Too Little for Global Warming

Oil and gas will run out¹ too fast for doomsday global warming scenarios² to materialize, according to a controversial new analysis presented this week at the University of Uppsala in Sweden. The authors warn that all the fuel will be burnt before there is enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to realize predictions of melting ice caps and searing temperatures. Defending their predictions, scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change³ say they considered a range of estimates of oil and gas reserves, and point out that coal-burning could easily make up⁴ the shortfall. But all agree that burning coal would be even worse for the planet.

The IPCC’s predictions of global meltdown pushed forward⁵ the 1997 Kyoto Protocol⁶, an agreement obliging signatory nations to cut CO2 emissions. The IPCC considered a range of future scenarios, from unlimited burning of fossil-fuels to a fast transition towards greener energy sources. But geologists Anders Sivertsson, Kjell Aleklett and Colin Campbell of Uppsala University say there is not enough oil and gas left even the most conservative of the 40 IPCC scenarios to come to pass⁷.

Although estimates of oil and gas reserves vary widely, the researchers are part of a growing group of experts who believe that oil supplies will peak as soon as 2010, and gas soon after. Their analysis suggests that oil and gas reserves combined amount to the equivalent of about 3,500 billion barrels of oil considerably less than the 5,000 billion barrels estimated in the most optimistic model envisaged by the IPCC. Even the average forecast of about 8,000 billion barrels is more than twice the Swedish estimate of the world’s remaining reserves.

Nebojsa akicenovic, an energy economist at the University of Vienna, Austria who headed the 80-strong IPCC team that produced the forecasts, says the panel’s work still stands⁸. He says they factored in⁹ a much broader and internationally accepted range of oil and gas estimates than the “conservative” Swedes.

Even if oil and gas run out. “there’s a huge amount of coal underground that could be exploited.” He says that burning coal could make the IPCC scenarios come true, but points out that such a switch would be disastrous. Coal is dirtier than oil and gas and produces more CO2 for each unit of energy, as well as releasing large amounts of particulates. He says the latest analysis is a “shot across the bows¹⁰” for policy makers.

词汇:

doomsday / ˈdu:mzdeɪ/ n. 世界末日  

signatory / ˈsɪgnətri/ adj. 签约的
carbon dioxide 二氧化碳 

envisage / ɪn"vɪzɪdʒ:l/ vt. 设想，打算采取
sear / sɪə(r)/ vt. 灼热，烧灼 

Swede / swi:d/ n.  瑞典人
shortfall / ˈʃɔ:tfɔ:l / n. 缺少，不足 

disastrous / dɪˈzɑ:strəs / adj. 灾难性的
protocol / ˈprəʊtəkɒl / n. 协议 

particulate / pɑ:ˈtɪkjələt/ n. 微粒

注释:

1. run out:被用完

2. doomsday global warming scenarios:全球变暧这一世界求末的场景。 scenarios:指“预料或期望的一系列事件的模式”，在戏剧中指“一场，一景”。

3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC):政府间气候变化专门委员会

4. make up:弥补

5. push forward:抓紧进行，推进

6. Kyoto:京都（日本本州中西部一峻市）。Kyoto Protocol:京都议定书（京都议定书是《联合国气候变化框架公约》的约定俗成的称呼。京都议定书规定，到 2010年，所有发达国家排放的二氧化碳等六种温室气体的数量，要比 1990年减少 52%。)

7. come to pass: happen, occur (发使)

8. the panel’s work still stands委员会的工作结果 (即对世界燃料的存量估算 )仍然站得住脚。

9. factor in:包括，把……计算在内，如 :They factored sick days and vacations in when they prepared the work schedule. 当他们准备工作时间表时，他们把病假和假期都包括在内。

Which of the following is the near explanation of Nakicenovic’s assertion that “.. such a switch would be disastrous..?

A:The IPCC scenarios would come true because burning coal will emit larger amounts of CO2” B:A switch to burning coal would produce disastrous environmental problems C:Oil and gas to replace coal as fuel would speed up the process of global warming D:A switch from the IPCC scenarios to the policymakers’ ones would be disastrous

若定义：float x;int a,b;，则正确的switch语句是( )。

A:switch(x) B:case1.0:cout＜＜"*"; C:case2.0:cout＜＜"**";switch(x) D:case 1.2:cout＜＜"*"; E:case 3:cout＜＜"**";switch(a+b) F:case 1.0:cout＜＜"*"; case 1+2:cout＜＜"**";switch(a+b)case 1:cout＜＜"*"; G:case 2:cout＜＜"**";

若定义：float x;int a,b;，则正确的switch语句是( )。

A:switch(x) B:switch(x) case1.0:cout＜＜"*"; case 1.2:cout＜＜"*"; case2.0:cout＜＜"**"; case 3:cout＜＜"**"; C. switch(a+b) D. switch(a+b) case 1.0:cout＜＜"*"; case 1:cout＜＜"*"; case 1+2:cout＜＜"** "; case 2:cout＜＜"**";

若a和b均是整型变量并已正确赋值，正确的switch语句是

A:switch(a+；{……} B:switch(a+b*3.0){……} C:switch a{……} D:switch(a％{……}

若a和b均是整型变量并已正确赋值，正确的switch语句是（ ）。

A:switch(a+b)；{……} B:switch(a+b*3.0){……} C:switch a{……} D:switch(a％b){……}

若a和b均是整型变量并已正确赋值，则正确的switch语句是( )。

A:switch (a+； B:switch (a+b * 3.0) {......}{.......} C:switch a D:switch(a% {......}{......}

已知：int a，b；下列switch语句中，( )是正确的。

A:switdh ( { case a: a + +；break； case b： b + +；break； } B:switch(a+ { case 1：a+b；break； case 1：a-b } C:switch(a* { case 1，2：+ +a； case 3, 4：+ +b： } D:switch(a/10+ { cases 5：a/5：break： default：a+b； }