- 浏览: 169047 次
- 性别:
- 来自: 杭州
最新评论
-
fair_jm:
谢谢lz的文章 例子举得通俗易懂 很有启发 ^_^
[erlang入门学习] erlang中的二进制数据处理 -
头疼项目:
wahte?
rails不支持bigint类型的mysql主键 -
头疼项目:
[color=blue][/color]
rails不支持bigint类型的mysql主键 -
xiangchao027:
我能明白,因为太嫉妒了!
rails 3 下面编写项目模板 -
ruby_windy:
我开了代理解决:linux下使用 export http_pr ...
[Ruby新手教学] 要有中国特色
【按:工作忙,没有时间写技术文章,等几天补上。最近一段时间周围很多人对气候和环境问题产生了困惑,正好新语丝上发了一个文章,我认为它可以代表气候方面的学术界主流意见,有权威性,且没有政治色彩,故此全文转贴,以免大家要翻出去看】
原文地址:http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia11/qihoubianhua.txt
◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys4.dxiong.com)(www.xinyusi.info)(xys2.dropin.org)◇◇
255名美国科学院院士关于气候变化与科学完整性的公开信
载于《科学》2010年5月7日
(方舟子翻译)
最近一段时间以来对全体科学家、特别是气候科学家的政治攻击愈演愈烈,
这让我们深感不安。所有的公民都应该了解一些基本的科学事实。科学结论总会
有某些不确定性;科学永远不绝对地证明任何事情。当有人说社会应该等到科学
家能绝对地肯定时再采取行动,这等于说社会永远不采取行动。对像气候变化这
样的可能造成大灾难的问题来说,不采取行动会让我们的星球冒着危险。科学结
论从对基本定律的理解推导而来,受到实验室实验、自然界的观察以及数学和计
算机建模的支持。科学家像所有的人一样会犯错误,但是科学过程被设计了寻找
并改正错误。这个过程本质上具有对抗性质——科学家享有声誉和获得认可,不
仅是由于支持传统的学识,更是由于证明科学共识是错误的,存在着更好的解释。
那正是伽利略、巴斯德、达尔文和爱因斯坦曾经做过的。但是当某些结论已经过
全面和深入的检验、质疑和检查,它们就获得了“充分确立的理论”的地位,常
常被称为“事实”。
例如,有确凿的科学证据表明我们的星球的年龄大约是45亿年(地球起源理
论),我们的宇宙是在大约140亿年前的一次事件中诞生的(大爆炸理论),今
天的生物都是从生活在过去的生物进化来的(进化论)。即使是这些被科学界普
遍接受的理论,如果有人能够显示它们是错误的,仍然能够一举成名。气候变化
现在已归到了这个范畴:有确凿、全面、一致的客观证据表明人类正在改变气候,
因此威胁着我们的社会和我们赖以生存的生态系统。
否定气候变化的人士最近对气候科学,以及更令人不安地,对气候科学家的
许多攻击,一般是由特殊利益或教条驱使的,而不是诚实地努力提供一个能令人
信服地满足证据的另类理论。联合国政府间气候变化委员会(IPCC)和对气候变
化的其他科学评估,有数千名科学家参与,产生了大量和全面的报告,也产生了
一些错误,这是不出意料和很正常的。在错误被指出之后,就得到了改正。但是
最近的这些事件丝毫没有改变有关气候变化的根本结论:
(1)由于大气层中温室气体浓度的增加,地球正在变暖。华盛顿一个多雪
的冬天并不能改变这个事实。
(2)在过去的一个世纪这些气体浓度的增加大多是由于人类活动引起的,
特别是由于燃烧化石燃料和砍伐森林。
(3)自然因素一直对地球气候变化有影响,但是在现在人类导致的变化影
响更大。
(4)地球变暖将会导致许多其他气候模式的变化,其变化速度在现代是前
所未有的,包括海平面上升的速度和水循环的速度都越来越快。二氧化碳浓度的
增加正在让海洋变得更酸性。
(5)这些复杂的气候变化合在一起威胁着海岸社区和城市、食物和水供应、
海洋和淡水生态系统、森林、高山环境等等。
世界科学团体、国家科学院和个人能够说的和已经说的要多得多,但是以上
这些结论应该已足以表明为什么科学家担心后代将要面临的状况,如果人类所作
所为一切照常的话。我们呼吁决策者和公众立即着手解决引起气候变化的问题,
包括不受约束地燃烧化石燃料。
我们也呼吁,停止据于含沙射影和株连对我们的同事提出犯罪指控的麦卡锡
式威胁,政治家为了避免采取行动借助骚扰科学家来分散注意力,以及散播关于
科学家的赤裸裸谎言。社会有两种选择:我们可以无视科学,把头埋在沙中并希
望我们有好运,或者我们可以为了公共利益行动起来,迅速和真正地减少全球气
候变化的威胁。好消息是,聪明和有效的行动是可能的。但是拖延不可以是一种
选择。
Science 7 May 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5979, pp. 689 - 690
DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5979.689
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
LETTERS
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults
on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All
citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is
always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions;
science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that
society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before
taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take
action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change,
taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws
supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and
mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists
make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and
correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build
reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional
wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific
consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what
Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions
have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they
gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of
as "facts."
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet
is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth),
that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years
ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from
ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are
overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits
anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now
falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and
consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in
ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on
climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by
special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an
alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific
assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists
producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly
and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they
are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent
events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of
heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington
does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the
last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of
fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate,
but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to
change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing
rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle.
Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more
acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal
communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and
freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far
more.
Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific
societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions
should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what
future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge
our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to
address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained
burning of fossil fuels.
We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal
prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by
association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking
distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being
spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science
and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in
the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change
quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective
actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.
P. H. Gleick,* R. M. Adams, R. M. Amasino, E. Anders, D. J. Anderson, W.
W. Anderson, L. E. Anselin, M. K. Arroyo, B. Asfaw, F. J. Ayala, A. Bax,
A. J. Bebbington, G. Bell, M. V. L. Bennett, J. L. Bennetzen, M. R.
Berenbaum, O. B. Berlin, P. J. Bjorkman, E. Blackburn, J. E. Blamont, M.
R. Botchan, J. S. Boyer, E. A. Boyle, D. Branton, S. P. Briggs, W. R.
Briggs, W. J. Brill, R. J. Britten, W. S. Broecker, J. H. Brown, P. O.
Brown, A. T. Brunger, J. Cairns, Jr., D. E. Canfield, S. R. Carpenter,
J. C. Carrington, A. R. Cashmore, J. C. Castilla, A. Cazenave, F. S.
Chapin, III, A. J. Ciechanover, D. E. Clapham, W. C. Clark, R. N.
Clayton, M. D. Coe, E. M. Conwell, E. B. Cowling, R. M Cowling, C. S.
Cox, R. B. Croteau, D. M. Crothers, P. J. Crutzen, G. C. Daily, G. B.
Dalrymple, J. L. Dangl, S. A. Darst, D. R. Davies, M. B. Davis, P. V.
de Camilli, C. Dean, R. S. Defries, J. Deisenhofer, D. P. Delmer, E. F.
Delong, D. J. Derosier, T. O. Diener, R. Dirzo, J. E. Dixon, M. J.
Donoghue, R. F. Doolittle, T. Dunne, P. R. Ehrlich, S. N. Eisenstadt, T.
Eisner, K. A. Emanuel, S. W. Englander, W. G. Ernst, P. G. Falkowski, G.
Feher, J. A. Ferejohn, A. Fersht, E. H. Fischer, R. Fischer, K. V.
Flannery, J. Frank, P. A. Frey, I. Fridovich, C. Frieden, D. J. Futuyma,
W. R. Gardner, C. J. R. Garrett, W. Gilbert, R. B. Goldberg, W. H.
Goodenough, C. S. Goodman, M. Goodman, P. Greengard, S. Hake, G. Hammel,
S. Hanson, S. C. Harrison, S. R. Hart, D. L. Hartl, R. Haselkorn, K.
Hawkes, J. M. Hayes, B. Hille, T. H?kfelt, J. S. House, M. Hout, D. M.
Hunten, I. A. Izquierdo, A. T. Jagendorf, D. H. Janzen, R. Jeanloz, C.
S. Jencks, W. A. Jury, H. R. Kaback, T. Kailath, P. Kay, S. A. Kay, D.
Kennedy, A. Kerr, R. C. Kessler, G. S. Khush, S. W. Kieffer, P. V.
Kirch, K. Kirk, M. G. Kivelson, J. P. Klinman, A. Klug, L. Knopoff, H.
Kornberg, J. E. Kutzbach, J. C. Lagarias, K. Lambeck, A. Landy, C. H.
Langmuir, B. A. Larkins, X. T. Le Pichon, R. E. Lenski, E. B. Leopold,
S. A. Levin, M. Levitt, G. E. Likens, J. Lippincott-Schwartz, L. Lorand,
C. O. Lovejoy, M. Lynch, A. L. Mabogunje, T. F. Malone, S. Manabe, J.
Marcus, D. S. Massey, J. C. McWilliams, E. Medina, H. J. Melosh, D. J.
Meltzer, C. D. Michener, E. L. Miles, H. A. Mooney, P. B. Moore, F. M.
M. Morel, E. S. Mosley-Thompson, B. Moss, W. H. Munk, N. Myers, G. B.
Nair, J. Nathans, E. W. Nester, R. A. Nicoll, R. P. Novick, J. F.
O'Connell, P. E. Olsen, N. D. Opdyke, G. F. Oster, E. Ostrom, N. R.
Pace, R. T. Paine, R. D. Palmiter, J. Pedlosky, G. A. Petsko, G. H.
Pettengill, S. G. Philander, D. R. Piperno, T. D. Pollard, P. B. Price,
Jr., P. A. Reichard, B. F. Reskin, R. E. Ricklefs, R. L. Rivest, J. D.
Roberts, A. K. Romney, M. G. Rossmann, D. W. Russell, W. J. Rutter, J.
A. Sabloff, R. Z. Sagdeev, M. D. Sahlins, A. Salmond, J. R. Sanes, R.
Schekman, J. Schellnhuber, D. W. Schindler, J. Schmitt, S. H. Schneider,
V. L. Schramm, R. R. Sederoff, C. J. Shatz, F. Sherman, R. L. Sidman, K.
Sieh, E. L. Simons, B. H. Singer, M. F. Singer, B. Skyrms, N. H. Sleep,
B. D. Smith, S. H. Snyder, R. R. Sokal, C. S. Spencer, T. A. Steitz, K.
B. Strier, T. C. Südhof, S. S. Taylor, J. Terborgh, D. H. Thomas, L. G.
Thompson, R. T. TJian, M. G. Turner, S. Uyeda, J. W. Valentine, J. S.
Valentine, J. L. van Etten, K. E. van Holde, M. Vaughan, S. Verba, P. H.
von Hippel, D. B. Wake, A. Walker, J. E. Walker, E. B. Watson, P. J.
Watson, D. Weigel, S. R. Wessler, M. J. West-Eberhard, T. D. White, W.
J. Wilson, R. V. Wolfenden, J. A. Wood, G. M. Woodwell, H. E. Wright,
Jr., C. Wu, C. Wunsch, M. L. Zoback
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
petergleick@pacinst.org
Notes
1. The signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences but are not speaking on its behalf.
2. Signatory affiliations are available as supporting material at
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689/DC1.
(XYS20100509)
◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys4.dxiong.com)(www.xinyusi.info)(xys2.dropin.org)◇◇
原文地址:http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia11/qihoubianhua.txt
◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys4.dxiong.com)(www.xinyusi.info)(xys2.dropin.org)◇◇
255名美国科学院院士关于气候变化与科学完整性的公开信
载于《科学》2010年5月7日
(方舟子翻译)
最近一段时间以来对全体科学家、特别是气候科学家的政治攻击愈演愈烈,
这让我们深感不安。所有的公民都应该了解一些基本的科学事实。科学结论总会
有某些不确定性;科学永远不绝对地证明任何事情。当有人说社会应该等到科学
家能绝对地肯定时再采取行动,这等于说社会永远不采取行动。对像气候变化这
样的可能造成大灾难的问题来说,不采取行动会让我们的星球冒着危险。科学结
论从对基本定律的理解推导而来,受到实验室实验、自然界的观察以及数学和计
算机建模的支持。科学家像所有的人一样会犯错误,但是科学过程被设计了寻找
并改正错误。这个过程本质上具有对抗性质——科学家享有声誉和获得认可,不
仅是由于支持传统的学识,更是由于证明科学共识是错误的,存在着更好的解释。
那正是伽利略、巴斯德、达尔文和爱因斯坦曾经做过的。但是当某些结论已经过
全面和深入的检验、质疑和检查,它们就获得了“充分确立的理论”的地位,常
常被称为“事实”。
例如,有确凿的科学证据表明我们的星球的年龄大约是45亿年(地球起源理
论),我们的宇宙是在大约140亿年前的一次事件中诞生的(大爆炸理论),今
天的生物都是从生活在过去的生物进化来的(进化论)。即使是这些被科学界普
遍接受的理论,如果有人能够显示它们是错误的,仍然能够一举成名。气候变化
现在已归到了这个范畴:有确凿、全面、一致的客观证据表明人类正在改变气候,
因此威胁着我们的社会和我们赖以生存的生态系统。
否定气候变化的人士最近对气候科学,以及更令人不安地,对气候科学家的
许多攻击,一般是由特殊利益或教条驱使的,而不是诚实地努力提供一个能令人
信服地满足证据的另类理论。联合国政府间气候变化委员会(IPCC)和对气候变
化的其他科学评估,有数千名科学家参与,产生了大量和全面的报告,也产生了
一些错误,这是不出意料和很正常的。在错误被指出之后,就得到了改正。但是
最近的这些事件丝毫没有改变有关气候变化的根本结论:
(1)由于大气层中温室气体浓度的增加,地球正在变暖。华盛顿一个多雪
的冬天并不能改变这个事实。
(2)在过去的一个世纪这些气体浓度的增加大多是由于人类活动引起的,
特别是由于燃烧化石燃料和砍伐森林。
(3)自然因素一直对地球气候变化有影响,但是在现在人类导致的变化影
响更大。
(4)地球变暖将会导致许多其他气候模式的变化,其变化速度在现代是前
所未有的,包括海平面上升的速度和水循环的速度都越来越快。二氧化碳浓度的
增加正在让海洋变得更酸性。
(5)这些复杂的气候变化合在一起威胁着海岸社区和城市、食物和水供应、
海洋和淡水生态系统、森林、高山环境等等。
世界科学团体、国家科学院和个人能够说的和已经说的要多得多,但是以上
这些结论应该已足以表明为什么科学家担心后代将要面临的状况,如果人类所作
所为一切照常的话。我们呼吁决策者和公众立即着手解决引起气候变化的问题,
包括不受约束地燃烧化石燃料。
我们也呼吁,停止据于含沙射影和株连对我们的同事提出犯罪指控的麦卡锡
式威胁,政治家为了避免采取行动借助骚扰科学家来分散注意力,以及散播关于
科学家的赤裸裸谎言。社会有两种选择:我们可以无视科学,把头埋在沙中并希
望我们有好运,或者我们可以为了公共利益行动起来,迅速和真正地减少全球气
候变化的威胁。好消息是,聪明和有效的行动是可能的。但是拖延不可以是一种
选择。
Science 7 May 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5979, pp. 689 - 690
DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5979.689
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
LETTERS
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults
on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All
citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is
always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions;
science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that
society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before
taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take
action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change,
taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws
supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and
mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists
make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and
correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build
reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional
wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific
consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what
Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions
have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they
gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of
as "facts."
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet
is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth),
that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years
ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from
ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are
overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits
anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now
falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and
consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in
ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on
climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by
special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an
alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific
assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists
producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly
and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they
are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent
events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of
heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington
does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the
last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of
fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate,
but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to
change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing
rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle.
Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more
acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal
communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and
freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far
more.
Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific
societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions
should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what
future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge
our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to
address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained
burning of fossil fuels.
We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal
prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by
association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking
distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being
spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science
and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in
the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change
quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective
actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.
P. H. Gleick,* R. M. Adams, R. M. Amasino, E. Anders, D. J. Anderson, W.
W. Anderson, L. E. Anselin, M. K. Arroyo, B. Asfaw, F. J. Ayala, A. Bax,
A. J. Bebbington, G. Bell, M. V. L. Bennett, J. L. Bennetzen, M. R.
Berenbaum, O. B. Berlin, P. J. Bjorkman, E. Blackburn, J. E. Blamont, M.
R. Botchan, J. S. Boyer, E. A. Boyle, D. Branton, S. P. Briggs, W. R.
Briggs, W. J. Brill, R. J. Britten, W. S. Broecker, J. H. Brown, P. O.
Brown, A. T. Brunger, J. Cairns, Jr., D. E. Canfield, S. R. Carpenter,
J. C. Carrington, A. R. Cashmore, J. C. Castilla, A. Cazenave, F. S.
Chapin, III, A. J. Ciechanover, D. E. Clapham, W. C. Clark, R. N.
Clayton, M. D. Coe, E. M. Conwell, E. B. Cowling, R. M Cowling, C. S.
Cox, R. B. Croteau, D. M. Crothers, P. J. Crutzen, G. C. Daily, G. B.
Dalrymple, J. L. Dangl, S. A. Darst, D. R. Davies, M. B. Davis, P. V.
de Camilli, C. Dean, R. S. Defries, J. Deisenhofer, D. P. Delmer, E. F.
Delong, D. J. Derosier, T. O. Diener, R. Dirzo, J. E. Dixon, M. J.
Donoghue, R. F. Doolittle, T. Dunne, P. R. Ehrlich, S. N. Eisenstadt, T.
Eisner, K. A. Emanuel, S. W. Englander, W. G. Ernst, P. G. Falkowski, G.
Feher, J. A. Ferejohn, A. Fersht, E. H. Fischer, R. Fischer, K. V.
Flannery, J. Frank, P. A. Frey, I. Fridovich, C. Frieden, D. J. Futuyma,
W. R. Gardner, C. J. R. Garrett, W. Gilbert, R. B. Goldberg, W. H.
Goodenough, C. S. Goodman, M. Goodman, P. Greengard, S. Hake, G. Hammel,
S. Hanson, S. C. Harrison, S. R. Hart, D. L. Hartl, R. Haselkorn, K.
Hawkes, J. M. Hayes, B. Hille, T. H?kfelt, J. S. House, M. Hout, D. M.
Hunten, I. A. Izquierdo, A. T. Jagendorf, D. H. Janzen, R. Jeanloz, C.
S. Jencks, W. A. Jury, H. R. Kaback, T. Kailath, P. Kay, S. A. Kay, D.
Kennedy, A. Kerr, R. C. Kessler, G. S. Khush, S. W. Kieffer, P. V.
Kirch, K. Kirk, M. G. Kivelson, J. P. Klinman, A. Klug, L. Knopoff, H.
Kornberg, J. E. Kutzbach, J. C. Lagarias, K. Lambeck, A. Landy, C. H.
Langmuir, B. A. Larkins, X. T. Le Pichon, R. E. Lenski, E. B. Leopold,
S. A. Levin, M. Levitt, G. E. Likens, J. Lippincott-Schwartz, L. Lorand,
C. O. Lovejoy, M. Lynch, A. L. Mabogunje, T. F. Malone, S. Manabe, J.
Marcus, D. S. Massey, J. C. McWilliams, E. Medina, H. J. Melosh, D. J.
Meltzer, C. D. Michener, E. L. Miles, H. A. Mooney, P. B. Moore, F. M.
M. Morel, E. S. Mosley-Thompson, B. Moss, W. H. Munk, N. Myers, G. B.
Nair, J. Nathans, E. W. Nester, R. A. Nicoll, R. P. Novick, J. F.
O'Connell, P. E. Olsen, N. D. Opdyke, G. F. Oster, E. Ostrom, N. R.
Pace, R. T. Paine, R. D. Palmiter, J. Pedlosky, G. A. Petsko, G. H.
Pettengill, S. G. Philander, D. R. Piperno, T. D. Pollard, P. B. Price,
Jr., P. A. Reichard, B. F. Reskin, R. E. Ricklefs, R. L. Rivest, J. D.
Roberts, A. K. Romney, M. G. Rossmann, D. W. Russell, W. J. Rutter, J.
A. Sabloff, R. Z. Sagdeev, M. D. Sahlins, A. Salmond, J. R. Sanes, R.
Schekman, J. Schellnhuber, D. W. Schindler, J. Schmitt, S. H. Schneider,
V. L. Schramm, R. R. Sederoff, C. J. Shatz, F. Sherman, R. L. Sidman, K.
Sieh, E. L. Simons, B. H. Singer, M. F. Singer, B. Skyrms, N. H. Sleep,
B. D. Smith, S. H. Snyder, R. R. Sokal, C. S. Spencer, T. A. Steitz, K.
B. Strier, T. C. Südhof, S. S. Taylor, J. Terborgh, D. H. Thomas, L. G.
Thompson, R. T. TJian, M. G. Turner, S. Uyeda, J. W. Valentine, J. S.
Valentine, J. L. van Etten, K. E. van Holde, M. Vaughan, S. Verba, P. H.
von Hippel, D. B. Wake, A. Walker, J. E. Walker, E. B. Watson, P. J.
Watson, D. Weigel, S. R. Wessler, M. J. West-Eberhard, T. D. White, W.
J. Wilson, R. V. Wolfenden, J. A. Wood, G. M. Woodwell, H. E. Wright,
Jr., C. Wu, C. Wunsch, M. L. Zoback
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
petergleick@pacinst.org
Notes
1. The signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences but are not speaking on its behalf.
2. Signatory affiliations are available as supporting material at
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689/DC1.
(XYS20100509)
◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys4.dxiong.com)(www.xinyusi.info)(xys2.dropin.org)◇◇
发表评论
-
公民课 - 学会讲道理
2011-11-20 23:54 99[按:这是从一五一十部 ... -
[Ruby新手教学] 要有中国特色
2011-07-13 15:54 4323今天部署一个系统,发现不能获取gem包,于是看看怎么回事 ... -
民主与自由
2007-11-28 23:21 78最近一直很忙,今天偶 ... -
从“中国传统师生伦理”说起
2007-09-24 00:32 1671余秋雨先生的一篇博客 ... -
我是左派还是右派?
2007-08-11 14:48 1274http://blog.farmostwood.net/pol ... -
虐狗以及其它
2007-06-22 08:23 1301朋友的博客上有“易叔 ... -
知识分子与理想主义
2007-06-21 21:42 1105以前看过《往事并不如烟》,当时有些意外,对那些知识分子在不同的 ... -
一道概率题
2007-06-12 17:10 1950最近土摩托那儿在讨论概率论,引起了很多人的兴趣,一时间大家都在 ... -
一点疑惑
2007-06-12 17:39 1110最近在看一部网络小说──《从零开始》,内容谈不上很牛,YY而已 ... -
金色的盾牌永远闪耀!!!
2007-06-08 20:30 901实在怕被过滤,所以起 ...
相关推荐
【标题】"美国科学院院士教你写论文"的讨论主要集中在如何有效地撰写科研论文,并符合国际学术期刊,如SCI和EI的发表要求。这通常涉及到深入理解科学研究方法、论文结构、逻辑论述以及清晰的表达。 【描述】提到的...
该篇文章是美国科学院院士细致的讲解如何写学术论文,对于知道我们研究生的论文写作很有帮助,不是泛泛而谈,而是很有针对性,可操作性好,看后受益匪浅。
丘成桐院士还提到了基础研究的重要性。他指出,基础研究是发展前沿科技的关键,它涉及到对未知的探索和创新思想的实践。在人工智能领域,基础研究不仅需要理论数学的支撑,更需要应用数学,即如何将数学理论转化为...
从给定的文件信息来看,这是一本名为《美国院士教你写论文》的PDF电子书,主要围绕如何撰写高质量学术论文展开,分享了撰写过程中的关键技巧和策略。以下是对该书中涉及的重要知识点的详细总结: ### 论文写作结构...
美国国家科学院(NAS)发布《数字孪生的基础研究差距和未来方向》报告,旨在向科研界、学术界、相关政府机构、数字孪生从业者以及相关行业人士介绍关于推进数字孪生的开放需求和需要克服的基础性差距。报告探讨了...
编码技巧进阶,五级工程师,美国工程院院士杰夫迪恩
随着地观测技术的发展,其在气候科学研究中的应用越来越广泛。例如: - **气候变化的影响评估**:通过长时间序列的数据分析,科学家们能够更好地理解气候变化对生态系统可持续性和经济生产力的影响。 - **土地覆盖...
3. **环境科学**:气候变化、可持续能源、生物多样性丧失等环境问题始终是关注焦点。合集可能包括了科学家们对于环境保护策略的讨论,以及应对全球变暖的创新技术。 4. **物理学**:可能涵盖引力波探测的最新进展,...
根据给定文件的信息,我们可以提炼出关于“机器学习应用于气候科学”的相关知识点: ### 一、机器学习在气候科学中的重要性 随着全球气候变化日益受到关注,如何利用现代信息技术手段来更好地理解和预测气候变化...
美国科学院报告材料科学发展前沿,材料类最新的科研资料,有化学物理制备方法。
越来越需要量化温度升高和气候变化对作物产量的影响,并在更精细的规模上评估影响,以便可以制定与该地点有关的具体适应战略。 我们的工作旨在使用不同的一般环流模型(GCM)及其集成的降尺度气候预测,在代表性...
气候变化是指全球气候系统的长期变化,这种变化可以从全球平均温度上升、风速和风向的改变、降水...因此,科学界、政策制定者和公众都需要认识到气候变化的紧迫性,并共同努力采取行动,以减轻气候变化带来的负面影响。
### 关于《美国科学人》杂志 《美国科学人》(Scientific American)自1845年创刊以来,一直是全球领先的科普杂志之一,它不仅报道科学新闻,还提供深度解读和分析,帮助读者理解复杂科学概念。杂志的内容覆盖了广泛...
美利坚合众国西北太平洋地区的气候变化预测包括温度升高,冬季降水加剧以及从混合雪/雨到降雨为主的事件,所有这些都可能增加水土流失的风险并威胁农业生产。和生态生产力。 在这里,我们使用农业/环境模型SWAT和...
报告标题“未来资源研究所-气候洞察2020调查米果公众对气候变化和环境的看法(英文)-2020.9-30页精品报告2020.pdf”所涉及的知识点主要集中在气候科学、公众意见调查、政策研究以及相关研究机构的角色和功能。...
从给定的文件信息中,我们可以提取到多个关键的知识点,涵盖了气候科学、脑科学、医学、遗传学以及环境科学等多个领域。以下是对这些知识点的详细解析: ### 气候变化与更强飓风 标题《更温暖的海洋,超级飓风》...
总的来说,全球柯本气候区划的SHP数据为地理学家、环境科学家、气候学家、政策制定者和其他研究人员提供了宝贵的工具,以深入理解地球表面的气候模式,进行气候变迁分析,以及制定适应和减缓气候变化的策略。...
一个具有里程碑意义的文件是美国科学院于1995年发布的《国家科学教育标准》(National Science Education Standards, NSES)。这份文件包含了六个核心内容:科学教学标准、科学教师职业发展标准、科学教育评价标准、...