Question map
The scientific view is that the increase in global temperature should not exceed 2 ℃ above pre-industrial level. If the global temperature increases beyond 3 ℃ above the pre-industrial level, what can be its possible impact/impacts on the world? 1. Terrestrial biosphere tends toward a net carbon source. 2. Widespread coral mortality will occur. 3. All the global wetlands will permanently disappear. 4. Cultivation of cereals will not be possible anywhere in the world. Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Explanation
The correct answer is option B (statements 1 and 2 only).
The documents reference warming scenarios of approximately 3.5°C and 2.7°C above pre-industrial levels[2], indicating that temperature increases beyond 3°C are within the range of climate projections being studied. At such elevated temperatures, the terrestrial biosphere would likely shift toward being a net carbon source as vegetation and soils begin releasing more carbon than they absorb, creating a dangerous feedback loop (statement 1 is correct). Similarly, widespread coral mortality would occur at temperatures exceeding 3°C, as corals are extremely sensitive to temperature changes and experience mass bleaching events even at lower warming levels (statement 2 is correct).
However, statements 3 and 4 are extreme exaggerations. While many wetlands would face severe stress and some might disappear, claiming that ALL global wetlands will permanently disappear is not supported by scientific evidence. Similarly, while cereal cultivation would face significant challenges and yields would decline in many regions, stating that cultivation would be impossible "anywhere in the world" is unrealistic. Some regions, particularly in higher latitudes, might even see extended growing seasons. These absolute statements make options C and D incorrect.
Sources- [1] https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Full_Report_Vol_2_Turn_Down_The_Heat_%20Climate_Extremes_Regional_Impacts_Case_for_Resilience_Print%20version_FINAL.pdf
- [2] https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Full_Report_Vol_2_Turn_Down_The_Heat_%20Climate_Extremes_Regional_Impacts_Case_for_Resilience_Print%20version_FINAL.pdf
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest previewThis question is the ultimate 'Bark vs. Bite' example. While Statement 1 requires deep knowledge of IPCC carbon cycle feedbacks (often found in World Bank 'Turn Down the Heat' reports), Statements 3 and 4 are logically absurd extremes. You solve this by rejecting the impossible ('All', 'Anywhere'), not by knowing the obscure science.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: If global mean temperature increases beyond 3°C above pre-industrial levels, does the terrestrial biosphere tend toward a net carbon source?
- Statement 2: If global mean temperature increases beyond 3°C above pre-industrial levels, will widespread coral mortality occur?
- Statement 3: If global mean temperature increases beyond 3°C above pre-industrial levels, will all global wetlands permanently disappear?
- Statement 4: If global mean temperature increases beyond 3°C above pre-industrial levels, will cultivation of cereals become impossible anywhere in the world?
States that higher temperatures and reduced rainfall can decrease soil moisture, suppress plant growth and agricultural yields — a rule linking warming to reduced terrestrial productivity.
A student could combine this with the basic idea that lower plant growth reduces ecosystem carbon uptake to infer that strong warming might weaken the land carbon sink and possibly turn it into a source.
Describes ‘catastrophic global warming’ impacts on agriculture and notes rising greenhouse gas concentrations (e.g., methane) — indicating stronger feedbacks and ecosystem stress under large warming.
Using this pattern, a student could argue that more severe warming (≫2°C) increases ecosystem damage and greenhouse gas releases, which could shift net land carbon balance toward a source.
Gives the concept of temperature thresholds (e.g., staying below specified °C increases to avoid worst effects), implying impacts escalate with larger temperature increases.
A student could extend this threshold idea to reason that exceeding higher thresholds (such as 3°C) likely produces much larger biosphere impacts that could undermine terrestrial carbon uptake.
Explains that increased CO2 and warming arise from fossil-fuel burning and that CO2 strongly affects the heat budget — linking human emissions to rising temperatures that stress ecosystems.
Combined with maps or emissions scenarios, a student could infer that continued emissions driving >3°C warming would amplify stressors on land biota, making a net source outcome more plausible.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance.
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault.