It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore As His North Pole Sums Don't Add Up

page: 1
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore As His North Pole Sums Don't Add Up


www.timesonline.co.uk

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

....“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
So the very same scientist whom Al Gore is using as his reference, actually came out and described his dismay with how VP Gore ever concluded what he did, and from his own research and findings no less.

On the same side of the aisle as well, even fellow AGW Theory Proponents described this as in the extreme in terms of AGW related hypotheses.

Also, Dr. Maslowski said that he presented Al Gore and his people with the appropriate information a. of time as requested, so there is absolutely no excuse for the overly blatant exaggerations present within his speech.

www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
All I can say is this: It was supposed to already of happened! Now another 5 years.. .right. (Buying time)

Fear mongering 2008:
www.youtube.com...

www.cnn.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer
Aalok Mehta aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen
National Geographic News
June 20, 2008

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.

Firsthand observations and satellite images show that the immediate area around the geographic North Pole is now mostly annual, or first-year, ice—thin new ice that forms each year during the winter freeze.

Such ice is much more prone to melting during the summer months than perennial, or multiyear, ice, which is thick and dense ice that has lasted through multiple cycles of thawing and refreezing.

"I would say the ice in the vicinity of the North Pole is primed for melting, and an ice-free North Pole is a good possibility," Sheldon Drobot, a climatologist at the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at the University of Colorado, said by email.

The melt would be mostly symbolic—thicker ice, pushed against the Canadian continental shelf by weather and Earth's rotation, would still survive the summer.

Recent models suggest that the Arctic won't see its first completely ice-free summer until somewhere between 2013 and 2030.

But this summer's forecast—and unusual early melting events all around the Arctic—serve as a dire warning of how quickly the polar regions are being affected by climate change.



Well... NO

www.theregister.co.uk...


NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
proof's in the pudding.

who's got a knife.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
And to think this jackass almost got elected president.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good scam.

And tell lies long enough and someone will believe you.

Its about time for someone to hack Al's email.

www.gargaro.com...
www.gopexiles.com...
newsbusters.org...
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Not only was Gore exaggerating when he said the Ice would be completely gone in 5 years but he must've been out right making things up as I can't see how this could happen without a concerted and deliberate effort (ie giant ice melting lasers).

The scientist he quoted probably came forward because he didn't want his own career and reputation ruined by Al Gore's inability to accept scientific validity.

If you can't see Gore for what he truly is, a selfish hypocrite with a lust for public recognition, an overly inflated image of himself and a rather evident financial interest in this, then perhaps you should reexamine your heroes.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 




So the very same scientist whom Al Gore is using as his reference, actually came out and described his dismay with how VP Gore ever concluded what he did, and from his own research and findings no less.


Quite embarrassing for Mr. Gore. But lets pause a minute to review the available literature.

This from Dr. Maslowski in December 2007 :


Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."


From the current story going around (this cut/paste from Times Online


“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.


OK, his speech was written based on info from 2 years ago, and the speech writers didn't get the message that the story had changed. I don't find anywhere where Maslowski is denying the message, only the degree of confidence he has in his time frame prediction.

Yup, way embarrassing for Gore...Not. In my opinion, that is. Though I am sure he is mortified and pissed off that he didn't get the update from Maslowski).

But have the predictions really changed that much?

This from June 2008: (not from Maslowski)



It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.


OK, might disappear. Did it happen? I haven't found a reference to yes/no yet.

EDIT: I found this on Wikipedia


The 2008 minimum was slightly larger than 2007.[14] On August 27, both the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage were ice-free. This was the first time in recorded history that both passages were open at the same time.


But any speculation why some people might care one way or another? I'm glad you asked.



From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.


Oh. I see. The usual suspects.

And what is the current prediction? This from October 2009 (again, not from Dr. Maslowski)



The frozen Arctic Ocean will become an open sea during the summer within a decade, according to the latest data.

Climate change experts predict a massive melt which will see the ice cover completely disappear throughout the warmer months.

British polar explorer Pen Hadow led an expedition to collect the data behind the alarming prediction.

He told Sky News: "We were able to reach the areas the scientists can't get to. Our findings are depressing.

"In just ten years or so 80-85 per cent of the Arctic Ocean will be ice free, and within twenty years we'll have completely lost the summer ice."


So what is the "Inconvenient Truth" here? Just this: that anti-science zealots continue to shoot the messenger instead of listening to the message. Please pay attention and get the beans out of your ears.

Ad Hominum attacks on Al Gore will not refreeze the North Polar Sea folks.


[edit on 15/12/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
So his timetable was off. Please consider the following picture It shows the massive loss in 2 years.
Thats 1.29 million kilometers squared or 645 thousand km2 per year. That was in 2007. Simple math says if the rate of decline continues/continued at that rate it would be around 8 years before the ice caps were gone.

Given other sources showing shocking loss such as glaciers that had been on peaks (like Kilmanjaro) for 10,000+ years were gone in a mere couple years it is fair to say that is is very possible the ice will be gone from the north pole in less time.

The above figures were from a 2007 reading and comparison for the period between 2005-2007.

Really the posting just says the scientist did not want to put a date on it-which Gore did.

Otherwise, I realize everyone who is anti-GW will just ignore that. Though any chance of future post titles being a bit less cliche on this topic?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Is that picture you are posting of the North West passage?
An area which opens and closes over the years preventing a regular trade route to go through the area?
even back in the early days before global warming, it would sometimes open up and allow shipping.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Er, my apologies, I thought I linked the article as well as the pic (and sublink). Been a long day:

The second article has the link to the pic.

first article

record low



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Er, my apologies, I thought I linked the article as well as the pic (and sublink). Been a long day:

The second article has the link to the pic.

first article

record low


(edit)
The magenta outline is the historical norm for the seasons being compared.

(edit)
I hit quote instead of edit on the first go... *facepalm* I'm .ing to bed. Enjoy all.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by lordtyp0]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
So his timetable was off. Please consider the following picture It shows the massive loss in 2 years.
Thats 1.29 million kilometers squared or 645 thousand km2 per year. That was in 2007. Simple math says if the rate of decline continues/continued at that rate it would be around 8 years before the ice caps were gone.

Given other sources showing shocking loss such as glaciers that had been on peaks (like Kilmanjaro) for 10,000+ years were gone in a mere couple years it is fair to say that is is very possible the ice will be gone from the north pole in less time.

The above figures were from a 2007 reading and comparison for the period between 2005-2007.

Really the posting just says the scientist did not want to put a date on it-which Gore did.

Otherwise, I realize everyone who is anti-GW will just ignore that. Though any chance of future post titles being a bit less cliche on this topic?


Where did you the anti-GW from?? Been Anti-Gore (because he is doing this for money! and money only!) , Anti- been lied to about supposed scientific facts which are in fact false, Anti- to the fact the carbon tax proposal will do nothing but line pockets rather than fix our climate! Is this what you mean by anti-GW??

I watched a show last night on Channel 4 about how climate change affected our ancestors.....

www.youtube.com...

The fact is GW is a natural cycle of the earth, we are been conned into thinking money will fix this problem. Unfortunately nothing is going to stop natural global warming...... but by all means lets stop polluting our rivers, seas, lands, air, cutting down our forests, etc lets see some ideas presented on these problems.

I don't hear anything about them proposing to stop clearing miles of rainforest to make way for bio fuel growing! Do you?

Tell you what, how about you just continue to lap up all the sh*t they are spewing on this subject and ignore all the other info out there which proves these people of full of it!





[edit on 15-12-2009 by kcfusion]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by kcfusion
 


Checked in for a sec, and that reply made me giggle from it's pure frothing-at-the-mouth contradictions.
here is an article with Gore urging curbing of deforestation, thats a quickie search.

In case you missed the debate that is going on: It's about how much humans have affected GW. Most scientists are in consensus that humanity is affecting it. I take it your basement science has disproved this? Or, did you get all your info from the Druge report maybe?

I found the last sentence especially precious:


Tell you what, how about you just continue to lap up all the sh*t they are spewing on this subject and ignore all the other info out there which proves these people of full of it!

In light of your railing about Gore making money-I presume from speaking and selling books.

Who profits from denial of involvement on GW? What is the profit margin between the two profiteers?

So, I suppose it is fair to say you are of the oppin GW is natural, and the decades of spewing CFCs and toxins have not affected anything but increasing cancer rates?

I am guessing your rant of "who is anti-GW" comes from that idea, at least I will give the benefit of doubt that it isn't some poorly thought out passive aggressive thing, given that when anyone talks about global warming-they are talking about human caused global warming. Not an unseasonably hot summer.

I guess I shall continue to 'lap the sh*t' from those who are saying to make cleaner energy, new tech for infrastructures etc. etc. You can keep lapping your own eloquent sh*t while apparently strutting your tactful and level .ed approach to all scientific debates (hint: That is sarcasm.). Deal?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Your assumption is that any trend is perpetual. Looking at any long term temperature graph shows nothing could be further from the truth. There has been times when there was no ice at the poles and there has been times when the ice stretched far to the South (and North).



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
And to think this jackass almost got elected president.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good scam.


At least him and blair are showing what scum alot of politicians are.

We should all be greatful for the net bringing us together on this. We where all too isolated before and they got away with these things. If the net was not here, gore would probably pass this easily with there lies.

They are finding the net hard to come to terms with.

They used tv to there massive advantage, but today we all have the internet, lol.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


I stopped reading when you mentioned the glaciers on Kilimanjaro.

That little beauty of a lie, straight out of AIT has been shown to be as False as Gores smile.

FYI the melting on Kilimanjaro occurred because deforestation of the lower levels altered the micro climate on the mountain.

And that's the problem - REAL environmental issues are ignored while everyone rushes to buy carbon credits off (wait for it) GORES company.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   
It's not ``embarrassing`` for Al Gore, since he's not making a mistake, he's a huge fat liar who should go to jail for being a scam artist.

He's a piece of trash, as bad as Maddoff... and probably even worse since there's more than 100 billions that were spent worldwide so far for this scam called man-made global warming.

I wish lightning would struck his plane and kill him....god's punishment for trying to control CO2, control life.

He wants to be a god, well, he can go to hell, because that's where people who say they are god end up.

Not to mention the easy comparison with Hitler we could do since he wants to kill most of the population to reduce global emissions of CO2.

You and your cult members go first.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Vitchilo]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

So his timetable was off. Please consider the following picture It shows the massive loss in 2 years.


So during an interglacial period you have proven that ice melts.

I

am

stunned.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by kcfusion
 


Checked in for a sec, and that reply made me giggle from it's pure frothing-at-the-mouth contradictions.
here is an article with Gore urging curbing of deforestation, thats a quickie search.

In case you missed the debate that is going on: It's about how much humans have affected GW. Most scientists are in consensus that humanity is affecting it. I take it your basement science has disproved this? Or, did you get all your info from the Druge report maybe?

I found the last sentence especially precious:


Tell you what, how about you just continue to lap up all the sh*t they are spewing on this subject and ignore all the other info out there which proves these people of full of it!


In light of your railing about Gore making money-I presume from speaking and selling books.



Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading, those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore front and center in the whole carbon credit trading scam!


Who profits from denial of involvement on GW? What is the profit margin between the two profiteers?



So the difference in profit margins is a reason to support one or the other?? Nice Logic!



So, I suppose it is fair to say you are of the oppin GW is natural, and the decades of spewing CFCs and toxins have not affected anything but increasing cancer rates?


Er yes I'm of the opinion GW is natural. Please show me unbiased, unmanipulated science about CFC's and Toxins having an affect on GW. Anything else would be an assumption!


I am guessing your rant of "who is anti-GW" comes from that idea, at least I will give the benefit of doubt that it isn't some poorly thought out passive aggressive thing, given that when anyone talks about global warming-they are talking about human caused global warming. Not an unseasonably hot summer.



First off please explain to me the difference between natural GW and man made GW, apart from pointing out one is natural and one is man made! Please tell me how you know what we are experiencing now is man made and not natural? Please explain to me why the scientists in AGW had to manipulate data to "prove" what we are experiencing now is man made? You'd think if everything we are told is true there would be no need to manipulate the data , right??


I guess I shall continue to 'lap the sh*t' from those who are saying to make cleaner energy, new tech for infrastructures etc. etc. You can keep lapping your own eloquent sh*t while apparently strutting your tactful and level .ed approach to all scientific debates (hint: That is sarcasm.). Deal?




Problem is your lapping up the cleaner energy, new tech etc which I do not deny is a good thing, I mean how could it not be a good thing. However your ignoring the facts to suit your own misguided beliefs.

Do we live in a world where we have to con people to bring in new clean energies, new green tech? No!
Do we live in a world where we have to con people to get them to pay more taxes & give up more control of how we live our lives! Yes!

So how about you use that brain of yours to see the BS and understand the real reasons for the BS you are been fed! So in Answer to your question, I'd rather lap up the truth!



[edit on 15-12-2009 by kcfusion]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by kcfusion]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by kcfusion]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by kcfusion]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0


Otherwise, I realize everyone who is anti-GW will just ignore that. Though any chance of future post titles being a bit less cliche on this topic?


Sorry Doc., it a news article. You will have to bring the title up with the AP. How is though that the crab fishermen in the arctic seem to be complaining of more ice farther south than they have ever seen it? What does that mean in this instance?(serious question)




top topics



 
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join