READING SECTION 1

The 2003 Heatwave

It was the summer, scientists now realise, when global warming at
last made itself unmistakably felt. We knew that summer 2003 was
remarkable: Britain experienced its record high temperature and
continental Europe saw forest fires raging (âm ỉ) out of control,
great rivers drying to a trickle and thousands of heat-related
deaths. But just how remarkable is only now becoming clear. The
three months of June, July and August were the warmest ever
recorded in western and central Europe, with record national highs
in Portugal, Germany and Switzerland as well as in Britain. And they
were the warmest by a very long way. Over a great rectangular block
of the earth stretching from west of Paris to northern Italy, taking in
Switzerland and southern Germany, the average temperature for the
summer months was 3.78°C above the long-term norm, said the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in
Norwich, which is one of the world's leading institutions for the
monitoring and analysis of temperature records. That excess might
not seem a lot until you are aware of the context - but then you
realise it is enormous. There is nothing like this in previous data,
anywhere. It is considered so exceptional that Professor Phil Jones,
the CRU's director, is prepared to say openly - in a way few scientists
have done before - that the 2003 extreme may be directly attributed,
not to natural climate variability, but to global warming caused by
human actions. Meteorologists have hitherto contented themselves
with the formula that recent high temperatures are “consistent with
predictions” of climate change. For the great block of the map - that
stretching(trải dài) between 35-50N and 0-20E - the CRU has
reliable temperature records dating back to 1781. Using as a baseline
the average summer temperature recorded between 1961 and 1990,
departures from the temperature norm, or “anomalies”, over the
area as a whole can easily be plotted. As the graph shows, such is the
variability of our climate that over the past 200 years, there have
been at least half a dozen anomalies, in terms of excess temperature -
the peaks on the graph denoting very hot years - approaching, or
even exceeding, 2°C. But there has been nothing remotely like 2003,
when the anomaly is nearly four degrees. “This is quite remarkable,’
Professor Jones told The Independent. “It’s very unusual in a
statistical sense. If this series had a normal statistical distribution,
you wouldn’t get this number. The return period [how often it could
be expected to recur] would be something like one in a thousand
years. If we look at an excess above the average of nearly four
degrees, then perhaps nearly three degrees of that is natural
variability, because we’ve seen that in past summers. But the final
degree of it is likely to be due to global warming, caused by human
actions.” The summer of 2003 has, in a sense, been one that climate
scientists have long been expecting. Until now, the warming has been
manifesting itself mainly in winters that have been less cold than in
summers that have been much hotter. Last week, the United Nations
predicted that winters were warming so quickly that winter sports
would die out in Europe’s lower-level ski resorts. But sooner or later,
the unprecedented hot summer was bound to come, and this year it
did. One of the most dramatic features of the summer was the hot
nights, especially in the first half of August. In Paris, the temperature
never dropped below 23°C (73.4°F) at all between 7 and 14 August,
and the city recorded its warmest-ever night on 11-12 August, when
the mercury did not drop below 25.5°C (77.9°F). Germany recorded
its warmest-ever night at Weinbiet in the Rhine Valley with a lowest
figure of 27.6°C (80.6°F) on 13 August, and similar record-breaking
nighttime temperatures were recorded in Switzerland and Italy. The
15,000 excess deaths in France during August, compared with
previous years, have been related to the high night-time
temperatures. The number gradually increased during the first 12
days of the month, peaking at about 2,000 per day on the night of 12-
13 August, then fell off dramatically after 14 August when the
minimum temperatures fell by about 5°C. The elderly were most
affected, with a 70 per cent increase in mortality rate in those aged
75-94. For Britain, the year as a whole is likely to be the warmest
ever recorded, but despite the high temperature record on 10 August,
the summer itself - defined as the June, July and August period - still
comes behind 1976 and 1995, when there were longer periods of
intense heat. “At the moment, the year is on course to be the third
hottest ever in the global temperature record, which goes back to
1856, behind 1998 and 2002, but when all the records for October,
November and December are collated, it might move into second
place/' Professor Jones said. The ten hottest years in the record have
all now occurred since 1990. Professor Jones is in no doubt about the
astonishing nature of European summer of 2003. “The temperatures
recorded were out of all proportion to the previous record," he said.
“It was the warmest summer in the past 500 years and probably way
beyond that. It was enormously exceptional." His colleagues at the
University of East Anglia's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research are now planning a special study of it. “It was a summer
that has not been experienced before, either in terms of the
temperature extremes that were reached, or the range and diversity
of the impacts of the extreme heat," said the centre's executive
director, Professor Mike Hulme. “It will certainly have left its mark on
a number of countries, as to how they think and plan for climate
change in the future, much as the 2000 floods have revolutionised the
way the Government is thinking about flooding in the UK. The 2003
heatwave will have similar repercussions across Europe."

Unmistakably(adv) dễ nhậ n ra, dễ thấ y

Trickle(V) chả y từ từ ,nhẹ
Trickle(N) nhữ ng dò ng chả y nhỏ
Norm(n) mứ c, chuẩ n mự c
=> social norm là chuẩ n mự c xã hộ i
Hitherto(adv) until now
Contented(adj) mã n nguyện
Content oneself with (v) bằ ng lò ng, thỏ a mã n vớ i
Stretch(v) giã n ra ( cò n có nghĩa là phó ng đạ i )
Anomaly(n) điều bấ t thườ ng
Plot(v) đá nh dấ u
Recur(v) tá i diễn
Manifest(v) xuấ t hiện ra rõ rà ng
Unprecedented(adj) chưa tưng có
Mercury(n) sao thủ y
Collate(v) đố i chiếu, so sá nh
Out of (all) proportion to sth nghiêm trọ ng hơn, hơn hẳ n
Executive(adj) điều hà nh
Repercusion (n) tá c độ ng lạ i, hậ u quả
 William Gilbert and Magnetism
A
The 16th and 17th centuries saw two great pioneers of modern
science: Galileo and Gilbert. The impact of their findings is eminent.
Gilbert was the first modern scientist, also the accredited father of
the science of electricity and magnetism, an Englishman of learning
and a physician at the court of Elizabeth. Prior to him, all that was
known of electricity and magnetism was what the ancients knew,
nothing more than that the lodestone possessed magnetic properties
and that amber and jet, when rubbed, would attract bits of paper or
other substances of small specific gravity. However, he is less well
known than he deserves.
B
Gilbert’s birth pre-dated Galileo. Born in an eminent local family in
Colchester County in the UK, on May 24, 1544, he went to grammar
school, and then studied medicine at St John’s College, Cambridge,
graduating in 1573. Later he travelled in the continent and eventually
settled down in London.
C
He was a very successful and eminent doctor. All this culminated in
his election to the president of the Royal Science Society. He was also
appointed(bổ nhiệm) personal physician to the Queen (Elizabeth I),
and later knighted by the Queen. He faithfully served her until her
death. However, he didn’t outlive the Queen for long and died on
November 30, 1603, only a few months after his appointment as
personal physician to King James.
D
Gilbert was first interested in chemistry but later changed his focus
due to the large portion of mysticism of alchemy involved (such as
the transmutation of metal). He gradually developed his interest in
physics after the great minds of the ancient, particularly about the
knowledge the ancient Greeks had about lodestones, strange
minerals with the power to attract iron. In the meantime, Britain
became a major seafaring nation in 1588 when the Spanish Armada
was defeated, opening the way to British settlement of America.
British ships depended on the magnetic compass, yet no one
understood why it worked. Did the Pole Star attract it, as Columbus
once speculated; or was there a magnetic mountain at the pole, as
described in Odyssey, which ships would never approach, because
the sailors thought its pull would yank out all their iron nails and
fittings? For nearly 20 years, William Gilbert conducted ingenious
experiments to understand magnetism. His works include On the
Magnet, Magnetic Bodies, and the Great Magnet of the Earth.
E
Gilbert’s discovery was so important to modern physics. He
investigated the nature of magnetism and electricity. He even coined
the word “electric”. Though the early beliefs of magnetism were also
largely entangled with superstitions such as that rubbing garlic on
lodestone can neutralise its magnetism, one example being that
sailors even believed the smell of garlic would even interfere with the
action of compass, which is why helmsmen were forbidden to eat it
near a ship’s compass. Gilbert also found that metals can be
magnetised by rubbing materials such as fur, plastic or the like on
them. He named the ends of a magnet “north pole” and “south pole”.
The magnetic poles can attract or repel, depending on polarity. In
addition, however, ordinary iron is always attracted to a magnet.
Though he started to study the relationship between magnetism and
electricity, sadly he didn’t complete it. His research of static
electricity using amber and jet only demonstrated that objects with
electrical charges can work like magnets attracting small pieces of
paper and stuff. It is a French guy named du Fay that discovered that
there are actually two electrical charges, positive and negative.
F
He also questioned the traditional astronomical beliefs. Though a
Copernican, he didn’t express in his quintessential beliefs whether
the earth is at the centre of the universe or in orbit around the sun.
However, he believed that stars are not equidistant from the earth
but have their own earth-like planets orbiting around them. The
earth itself is like a giant magnet, which is also why compasses
always point north. They spin on an axis that is aligned with the
earth’s polarity. He even likened the polarity of the magnet to the
polarity of the earth and built an entire magnetic philosophy on this
analogy. In his explanation, magnetism is the soul of the earth. Thus
a perfectly spherical lodestone, when aligned with the earth’s poles,
would wobble all by itself in 24 hours. Further, he also believed that
the sun and other stars wobble just like the earth does around a
crystal core, and speculated that the moon might also be a magnet
caused to orbit by its magnetic attraction to the earth. This was
perhaps the first proposal that a force might cause a heavenly orbit.
G
His research method was revolutionary in that he used experiments
rather than pure logic and reasoning like the ancient Greek
philosophers did. It was a new attitude towards scientific
investigation. Until then, scientific experiments were not in fashion. It
was because of this scientific attitude, together with his contribution
to our knowledge of magnetism, that a unit of magneto motive force,
also known as magnetic potential, was named Gilbert in his honour.
His approach of careful observation and experimentation rather than
the authoritative opinion or deductive philosophy of others had laid
the very foundation for modern science.
Pioneer(n): ngườ i tiên phong
eminent (adj): nổ i bậ t, nổ i tiếng
accredited(adj): - đá ng tin
- đượ c cô ng nhậ n
magnetism(n) điện từ họ c
prior to sth : trướ c sth
possess: sở hữ u
amber(n) hổ phá ch
specific gravity: khố i lượ ng riêng
pre-date(v): sớ m hơn
culminate(v) in : dẫ n đến kết quả
knight(v): phong hiệp sĩ (kiểu cầ m kiếm để trên vai á )
portion(n): phầ n
mysticism(n): tư tưở ng cho rằ ng sự thậ t có thể đượ c tìm thấ y hoặ c
giao tiếp vớ i chú a thô ng quá cầ u nguyện
alchemy(n) thuậ t giả kim
transmutation(n) sự chuyển đổ i
seafaring(adj): liên quan đến di chuyển bằ ng đườ ng biển
odyssey(n) chuyến hà nh trình dài và thú vị nhưng trong bà i đọ c nó là
cuố n odyssey
pull(n) sứ c hú t
yank(v) hú t mạ nh
fitting(n) thiết bị, vậ t dụ ng cố định
coin(v) tạ o ra, đặ t ra
entangle(v) vướ ng vú i và o dính dá ng và o
neutralise(v) trung hò a
helmsmen(n) ngườ i lá i tà u
repel(v) đẩy ( dịch thấ y cá i nghĩa nà y hay nè: khướ c từ )
static(adj) tĩnh, khô ng thay đổ i, khô ng di chuyển
astronomical(adj) thiên vă n họ c
quintessential(adj) điển hình
equidistant(adj) xa ngang nhau
axis(n) trụ c
liken sth to sth: vạ ch ra để thấ y sự giố ng nhau
analogy(n) sự tương tự
spherical(adj) hình cầ u
wobble(v) lắ c lư từ nơi nà y sang nơi khá c trong đâ y chắ c ý nó nó i là
tự quay
magneto (n) thiết bị tạ o điền bằ ng từ trườ ng
deductive(adj) suy luậ n trong vă n là diễn dịch nha
authoritative(adj) có thẩ m quyền, đá ng tin
 What is Meaning
—Why do we respond to words and symbols in the waves we do?
The end, product of education, yours and mine and everybody's, is
the total pattern of reactions (tổng hợp các lối phản ứng) and
possible reactions we have inside ourselves. If you did not have
within you at this moment the pattern of reactions that we call "the
ability to read.” you would see here only meaningless black marks on
paper. Because of the trained patterns of response(những lối
phản ứng học được) , you are (or are not) stirred to (cảm nhận
được) patriotism by martial music(nhạc đỏ), your feelings of
reverence(cảm xúc tôn kính) are aroused(khơi gợi) by symbols of
your religion, you listen more respectfully to the health advice of
someone who has “MD" after his name than to that of someone who
hasn’t. What I call here a “pattern of reactions”, then, is the sum total
of the ways we act in response to events, to words, and to symbols.
Our reaction patterns or our semantic habits (những thói quen về
nghĩa) , are the internal(nội hàm) and most important
residue(phần sót lại) of whatever years of education or
miseducation we may have received from our parents’ conduct(cung
cách, cách cư xử) towards us in childhood as well as their teachings,
from the formal education we may have had, from all the lectures we
have listened to, from the radio programs and the movies and televi-
sion shows we have experienced, from all the books and newspapers
and comic strips we have read, from the conversations we have had
with friends and associates(=friend/đối tác), and from all our
experiences. If, as the result of all these influences that make us what
we are, our semantic habits are reasonably similar to those of most
people around us, we are regarded as "normal,” or perhaps “dull.” If
our semantic habits are noticeably different(khác biệt, tách biệt)
from those of others, we are regarded as “individualistic"(đầy tính
cá nhân, rất “tôi”) or “original.”(độc lập) or, if the differences are
disapproved of or viewed with alarm(được coi như là nguy hiểm),
as “crazy.”
Semantics is sometimes defined in dictionaries as “the science of the
meaning of words”— which would not be a bad definition if people
didn’t assume that the search for the meanings of words begins and
ends with looking them up in a dictionary. If one stops to think for a
moment, it is clear that to define a word, as a dictionary does, is
simply to explain the word with more words. To be thorough about
defining, we should next have to define the words used in the
definition, then define the words used in defining the words used in
the definition and so on. Defining words with more words, in short,
gets us at once into what mathematicians call an “infinite
regress”(vòng lặp vô hạn). Alternatively(ngoài ra, ở một hoàn
cảnh khác), it can get us into the kind of run-around(lòng vòng) we
sometimes encounter when we look up “impertinence” and find it
defined as “impudence," so we look up “impudence” and find it
defined as “impertinence." Yet—and here we come to another
common reaction pattern—people often act as if words can be
explained fully with more words. To a person who asked for a
definition of jazz, Louis Armstrong is said to have replied, "Man.
when you got to ask what it is, you’ll never get to know,” proving
himself to be an intuitive semanticist as well as a great trumpet
player.
Semantics, then, does not deal with the “meaning of words” as that
expression is commonly understood. P. W. Bridgman, the Nobel Prize
winner and physicist, once wrote, “The true meaning of a term is to
be found by observing what a man does with it, not by what he says
about it.” He made an enormous contribution to science by
showing that the meaning of a scientific term lies in the operations
(nằm ở tính thực tế, tính hoặt động của sự vật), the things done,
that establish its validity(cho thấy tính xác thực), rather than in
verbal definitions.
Here is a simple, everyday kind of example of “operational”
definition. If you say, “This table measures six feet in length,” you
could prove it by taking a foot rule(a stick one foot long for
measuring length or distance), performing the operation of laying it
end to end(đặ t câ y thướ c liên tiếp liên tiếp) while counting,
“One...two...three...four...” But if you say—and revolutionists have
started uprisings with(khơi mào những cuộc bạo loạn/khởi
nghĩa) just this statement “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in
chains!”—what operations could you perform to
demonstrate(chứ ng minh) its accuracy or inaccuracy?
But let us carry this suggestion of “operationalism" outside the
physical sciences(khoa học về vật tĩnh) where Bridgman applied
it, and observe what “operations” people perform as the result of
both the language they use and the language other people use in
communicating to them. Here is a personnel manager studying(xem
xét, phân tích) an application blank. He comes to the words
“Education: Harvard University,” and drops the application blank in
the wastebasket (that’s the “operation”) because, as he would say if
you asked him, “I don’t like Harvard men.” This is an instance of
"meaning” at work—but it is not a meaning that can be found in
dictionaries.
If I seem to be taking a long time to explain what semantics is about,
it is because I am trying, in the course of explanation, to introduce the
reader to a certain way of looking at human behavior. I say human
responses because, so far as we know, human beings are the only
creatures that have, over and above that biological equipment(đặc
tính sinh học) which we have in common with other creatures, the
additional capacity for manufacturing symbols and systems of
symbols. When we react to a flag, we are not reacting simply to a
piece of cloth, but to the meaning with which it has been
symbolically endowed(được cho thêm ý nghĩa bóng/tính biểu
tượng). When we react to a word, we are not reacting to a set of
sounds, but to the meaning with which that set of sounds has been
symbolically endowed.
A basic idea in general semantics, therefore, is that the meaning of
words (or other symbols) is not in the words, but in our own
semantic reactions. If I were to tell a shockingly obscene story(câu
chuyện vô cùng phản cảm) in Arabic or Hindustani or Swahili
before an audience that understood only English, no one would
blush(ngượng ngùng) or be angry; the story would be neither
shocking nor obscene-induced(gây phản cảm), it would not even
be a story. Likewise(Tương tự), the value of a dollar bill is not in the
bill, but in our social agreement(sự chấp thuận của toàn xã hội) to
accept it as a symbol of value(biểu tượng của giá trị). If that
agreement were to break down(phá vỡ) through the collapse of our
government, the dollar bill would become only a scrap of
paper(mả nh giấ y vô nghĩa) . We do not understand a dollar bill by
staring at it long and hard. We understand it by observing how
people act with respect to it. We understand it by understanding the
social mechanisms(cơ chế của xã hội) and the loyalties(sự bền
bỉ) that keep it meaningful. Semantics is therefore a social study,
basic to all other social studies.