[2012.06.16] 边界条件

引用 vlidges 2012-6-18 10:40

好贴，学习了啊！！

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 10:47

planet-wide environmental boundaries, 地球环境边界条件
这个-wide 没有翻译出来

地球全球性的环境边界

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 10:55

In the run-up to that year’s climate conference in Copenhagen 在那年的哥本哈根全球气候大会期间，

in the run-up to the conference 不等于 in the course of the conference
指的是 从开会前的某一时间算起，一直到大会开始为止。

n run-up
1. (Individual Sports & Recreations / Athletics (Track & Field)) an approach run by an athlete for a long jump, pole vault, etc.
2. a preliminary or preparatory period
the run-up to the election

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 10:57

a set of nine limits beyond which people should not push their planet.超过了这些极限值，人类就将失去他们的地球家园。

失去？过分诠释。

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 10:59

The nine areas of concern were: 这9项边界条件涉及的领域有

参考上一段的 One result of this worry, in the autumn of 2009, was the idea of planetary boundaries

这里的concern = worry ， 不是 涉及。

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 11:01

intervention in the nitrogen and phosphate cycles (crucial to plant growth);对植物生长至关重要的氮与磷酸盐循环的妨碍；

intervention = interference ， 干扰， 不是 妨碍。

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 11:04

the conversion of wilderness to farms and cities; 荒野变为农田与城市的转化率

哪有 转化率？

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 11:09

For chemicals and particulates, they deferred judgment.他们稍后将提出具体的边界值。

稍后？这暗示着后来给出了边界值， 不一定吧？
他们不愿马上给出具体的边界值。

引用 szseat 2012-6-18 11:32

yannanchen: planet-wide environmental boundaries, 地球环境边界条件这个-wide 没有翻译出来地球全球性的环境边界

这样是否更简洁：全球地表环境边界  

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 12:14

本帖最后由 yannanchen 于 2012-6-20 01:03 编辑

Planetary boundaries provide a useful way of thinking about environmental change, because in many cases they give scope for further change that has not already happened. That has brought the concept friends who are not normally persuaded by environmental thinking, as well as green enemies who will brook no compromise. But the concept has numerous drawbacks. The actual location of the boundaries is, as their proponents acknowledge, somewhat arbitrary. That is partly because of the incomplete state of current knowledge, but it may remain so however much anyone knows. Some boundaries might be transgressed without irreversible harm occurring. Some may have been drawn around the wrong things altogether. And some academic opinion holds that spectacular global change could come about without breaking through any of them.地球环境边界条件的概念为人类思考环境变化问题提供了一种有效的手段。在许多情况下，人们都可以借助这种手段预先觉察到地球环境尚未出现的变化。这是一个很少考虑环境问题的朋友们可以接受的概念；同时这又是一个能与对环境保护持敌意的人达成妥协的概念。但这个概念尚有众多的缺陷。正如这个概念的倡议者们所知，给出的边界值有些武断。其部分原因是人类目前的知识水平所限，但人们不知道这种状况还要持续多长的时间。也许有些边界值被突破却不会引发不可逆转的灾难；也许有些边界值的设定完全错误。一些学术观点认为，即使这些边界条件全都没有被突破，地球环境也很可能发生巨变。

评论：That has brought the concept friends = that has brought friends to the concept
这里的concept = the concept of  planetary boundaries
这里的 that = scope （for further change that has not already happened 。)
That is partly because of the incomplete state of current knowledge, but it may remain so however much anyone knows其部分原因是人类目前的知识水平所限，但人们不知道这种状况还要持续多长的时间。
这个理解 不对。这里的it=the incomplete state of current knowledge

My translation:

地球环境边界条件的观念为思考环境变化问题提供了一种有用的手段， 因为，在许多情况下，这个观念可以为那些尚未发生但是仍可发生的进一步变化给出许可的余地。这就为环境边界条件的观念赢得了一些在正常的情况下不为环保观念所动的朋友，尽管这也制造了一些致力环保的敌人，这些人在环保问题上绝不妥协半分。可是这个概念尚有众多的缺陷。正如这个概念的提倡者都承认的那样，实际给出的边界值多少有些武断。其部分原因是人类目前的知识水平所限，不管哪个人知道了多少， 这种知识水平有限的状况还可能要长期持续下去。

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 12:40

green enemies 很费斟酌。
是环保的敌人（反对环保的），还是 为了环保而成为敌人？ 这里我觉得是后者。 欢迎批评。

引用 dqzxf 2012-6-18 18:10

本帖最后由 dqzxf 于 2012-6-18 18:18 编辑

yannanchen 发表于 2012-6-18 11:09
For chemicals and particulates, they deferred judgment.他们稍后将提出具体的边界值。

稍后？这暗示着 ...

defer:put off (an action or event) to a later time; postpone. 推迟，延迟

1) they deferred the decision until February.
2) The decision has been deferred by the board until next week.

依我的理解，前7项指标他们有自信现在就给出极限值。而这两项指标他们还要研究一段时间之后才能给出。如果他们都认为无法给出具体的边界值，那提出这9项指标也就没有意义了。

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 19:06

Some boundaries might be transgressed without irreversible harm occurring. Some may have been drawn around the wrong things altogether. And some academic opinion holds that spectacular global change could come about without breaking through any of them.也许有些边界值被突破却不会引发不可逆转的灾难；也许有些边界值的设定完全错误。一些学术观点认为，即使这些边界条件全都没有被突破，地球环境也很可能发生巨变。
评论：Some may have been drawn around the wrong things altogether也许有些边界值的设定完全错误------这里存在理解错误。
前文提到nine areas of concern, 所谓设限， 是对这9大人类所关心的范畴设限。 但是， 有人提出不同的看法，这9大范畴中的个别，恐怕是完全选定错误。
Some may have been drawn around the wrong things altogether = some boundaries may have been drawn around the wrong areas of concern altogether.

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 19:13

The second is that the planetary-boundaries group derives most of its limits by looking at conditions during the Holocene。第二个观点是，大多数地球环境边界条件值是依据对全新世地球状况的考察而得出。

The planetary-boundaries group-------what is this? Please refer back to

In the run-up to that year’s climate conference in Copenhagen a group of concerned scientists working under the auspices of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, in Sweden,

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 19:35

Nitrate-rich run-off, for example, can wreck the ecology of lakes.

这里指的是类似中国太湖那种蓝藻疯长的情况。周围农田施用氮肥， 水土流失， 或田水溢流之后， 进入太湖， 亚硝酸盐刺激藻类疯长，直到掩盖了整个湖面。

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 19:43

get/put/stick your oar in  (British & Australian informal)
to involve yourself in a discussion or a situation when other people do not want you to I don't want Janet coming to the meeting and sticking her oar in - she knows nothing about the situation.


这份报告就像一颗投入水中的石子，激起了阵阵涟漪??????

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 19:53

carbon-dioxide levels pushing 400ppm

不是高达，而是接近

引用 yannanchen 2012-6-18 19:57

Either way, the climate boundary is one that already lies squarely in humanity’s rear-view mirror.

在后视镜里，意思是气候的边界条件已经被侵越，

引用 dqzxf 2012-6-18 20:54

yannanchen 发表于 2012-6-18 12:40
green enemies 很费斟酌。
是环保的敌人（反对环保的），还是 为了环保而成为敌人？ 这里我觉得是后者。 欢 ...

刚才看了一篇文章，应该代表了美国极右翼的观点。但透彻了解了这个单词的意思。

We are witnessing an environmental attack on American energy and, ultimately, on America
America’s Green Enemies
        - Alan Caruba Saturday, February 11, 2012

It was good news that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the nation’s first nuclear power plants on February 9th, clearing the way for the construction of two reactors by Southern Company at its Plant Vogtle site near Atlanta, Georgia. The bad news is that these are the first new nuclear plants since 1978!
In a nation with a growing population and increasing need for electricity to power homes and businesses, it is nothing less than insane to not include nuclear energy in the mix of providers. Environmentalists immediately attacked the announcement using the usual scare campaigns.
Equally insane is the failure to provide the means to safely store the radioactive materials that result. Highly contested by environmentalists, the Nevada-based Yucca Mountain deep geological repository storage facility for spent reactor fuel was cancelled in 2009. Nevada’s Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader in the Senate, played a major role in this disgraceful decision. The Obama administration terminated funding for the development of the site in 2011, leaving the nation with no long-term storage site.
In a similar fashion, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has waged a long war on the provision of energy; most recently with the imposition of its Utility MACT rule on plant carbon dioxide (CO2) and mercury emissions, neither of which pose any threat. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, decried the rule as one “intended to undermine the viability of coal, one of our country’s most abundant and reliable energy sources.”
Despite having spent billions to meet the demand for upgrades of the technology to trap such emissions, coal-fired plants all over the nation are in the process of being closed as a result of the MACT rule. These “greenhouse gas” rules are baseless insofar as CO2 is not a pollutant and is vital to the growth of all vegetation on the planet. There is no proof that minor mercury emissions represent any threat to public health.
The EPA use of bogus “computer models” to support wild health claims argues for an end to this agency and the return of its responsibilities to state environmental agencies.
In January, the American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the leading authority, warned that “environmental regulations are shown to be the number one risk to reliability over the next one to five years.”
The Institute for Energy Research has stated that “Beyond the 38 gigawatts of electricity capacity that has already been announced to retire, NERC estimates that another 36 to 59 gigawatts of capacity will come off-line by 2018, depending on the ‘scope and timing’ of EPA regulations. Together, nearly a quarter of our coal-fired capacity could be off-line by 2018, marking the first time in energy history that installed coal-fired capacity has declined.”
This is a threat to the viability and security of a nation that sits atop the largest deposits of coal in the world! It is a nation in which coal provides 50% of its electricity.
In a similar fashion, environmentalists, after a long propaganda war against coal, have launched an equally massive campaign against natural gas, attacking the use of “fracking”, a technology that has been safely used for the last fifty years or more to access equally vast reserves of natural gas.
Likewise the cost of automobiles has been systematically driven up by the wholly false EPA assertion that their CO2 emissions represent a threat to clean air. The imposition of a mandate to mix gasoline with ethanol has resulted in greater CO2 emissions while, at the same time, reducing the mileage of cars. In addition, the use of food crops like corn for the production of ethanol, have driven up food prices.
Anyone who has lost electricity due to a blizzard or a hurricane knows how totally dependent the nation is on reliable and affordable electricity, and knows how totally dependent they are on is provision.
The simple fact is that the present and prior administration’s EPA, the Department of Transportation, and others have been lying to Congress and the American public for years regarding their claims about air pollution and energy provision. The Interior Department just put uranium-rich acres of land off-limits to mining.
Environmental organizations and special interest groups like the American lung Association are a fifth column of enemies within the nation.
The global warming hoax—now called climate change—is on its last legs. Nations around the world that have wasted billions on the claims made for “renewable” energy, solar and wind, are pulling back from further support. The “science” behind these claims has been totally and utterly refuted.
Even the United Nations, the source of the global warming hoax, is now switching its debased claims to a new hoax based on so-called endangered species.
The loss of tens of thousands of jobs in the energy and transportation sectors, as well as energy-intensive industries, is incalculable. EPA demands and mandates are deliberately undermining the nation’s economy.
The lives and safety of Americans are under attack by environmental organizations and, if they are successful, the only outcome would be the deaths of millions here and around the world from hunger and the lack of power to turn on the lights, heat and cool homes, and power industries.
The planet is not running out of oil, coal, or natural gas. It can use more nuclear power, not less.
We are witnessing an environmental attack on American energy and, ultimately, on America.

查看全部评论(20)