2020 will be one of the three hottest years ever
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) expects 2020 to be recorded as one of the hottest years in the world, when many environmental disasters have occurred on a global scale.
According to the organization’s estimates, the world experienced its third warmest year in 2020, after 2016 and 2019.
The six-year period from 2015 is expected to be recorded as the warmest six years in the records kept since 1850.
The most severe warming is reported to occur in Siberia, where the average temperature is 5 degrees above.
BBC Environmental Correspondent: Record heat despite La Nina
WMO uses five different data sets in the Climate Condition Report. The organization compares recent temperature data with what it calls the “pre-industrial period” and takes as a reference value between the years 1850-1900.
According to data from January to October this year, WMO reveals that 2020 passed at a temperature of 1.2 degrees above the reference value. It is stated that there may be a margin of error of 0.1 degrees in this calculation of WMO.
Data so far make 2020 “the second hottest year”, behind 2016 and ahead of 2019. However, scientists expect that the data from November and December will make 2020 the third hottest year.
This is because the weather event called La Nina happens this year. This natural weather phenomenon causes temperatures on the ocean surface to cool significantly.
‘La Niña’ weather event taking place in the Pacific Ocean, lowering global temperatures
Despite this, WMO is sure that 2020 will be among the hottest years.
WMO General Secretary Prof. Petteri Taalas said, “The hottest year records usually coincided with the El Nino event. Now we are experiencing La Nina, which has a cooling effect, not El Nino, and even that is not enough to brake the warming in 2020.”
Although relatively small temperature differences due to climate change have been mentioned in recent years, these differences can have major effects at the local level.
In 2020, Siberia saw 5 degrees above its average temperature. In the town of Verkhoyansk in the northeast of Siberia, the air temperature reached 38 degrees.
Record temperature in Siberia: 38 degrees
Europe experienced its hottest period between January and October in 2020.
On the other hand, temperatures were below average in some places such as Canada, Brazil, India and Australia.
However, considering the totality of all data, the data for 2020 revealed that global warming due to human activities continues. It was determined as the hottest 10 years between 2011 and 2020.
Most of the excess heat caused by the warming gases eventually goes to the oceans. This puts more strain on the waters, 80 percent of whom experienced heat waves at least once this year. Water warming has a devastating effect on marine life and marine ecosystems.
A prolonged hot current known as “Blob” off the coast of California caused the death of nearly one million seabirds in 2015-2016.
Researchers say such natural phenomena have happened 20 times more frequently in the last 40 years.
Professor of the University of New South Wales in Australia. John Church comments, “90 percent of the temperature rise caused by human-induced climate change ends in the oceans. WMO’s report shows that the oceans are continuing to warm. Moreover, this is happening with increasing acceleration.”
The report, which stated that there were a record number of hurricanes during the hurricane season in the North Atlantic, stated that there is new evidence that the rising temperatures also increase the strength of the hurricanes.
‘Data alarms red this year’
The WMO added that bushfires are burning large areas in Australia, Siberia, the US West coast and South America and emitting fumes that surround the world.
Floods in Africa and Southeast Asia displaced people on a large scale and endangered food security for millions.
WMO’s report does not come as a surprise to many. Professor of Edinburgh University. Dave Reay says the global climate situation is ringing danger bells:
“Reading reports on the deterioration of the planet’s health every year was a bleak task, but this year’s report is all a red alarm. Rising temperature, intensification of drought, escalating forest fires … It all describes the severe effects of climate change in 2020.”
According to environmental activists, the WMO report reveals that it is urgent to focus on climate change and the environment.
‘No vaccine for climate change’
Dr. Kat Kramer said, “Although the coronavirus epidemic emerged as the biggest concern in 2020, climate change is still the biggest threat for millions of people living in climate-sensitive regions, and unfortunately we do not have a vaccine for it. But ending fossil fuels could be a good start. ” says.
The World Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) published a new report, noting that climate change has become the biggest threat to world heritage sites.
The IUCN stated that 83 regions, which are world heritage sites, are in danger due to the temperature increase.
These include the Great Barrier Reef off Australia. The reef system in the Coral Sea is affected by the warming of the ocean, acidification and harsh weather and is getting weaker day by day.
Is Global Climate Change a Big Lie?
I found myself defending Al Gore and the Nobel laureate Rajendra K. Pachauri in an unusual way. When they won the award in 2007, they were applauded for their selfless efforts to save the planet from the rains of greedy fossil fuel industries. Since then, how devoted his work has been has been questioned. Journalists examine the money going to Gore-sponsored companies and nonprofit groups. They have now turned their attention to Pachauri, President of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC, which is expected to meet the highest research standards in climate science, warned in 2007 that the possibility of extinction of the glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains by 2035 as a result of global warming was “very high”.
When the Indian government released a report stating that there was no concrete evidence that the Himalayan glaciers were melting due to global warming, Pachauri initially did not take this conclusion seriously and claimed that the Indian government’s report was below the standards of the IPCC. However, it later became clear that the IPCC’s assessment was not based on recent research. In fact, it turns out that the agency’s prediction of glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains was based on speculative comments given to a journal 10 years ago by glacier expert Syed Hasnain, who works in an Indian research group led by Pachauri. Recently the IPCC apologized for the inaccuracy, which was embarrassing enough for Pachauri. But Pachauri also had to deal with conflict of interest charges.
The Telegraph of London claimed in a report that Pachauri had self-interest relationships around the world. These relationships included ties between companies engaged in carbon trading and the Energy and Research Institute, which he established. Pachauri tried to ethically defend what he was doing, saying that he was not making a personal profit and diverting all income to his nonprofit institute. “You can’t attack science, then speak to the president of the IPCC,” he said, denouncing the tactics of his critics. This defense has much to criticize.
Because the scientific findings stated in the IPCC report are vulnerable. This also applies to other violent warnings in Pachauri’s speeches. However, I agree with Pachauri’s basic understanding. Conflict of interest charges have evolved into a simple strategy used to avoid the main controversy. The obsession with the pursuit of money leads to nothing but cheap personal attacks. Of course, money is important to everyone. The more Pachauri and Gore fuel fears about climate change, the more money is likely to flow to them and the companies and institutes they are linked to. Both accused those who do not believe in climate change of thinking this way for financial reasons. I see a certain justice in making similar charges against them. However, I think Gore and Pachauri will be active in explaining the dangers of climate change to the world, even if they have no monetary returns. The same goes for those who don’t believe in climate change. Why do journalists and ethics committees assume that money, especially corporate money, is the first factor to look at in evaluating someone’s work? One reason is laziness.
It is easier to determine their relationship with a company than to analyze all the other factors that drive the researcher’s work, such as the infrastructure and ideology, their longing for recognition, reputation and power, the agendas of public institutions, and donation committees that fund so much scientific work. Another reason is the arrogance of the old English aristocracy against merchants, a snobbery. Many scientists and journalists see themselves as the perfect class that trade does not disrupt, even if they work in organizations that regularly collect money from companies under the name of donations and advertising. Instead of criticizing some of the research grants, perhaps we should look at the whole picture. If scientists list all the grants they receive from the public and private sectors on their Web sites, journalists can only give a link to these pages and readers can decide for themselves which aid is unethical. Instead of following strict rules to report “conflicts,” journalists can use their own judgment and report only those that are relevant. Sometimes you can’t understand an argument or disagreement without knowing who is giving what to whom. But I usually stand by Pachauri: Follow science, not money.