The warming rate got restrained for some years. In fact, if we look up to 2008, it seems, the warming rate had gone down significantly making some scientists, hastily suggesting that the climate had stabilized. However, unfortunately, it did not remain so for long; 2009 came very close to 1998, and 2010 beat the record of 2005. The average temperature for the four years - 1998, 2005, 2009 and 2010 - is not statistically different. But on the whole, over ten years from 2001 to 2010, average global temperatures stood at 0.46 °C , above the 1961–1990 average, and in terms of decadal temperature, the last decade was the warmest since the beginning of instrumental climate records (bottom graph).
Recent rise in the temperature has especially been strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the Arctic, with many sub-regions registering temperatures 1.2 to 1.4°C above the long-term average. Reports show that 2010 was an exceptionally warm year over much of Africa, southern and western Asia, Greenland and Arctic Canada, with many parts of these regions having their hottest years on record. However, in some areas of the world, such as northern Europe and central and eastern Australia, the temperature was significantly lower than average in 2010.
The type of graph shown here is used to understand climatic trends and variability that sparked what is known as the ‘Global Warming Conspiracy.’ While several climate centers are developing this type of graph, one notable product was developed by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University. He added to the graph, proxy records to reconstruct a climate record for 1000 years, before temperatures were directly measured. This graph was included in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and became popularly known as the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph for its shape. The graph became an iconic symbol of that report and of the scientific consensus on climate change.
The resemblance of the shape of this graph with atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and fossil fuel emission graphs clearly indicates the role of manmade emissions in climate change. The climate skeptics were cornered and alleged that the method used to make the graph was flawed. Links were made to some emails between Professor Mann and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, which were hacked and published on the internet, sparking a controversy dubbed ‘Climategate’ by the media. Fortunately, Professor Mann was acquitted by Pennsylvania State University of any wrongdoing.
However, skepticism about the type of data produced remains alive – and such skepticism is not unhelpful to science. Subsequent efforts to develop such records were done with much care in the methodology. Inter-comparison of datasets developed independently is now more common and scientists and climate centers are more careful about making strong statements before the robustness of their study method is tested. For example, when declaring the warming of the year 2010, records developed by several major climate centers were compared. The records developed independently by four climate research centers – NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the UK Met Office Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit, NOAA National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC), and Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) – were statistically the same and the conclusions regarding the warmest years and decades are valid for all the datasets.
These recent developments will silence the climate skeptics for a while, or at least the ‘Climate Conspiracy’ theory will remain quiescent for some time. But similar arguments may surface again. I think both the climate rationalists and climate skeptics have lessons to learn from the recent experiences. Climate skeptics should stop ignoring the science and drop the conspiracy theories and scientific pretence. Climate rationalists, on the other hand, have to be honest: and say that the doomsday won’t come and ‘all-bad’ theories will be proven false.
Strong statements should only be made when the method and results have been thoroughly tested. Uncertainties and limitations must be highlighted and priority research emphasized. Science has to be translated into the language of a commoner. While climate is overarching, impacting on all spheres of life, it is also blind. It does not recognize whether one is climate skeptic or a climate rationalist – it affects all of us. But climate for a farmer may mean different from climate for a banker. Similarly, climate for a fisherman is very different from climate for a teacher. The science of climate has to be translated into the language of laymen, from the streets and the farms, so that everyone realizes that climate concerns all. World Meteorological Day 2011 could be a step towards this direction.
Writer is a Climate Change Specialist at ICIMOD
abshrestha@icimod.org
Related story
SHIFT for Our Planet: Youths urge authorities to make climate j...
_20240311121839.jpg)
