improvingdrivers’behaviors.D、Restrictingspac
A、Driverslosetheircoolandchangelanescarelessly.B、Driverslocktheirvehicleandrefusetoleavethehighways.C、Drivers
随机试题
A.清化热痰,开郁散结B.清化热痰,润肺止咳,散结消肿C.清化热痰,宽胸散结,润肠通便D.清化热痰,除烦止呕川贝母的功效是
A.0.1sB.0.11sC.0.12sD.0.13sE.0.14s正常心电图的P波时限为
高危人群出现哪几种情况应考虑AIDS
A、由心甾和4个糖基组成B、β-内酰胺酶抑制剂C、中枢性肌肉松弛剂D、广谱抗寄生虫病药E、烷化剂类抗肿瘤药卡莫司汀()。
已知某10kV系统为小电流接地系统,系统中一变电站引出的10kV电缆线路总长度为30km。求系统有关参数电缆线路的电容电流为()。
假设苗先生与苗太太是你的新客户,目前正面临生涯与家庭上的转变,需要金融理财师协助规划。经过初步沟通面谈后,你获得了以下家庭、职业与财务信息:一、案例成员二、收支情况1.家庭年收入66.12万元,其中苗先生纯收入63万元,苗太太收入0.72万元,房租
汽车:轮胎
分散化原则(河北大学2012真题;华中科技大学2015真题)
下列选项中,属于对所有权法律上的处分行为的是()。
Humansareuniqueintheextenttowhichtheycanreflectonthemselvesandothers.Humansarea-bleto1,tothinkinabstract
最新回复
(
0
)