Sep 16, 2018 17:10
5 yrs ago
English term

median and high-end “business-as-usual” warming projections

English to Russian Social Sciences Environment & Ecology
We published “The Uninhabitable Earth” on Sunday night, and the response since has been extraordinary — both in volume (it is already the most-read article in New York Magazine’s history) and in kind. Within hours, the article spawned a fleet of commentary across newspapers, magazines, blogs, and Twitter, much of which came from climate scientists and the journalists who cover them.
Some of this conversation has been about the factual basis for various claims that appear in the article. To address those questions, and to give all readers more context for how the article was reported and what further reading is available, we are publishing here a version of the article filled with research annotations. They include quotations from scientists I spoke with throughout the reporting process; citations to scientific papers, articles, and books I drew from; additional research provided by my colleague Julia Mead; and context surrounding some of the more contested claims. Since the article was published, we have made four corrections and adjustments, which are noted in the annotations (as well as at the end of the original version). They are all minor, and none affects the central project of the story: to apply the best science we have today to the median and high-end “business-as-usual” warming projections produced by the U.N.’s “gold standard” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But the debate this article has kicked up is less about specific facts than the article’s overarching conceit. Is it helpful, or journalistically ethical, to explore the worst-case scenarios of climate change, however unlikely they are? How much should a writer contextualize scary possibilities with information about how probable those outcomes are, however speculative those probabilities may be? What are the risks of terrifying or depressing readers so much they disengage from the issue, and what should a journalist make of those risks?


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-...

Заранее спасибо!

Proposed translations

22 hrs
Selected

прогнозы потепления по срединному и пессимистичному (отсутствие любых активных мер) сценарию

business as usual предполагает отсутствие активных мер по борьбе с потеплением, т.е. я бы его перевел как "(без изменений)" или "(отсутствие активных мер")

high end - термин из узкой сферы борьбе с потеплением, и означает high end of the range or scale, потепление выше двух градусов
https://www.helixclimate.eu/our-research/
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-experts-co...
https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/publications/hi...
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Спасибо всем!"
16 hrs

как медианных, так и доминантных, типа “так держать“, прогнозов глобального потепления



“так держать“ is an arbitrarily but in my view the most suitable way of putting it here. It's a standard naval-lingo order from the captain to the guy at the rudder to maintain the same course. Often used in Russian as "keep doing it just the way you're doing it". However, depending on the colour you'd want to give to the entire piece, you could use anything from a tongue-in-cheek “все хорошо, прекрасная маркиза“ то a boring “все как обычно“
Something went wrong...
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search