The terms “global warming” and “climate change” are used by many, seemingly interchangeably. But do they really mean the same thing?
Scientists shaped the history of the terms while attempting to accurately describe how humans continue to alter the planet. Later, political strategists adopted the terms to influence public opinion.
In 1975, geochemist Wallace Broecker introduced the term “climate change” in an article published by Science. In 1979, a National Academy of Sciences report used the term “global warming” to define increases in the Earth’s average surface temperature, while “climate change” more broadly referred to the numerous effects of this increase, such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification (酸化).
During the following decades, some industrialists and politicians launched a campaign to sow doubt in the minds of the American public about the ability of fossil-fuel use, deforestation and other human activities to influence the planet’s climate.
Word use played a critical role in developing that doubt. For example, the language and polls expert Frank Luntz wrote a memo encouraging the use of “climate change” because the phrase sounded less scary than “global warming,” reported the Guardian.
However, Luntz’s recommendation wasn’t necessary. A Google Ngram Viewer chart shows that by 1993 climate change was already more commonly used in books than global warming. By the end of the next decade both words were used more frequently, and climate change was used nearly twice as often as global warming.
NASA used the term “climate change” because it more accurately reflects the wide range of changes to the planet caused by increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The debate isn’t new. A century ago, chemist Svante Arrhenius started one of the first debates over the potential for humans to influence the planet’s climate. Arrhenius calculated the capability of carbon dioxide to trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, but other chemists disagreed. Some argued that humans weren’t producing enough greenhouse gases, while others claimed the effects would be tiny. Now, of course, we know that whatever you call it, human behavior is warming the planet, with grave consequences ahead.
1. Why did politicians use the two terms “global warming” and “climate change”?A.To sway public opinion of the impact of human activities on Earth. |
B.To more accurately describe the consequences of human activities. |
C.To win more popular votes in their campaign activities. |
D.To assure the public of the safety of existing industries. |
A.it sounds less vague | B.it looks more scientific |
C.it covers more phenomena | D.it is much closer to reality |
A.Made-up survey results. |
B.Hired climate experts. |
C.False research findings. |
D.Deliberate choice of words. |
A.Global warming is the more accurate term. |
B.Accuracy of terminology matters in science. |
C.Human activities have serious effects on Earth. |
D.Politics interferes with serious scientific debate. |
相似题推荐
【推荐1】The Paris climate agreement finalised in December last year heralded a new era for climate action. For the first time, the world’s nations agreed to keep global warming well below2℃.
This is vital for climate-vulnerable nations. Fewer than 4% of countries are responsible for more than half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. In a study published in Nature Scientific Reports, we reveal just how deep this injustice runs.
Developed nations such as Australia, the United States, Canada, and European countries are essentially climate “free-riders”: causing the majority of the problems through high greenhouse gas emissions, while incurring few of the costs such as climate change’s impact on food and water. In other words, a few countries are benefiting enormously from the consumption of fossil fuels, while at the same time contributing disproportionately to the global burden of climate change.
On the flip side, there are many “forced riders”, who are suffering from the climate change impacts despite having scarcely contributed to the problem. Many of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries, the majority of which are African of small island states, produce a very small quantity of emissions. This is much like a non-smoker getting cancer from second-hand smoke, while the heavy smoker is fortunate enough to smoke in good health.
The Paris agreement has been widely hailed as a positive step forward in addressing climate change for all, although the details on addressing “climate justice” can be best described as sketchy.
The goal of keeping global temperature rise “well below”2℃ is commendable but the emissions-reduction pledges submitted by countries leading up to the Pairs talks are very unlikely to deliver on this.
More than $100 billion in funding has been put on the table for supporting developing nations to reduce emissions. However, the agreement specifies that there is no formal distinction between developed and developing nations in their responsibility to cut emissions, effectively ignoring historical emissions. There is also very little detail on who will provide the funds or, importantly, who is responsible for their provision. Securing these funds, and establishing who is responsible for raising them will also be vital for the future of climate-vulnerable countries.
The most climate-vulnerable countries in the world have contributed very little to creating the global disease from which they now suffer the most. There must urgently be a meaningful mobilisation of the polices outlined in the agreement if we are to achieve national emission reductions while helping the most vulnerable countries adapt to climate change.
And it is clearly up to the current generation of leaders from high-emitting nations to decide whether they want to be remembered as climate change tyrants or pioneers.
1. The author is critical of the Paris climate agreement because__________.A.it is unfair to those climate-vulnerable nations |
B.it aims to keep temperature rise below 2℃ only |
C.it is beneficial to only fewer than 4% of countries |
D.it burdens developed countries with the sole responsibility. |
A.They have little responsibility for public health problems. |
B.They are vulnerable to unhealthy environmental conditions. |
C.They have to bear consequences they are not responsible for. |
D.They are unaware of the potential risks they are confronting. |
A.It will motivate all nations to reduce carbon emissions. |
B.There is no final agreement on where it will come from. |
C.There is no clarification of how the money will be spent. |
D.It will effectively reduce greenhouse emissions worldwide. |
A.Encouraging high-emitting nations to take the initiative. |
B.Calling on all the nations concerned to make joint efforts. |
C.Pushing the current world leaders to come to a consensus. |
D.Putting in effect the policies in the agreement at once. |
【推荐2】Climate change has increased average temperatures by1degree Celsius over the past century, making heat waves like this one more frequent and intense than those from any other point in recorded history. As the heat soars, so does the death toll. A worldwide study published last month in the journal Nature Climate Change found global warming was responsible for 37% of heat-related deaths between 1991 and 2018. As temperatures tick ever higher, that figure may well rise.
“There’s still a lot we don’t know about heatstroke and who’s most likely to be affected by it,” Kenney said.“That’s because we can’t morally study it in humans in the laboratory. A lot of what we know comes from studies on animal models, like mice and rats, or from examinations of people who have died of heat stroke.”
We are also learning more, about how to avoid overheating. A 2019 study by University of Sydney researcher Ollie Jay found that electric fans cooled body temperatures and reduced cardiovascular (心血管的) strain in hot, humid weather. But in dry heat, fans actually increase body temperature—meaning access to air conditioning is crucial.
But the most likely assurance against dying of extreme heat is preventing the rise of global temperatures. Last year tied 2016 for the hottest ever recorded worldwide. Despite a brief drop in planet-heating emissions as the COVID-19 pandemic shuttered factories and idled cars, we’re on track to see global temperatures increase this century by about 3 degrees Celsius. Changing that trend requires rapidly and greatly reducing fossil fuel use and finding ways to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than we release. Efforts so far have not been enough. Global oil demand, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries predicted last month, will jump by 5 million barrels per day in the second half of 2022 compared with the first six months.
1. What can we know about temperature rise from paragraph 1?A.It didn’t happen until the 21st century. |
B.It is brought about by the progress of history. |
C.It will lead to more deaths if it isn’t stopped. |
D.It contributes to 37% of deaths between 1991 and 2018. |
A.Humans are too complex to study. |
B.Animal models are hard to deal with. |
C.Heat stroke happens to humans randomly. |
D.Using humans as subjects for lab experiments is immoral. |
A.By banning fossil fuel use. |
B.By using more air conditioners. |
C.By reducing carbon in the atmosphere. |
D.By containing the COVID-19 pandemic. |
A.Fruitless. | B.Improper. | C.Inadequate. | D.Unexpected. |
【推荐3】Tropical(热带的)birds deep in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest are shrinking as the world’s climate changes. Researchers studied data for 77 tropical bird species over the past 40 years and found that all of them had lost body mass, with some species losing nearly 2% of their weight per decade.
A 2019 study of birds that had crashed into buildings in Chicago, Illinois, found that they’d lost mass over a 40—year period, but those species were migratory(迁徙的). However, why the birds changed in that way was unknown. Therefore, researchers decided to examine the records of 15, 000 non-migratory birds living in a rainforest within a few hours’ drive from Manaus in Brazil.
The average temperature of the birds’ habitat is 1℃ warmer in the wet season and 1. 65℃ warmer in the dry season compared with that in 40 years ago. What’s more, 13% more rain falls in the wet season and 15% less in the dry season. The birds have lost mass more sharply following extremely dry or wet seasons. This could be a short-term response to changes in their environment, such as a lack of rainfall causing a decline in the number of insects that the birds feed on.
“Mass is a generally good indication of body condition in birds, says Vitek Jirinec at the Integral Ecology Research Center in California, who led the study. "If they’re simply not getting enough to eat, you’d expect them to lose weight.”
Birds of the same species are generally larger at higher latitudes. The leading theory is that their smaller surface — area — to — volume ratio(表面积和体积比)allows them to better conserve heat. The opposite would help smaller species in hot climates to cool and could explain why birds are getting smaller as the climate warms, says Jirinec.
The marked physical change during just four decades show why stopping destroying trees alone won’t prevent the ongoing extinctions of animal species across the world, says Camila Gomez, a scientist who studies evolutionary changes in birds. "This study also shows how human-caused changes in climate are contributing to observed population declines in tropical birds," says Gomez.
1. Why did the researchers study the non-migratory birds?A.To make the conclusion of the 2019 study. |
B.To prepare them for their future migration. |
C.To find the reason for their physical change. |
D.To seek a way to save the Amazon rainforest. |
A.High temperatures are rarely seen. | B.It seems much drier in wet seasons. |
C.Weather patterns get more extreme. | D.Rainfall is increased in dry seasons, |
A.It enables them to hide easily. | B.It makes them feel less cold. |
C.It keeps them in good shape. | D.It helps them lose extra heat. |
A.Global Warming Leads to Population Declines in Birds |
B.Climate Change Is Causing Some Birds to Lose Weight |
C.Tropical Birds Are Struggling to Survive Dry Climates |
D.Migratory Birds Are Experiencing Big Physical Changes |
A.It also gives us energy. |
B.It does not take place quickly. |
C.Where does digestion take place? |
D.Does the food also give us much strength? |
E.Digestion breaks down large pieces of food into smaller pieces. |
F.These organs are not part of the digestive tract, but they help in digestion. |
G.Although they don't belong to the digestive tract, they help us fight diseases. |
【推荐2】What can you expect when you travel across the UK border? What must you do if you want to travel to the UK? The information here is for all travelers, including the UK Passport holders, residents and short-term visitors.
If you are making a short-term visit to the UK, the sections on visitors’ rights and responsibilities will tell you whether you can do business while you are here, what medical treatment is available to you, and whether you will register with the police.
Section 1: Customs
This section explains what you can bring into the UK, and how to go through customs control at the UK border.
Section 2: Before You Travel
This section explains who needs to apply for permission before travelling to the UK, why we collect information on passengers before they travel to the UK, and the requirements for general airline operators and pilots who want to travel to the UK.
Section 3: Enter the UK
This section explains what happens when you arrive at our border, how to use our IRIS system to enter the UK quickly, and what happens if you are refused to enter it.
Section 4: Transit through the UK
This section explains how you can pass through the UK, when travelling on to another country, describes the “transit without visa” permission and the direct air side visa, and tells you which document you will need.
This page is for visitors to consult and learn about countries around the world. Loads of travel guides can be clicked here!
1. What does Section 1 tell the visitors to the UK?A.British custom and culture. |
B.Information about the UK visa. |
C.Requests that are made by general pilots. |
D.Some items that can be taken with them. |
A.Section 1. | B.Section 2. | C.Section 3. | D.Section 4. |
A.Tourist attractions. | B.Guidelines. |
C.Places to register. | D.Ways to get the passport. |
【推荐3】Too much stress can make it more likely for a person to get sick, and so scientists are trying to think of ways to keep people from being overly stressed. In this experiment, scientists studied the effect of music on stress.
Scientists asked women to either listen to relaxing music, nature sounds, or to nothing. Following the music session, they had the women stand in front of an audience and perform two tasks. First, each woman had to give a speech. Second, each woman had to do complex math in her head. These two tasks make up the Trier Social Stress Task, a method scientists use as a sure-fire way to make people feel stressed.
Scientists know that the body responds to stress by releasing cortisol (皮质醇), and so they used it to measure stress. Scientists compared cortisol levels after listening to music and at various times after doing the Trier Social Stress Task. The scientists also measured an enzyme (酶) called alpha-amylase. Alpha-amylase is important to your body as it kills unwanted bacteria and it helps break down the food that you eat. Alpha-amylase is also released by the nervous system in response to stress.
The scientists tested how classical music and nature sounds affect levels of cortisol and alpha-amylase. The alpha-amylase levels of people who listened to classical music went back to normal more quickly compared to the people listening to nature sounds.
The people listening to relaxing music showed a stress response that was shorter compared to the other groups. The shorter response helps to prevent the body from getting worn out. This means that listening to relaxing music might help to improve the stress response and health.
The results of this study were a bit mixed. Scientists still have a lot of work to do to see if listening to music can reduce stress by lowering cortisol levels in the body. Until we know more, maybe play some tunes or listen to some nature sounds when you feel stressed. Even if it doesn't directly help your stress level, it's still nice to hear a good song.
1. Why were the participants asked to do make speeches and do math?A.To attract more audience. | B.To let them create music. |
C.To explore their brains. | D.To get them stressed. |
A.They broke down the food they ate. |
B.They measured their cortisol levels. |
C.They helped them kill body bacteria. |
D.They calmed them down with music. |
A.Classical music helps to prohibit alpha-amylase. |
B.Nature sounds prevent the body getting worn out. |
C.Relaxing music helps the body clam down faster. |
D.Listening to nature sounds gets cortisol levels higher. |
A.Does Listening to Music Reduce Stress? |
B.What Should We Do to Become Relaxed? |
C.Can Classical Music Beat Nature Sounds? |
D.Why Can Music Influence People's Health? |