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
20
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.
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://jikaoti.com/ti/LApYFFFM
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
EducationalValuesLifeisratherhecticforstudentsduringthefirstweekatNorthAmericanuniversities.However,students
TheHistoryofAmericanIndiansWhenEuropeansdiscoveredtheWesternhemisphere,theydiscoveredaraceofpeople.【1】______
TheHistoryofAmericanIndiansWhenEuropeansdiscoveredtheWesternhemisphere,theydiscoveredaraceofpeople.【1】______
ResearchfindingsfromNorwegianandDanishscientistsreleasedinlate1997indicatethattheworld’sreindeerare"hot"—radi
HowtoConductEmploymentInterviewsGenerallyspeaking,thepurposeofemploymentinterviewsarethree-fold:a.tomatchac
In1969,theNationalWildlifeFederationbegantorecordanindexofenvironmentalqualitywhichmeasuresprogressordeclinei
In1969,theNationalWildlifeFederationbegantorecordanindexofenvironmentalqualitywhichmeasuresprogressordeclinei
______isregardedas"thecornerstone"ofEnglishhistorybecauseitlaiddownthebasicrulesfortheEnglishlegalsystem.
随机试题
患者,女,30岁。症见入寐困难1个月,多梦,胸闷胁胀,急躁易怒,伴头昏头胀,口干口苦,小便短赤,舌质红,舌苔黄,脉弦数。治疗宜首选
A、《中国药学文摘》B、《国际药学文摘》C、《化学文摘》D、《生物学文摘》E、《医学索引》属于周刊的是()。
对渗透系数为0.2m/d的黏性土层,若降水深度要求达到15m,单级降水一般应考虑采用()降水方法。
窗口最小化后()。
对于参与新股申购的基金,市场一般会保护其基本的权益,申购资金可以获得()。
下列费用中,属于建安工程措施项目费的有()。
在持续经营的基本假设下,会计确认、计量和报告应当以企业持续、正常的生产经营活动为前提。()
L注册会计师是M公司2006年度财务报表审计的项目负责人。抽样审查了下表所列的情况;需解答助理人员提出的相关审计抽样及抽样风险的相关问题,请代为做出专业判断.
帐篷理论:指在一定范围内,帐篷的容量不仅仅取决于篷布的面积,也取决于支撑篷布的竹竿的高度。竹竿越高,帐篷容量就越大,比喻利用核心竞争力带动其他各方面要素,最终取得竞争优势。下列不符合帐篷理论的是()。
小华正在利用Word编辑一份书稿,出版社要求目录和正文的页码分别采用不同的格式,且均从第1页开始,最优的操作方法是()
最新回复
(
0
)