33 votes

2007 Prediction Fail

Wrong: Al Gore Predicted Arctic Summer Ice Could Disappear In 2013

September 13, 2013 - 12:05 PM
By Barbara Hollingsworth

(CNSNews.com) – A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be “ice-free by 2013” that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off… by 920,000 square miles.

In his Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could “completely disappear” by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.

Gore said that on Sept. 21, 2007, "scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar icecap is, in their words, 'falling off a cliff.' One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week warns that it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now."

The former vice president also warned that rising temperatures were “a planetary emergency and a threat to the survival of our civilization.”

However, instead of completely melting away, the polar icecap is now at its highest level for this time of year since 2006.

Full Article Link: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I predict Gore cynically cashes in on oil money

O wait, no need to predict this because it actually happened.

Ron Paul

"I don't believe the world is going to melt"

SteveMT's picture

When is Al Gore going to predict that he will disappear?

I hope that he will say 'very soon,' and that he will finally make a correct prediction.

I'll tell you when

When God says so!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

Strange, the elite of the

Strange, the elite of the world don't seem to even believe their own drivel. Otherwise they would have abandoned their mansions, their private jets, their expensive office buildings and gilded university halls. You know, the luxuries that common folk cannot posses lest the world catch on fire.

Southern Agrarian

PH Liberty, you're just fanning the flames of division

I'm not sure if you just don't see it or what. Global warming and climate change are both well supported theories that have yet to be debunked and mindless counter arguments like this don't prove your point.

If my neighbor informed me that his car got 40 mpg, I could choose to accept or disbelieve that. If he had a 15 gallon tank, he could drive 600 miles (by simple division). If he predicted he could go from Kansas City, KS to Denver (600 miles) on one tank, would his prediction be wrong if he hit bad weather when trying it? Only if he had predicted that he WOULD do it. Predicting that he COULD is a much different standard that says it's possible and one failure doesn't prove it can't be done.

Now go look at the other factors affecting summer Arctic ice melt and you'll see that we're in a period of positive 'noise' and a very steady downward trend, the average of which makes the prediction perfectly viable.

If you had watched the videos I posted on the other related threads, you wouldn't have even brought this up because it's completely unsupported drivel.

Can you please point me to the Official Theory?

A good theory is general, parsimonious, and falsifiable.
General - It should apply to a wide range of phenomena.
Parsimonious - It should use a minimal number of assumptions, steps, or conjecture.
Falsifiable - Logically capable of being able to be proven false.

I asked for an Official Theory, but of course there is none. The UN has produced several 'assessments', but NO ONE or Group has ever published an actual Theory.

AGW is at best Special. It describes the only area in nature where Radiation is a more efficient means of transferring energy than Convection where the two mediums exist together.

It is at best very liberal in the number of assumptions, steps, and conjectures.

Without repeatable experiments and access to data, it is at best NOT falsifiable.

What say you?

I dont see how expressing...

... contrary technical arguments are divisive.

It sounds too much like "if you are not for us you are against us" arguments I have heard from certain leaders.

"Global warming" is not a part individual freedoms and free markets unless it is being used against such to force "elite" agendas onto people to accelerate their two main goals of reducing the population (who of course, are the culprits) and ripping off their finances (with extra taxes, in this case) to do that as fast as possible and suppress as much competition in the process as they can.

Alignnet with Aenda 21 is not proof but the smoke to follow to the fire; and it sure accentuates the rat's odour.

As far as I am concerned, anything, but anything, that is pushed by the MSM shoudl be regarded with suspicion because of the ownership of the MSM.

It's divisive because it's not scientifically valid technical

It's divisive because it's not scientifically valid technical arguments. It's not science at all. It's nothing more than a reporter getting paid off to concoct debate where there is none.

If you trace this article back to it's source, you'll find the underlying peer-reviewed paper actually said the opposite of what this reporter summarized from it.

And just to be clear, this is not advocation of agenda 21 crap or carbon taxes. I'm 110% against those but that's an entirely different topic. ...one which is best discussed in a different thread. I completely agree that the MSM has their agenda and it's not in the best interests of the people but that doesn't stop the real problem.

There are other, non-collectivist solutions that actually support more free market liberty and do so at cheaper costs but you're not hearing about those either. In short, you're falling for the conspiracy that's suckering you into staying hooked on the wealth destroying fossil fuel industry.

Unfortunately, with articles like the OP, we can't seem to get to that discussion. i.e. it's divisive.

What are you talking about?

Man-made Global Warming has had 0 predictions come true thus far. It's a terrible theory that is never predictive at all, ever, never. It is always wrong. Always. Can't say it more clear. It is never correct in its predictions.

If a physicists theory had that track record it would be thrown in the waste bin with Caloric theory and Aether. However, since global warming theory is all circumstantial and correlative and political, all its defenders ever say is, "well our predictions are wrong because there's noise in the system" but your theory doesn't account for that noise, nor does it ever accurately predict anything... and it's predictions are many. It's successes... again... 0. Zilch. Nada.

And the amazing thing to me is how far climate science has fallen. Do you know that Lorenz, the man who discovered chaos theory, was a meteorologist? He found chaos theory by trying in vein to model the climate.

It's funny if you think about it. Chaos started with climate science... and now climate science is in chaos. lol


Sorry but you're just wrong on nearly everything you just wrote.

Valid predictions include Arctic and Antarctic ice melting, ocean acidification, Himalayan ice melt (switching rivers from steady all summer to flood and drought) and extreme weather (both unusually strong and unusually mild). You saying none a dozen times is laughable as an attempt to validate your point.

If global warming is complete circumstantial, please explain to me how the Earth remains 33 degrees C warmer than it would without an atmosphere. Given (proven and accepted) that the Earth's temp is 100% determined by how much energy received vs. how much it re-radiates to space, the makeup of the atmosphere acts as it's thermostat. If you mess with that makeup (even a tiny bit), you affect the temp.

If you don't understand how noise is dealt with in any graph, I can't explain it to you. It's an elementary grade level concept. It does not cause predictions of the trend to change but it does cause differences in predictions of specific events (like a 1 or 2 year period) to be affected.

Are you trying to equate a meteorologist working on a statistically random theory to a global body of scientists doing research, publishing papers, getting them peer-reviewed and then combining them into each others work?

sorry man

but you're talking about subjective or correlative "evidence". Plus, ice melting can't be shown to have anything to do with the last hundred years and it can't even really be shown to be doing anyting besides what is 'normal' for it... shrink and grow. And I didn't say greenhouse gasses don't do anything... I said that the predictions of man-made global warming are always wrong. Wtf does 'extreme weather' mean? As opposed to when? When the world was covered in ice or when the world was covered in tropical fauna? Come on dude...

Your body of global scientists is horse shit. Only the few hundred scientists who advocate manmade global warming are "real scientists" in your dogma's opinion. The thousands who call bullshit don't count.. and are not counted.

In fact... I studied math and physics in college. I know two things for sure... AGW doesn't account for noise because it's always your 'out'. Second, climate scientists don't understand their own models. They're not very good at math. The fact that they were excited to learn how to smooth a curve is evidence that they're n00bs at math.

Plus, they think if they've overly fit a curve to historic data that they've represented something meaningful of the future. If they understood the linear equations that they're working with and training in their neural networks, they'd know that the more precisely they fit the curve, the less meaningful it becomes.

In the end, climate change n00bs are just like Keynesians. They try to aggregate that which shouldn't be aggregated.

Whar you are failing to address...

... is that based on the "science" you so love, the world's top "scientists" in the field used the polar shrinkage as their main criterion. The criterion failed.

And the current "science" does not address or axplain why we had vineyards in the north of England in Chaucer's time or a mini ice-age just a few hundred years ago.

They do not explain why Gore's graphs, when looked at closely, show that carbon dioxide leve;s follow global warming by several hundred years.

They do not address these facts (except for a vague implication that it's a similar situation to only a small amount of arsenic needed to kill someone, and such).

- Greenhouse gases are vital.
- Carbon dioxide forms a miniscule fraction of greenhouse gases.
- The amount of carbon dioxide created by other factors (excluding the sea) dwarfs the amount of carbon dixode "created" by man.
- The amount of darbon dioxide created by the sea (following hundreds of years BEHIND global warming) dwarfs the amount of carbon dioxide created my all other sources.

Are these the "mindless counter arguments" (amazing how "scientists" revert to name-calling when anyone disagrees with the mainstream) yo are referring to?

- they do not explain why they had to BS people as a holding measure while getting their thoughts together as leaked in the emails amongst Uk, Canadian and US univerisities that are affiliated with the UNdrives regarding "Global Warming" and which are closely linked to the agenda 21.

Two data points don't make a trend

A graph of the long-term trend was posted earlier by tamckissick, and when you see the whole thing the picture is very different and it's clear that the polar shrinkage criterion hasn't failed, or at the very least that failure has yet to be confirmed. Someone just took the last two data points and ignored the rest. That should have been a red flag right there. You can't judge a trend based on two data points alone.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/09/09/0413229/arctic-ic... "In short, this year's higher sea ice extent is merely due to the fact that last year's minimum extent was record-shattering, ..."

The site is down right now, but when it comes back up, look at those last two data points in context, and the long-term trend is hard to deny:

If an upward trend is sustained in coming years, that would be very significant. But just taking two data points in isolation isn't meaningful.


Except, of course, for dead cat bounces used by politicians to confirm that the economy is recovering in the obvious face of lowered production and enormously increased money supplies.

The main points I made, however, remain unadressed.


"In short, this year's higher sea ice extent is merely due to the fact that last year's minimum extent was record-shattering, ..."

No... it's high is higher than it's been in 8 years. It's not a percentage growth high... it's actually more ice than has been there in a long time.

Are you sure?

I could be wrong, and the graph that I was looking at is off-line for a while longer, but the increase it showed was just the two data points.

"Both articles claimed that Arctic sea ice extent grew 60 percent in August 2013 as compared to August 2012." I.e., last two data points.

About last year's record-shattering low.

Again, I could be wrong. And BTW I'm not arguing at all that the primary cause is man-made -- see the links I posted earlier to one skeptic who is (unlike most) an expert in the field and well respected, but arguing against impending crisis and against the effect being primarily man-made.

yes, i'm sure

The photo speaks for itself.


The last photo in the OP is also comparing two years, so I don't know how it could speak for itself about the claim of an 8 year high. Clicking through the linked article you get to a blogger making that claim, with a powerpoint graph but no citation for the data source.

Is there source of long-term data on this that you would find trustworthy?

The question is about long-term trends. 2012 was an all-time low, over at least 33 years (satellite data):
and I ask about data sources you'd find trustworthy because it's also an all-time low according to longer-term data, but from what I can tell a lot of that older data is controversial.

If a 33+ year low last year is followed by an 8 year high this year, that's not exactly a conclusive disproof of the claim that the long-term trend is and continues to be downward. There's a lot of variation from year to year but the long-term graph speaks for itself.


I encourage you to read the posting and watch the youtuber. Skip the computer code, it's just in there so you can repeat the process if you'd like. If you know how to code, still skip it... it just says how to extract and normalize the data. My original statement was a bit off base but then I checked the data and found the link. I agree fully with the guy who made the video. The variance is off the charts.



I don't see what he's arguing. I couldn't find a definition of the "anomaly plot" he's using. Are you talking about the videos that show the ice area growing and shrinking, or is there another that I missed where he explained it?

In the one here:
in the description he says

After staring at the graphs above you think you understand what is happening as ice gradually shrinks away. Well the high speed video shows a much more turbulent world with changing weather patterns in 2007 and 2008 summer blasting away at the south west corner of the ice. Ive watched it 20 times at least, noticing cloud patterns (causing lower ice levels), winds, water currents and all kinds of different things. Im not so sure anymore that were seeing a consistent decline to polar bear doom, with this kind of variance it might just be everyday noise.

Note that despite some mainstream media reports, our Arctic Sea ice has not melted away, but comes back every year as it has done for millennia..This is the normal season cycle.

But that's not really addressing the question of long-term trends that I can tell. There's a lot of variance over the course of each year, yes, and variance from year to year too, but the annual variance makes it hard to see what the long-term trend might be. Sorry, I can't figure out what his argument is, especially since I'm not sure how he's defining "anomaly" so that I don't know what he's plotting.

the point is this...

if you want to talk long term trends, you need to start talking in numbers of centuries... not years. The variance is too great to say anything about any particular year or even decade.


if you want to talk long term trends, you need to start talking in numbers of centuries... not years.

Certainly not years, but what makes you think that decades aren't sufficient to see a trend?

The point is about whether there's a trend or not. Whether it's man-made is another issue. But even just the 33 years of satellite data would seem to be enough to talk about the current trend. If not why not?

The variance is too great to say anything about any particular year or even decade.

Do you mean the variance within each year? Because that's not an obstacle to seeing an overall trend.


That's why... I dont have time to explain right now.. maybe later.

That would be news

to many people who analyze noisy data in many different fields, but if you have a chance to explain your idea sometime I'd be interested in hearing it.

not news to people who know really

It's been a concept since the 70's.... Remember, we're talking about a non-linear system so linear noise reduction won't work very well. The best you'd really be able to do with this data I think is Fourier transforms but they'd break down very very fast in this case.

at any rate, I'm going to make you some pictures of multi-time series analysis to show you what I'm talking about but I'm not 100% sober right now.

I think I get the general picture

but I think you've missed the point entirely. As I said, if you were right then it would be news to many, many people who analyze noisy data -- including noisy data from non-linear systems, since let's face it pretty much any real-world system is a non-linear system -- and who think they have effective methods for studying trends in noisy data. You can study trends in data that's noisy due to human inputs, and it doesn't get more non-linear than that!

here's the crux

people who work with non-linear and noisy data know their limitations... the manmade global warming crowd does not. It may be news to them but so would be the scientific principle really. lol

look, from my experience, global warming people don't enter the field from a love of science, they do it for a love of environmentalism. they drank the coolaid before they even entered college.

I would just refer you back

to the guy I mentioned earlier, Dr. Christy, who is a scientist working in that field, well respected, and a skeptic about the extent of human impact *and* about the potential for any crisis that requires any kind of action. And he's done a lot of work on the long term trends, and last I saw, he's still acknowledging that the data do show a warming trend.

Now here's the thing. The way he deals with that non-linear and noisy data, is the way all the other climatologists deal with that non-linear and noisy data. He's disagreed with others in his field over the data -- his work, as I understand it, eventually convinced others to adopt a different way of analyzing historical temperature data. But the methods for evaluating long-term trends are the same.

You can't dismiss his work in that field as blinded by pro-AGW ideology, because he's taken the other side on that part of the issue for many years. And his work is very much at odds with what you're trying to argue here.

study him more

"I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see."

"We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming."

I believe that's what I've been saying.