Al Gore: ?Polar ice cap could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years.?

[Mutt]

The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ?The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,? he said. ?It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.?

Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.

But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession ? with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-FREE-now.html

[L-Pink]

[MiamiBoyz]

That motherfucker...I would love to put my carbon footprint right up his ass!

[Mutt]

[Captain Kawaii]

Someone better tell Scandinavia, northern Europe, Russia and China to scrap their plans for summer northern shipping routes.

Read the "Inquirer" article a little more closely.

[Drake]

He also invented the internet

[MiamiBoyz]

Originally Posted by Drake

He also invented the internet

Is there nothing this superman can't do...expect actually convincingly kiss his wife!

[ErectMedia]

Florida will be under water someday

[seeandsee]

fucking al gore

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Mutt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...Dj6vE#t=14 10

[aka123]

Well, the timespan is anyways skewed, as the projections are about tens of years, but as we are talking about summer conditions.

"Ice has continued to break up in the Kara Sea where it has been slow to melt out this summer. Nevertheless, air temperatures in the Kara Sea remain lower than average by 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit). As of mid-August, sea ice extent remains on track to end up somewhere between the sixth and the tenth lowest sea ice minimum."

"Visible satellite imagery from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) reveal a diffuse ice cover in the Beaufort Sea, as well as in areas of the Laptev and East Siberian seas. Despite low ice concentrations, ice extent is right at the long-term average for the region, in stark contrast to 2012 when the ice edge had already retreated to north of 75 degrees latitude. Ice remains extensive in the Northwest Passage through the channels of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. On the Eurasian side, the Northern Sea Route is mostly open except that some ice still blocks Vilkitsky Strait, the narrow strait between the Siberian coast and the islands of Severnya Zemlya separating the Kara and Laptev seas."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

So, summing up, it has been quite warm, but because of other factors, the ice hasn't melted that much.

[John-ACWM]

Originally Posted by MiamiBoyz

Is there nothing this superman can't do...expect actually convincingly kiss his wife!

[EonBlue]

Here's another failed climate catastrophe prediction from yet another chicken-little alarmist:



The list of these failed predictions is quite long and growing longer by the day. These alarmists are nothing more than the modern day version of the guys who used to stand on the street corners claiming "the end is near".






.

[_Richard_]

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/may/n.../#.VASpkfldXh6

meanwhile..

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/may/n.../#.VASpkfldXh6

meanwhile..

Oh my god! We're all about to die! And I never even got to finish my bucket list.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Oh my god! We're all about to die! And I never even got to finish my bucket list.

an incredible example of reading.. i have looked at that article a few times and can't find anywhere it discusses our imminent deaths..

i certainly hope you wouldn't stoop to such melodramatic levels to make some emotional point because you lack the ability to actually discuss the subject?

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

an incredible example of reading.. i have looked at that article a few times and can't find anywhere it discusses our imminent deaths..

i certainly hope you wouldn't stoop to such melodramatic levels to make some emotional point because you lack the ability to actually discuss the subject?

Yes because posting a link to yet another alarmist prediction followed by "meanwhile..." is a clear demonstration of of your supposedly "superior" ability to discuss the subject.

If anything it is the sheer arrogance and condescending attitude of people such as yourself that affects one's ability to actually discuss the subject.



.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Yes because posting a link to yet another alarmist prediction followed by "meanwhile..." is a clear demonstration of of your supposedly "superior" ability to discuss the subject.

If anything it is the sheer arrogance and condescending attitude of people such as yourself that affects one's ability to actually discuss the subject.



.

Just to be clear. You support an article from an organization that later today could very post about bat boy. Or vampires from mars. Then you snub an article from Nasa.

Al Gore is such a evil guy. He is a boy scout compared to other politicians. That is why he ran scared when they took his presidency away. He k ew he would be dead as a doorknob.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Drake

He also invented the internet

Did he say the Internet would melt too

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Just to be clear. You support an article from an organization that later today could very post about bat boy. Or vampires from mars. Then you snub an article from Nasa.

Al Gore is such a evil guy. He is a boy scout compared to other politicians. That is why he ran scared when they took his presidency away. He k ew he would be dead as a doorknob.

Just to be clear - I don't "support" the Daily Mail. However the information contained in their article is freely available elsewhere and is easily verifiable as fact - Al Gore made and alarmist prediction and it failed to come true.

I didn't snub the article from Nasa. I read the whole thing. Nothing in that article was particularly convincing. It was just about yet another study of something that may or may not happen, that may or may not be caused by man, that may or may not cause global catastrophe. In ten years it too may or may not be added to the list of failed predictions.

I don't know about you but I for one am rather fatigued from the constant alarmism trotted out by government agencies, the media and all of their eager acolytes in the public sphere.

As for Al Gore - he is no longer a politician. He is an advocate of alarmism and a lobbyist. As such he deserves any and all criticism that is valid. As the snake-oil salesman that he is that is a lot of criticism.



.

[Cherry7]

As usual 99% of scientists except climate change, some oil and coal lobbists put out false disinformation. The uneducated belief them.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Oh my god! We're all about to die! And I never even got to finish my bucket list.

"These glaciers already contribute significantly to sea level rise, releasing almost as much ice into the ocean annually as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet. They contain enough ice to raise global sea level by 4 feet (1.2 meters) and are melting faster than most scientists had expected. Rignot said these findings will require an upward revision to current predictions of sea level rise.

"This sector will be a major contributor to sea level rise in the decades and centuries to come," Rignot said. "A conservative estimate is it could take several centuries for all of the ice to flow into the sea.""

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/may/n.../#.VAS6LGPATyD

I think you have enough time to move your ass from the harm's way, or at least to hire someone to do it.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Yes because posting a link to yet another alarmist prediction followed by "meanwhile..." is a clear demonstration of of your supposedly "superior" ability to discuss the subject.

If anything it is the sheer arrogance and condescending attitude of people such as yourself that affects one's ability to actually discuss the subject.



.

i am not sure how using a common known meme would suggest a superior ability to discuss the subject:



but ill take your expert opinion on the matter.

NASA is making 'alarmist' predictions regarding ice shelfs' that are actually collapsing, and will continue doing so over the next 100 years, raising the sea levels and estimated 15 feet? How would you rather the data be stated?

btw, this was released about 7 hours ago:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ecedented-rate

[CurrentlySober]

I'd lick 2 do a 'Poolar Ice Crap'....

[SongRider]

Originally Posted by Mutt

The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ?The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,? he said. ?It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.?

Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.

But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession ? with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-FREE-now.html

The KEY word is he said "COULD" Not that it WILL... "COULD"...

And according to these guys http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ The ones that actually measure the ice and keep track of it the ice level. Although better than it was in the last few years it is still well below average. BUT the Antarctic Ice seems to be doing much better this year though... its all back and fourth-push and pull-this and that... because its the weather... the only way the truth will ever be known is to just wait and see how it all unfolds in the future...

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Cherry7

As usual 99% of scientists except climate change, some oil and coal lobbists put out false disinformation. The uneducated belief them.

I'm quite sure 100% of them "accept" climate changes. The Grand Canyon was created by glaciers after all.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

I didn't snub the article from Nasa. I read the whole thing. Nothing in that article was particularly convincing.
.

Here lies the root of the problem. NASA, NOAA, its scientists and others, are all trying to tell the world that there is a serious problem going on, but many choose not to believe the scientists, or the science. Instead, it is dismissed, usually with the help of corporations who would prefer you didn't change your existing habits.

Another basic problem is that the changes that are occuring are happening too slow for many people to notice them. We forget about all the fires in Texas and California last year, Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy but fail to make the connection that warmer oceans cause stronger storms and more flooding. People dismiss life in the arctic and antarctic because it is too far away, and or don't understand the differences in the types of ice, or fail to realize that its the length of the thaw, not just the amount of ice, that is an indicator of the problem.

There are also still idiots out there, even idiots in office and that should know better, that think weather is the same as climate.

It's ridiculous when someone disagrees with NASA and NOAA and promotes his lack of science illeteracy like its a badge of honour, especially when there is so much information available at at the click of a mouse. It's even worse when people believe that person.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

I'm quite sure 100% of them "accept" climate changes. The Grand Canyon was created by glaciers after all.

What do you mean by accepting? As a concept? Or by humans changing the climate?

I am not expert about Grand Canyon, but based on Wikipedia it's not made by glaciers. It is also a bit too south for that. Also, usually glaciers smooth landscape.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by **********

Here lies the root of the problem. NASA, NOAA, its scientists and others, are all trying to tell the world that there is a serious problem going on, but many choose not to believe the scientists, or the science. Instead, it is dismissed, usually with the help of corporations who would prefer you didn't change your existing habits.

Another basic problem is that the changes that are occuring are happening too slow for many people to notice them. We forget about all the fires in Texas and California last year, Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy but fail to make the connection that warmer oceans cause stronger storms and more flooding. People dismiss life in the arctic and antarctic because it is too far away, and or don't understand the differences in the types of ice, or fail to realize that its the length of the thaw, not just the amount of ice, that is an indicator of the problem.

There are also still idiots out there, even idiots in office and that should know better, that think weather is the same as climate.

It's ridiculous when someone disagrees with NASA and NOAA and promotes his lack of science illeteracy like its a badge of honour, especially when there is so much information available at at the click of a mouse. It's even worse when people believe that person.

QFT. It is crazy that this is debated on message boards. Something is happening. How bad that something is, well that we could debate.

CO2 has risen dramatically in the atmosphere. Glaciers the world over are melting. Check just about any major permanent ice formation and look at it over time. This will take you 30 seconds and you will see a change. One that has happened in the last hundred years were as glaciers are pretty static by human standards.

Check ocean levels or temerature levels or anything and you will see the same thing repeated over and over. Do we need to do something? Nope, the rush is not there yet. But why deny it just to deny?

[Mutt]

Climate has been changing on this planet as long as it's existed. Humans need to adapt to the changes - the Al Gore's lying their asses off don't help. We will change without the hysterics of these people, every time one of these catastrophic predictions doesn't come to fruition it undermines what real scientists have to say.

And for people living on islands and coastal areas where the sea level is rising - migrate/move inland the way people have for a hundred thousand years.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by **********

It's ridiculous when someone disagrees with NASA and NOAA and promotes his lack of science illeteracy like its a badge of honour, especially when there is so much information available at at the click of a mouse. It's even worse when people believe that person.

You need to start with mastering literacy in your own language.

[ErectMedia]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...-map-for-that/

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by aka123

What do you mean by accepting? As a concept? Or by humans changing the climate?

I am not expert about Grand Canyon, but based on Wikipedia it's not made by glaciers. It is also a bit too south for that. Also, usually glaciers smooth landscape.

Climate changes... Plain and simple. So all would agree on that.


Antarctic 'Grand Canyon' Carved by Glaciers
http://www.livescience.com/42684-ant...iscovered.html

"Later the canyon was blocked three different times by glaciers. Each time these glaciers formed lakes, which filled with sand and gravel. Floods from the melting glaciers at the end of each glacial period recarved the canyon, deepened it, and removed most of the sand and gravel."

http://mms.nps.gov/yell/features/canyontour/

More examples, Greenland isn't named that because it's covered in ice and Iceland isn't named that because it isn't.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

More examples, Grenland isn't named that because it's covered in ice and Iceland isn't named that because it isn't.

Um ..... then where did Iceland get its name from?

[aka123]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Climate changes... Plain and simple. So all would agree on that.

Well, yeah. But that hasn't been the subject even once (excluding some idiots).

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Antarctic 'Grand Canyon' Carved by Glaciers
http://www.livescience.com/42684-ant...iscovered.html

"Later the canyon was blocked three different times by glaciers. Each time these glaciers formed lakes, which filled with sand and gravel. Floods from the melting glaciers at the end of each glacial period recarved the canyon, deepened it, and removed most of the sand and gravel."

http://mms.nps.gov/yell/features/canyontour/

More examples, Greenland isn't named that because it's covered in ice and Iceland isn't named that because it isn't.

So the Grand canyon isn't carved by glaciers.

And Greenland is just propaganda.

"After finding a habitable area and settling there, he named it Grœnland (translated as "Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by aka123

Well, yeah. But that hasn't been the subject even once (excluding some idiots).

So the Grand canyon isn't carved by glaciers.

The first link shows that glaciers do carve into the Earth, even deeper I might add. The second link shows that the National park service states themselves glaciers traveled through the Grand Canyon. Take a bowl of water and throw it at a window and then take a bowl of ice and see which does more damage. A good portion of it was I would say. That glaciers were traveling that far "south" is beyond most people's conception, including yours admittedly, and really doesn't fit into today's global warming agenda "science."

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by aka123

"After finding a habitable area and settling there, he named it Grœnland (translated as "Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

"Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and had a relatively mild climate. The research is painting a picture which is overturning all previous assumptions about biological life and the climate in Greenland."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705153019.htm

[aka123]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

The first link shows that glaciers do carve into the Earth, even deeper I might add. The second link shows that the National park service states themselves glaciers traveled through the Grand Canyon. Take a bowl of water and throw it at a window and then take a bowl of ice and see which does more damage. A good portion of it was I would say. That glaciers were traveling that far "south" is beyond most people's conception, including yours admittedly, and really doesn't fit into today's global warming agenda "science."

". Later the canyon was blocked three different times by glaciers. Each time these glaciers formed lakes, which filled with sand and gravel. Floods from the melting glaciers at the end of each glacial period recarved the canyon, deepened it, and removed most of the sand and gravel."

http://mms.nps.gov/yell/features/canyontour/

Based on that floods carved the canyon. Also, I checked glacial map about Europe and made some conclusions based on that. Now that I looked map about North-America, it's not that different regarding latitudes.

Also, how glaciers that south has anything to do with some "global warming agenda" (that is actually about human induced climate change)?

[aka123]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

"Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and had a relatively mild climate. The research is painting a picture which is overturning all previous assumptions about biological life and the climate in Greenland."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705153019.htm

Yeah, but not quite at the time of Vikings. So, think again about the name.

"New Danish research shows that large parts of Greenland were covered by forest. This was discovered by analysing fossil DNA which had been preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap. The DNA-traces are likely close to 450,000 years old"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705153019.htm

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by aka123

Yeah, but not quite at the time of Vikings. So, think again about the name.

You're assuming that they didn't have a map beforehand. We are talking about a time when people were told the World was flat so they wouldn't wander off and discover it wasn't whereas those few with access to the knowledge knew otherwise.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

You're assuming that they didn't have a map beforehand. We are talking about a time when people were told the World was flat so they wouldn't wander off and discover it wasn't whereas those few with access to the knowledge knew otherwise.

I don't think that they had any maps made before the time of Homo sapiens.

Unless you want to involve aliens into this story. Also, I don't think that "Earth is flat" was some story to keep people not discovering something.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by aka123

I don't think that they had any maps made before the time of Homo sapiens.

Unless you want to involve aliens into this story. Also, I don't think that "Earth is flat" was some story to keep people not discovering something.

So the Vikings were the first people on Earth, gotcha.

Originally Posted by aka123

Also, I don't think that "Earth is flat" was some story to keep people not discovering something.

You don't think? So if you lived back in that time and were king of the land how would you keep people from leaving your controled lands? Would you educate them on everywhere else they could go or would you scare them into not even considering going anywhere for fear of falling off the Earth?

[aka123]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

So the Vikings were the first people on Earth, gotcha.

You don't think? So if you lived back in that time and were king of the land how would you keep people from leaving your controled lands? Would you educate them on everywhere else they could go or would you scare them into not even considering going there for fear of falling off the Earth?

About this map shit.

""New Danish research shows that large parts of Greenland were covered by forest. This was discovered by analysing fossil DNA which had been preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap. The DNA-traces are likely close to 450,000 years old""

To stop people leaving controlled lands? Other than they having home, fields, etc. at there, or with using force? Also, I don't think that they teached that the edge starts right after the lord's lands. The people were not that stupid.

And to where the people would have gone? I mean, there were lords everywhere, if you mean escaping them. To some never never land? Also, based on the "Great migration", some people did actually migrate, but not because their lord forgot to warn about the edge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Cherry7

As usual 99% of scientists except climate change, some oil and coal lobbists put out false disinformation. The uneducated belief them.

This is what happens with everything that becomes a political football.. If it were 50 years ago, some of these same guys here on GFY would be telling us smoking is good for your health, because 99% of scientist are wrong but the handful on the payroll of big tobacco is right.

It's the same shit all the time with different subjects.. Certain types of people will believe anything as long as it goes with what they want to hear.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by aka123

About this map shit.

""New Danish research shows that large parts of Greenland were covered by forest. This was discovered by analysing fossil DNA which had been preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap. The DNA-traces are likely close to 450,000 years old""

To stop people leaving controlled lands? Other than they having home, fields, etc. at there, or with using force? Also, I don't think that they teached that the edge starts right after the lord's lands. The people were not that stupid.

And to where the people would have gone? I mean, there were lords everywhere, if you mean escaping them. To some never never land? Also, based on the "Great migration", some people did actually migrate, but not because their lord forgot to warn about the edge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period

Those migrations occured over land, not over seas and all within the Roman Empire.

What's your "Earth is flat" theory? Do you really think anyone with half an education or a brain for that matter even in those times could look up and see the round shape of the sun and moon and not consider anything else for thousands of years and not share this light bulb of an idea with anyone else?

[aka123]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Those migrations occured over land, not over seas and all within the Roman Empire.

So, you meant that lords told that shitty story to prevent people leaving with boats? At the time boats weren't that ocean going, not to mention the navigation. And let's not forget about the ocean going boat's cost. Explorations were funded by wealthy merchants and kings and queens. Not the kind of deal where some hill billys jump to the boat and goes sailing.

And Roman empire wasn't that big as the area of migrations. And even if would have been, so what?

I am going to sleep soon, so if you have some fucking reasonable point, try to say it.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Climate has been changing on this planet as long as it's existed. Humans need to adapt to the changes - the Al Gore's lying their asses off don't help. We will change without the hysterics of these people, every time one of these catastrophic predictions doesn't come to fruition it undermines what real scientists have to say.

And for people living on islands and coastal areas where the sea level is rising - migrate/move inland the way people have for a hundred thousand years.

Gotcha so we all agree what we really disagree on is whether we should do something. That I can accept.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by aka123

So, you meant that lords told that shitty story to prevent people leaving with boats? At the time boats weren't that ocean going, not to mention the navigation. And let's not forget about the ocean going boat's cost. Explorations were funded by wealthy merchants and kings and queens. Not the kind of deal where some hill billys jump to the boat and goes sailing.

And Roman empire wasn't that big as the area of migrations. And even if would have been, so what?

I am going to sleep soon, so if you have some fucking reasonable point, try to say it.

You used that link for your migration example, I didn't.

You haven't made a reasonable point as to why the tale was told. It was in fact a "fictional tale" because scholars had access to information that told them otherwaise long before it became common knowldge to the common folk.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

You used that link for your migration example, I didn't.

You haven't made a reasonable point as to why the tale was told. It was in fact a "fictional tale" because scholars had access to information that told them otherwaise long before it became common knowldge to the common folk.

What fucking tale? It was the times belief about Earth's form. And even if some scholars might have known the truth, the concensus didn't change based on that. Earth being roundish isn't that obvious as you might think, not to mention the proof about it. Actually as we haven't established any time frame, I don't know to what time you are referring.

And "common folk" had all sorts of beliefs, still has.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by aka123

What fucking tale? It was the times belief about Earth's form. And even if some scholars might have known the truth, the concensus didn't change based on that. Earth being roundish isn't that obvious as you might think, not to mention the proof about it.

The point that you don't seem to comprehend is there was information available to those with access about Earth being round. AMoung much more inormation I'm quite sure and handed down to those with the power and privy to the knowldge for thousands of years.

There were already people on the North American continent thousands of years before. The Vikings or Columbus which ever you wish to believe didn't in all actuality discover anything. Who did first is in itself up in the air. Either way I'd venture to say neither of them sailed out without knowing what they were looking for.