Three strikes and you’re out. The sound of silence lately coming from the global warming camp reflects 2010 being a strike-out year for it.
Strike One: The Arctic had fewer melt days in 2010 than normal, as seen in this chart
from the Centre for Ocean and Ice of the Danish Meteorological Institute. The horizontal blue line that you see represents 0 degrees centigrade – the point at which ice melts. The green line curving above the blue line shows the historic mean, since 1979, of the number of melt days that the Arctic experienced, and the red line shows the number of melt days in 2010. To the chagrin of the global warming advocates, 2010 was not the year of The Big Melt.
Strike Two: The Antarctic refuses to melt, too, as seen in a recent study in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate that corrected an erroneous report that had appeared in Nature. The Nature study claimed that large parts of the Antarctic interior were warming. Once the statistical errors in the Nature study were corrected, the Antarctic interior was shown to be cooling still, as had long been believed. An explanation by Steve McIntyre, co-author of the Journal of Climate article, showing where Nature went wrong appears on the Climate Audit website, here
Strike Three: Overall temperatures in 2010 weren’t the warmest ever, as many were predicting. The cold December temperatures drove down the 2010 average to below the previous high in 1998
, as shown by satellite data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). The difference between the two years is statistically insignificant – one hundredth of one degree centigrade – making it also scientifically irrelevant. But that fraction of a degree was enough to deny the global warming camp the PR victory that it would have claimed had 2010 nosed out 1998 as the hottest year in memory.
The best news for the global warming team: They get more at bats in 2011.