0


气候预测中的不确定性:原因、程度和政策含义

Uncertainties in Climate Forecasts: Causes, Magnitudes and Policy Implications
课程网址: http://videolectures.net/mitworld_schneider_ucf/  
主讲教师: Stephen Schneider
开课单位: 斯坦福大学
开课时间: 2013-03-27
课程语种: 英语
中文简介:
作为正在进行的政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)的主要研究人员之一,Stephen Schneider为科学家在气候变化讨论中的适当权限做出了巨大努力。他提醒政策制定者,科学家不能判定什么是全球气温危险上升的原因。“决定什么是危险的并不是科学家的判断。”他必须为这些讨论列出精确的术语,并提供各种(大多是令人沮丧的)预测所依据的模型。 全球讨论的核心是有争议的问题,即什么样的气温上升构成“危险的人为干扰”(DAI,联合国简写)以及在什么样的时间范围内。施耐德指出,没有一个阈值低于这个阈值我们就可以了,超过这个阈值我们就不好了。“当一些物种濒临灭绝时,我们已经过了临界点。”而且,“将发生的损害是高度不同的:北极海冰融化可能会使渔业每年节省5000万美元,因为它们拥有更短的航线,但这将破坏因纽特人5000多年来建立的文化,或者破坏北极熊的生态系统。你如何衡量这些可比的货币指标?” 在过去10年左右的时间里,施耐德和其他科学家试图为这些问题提供越来越复杂的答案,不仅运行了数千个气候模型,而且将气候急剧变化的风险视为替代政策选择的函数。如果全球大气中的二氧化碳含量比工业化前增加一倍,比如说达到百万分之550,到2100年气温会是多少,这对不同地区、经济、社会会产生怎样的影响?最新的IPPC评估显示,我们可以预期气温上升1.1-6.4摄氏度。决策者,本质上是风险管理者,很难接受这样一个不确定的预测,施耐德说,但最好的办法是在不同的情况下提供不同温度范围的可能性。 施耐德发现的一个最有用的工具是麻省理工学院的温室赌博轮盘赌,它描绘了如果世界决定花费数万亿美元将碳排放量稳定在550ppm(百万分之一),或者像往常一样从事商业活动,气温可能会升高。有了合理的全球政策,最有可能的结果是气温上升不超过1.5摄氏度。如果没有政策,预计气温会上升2-2.5摄氏度。“你宁愿在哪个世界?施耐德问道。 报错 笔记拼音 双语对照 排序 重点词汇 重点词汇 one of …之一 map out 设计 ; 计划 ; 规划 ; 安排 increase in 在…方面增长 lay out 铺开,展开,摊开 ; 阐述 ; 讲解 ; 说明 ; 规划,布置,设计 ; 花 what kind of 哪种 ; 哪一种 ; 什么样的 rise in temperature 温度的升高 what kind 何等 time frame 一段时间 英语阅读看不懂?手机取词,拍照秒现翻译
课程简介: As one of the lead researchers in the ongoing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which informs the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Stephen Schneider has labored mightily to map out the appropriate purview for scientists in climate change discussions. He reminds policy makers that scientists can’t decree what constitutes a perilous increase in global temperatures. “It’s not a scientist’s judgment to decide what’s dangerous.” He must lay out precise terminology for these discussions, and provide the models on which the various (mostly dismal) forecasts are based. At the heart of the global discussion lie the contentious issues of what kind of rise in temperature constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference,” (DAI, in U.N. shorthand) and over what kind of time frame. Schneider notes that there is no threshold below which we’re OK, and above which we’re not. “We’ve already passed the threshold when some species are driven to extinction.” Also, the “damages that will occur are highly differential: melting Arctic sea ice will probably save the fishing industry $50 million a year in having shorter routes, but it will wreck the culture of the Inuits, established over 5,000 years, or destroy the polar bear ecosystem. How do you weigh those in comparable monetary metrics?” In successive passes over the last decade or so, Schneider and other scientists have attempted to provide increasingly sophisticated answers to these questions, not only running thousands of climate models but looking at the risk of drastic climate change as a function of alternative policy choices. If the world doubles the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over pre-industrial levels, say to 550 parts per million, what will temperatures be by 2100, and how will that impact different regions, economies, societies? The latest IPPC assessment shows that we can expect a temperature increase of anywhere from 1.1-6.4 degrees C. Decision makers, who are essentially risk managers, have difficulty accepting such an uncertain forecast, says Schneider, but the best that can be accomplished is to provide the likelihoods of different temperature ranges in varying scenarios. One of the most useful devices Schneider has found for illustrating this way of thinking is MIT’s Greenhouse Gamble roulette wheel, which depicts possible temperature increases should the world decide to spend the trillions of dollars necessary to stabilize carbon emissions at 550 ppm -- or pursue business as usual. With a rational global policy in place, the most likely outcome is an increase of no more than 1.5 degrees C. With no policy, expect a 2- 2.5 degree increase. “Which world would you rather be on?” asks Schneider.
关 键 词: 气候预测; 不确定性; 环境
课程来源: 视频讲座网
数据采集: 2020-11-26:yxd
最后编审: 2020-11-26:yxd
阅读次数: 43