Professional Documents
Culture Documents
History of Climate Change Debate
History of Climate Change Debate
Average surface temperatures on Earth have risen over 2°F in the past century. 지구의
평균 표면 온도는 지난 세기 동안 2°F 이상 상승했습니다.
Atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 have increased. CO2 및 CH4
와 같은 온실 가스의 대기 수준이 증가했습니다.
Pro side: Attributes rising greenhouse gases to human activities, causing significant and
increasingly severe climate changes. 찬성 측면: 상승하는 온실 가스를 인간 활동에
귀속시켜 중요하고 점점 더 심각한 기후 변화를 초래하고 있습니다.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Proponents argue that the rise in atmospheric greenhouse
gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), is directly linked to human
activities, such as burning fossil fuels for energy. 온실 가스 배출량: 지지자들은 대기 중
온실 가스, 특히 이산화탄소 (CO2)와 메탄 (CH4)의 증가가 에너지로 화석 연료를 태우는
등 인간 활동과 직접적으로 연결되어 있다고 주장합니다.
Global Warming: Advocates contend that the increase in greenhouse gases is causing
global warming, leading to rising average surface temperatures on Earth. They often
point to temperature records and climate models as evidence. 지구 온난화: 옹호자들은
온실 가스의 증가가 지구 온난화를 일으키고 지구의 평균 표면 온도 상승으로 이어진다고
주장합니다. 그들은 종종 온도 기록과 기후 모델을 증거로 내세웁니다.
Sea Level Rise: Proponents assert that the melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, driven
by global warming, contributes to rising sea levels, posing a threat to coastal areas
worldwide. 해수면 상승: 지지자들은 지구 온난화로 인한 극지 얼음 모자와 빙하의 녹음이
해수면 상승에 기여하며 전 세계 연안 지역에 위협을 가한다고 주장합니다.
Extreme Weather Events: Supporters argue that the increase in greenhouse gases
intensifies the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, including storms,
droughts, and wildfires. 극한 기후 사건: 지지자들은 온실 가스의 증가가 폭풍, 가뭄 및
산불을 포함한 극한 기후 사건의 빈도와 심도를 증가시킨다고 주장합니다.
Loss of Sea Ice: Proponents claim that the warming climate is responsible for the
shrinking of Arctic sea ice, leading to ecological disruptions and impacting wildlife
habitats. 해빙 손실: 지지자들은 온난화로 인해 북극 해빙이 줄어들고 생태학적 중단과
야생 동물 서식지에 영향을 미친다고 주장합니다.
International Action: Advocates emphasize the need for immediate and coordinated
international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They argue that such action is
crucial to prevent catastrophic climate changes and protect the planet's ecosystems.
국제 행동: 옹호자들은 온실 가스 배출을 줄이기 위한 즉각적이고 조율된 국제 행동의
필요성을 강조합니다. 그들은 이러한 행동이 재앙적인 기후 변화를 예방하고 지구
생태계를 보호하는 데 중요하다고 주장합니다.
Con side: Argues human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are too small to
substantially change the earth’s climate. 반대 측면: 인간이 생성한 온실 가스 배출은 지구
기후를 실질적으로 변화시키기에는 너무 작다고 주장합니다.
Natural Climate Processes: Skeptics argue that the Earth's climate has experienced
natural fluctuations throughout history, attributing the observed changes to natural
processes like variations in solar activity and ocean currents. 자연 기후 과정:
회의론자들은 지구 기후가 역사적으로 자연스러운 변동을 겪었으며 태양 활동 및 해류
변동과 같은 자연 과정으로 관찰된 변화를 돌연 자연적인 것으로 여깁니다.
Greenhouse Gas Absorption: Critics contend that the planet can absorb the relatively
small amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activities, asserting that natural
sinks, such as forests and oceans, can mitigate the impact. 온실 가스 흡수: 비판자들은
지구가 인간 활동에서 방출된 상대적으로 적은 양의 온실 가스를 흡수할 수 있으며 숲 및
해양과 같은 자연 싱크가 영향을 완화할 수 있다고 주장합니다.
Faulty Climate Models: Opponents criticize climate models used to predict future
climate scenarios, claiming they are unreliable and overly influenced by assumptions.
They argue that these models may not accurately represent complex climate systems.
불완전한 기후 모델: 반대자들은 미래 기후 시나리오를 예측하는 데 사용되는 기후 모델을
비판하며 신뢰할 수 없고 가정에 지나치게 영향을 받았다고 주장합니다. 이들은 이러한
모델이 복잡한 기후 시스템을 정확하게 나타내지 못할 수 있다고 주장합니다.
Misleading Science: Critics allege that some scientific studies supporting human-caused
climate change are misleading or biased. They emphasize the importance of considering
alternative viewpoints and fostering scientific debate. 미묘한 과학: 비판자들은 인간이
일으킨 기후 변화를 지원하는 일부 과학 연구가 오도된 것이거나 편향된 것이라고
주장합니다. 그들은 대안적인 견해를 고려하고 과학적 논쟁을 촉진하는 중요성을
강조합니다.
Economic Concerns: Skeptics often express concerns about the potential economic
consequences of stringent climate policies, suggesting that efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions could negatively impact industries and hinder economic
growth. 경제적 우려: 회의론자들은 종종 엄격한 기후 정책의 잠재적인 경제적 결과에
대한 우려를 표명하며 온실 가스 배출을 줄이기 위한 노력이 산업에 부정적인 영향을 미칠
수 있고 경제 성장을 저해할 수 있다고 제안합니다.
Irish physicist John Tyndall (1859): Discovered CO2 absorbs the sun's heat. 아일랜드
물리학자 존 틴달 (1859): CO2 가 태양 열을 흡수하는 것을 발견했습니다.
Engineer Guy S. Callendar (1938): Linked fossil fuel combustion to global warming.
기술자 가이 S. 캘린더 (1938): 화석 연료 연소와 지구 온난화를 연결했습니다.
US National Academy of Sciences (1977): Affirmed fossil fuels increase CO2, linked to
global warming. 미국 국립 과학 아카데미 (1977): 화석 연료가 CO2 를 증가시키고 지구
온난화와 관련이 있다고 확인했습니다.
IPCC (1988): Formed to review global climate change research. IPCC (1988): 전 세계 기후
변화 연구를 검토하기 위해 결성되었습니다.
Kyoto Protocol (1997): Set binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 교토
프로토콜 (1997): 온실 가스 배출을 줄이기 위한 구속력 있는 목표를 설정했습니다.
COP 21 conference (2015): Led to the Paris Agreement, aiming to prevent global
temperature rise. COP 21 회의 (2015): 글로벌 온도 상승을 예방하기 위한 파리 협정으로
이어졌습니다.
US Supreme Court (2007): Ruled greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air
Act. 미국 대법원 (2007): 온실 가스가 Clean Air Act 에 따라 오염물질로 간주되었다고
판결했습니다.
Trump administration (2017): Withdrew from the Paris Agreement, citing economic
concerns. 트럼프 행정부 (2017): 경제적 우려를 들어 파리 협정에서 탈퇴했습니다.
Biden administration (2021): Rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement. 바이든 행정부
(2021): 파리 기후 협정에 재가입했습니다.
Obama administration (2012): Set strictest passenger vehicle fuel efficiency standards in
US history. 오바마 행정부 (2012): 미국 역사상 가장 엄격한 승용차 연료 효율 기준을
설정했습니다.
Trump administration (2020): Lowered vehicle fuel efficiency standards. 트럼프 행정부
(2020): 차량 연료 효율 기준을 낮추었습니다.
2014: Hottest year on record globally; subsequent years even warmer. 2014 년: 전
세계에서 기록된 가장 더운 해; 그 후 몇 년 동안은 더욱 뜨거워짐.
2019: CO2 levels at 415.3 ppm, the highest in 650,000 years.
1. Is human activity the main driver of climate change, or are natural processes
responsible for the observed fluctuations in the Earth's climate throughout history?
2. Can the Earth's natural systems absorb the relatively small amount of greenhouse
gases emitted by human activities, or are we causing irreparable damage to the
environment?
3. Do the economic concerns raised by skeptics, such as potential impacts on industries
and economic growth, outweigh the need for stringent climate policies to address
global warming?
4. Are the measurements supporting human-caused climate change accurate, or do
uncertainties in data collection methods and instruments cast doubt on the validity of
the conclusions?
5. Are climate models used to predict future scenarios reliable, or are they flawed and
overly influenced by assumptions, as claimed by some opponents of climate change
policies?
6. Is the emphasis on international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions justified,
or should countries prioritize individual interests over global cooperation to address
climate change?
7. Are some scientific studies supporting human-caused climate change misleading or
biased, as alleged by critics, and does this call into question the validity of the overall
scientific consensus on climate change?
8. Do the observed increases in extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and loss of sea
ice unequivocally link to human-induced climate change, or are these phenomena part
of natural climate variability?
9. Should efforts to address climate change focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
or are there alternative approaches that can effectively mitigate the impact of global
warming without strict regulations?
10. Considering the historical context of climate change research, are the current policies
and agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, the most effective means of preventing
catastrophic climate changes, or do they need reevaluation?
11. Do the actions taken by governments, such as the withdrawal of the United States
from the Paris Agreement, reflect a valid concern for economic well-being, or do they
hinder global efforts to combat climate change?
12. Is the urgency emphasized by climate change advocates warranted, or do we have
more time to implement effective measures without causing irreversible damage to the
planet?
13. Are technological advancements and innovations more promising in addressing
climate change than relying on international agreements and policy changes?
14. Is the focus on reducing carbon emissions from human activities too narrow, and
should efforts also address other factors contributing to climate change, such as
deforestation and industrial pollution?
15. Are the predictions of catastrophic consequences, such as mass extinctions and
ecosystem collapse, exaggerated, or are they legitimate concerns based on current
trends?
16. Should individual lifestyle changes, such as adopting sustainable practices and
reducing personal carbon footprints, be emphasized as essential contributions to
addressing climate change, or is systemic change through policy the primary solution?
17. Is there a fair distribution of responsibility for climate change among countries, or do
developed nations bear a disproportionate burden compared to developing ones?
18. Are geoengineering solutions, such as solar radiation management, viable options to
counteract the effects of climate change, or do they pose unknown risks and ethical
concerns?
19. Do economic interests sometimes influence climate research and policy decisions,
potentially compromising the objectivity of scientific findings?
20. Considering the fluctuating nature of Earth's climate throughout geological history, is
the current concern about climate change simply part of a natural cycle, or is it an
unprecedented and anthropogenic crisis that demands immediate action?