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
2011-01-08
34
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℃ 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. andG-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 the best title for this passage?
选项
A、G-20 Summit
B、The Long Summer
C、The Climatic Tipping Point
D、How Much Human Activity Can Earth Handle?
答案
D
解析
此题是推理概括题。文章告诫人们地球是有界限的,一旦超越界限,人类将面临毁灭。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/wjeO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
DreamResearchshowsthateveryonedreamsquitefrequentlyeverynight.Weusuallyrememberjustthelastdreamthatwehadb
Inthelate1960smanypeopleinNorthAmericaturnedtheirattentiontoenvironmentalproblems,andnewsteel-and-glassskyscra
Asamatteroffact,whenallalanguagetakesfromanotheroneismerewords,itisusuallybecauseonlyasmallnumberofspea
Asamatteroffact,whenallalanguagetakesfromanotheroneismerewords,itisusuallybecauseonlyasmallnumberofspea
Specializationcanbeseenasaresponsetotheproblemofanincreasingaccumulationofscientificknowledge.Bysplittingupt
Scientistsclaimthatairpollutioncausesadeclineintheworld’saverageairtemperature.Inordertoprovethattheo-ry,ec
Thedeclineofcivilityandgoodmannersmaybeworryingpeoplemorethancrime,accordingtoGentilityRecalled,editedbyDigb
"VisualMusic"isafine-tuned,highlydiverting,deceptivelyradicalexhibitionabouttherelationshipofmusicandmodernart,
Ourtheoriesabouthumandiseasearetheproductofcurrentfashion【M1】______thanwewouldliketoadmit.Butjustasthemo
随机试题
两个电阻并联后的等效电阻一定小于其中任何一个电阻。
A、Hospitalteachingacrossthecountryissimilar.B、Eachhospitalhasatleastonepart-timeteacher.C、Allhospitalssurveyed
A.血清维生素和微量元素浓度B.肝胆超声检查和骨密度检测C.尿3-甲基组氨酸测定D.血清渗透压E.肌酐身高指数为及时了解肝胆系统是否受损,是否存在代谢性骨病,长期肠外营养支持患者应定期监测
女患者,51岁,近1年月经先后不定,量时多时少,精神萎靡,形寒肢冷,纳呆腹胀,大便溏薄,面浮肢肿,舌淡胖;边有齿痕,苔薄白,脉沉细无力。治疗最佳方剂是
女干部怎样走出参政的误区?
给定资料:1.“要健全督查问责机制,坚决整肃庸政懒政怠政行为,决不允许占着位子不干事。”2016年3月5日,李克强总理向十二届全国人大四次会议作政府工作报告。他强调,各级政府及其工作人员要严格遵守宪法和法律,自觉运用法治思维和法治方式推动工作,
坚持切实处理好党的领导、人民当家做主与依法治国的关系,我们需要把握好执政党的政策与宪法、法律的关系,党的组织结构与国家机关之间的关系,坚持党的领导与公民对党的执政活动的监督之间的关系。()
某市水暖器材厂于2004年9月28日向该市城市管理监察大队申请装修该厂门面。城市管理监察大队同意该器材厂在距离厂房外墙0.3米内进行装修,但该厂超出了上述核准的装修范围。该市规划管理处发现后,认为市水暖器材厂装修门面虽经城管部门审批同意,但未经城市规划部门
汉谟拉比统治时期的措施。
Somanypeopleusethecellphonesofrequentlyeveryday.But【C1】______littleiscertainaboutthehealtheffectsofitsuse.
最新回复
(
0
)