2. 职称英语
  3. One of the obvious problems with predicting the future effects of climate ch

One of the obvious problems with predicting the future effects of climate ch

游客2024-11-21  5
问题     One of the obvious problems with predicting the future effects of climate change is that they haven’t happened. This makes climate studies highly dependent on models, which invariably and unavoidably make simplifying assumptions. This means that using their results to say anything of practical import needs care and caveats, both of which can often be in short supply, or stripped out to make a point.
    However, it is now ever more possible for studies of climate change to look at the past, not the future. The 20th century saw a fair amount of warming, and it is sometimes possible to compare what this warming did and didn’t do with what future warming might or might not do. This is what a paper published in Nature this week does in an attempt to re-examine, and perhaps close down, long-nmning debates about malaria and climate change.
    Both the malaria parasite and the mosquitoes which spread it respond to temperature and moisture. Understanding those responses makes it possible to model what changes in climate might mean to the incidence of the disease. Such models have suggested that in a warmer world the area subject to endemic malaria would increase, perhaps quite a lot, though some places would see a reduction due to increased aridity. The caveats here include noting that the climate models can make no great claims to accuracy at the regional level and that such an approach does almost nothing to deal with changes in land use, wealth and public health programs.
    One of the main thrusts of the new Nature paper is to see how much of what happened to the spread of malaria in the 20th century can be explained by what happened to the climate. The answer, according to Peter Gething of Oxford University and his colleagues, is not much. They conclude that claims that a warming climate has led to more widespread disease and death due to malaria are largely at odds with the evidence, which shows the areas effected shrinking, and the size of the effect shrinking too. Increases in the spread and severity of the disease burden foreseen over the next 40 years by the biological models are far smaller than the decreases in comparable measures seen over the past century.
    The second tack of their argument is to compare the sort of effect seen in biology-based models of where malaria might spread with both models of and data on the effects direct intervention against the disease can have. Again the effects due to climate are small, even negligible, compared with the effects that interventions have achieved already and might achieve in decades to come. The marginal areas where climate might enlarge the area at risk are also, the article argues, the areas where the greatest declines in transmission have recently been seen thanks to increased intervention.
    The conclusion is clear. People who are thinking about what to do about malaria should bear in mind that the biological basis of its distribution may change in a warmer world. Those thinking about the overall danger that climate change represents should not spend their time worrying about its impact on malaria.
    Is there a wider conclusion to draw about computer models such as those that underlay frightening statements about malaria in a climate-changed world? Perhaps: but like the models themselves, it comes with caveats.
    Scientists tend to model what can be modeled, and natural scientists, in particular, tend to prefer models that incorporate at least some aspects of the underlying processes which they are interested in, rather than working purely on empirical correlations. This means that if you search the scientific literature for approaches to the future, you will tend to find answers based on natural processes. If other knowledge suggests that natural processes aren’t the most important aspect of the problem at hand, then it’s a good idea to look at the models with that provision in the forefront of your mind.
    The other vital lesson is that the caveats matter. Pretty much every paper presenting a biology-based model of malaria’s dependence on climate contains a warning that changes in economy, technology and society matter too, and aren’t in the model. To transmit the model’s results without important caveats is reckless.
    If one is going to be optimistic about the future of malaria, one might also, with caution, be optimistic about the future of assessments of climate change, Things can, over time, get better, especially when the record of what has happened to date gets taken seriously. They will do so quicker if people accept both the usefulness and limits of models of the future, as well as the appeal of models of the past. [br] Which of the following would the author most probably agree with?
选项 A、Climate changes have nothing to do with the malaria.
B、There are scientists who do not treat the data record in an exact way.
C、Future-oriented climate studies have more advantages than the past-oriented ones.
D、Important warnings can be omitted in conclusions if considered in models.
答案 B
解析 态度题。倒数第二段第二句指出，绝大多数论文在建立疟疾传播受环境影响的生物模型时，都会附加警告：经济、科技以及社会的变化也会对模型产生影响，但是在模型中并未考虑这些因素。可见，很多科学家并没有精确地对待数据报告，故[B]正确。第三至五段，作者对原有模型下气候变化引起疟疾传播的结论提出质疑，认为该模型忽略了人为因素，但作者并未表明气候变化与疟疾之间无任何关系，故排除[A]；文章开头便指出以未来为导向的气候研究模型存在问题，并在第二段指出气候研究可以从过去出发，可见，作者并不认为前者比后者更优越，故排除[C]；本文一直强调限制性条件的重要性，因此无论是模型还是结论，限制性条件必不可少，故排除[D]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3855754.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)