0

I have a question about "put sth at sth".

An alternative way of looking at the pause’s significance was to say that there had been a slowdown but not a big one. Most records, including one of the best known (kept by Britain’s Meteorological Office), do not include measurements from the Arctic, which has been warming faster than anywhere else in the world. Using satellite data to fill in the missing Arctic numbers, Kevin Cowtan of the University of York, in Britain, and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa, in Canada, put the overall rate of global warming at 0.12°C a decade between 1998 and 2012—not far from the 1990s rate. A study by NASA puts the “Arctic effect” over the same period somewhat lower, at 0.07°C a decade, but that is still not negligible.

On the last sentence, my teacher said it means "Nasa estimates the overall rate of global warming at 0.07°C considering the Arctic effect". I don't understand it since put an object at something means the subject calculates the object at something, and on the last sentence, it says "put the arctic effect at 0.07C." Then why does it mean the average global temperature is 0.07, not the arctic effect is 0.07? Please help me!

  • "NASA estimates the overall rate of global warming at 0.07°C if you include the Arctic effect" is how the sentence could be re-worded. – BladorthinTheGrey Nov 27 '16 at 12:03
  • I’ve edited your question to make it clearer what parts you are actually talking about, by highlighting the examples of put X at X in bold. I’ve also fixed your tags for you—this has nothing to do with ‘grammar’, but with the contextual meaning of a particular phrasal verb. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Nov 27 '16 at 12:32
1

A study by NASA puts the “Arctic effect” over the same period somewhat lower, at 0.07°C a decade, but that is still not negligible.

Could be re-worded to say:

A study by NASA estimates the overall effect of the "Arctic Effect" to be 0.07°C a decade -- lower than estimated by the others.

The "puts the "Arctic Effect"" bit just means that they estimate the Arctic Effect to be...

| improve this answer | |
  • Thank you for your answer. Then the last sentence just means the Arctic effect is estimated at 0.07C? – Mango Gummy Nov 27 '16 at 12:46
  • Yes, you're right. – BladorthinTheGrey Nov 27 '16 at 13:26
1

You need to read the full article, Who pressed the pause button? by The Economist. In short,

  1. The Earth's surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C, which doesn't include the Arctic number (how much temperature increased in the Arctic).

  2. The two scientists in GB and Canada put the number at 0.12°C (0.04 + 0.08) and 0.08 is the Arctic number (the temperature increased in the Arctic).

  3. NASA puts the number at 0.07°C which is 0.01°C lower than 0.08°C.

A study by NASA puts the “Arctic effect” over the same period somewhat lower, at 0.07°C a decade, but that is still not negligible.

0.07°C doesn't mean the average global temperature increase.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thank you for your answer. Then does 0.07C mean just the arctic temperature increase? – Mango Gummy Nov 27 '16 at 12:45
  • @Lee Yes, that's right. – user140086 Nov 27 '16 at 12:45
  • Thank you so much! That's what I have been thinking for two days! – Mango Gummy Nov 27 '16 at 12:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.