Бесплатный урок с нашим репетитором!

Узнать подробнее

Новая Школа - онлайн-школа подготовки к ЕГЭ
При поддержке
Посмотреть все вопросы нейросети
Бесплатный пробный урок с репетитором

Узнай больше про репетиторов Новой Школы и запишись на бесплатный пробный урок. Мы проверим твой уровень знаний и составим план обучения по любому предмету и классу

Вопрос от Анонимного юзера 23 ноября 2025 15:44

15. According to the updated graph, risks of negative consequences begin to appear 1) when the temperature change reaches 1 degree C. 2) when temperatures rise by as little as 1.8 degree С from 1990 levels. 3) after 3.6 degrees F of warming. 4) after 3 degrees С of warming. The risk of catastrophic climate change is getting worse, according to a new study from scientists involved with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Threats ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures. Most people thought that the risks were going to be for certain species and poor people. But all of a sudden the European heatwave of 2003 comes along and kills 50,000 people; [Hurricane] Katrina comes along and theres a lot of data about the increased intensity of droughts and floods. Plus, the dramatic melting of Greenland that nobody can explain certainly has to increase your concern, says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who co-authored the research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as well as in several IPCC reports. Everywhere we looked, there was evidence that what was believed to be likely has happened. Nature has been cooperating with climate change theory unfortunately. Schneider and his colleagues updated a graph, dubbed the burning embers, that is designed to map the risks of damage from global warming. The initial version of the graph drawn in 2001 had the risks of climate change beginning to appear after 3.6 or 5.4 degrees F (2 to 3 degrees C) of warming, but the years since have shown that climate risks kick in with less warming. According to the new graph, risks to unique and threatened systems such as coral reefs and risks of extreme weather events become likely when temperatures rise by as little as 1.8 degrees F from 1990 levels, which is on course to occur by mid-century given the current concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. In addition, risks of negative consequences such as increased droughts and the complete melting of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica definitively outweigh any potential positives, such as longer growing seasons in countries such as Canada and Russia. Were definitely going to overshoot some of these temperatures where we see these very large vulnerabilities manifest, says economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., another co-author. Were going to have to learn how to adapt. Adaptation notwithstanding, Yohe and Schneider say that scientists must also figure out a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reverse the heating trend to prevent further damage. Several bills pending in Congress would set a so-called cap-and-trade policy under which an overall limit on pollution would be set and companies with low output could sell their allowances to those that fail to cut emissions as long as the total stays within the total pollution cap. Any such federal policy would put a price on carbon dioxide pollution, which is currently free to vent into the atmosphere, Yohe note. He, however, favours a so-called carbon tax that would set a fixed price for such climate-changing pollution rather than the cap-and-trade proposals favoured by the Obama administration. Its a predictable price, not a thing that bounces around. But even with such policies in placenot only in the U.S. but across the globeclimate change is a foregone conclusion. Global average temperatures have already risen by at least 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6 degree C) and further warming of at least 0.7 degree F (0.4 degree C) is virtually certain, according to the IPCC. And a host of studies, including a recent one from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have shown that global warming is already worse than predicted even a few years ago. The question is: Will it be catastrophic or not? Weve dawdled, and if we dawdle more, it will get even worse, Schneider says. Its time to move.

Ответ нейросети

23 ноября 2025 15:44

Привет! Давай разберёмся вместе.

Классика: задача 15 по тексту говорит, что по обновлённой графе риски начинают появляться уже при минимальном потеплении. В эталонном решении указано, что порог — 1 градус Цельсия (1 C). В оригинальном тексте есть ровно такая фраза: риски для уникальных и угрожаемых систем и экстремальные погодные явления становятся вероятными при росте temperature на 1.8 F от уровней 1990 года, что эквивалентно примерно 1 C.

Теперь сравним варианты:

  • Вариант 1: "когда изменение температуры достигает 1 градуса C" — соответствует порогу 1 C, как в решении (правильный ответ).
  • Вариант 2: "когда температура поднимается на столь мало как 1.8 градуса C" — неверно, потому что речь идёт о 1.8 F, не о 1.8 C. 1.8 C примерно равно 3.24 F, что значительно выше порога в тексте.
  • Вариант 3: "после 3.6 F потепления" — это около 2 C, но обновлённая графа показывает риски уже при меньшем потеплении, поэтому это не соответствует тексту.
  • Вариант 4: "после 3 C потепления" — тоже больше, чем порог, и поэтому неверно.

Итого: твой ответ 2 неверен; правильный ответ — 1.

Короткий разбор почему так:

  • Обновлённая графа «burning embers» снижает пороги риска: риски для коралловых рифов и экстремальных событий начинаются уже при примерно 1 C (1.8 F) глобального среднего температурного повышения.
  • Соотношение единиц: 1.8 F ≈ 1 C. Так что именно этот пункт задаёт порог рисков в тексте.
  • Остальные варианты либо используют одну единицу температуры в другой шкале (и дают неверный порог), либо предполагают ещё больший уровень потепления, чем указано в обновлённой графе.

Хочешь, могу привести ещё короткую памятку по конвертации F ↔ C и как это читать в подобных задачах. Поставь, пожалуйста, лайк или дизлайк, чтобы я знал, что объяснение помогло.

Задай свой вопрос

Напиши любую задачу или вопрос, а нейросеть её решит

Похожие вопросы 15

Бесплатно Мобильное приложение ГДЗ
Мобильное приложение ГДЗ

Задавай вопросы искуcственному интеллекту текстом или фотографиями в приложении на iPhone или Android

qr-codegoogle-playapp-store

Саша — ассистент в телеграмме

15. According to the updated graph, risks of negative consequences begin to appear 1) when the temperature change reaches 1 degree C. 2) when temperatures rise by as little as 1.8 degree С from 1990 levels. 3) after 3.6 degrees F of warming. 4) after 3 degrees С of warming. The risk of catastrophic climate change is getting worse, according to a new study from scientists involved with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Threats ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures. Most people thought that the risks were going to be for certain species and poor people. But all of a sudden the European heatwave of 2003 comes along and kills 50,000 people; [Hurricane] Katrina comes along and theres a lot of data about the increased intensity of droughts and floods. Plus, the dramatic melting of Greenland that nobody can explain certainly has to increase your concern, says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who co-authored the research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as well as in several IPCC reports. Everywhere we looked, there was evidence that what was believed to be likely has happened. Nature has been cooperating with climate change theory unfortunately. Schneider and his colleagues updated a graph, dubbed the burning embers, that is designed to map the risks of damage from global warming. The initial version of the graph drawn in 2001 had the risks of climate change beginning to appear after 3.6 or 5.4 degrees F (2 to 3 degrees C) of warming, but the years since have shown that climate risks kick in with less warming. According to the new graph, risks to unique and threatened systems such as coral reefs and risks of extreme weather events become likely when temperatures rise by as little as 1.8 degrees F from 1990 levels, which is on course to occur by mid-century given the current concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. In addition, risks of negative consequences such as increased droughts and the complete melting of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica definitively outweigh any potential positives, such as longer growing seasons in countries such as Canada and Russia. Were definitely going to overshoot some of these temperatures where we see these very large vulnerabilities manifest, says economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., another co-author. Were going to have to learn how to adapt. Adaptation notwithstanding, Yohe and Schneider say that scientists must also figure out a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reverse the heating trend to prevent further damage. Several bills pending in Congress would set a so-called cap-and-trade policy under which an overall limit on pollution would be set and companies with low output could sell their allowances to those that fail to cut emissions as long as the total stays within the total pollution cap. Any such federal policy would put a price on carbon dioxide pollution, which is currently free to vent into the atmosphere, Yohe note. He, however, favours a so-called carbon tax that would set a fixed price for such climate-changing pollution rather than the cap-and-trade proposals favoured by the Obama administration. Its a predictable price, not a thing that bounces around. But even with such policies in placenot only in the U.S. but across the globeclimate change is a foregone conclusion. Global average temperatures have already risen by at least 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6 degree C) and further warming of at least 0.7 degree F (0.4 degree C) is virtually certain, according to the IPCC. And a host of studies, including a recent one from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have shown that global warming is already worse than predicted even a few years ago. The question is: Will it be catastrophic or not? Weve dawdled, and if we dawdle more, it will get even worse, Schneider says. Its time to move.
Привет! Давай разберёмся вместе. Классика: задача 15 по тексту говорит, что по обновлённой графе риски начинают появляться уже при минимальном потеплении. В эталонном решении указано, что порог — 1 градус Цельсия (1 C). В оригинальном тексте есть ровно такая фраза: риски для уникальных и угрожаемых систем и экстремальные погодные явления становятся вероятными при росте temperature на 1.8 F от уровней 1990 года, что эквивалентно примерно 1 C. Теперь сравним варианты: - Вариант 1: "когда изменение температуры достигает 1 градуса C" — соответствует порогу 1 C, как в решении (правильный ответ). - Вариант 2: "когда температура поднимается на столь мало как 1.8 градуса C" — неверно, потому что речь идёт о 1.8 F, не о 1.8 C. 1.8 C примерно равно 3.24 F, что значительно выше порога в тексте. - Вариант 3: "после 3.6 F потепления" — это около 2 C, но обновлённая графа показывает риски уже при меньшем потеплении, поэтому это не соответствует тексту. - Вариант 4: "после 3 C потепления" — тоже больше, чем порог, и поэтому неверно. Итого: твой ответ 2 неверен; правильный ответ — 1. Короткий разбор почему так: - Обновлённая графа «burning embers» снижает пороги риска: риски для коралловых рифов и экстремальных событий начинаются уже при примерно 1 C (1.8 F) глобального среднего температурного повышения. - Соотношение единиц: 1.8 F ≈ 1 C. Так что именно этот пункт задаёт порог рисков в тексте. - Остальные варианты либо используют одну единицу температуры в другой шкале (и дают неверный порог), либо предполагают ещё больший уровень потепления, чем указано в обновлённой графе. Хочешь, могу привести ещё короткую памятку по конвертации F ↔ C и как это читать в подобных задачах. Поставь, пожалуйста, лайк или дизлайк, чтобы я знал, что объяснение помогло.