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
72
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.
According to the passage, which of the following is NOT the result of the Long Summer?
选项
A、It is possible to grow crops.
B、Human beings have appeared.
C、Cultures have come into being.
D、It is possible for modem men to increase quickly.
答案
B
解析
此题是事实题。由第一段可知。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/MjeO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
A、America’sB、Britain’sC、Russia’sD、Japan’sC新闻中的第一句就明确提到“Russia’sorbitingMirSpaceStation...”,所以只要听到这句话就可以肯定地选择答案C。
A、HeisaChinesescientist.B、Heexperiencedseveralsetbacksinstudyinthepastdecade.C、HeaswellashisChinesecolleagu
Whethertheeyesarethewindowsofthesoulisdebatable,thattheyareintenselyimportantininterpersonalcommunicationisa
Mostpeoplecanrememberaphonenumberforuptothirtyseconds.Whenthisshortamountoftimeelapses,however,thenumbersa
WhatwasShakespeare’sfirstoriginalplaywritteninabout1590?
Thedeclineofcivilityandgoodmannersmaybeworryingpeoplemorethancrime,accordingtoGentilityRecalled,editedbyDigb
Ourtheoriesabouthumandiseasearetheproductofcurrentfashion【M1】______thanwewouldliketoadmit.Butjustasthemo
TessoftheD’UrbervillesandJudetheObscurearetworepresentativenovelswrittenby______.
AboutWetlandsintheU.S.A.Peopleenjoyafamoussoup(SHE-CRABSOUP)inNorthCarolinabecausethedaysoftheregionalso
随机试题
性格在幼儿发展中的作用主要表现在:(1)可以满足幼儿的心理需要;(2)有助于幼儿认知能力的发展;(3)有助于发展幼儿的自我意识。()
形状观察分析是指将绘制好的直方图形状与正态分布图的形状进行比较分析,一看形状是否相似,二看()。
“备案号”栏:()。“贸易方式”栏:()。
王某存入保证金10万元,在5月1日买入小麦期货合约40手(10吨/手),成交价为2000元/吨,同一天他卖出平仓20手小麦合约,成交价为2050元/吨,当日结算价为2040元/吨,交易保证金比例为5%。王某的当日盈亏(不含手续费、税金等费用)为()
海洋运输货物保险中,海上风险指的是()。
负性强化是指—个行为的发生,随着这个行为出现了刺激的移去或刺激强度的降低,导致了行为的增强。下列属于负性强化的是()。
下列关于法律解释的表述,不能成立的是()。
计算D=
在考生文件夹下,完成如下综合应用(所有控件的属性必须在表单设计器的属性窗口中设置):设计一个文件名和表单名均为myform的表单,其中有一个标签Label1(日期)、一个文本框Text1和两个命令按钮Command1("查询")和Commad2("退出"
Java语言中的浮点型数据根据数据存储长度和数值精度的不同,进一步分为float型和double型,其中double型占【】位。
最新回复
(
0
)