Ten years ago, @AlGore predicted the North polar ice cap would be gone. Inconveniently, it’s still there

On December 14, 2008, former presidential candidate Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. As reported on WUWT, Gore made the prediction to a German TV audience at the COP15 Climate Conference:

gore_2008_icefree-2013

Al warned them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

Watch the video:

Here’s the polar ice cap extent today:

As you can see from the graph above, Arctic sea ice came nowhere close to disappearing during the summer minimum, and has rebounded to be within 2 standard deviations in the last few weeks.

During the summer minimum, the North polar ice cap looked like this:

Arctic sea ice from September 18 – 24, 2018, image from MODIS

The sea ice extent today:

Why does anyone listen to Al Gore ?

Advertisements

148 thoughts on “Ten years ago, @AlGore predicted the North polar ice cap would be gone. Inconveniently, it’s still there

    • Today, there is no north polarized cap. It does not exist in any recognizable way, and most scientists would agree.

      Hell, I’ll give anyone 10:1 odds that there will not be a recognizable South Polarized Ice 20 years from now….

      (From a Clintonian perspective, Gore was correct.)

      • Today, there is no north polarized cap

        of course there isn’t, nor is there a south “polarized cap” as there is no such thing as a “polarized cap” in this context. Polar (ice) caps, on the other hand, are a thing. and we currently have both a north and a south polar (ice) cap.

  1. Ahh….cold hard truths are stubborn things.

    In the case of polar bears (another of his fanciful prognostications) they are also very dangerous.

  2. OMG, less than 4 Wadhams!
    That is virtually zero.
    The only question on my mind is, how could humanity possibly survive a slightly less fatally frigid and marginally smaller polar wasteland death zone?
    The unspeakable catastrophe of a somewhat less ice-bound frozen Hell taking up a sizable fraction of our planet’s surface is truly the stuff of adult nightmares.
    It is a very good thing that no one has ever wasted the time explaining just how deadly a threat melting ice is…we have none to spare!
    For the love of all that is just and good on our world…just put an end to this crazy obsession with having plenty to eat and staying warm and healthy!
    Our lives depend on it.

  3. My bet is Gore will be skeletal 6ft under by the time 10% of the ice is gone.

    Worthlesw parasite, may his atoms wander the universe for eternity, and thats quite a long time in old money.

  4. Half of the USA voters thought the socialist charlatan Al Gore should be president in 2000.
    The same group voted for the socialist Obama regime. Twice.
    The same group is having an extended #resist tantrum because Donald Trump is our President today.

    Seems to be a trend here……

    • ”Seems to be a trend here……”

      Yeah fast track evolution, those people are fundamentally different than us,…..

      There is no reconciliation, when they talk about reducing the numbers of humans they mean us, and then the savages in their their schithole,……

      When they they go all Kalergi they mean their ”new re-educated race of peoples.

      Theres nothing but genocide’s coming over the next century,..

      The free minds and the hive minds.

      • not strictly true. for example if the population consists of 8 individuals the following IQs:
        10, 130, 70, 70, 20, 70, 120, 70

        the average IQ in that population is 70, only one quarter of that population are below average. half that population are exactly average, and the remaining quarter of that population are above average.

        In short, you forgot that there is a percentage of the population that could be exactly average.

        I’ll refrain from commenting about which % of the population your post would then suggest you belong to 😉

  5. Why pick this prediction? All, as in every one, of the predictions based on AGW hysteria have not come to pass. When will the people realize the king is wearing no clothes?

    • Why pick this prediction? All, as in every one, of the predictions based on AGW hysteria have not come to pass.

      Indeed, but it would be a very long post indeed if you tried to list all of them in one go. This article focuses on this one failed prediction, there’s no reason other articles can’t tackle other failed prediction.

  6. It is a fatal flaw of the human condition-instinctively believe the first thing you hear. If you have the brain capacity, you might analyse it later, then recognise it as a lie.

    It should be once bitten, twice shy where the purveyor of lies loses credibility and is ridiculed and ignored. How many of the prophecies of climate doom and gloom have come true? ZERO. Why do total fools keep believing and believing these apocalyptic fairy-tales without any scrutiny? You would expect this blind belief from those still in diapers. The brand of diapers worn by the climate babies is CryBaby brand. These are the ones designed to be full of s…. lean to the left and fall apart with crocodile tears.

    Al Gore has predictions that are repeatedly totally wrong, so why should anyone still listen to his rubbish. Judging by his track record, we should be able to confidently predict that his next prediction will again be totally wrong. How convenient that he is raking in billions trading air.

    The Emperor is wearing no clothes.

    • That’s not a problem in a communist country. There you instinctively don’t believe any official message you hear. (That’s not a joke. A joke is: There are three kinds of news on TV – true ones, probable ones, and the rest. True news are sports results. Probable news is a weather forecast.)

      • Russian races an American in the Olympics, head to head.

        Russian loses.

        Russian news reports: “Russian athlete makes glorious, heroic effort and clinches Silver Medal. American finishes next-to-last.”

        Sometimes the news reports are true

  7. I realize Algor is not a scientist – but seeing as how he apparently speaks for so many “climate scientists”, or at least they stay quiet and do not set the record straight, why isn’t this an example of a prediction based on a theory or hypothesis that has now been falsified? And thus the theory should be thrown out or a least not given credence, since there is so much evidence against the propositions that CO2 is the temperature control knob for the planet, and that Man is causing whatever warming is taking place (and just ignoring natural variability and other possible causes on time scales of hundreds and thousands of years, not 30 years or 10 years or one winter or one summer)?

    • Not Chicken Little

      Steven Mosher isn’t a scientists but some on here take him seriously. Gullibility is a fickle thing.

      • What a petty and childish thing to say. He may or may not be a scientist, but you just proved you’re a “MeanGirl” with nothing to contribute.
        Dust the Cheetos off your underwear, take a shower, and get dressed for the day. Maybe some outside air and seeing some actual humans will help you.

        • HotScot’s comment may be “mean” but it wasn’t wrong. Your comment, however was every bit as childish and petty and mean as you accuse his of being, which by your own logic proves you also are ‘a “MeanGirl” with nothing to contribute’. I hope you are proud of the level of hypocrisy you have reached.

        • Golly Patty, got your panties in a knot, do ya luv?
          Best stay out of the kitchen iffen you cannot stand the heat, there’s a good gal.
          Even worse is a sullen crybabies who cannot take a joke.
          Maybe a dry knappy and a little beddy-bye time, eh?
          We can always call Ace Pole Removal service if need be…your issues may run somewhat, um, deeper, than we have surmised from your twisted knicker sitchee-ashun.

      • Why would anyone take a trollish English major that can’t construct a sentence or logical thought seriously?

    • “I realize Algor is not a scientist – but seeing as how he apparently speaks for so many “climate scientists”, or at least they stay quiet and do not set the record straight, why isn’t this an example of a prediction based on a theory or hypothesis that has now been falsified? ”

      The way it works is pretty simple. no single individual “speaks for” the science, least of all Al Gore.
      If you want to know the considered judgment of the best in science, then you should read the IPCC report which summarizes the state of the science and then documents the position of the best science.

      All of the “death spiral’ stories you hear in the MSM concerning the ice are just that: stories. Individual scientists speaking informally to the press. In some cases they are scientists who have had their views rejected by the IPCC. Don’t get your science from the Press.

      The IPCC position is that the arctic ice will remain until at least mid century. The metric of interest is
      “Ice free” (-basically 1million sq km or less) for 5 consecutive years.

      There is an interesting lesson here. Most folks want their science spoon fed to them. They get their science by reading the MSM, or blogs, or twitter. Or they get their science by wathcing TV. They almost never read the actual science. If you want to know something my suggestion is start with the IPCC reports.

      The report represents the “consensus” of the best science. This doesn’t entail the science is correct.
      It doesn’t mean it’s true because there is a consensus. It’s just a meta analysis of the actual science. The report also gives you a great reference guide if you want to go deeper and read or individual articles.

      The other alternative is to use the method the great philosopher of science, Popper, reccommended:
      “If the science has a weak stupid fat spokesmodel, it must be wrong”

      • ”The report represents the “consensus” of the best science. This doesn’t entail the science is correct.”

        Science is supposed to be very strictly systematic. Part of that system is to consider any and all deviations from a consensus. Another part of that system is to verify a finding using another method.
        Everything else remains hypothesis which is incomplete science. Neither of these things happen in the IPPC. Please refrain from calling it the ”best” science. Correct or not. If the correct systematics where followed, the IPPC would cease to exist. This is not to say that reading their reports would not be instructive, but I will go out on a limb and say it anyway.

        • Indeed, if the IPCC represents the best science, the sad state of modern science is much worse than we thought.

        • Wadhams is supposedly an expert on the Arctic. Why then did he make such a fool of himself with his fatuous prediction? How were non-specialists to know that?

        • Sorry, but science does not consist of serial runs of an unproved model based on an unproved hypothesis.

          Science consists of observation, hypothesis, hypothesis testing with real world data collection in a controlled experiment, and then, usually, hypothesis refinement, etc..

          The IPCC is several steps short of science.

      • Funny how you rail against those bringing up Al Gore’s predictions and yet the science community was, for the most part, completely silent about them when he was making them. Silence equals consent. If you and your fellow travelers would rail against charlatans like Gore when they speak their nonsense, you wouldn’t have to rail against those who bring up their nonsense when their predictions inevitably fail.

  8. Why does anyone listen to Al Gore ?

    For the ordinary punter – he’s a slow-motion and ongoing train-wreck
    You simply cannot take your eyes off him

    For Government types – a fountain of ideas for new rules, regulations, restrictions and not least TAX
    They need him because they are constantly bankrupt.

  9. The worst part of the Gore scam is that almost all school children in Canadian schools were entertained by being forced to view “An Inconvenient Truth” . What is still happening is that many children are being fed a diet of global warming/ climate change BS in our schools. Go Figure.

  10. The “climate change” movement no longer makes such rookie mistakes. Now they make broad, sweeping claims based on nothing but emotion like “the effects of climate change are already upon us, with more extreme storms, fires, and floods”. Or the claim that the migrant caravan is caused in part by “climate change”. Of course their biggest pseudo-prediction now is of “Climate Catastrophe” by 2030. And now the lying scoundrels and fraudsters in Katowice have claimed “success” in putting together some sort of climate rulebook. Enough to make you sick.
    https://cop24.gov.pl/news/news-details/news/success-of-cop24-in-katowice-we-have-a-global-climate-agreement/

  11. Will Al pay my heating bill? It’s been fkcuing freezing here for the last several weeks …

    I was counting on his prediction of a warming planet, so I decided to NOT replace my old inefficient furnace … because Al promised … all scientificy and whatnot … that I wouldn’t NEED a furnace anymore!

    Now I am freezing … AND … my PG&E rates are skyrocketing! Al OWES me!!!!

  12. Quick fact check:

    “On December 14, 2008, former presidential candidate Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. As reported on WUWT, Gore made the prediction to a German TV audience at the COP15 Climate Conference:”

    Nope. COP15 was December 2009. You have confused that appearance with a (very poor quality) recording made from German TV a year earlier.

    Secondly, the headline claims that Gore made a 100% certain forecast of an ice-free Arctic. He did not: he cited a study (by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski) that according to Gore, assigned a 75% probability to the Polar Ice Cap being ice free in summer ‘in 5 to 7 years’. Confusingly, he also mentioned a date of 2030.

    Thirdly, the forecast was for summer ice, the fact that ‘it’s still there’ in December would not be a falsification.

    We are not ice free yet, however the twelve lowest extents in the satellite era have all occurred in the last twelve years.

    Why does anyone listen to you?

    • Mr. Clarke,

      you are correct that he stated a 75% probability, however there were a number of OTHER arctic scientists who didn’t make such probabilities when they predicted ice free summers a few years ahead, they were all 100% wrong, you want to ignore their numerous failures?

      You finish with this:

      “We are not ice free yet, however the twelve lowest extents in the satellite era have all occurred in the last twelve years.”

      Your last lines are a classic example of misleading the issue since the reality is that the decline STOPPED after 2007.

      http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-arctic-is-in-even-worse-shape-than-you-realize.726316/page-4#post-21369578

      Both MASIE and SII show a flat trend since 2007 for Summer ice cover.

      • And let us not forget to point out that the thick multi year ice that we were assured was gone forever has now grown back to levels not far from average.
        And this in spite of assurances that due to albedo feedbacks, in the end it would all just rapidly melt away all of a sudden like.
        Nothing like that occurred, and in fact it rapidly refroze after those minimums were reached.
        In fact there is no trend in ice extent for more than 12 years, and average ice thickness is about where it was 60 years ago and 80 years ago.
        of course, panic mongering warmistas want to pretend we know nothing about what ice in the Arctic was doing prior to the outlier year of 1980, which was somehow magically transformed into “the beginning of the satellite era” and came after a decades of grave warnings about a new ice age coming, and one big reason for that fear was the rapid growth of Artic ice during the 1970s which culminated in 1980.
        It is the original cherry pick, as far as global warming graphs are concerned.

          • +42, the artic can melt completely away and it won’t mean diddly squat (it’s all sea ice, so won’t have any significant affect on sea level). Antarctica melting away, on the other hand, would be a problem if it was to happen, but as it’s gaining mass it’s clearly not happening.

          • I saw a video recently of predominately British GWACC skeptics (forgotten the title of the video) and there was an assertion with data that the total N + S polar ice volume has remained constant during the time that the Artic ice coverage has fallen during the summer due to an increase in Antarctic ice during the winter in the S Hemisphere. Sorry I forget the author and the reference citation. Can’t get too excited by a decrease in summer Artic ice cover if total N+S polar ice volume has remained constant.

    • Funny how trends tend to be closest to their minima at the bottom of the cycle.
      You might want to recheck the definition of a “fact”.
      You qualifications as a fact checker have been self-refuted.
      Thank you for that much, anyways.

    • Philip,

      Yes, your clarifications are correct. However, the NSIDC map shows that this year’s minimum was actually slightly higher then 2008’s. Thus, progress towards the minimum being “ice free” is, dare I say, “glacial.”

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

      Note: you can zoom in to any section by dragging the mouse to define a rectangle. You’ll need to do that to see that 20018’s minimum was higher then 2008’s. They’re very close.

    • I guess the fact that arctic ice has been increasing for the last 3 years was skipped during your indoctrination session?

    • There is no declining trend in Artic sea ice over the last 11 years and your satellite record leaves off the early years ( formerly published) of reduced ice and starts at a cheery picked high point.

  13. Unfortunately Al Gore is still being listened to, coutesy of the MSM. He reminds me of the rampant priest in his pulpit dishing out fire and brimstone upon his compliant congregation.
    I once thought we had moved beyond that; but it appears the new eco religion has moved into the vacuum.

  14. Tar and Feathers. Best known Far-West reply to snake oil scammers and card cheaters. Of which AlGore classifies for both.

  15. In addition to being constantly wrong on everything that he pronounces on, Al Gore is a very unattractive man, fortunately. To think that he was nearly President of the U.S.A. is even more frightening.

  16. Why does anyone listen to Al Gore ?

    We continue to struggle with a leftist politically activist media, that has not been challenged within it’s own ranks about the truthfulness of it’s reporting. They are given a wide latitude, from government regulation, and wisely so, because they are the eyes and ears of a public that cannot effectively investigate people in power, disseminate information to the public, and provide for themselves at the same time. It is a profession that comes with a responsibility to those that trust the reporting. They need to police their own conduct, and maintain a default position of skepticism over government policies, or face a public that does not believe what they say. They are losing the trust of the public. It is “government cheeleading” on policies, such as this, that they will either recover from, or become irrelevant and be seen as “just another propaganda outlet”.
    As a species, homo sapiens did not evolve at the top of the food chain. We are wired with a “fear response” deeply embedded into our nervous system, in order to survive long enough to reproduce and allow the species to evolve into the top predator we are today. Logic is a time consuming operation, and can be “short-circuited” by fear, as a survival mechanism. We need to overcome this limitation on complex issues, and not let fear drive our responses, to issues that require unraveling many complex and intertwined variables.
    The media has failed to present this issue with the inherent skepticism that it deserves and has participated in the demagoguery of those that have pointed out the “complete failure” of the proponents of this “conjecture” to have any compelling evidence to support their position. And too many in the scientific community have watched or participated, as the “scientific method” has been neglected, in order to promote “bought and paid for science”.

  17. “Why does anyone listen to Al Gore ?”

    Thankfully the majority of people in Tennessee did not or he would have been President. We owe those people much gratitude.

  18. The Nobel Committee spent their last dime’s worth of credibility on this worthless human being.

    What….aside from some crazy international AGW conspiracy, explains that?

    • The Nobel committee was fooled by a television documentary?
      It makes them look pretty simple doesn’t it. In fact it’s rather insulting that Al Gore had them fooled, LOL.

  19. Al Gore simply repeated the stupidity of many scientists that don’t understand how least squares line and higher order polynomial data fits was originally derived, and how it works. It only has meaning to set a trend to dependent variables. In fact, that is what all of the functions mean. For example, a line is y = mx + b. The generalization of this is y = f(x), y is a function of x. So these morons on both sides of the climate argument plot time series, which says that time makes climate and to stop bad climate you have to go back in time. What the use of least squares to time series also means is that many of these scientists are apparently too ignorant to know what they are doing because setting a time series to climate by definition, declares you don’t have a clue what drives climate, because if you did, you would graph the causative agent in x (CO2 concentration for example). Even proponents of the sun being the driving force, what is very reasonable, fall into this by overlaying time series of noisy sun spot cycles and global mean temperature and claiming a correlation. However, if and when they ever bother to graph sun spots in x and global mean temperature anomaly in y, they will find that the graph is a pyramid. This means that with lower sunspot count there is no correlation to colder temperature at all, but there is wider variation of temperature anomaly. At the top at the peak of 350 sun spots, the temperature anomaly achieves unity with no range at about +0.25 C temperature anomaly. So the higher the sunspot count, the less temperature variation is recorded. The graph is biased to positive temperature anomaly. This is what the correlations that have meaning really show. So by definition, we already knew the day Gore made his pronouncement citing an illiterate scientist who does not understand the principles upon which least squares was constructed, used a parabolic function fit, while PIOMASS morons use a linear function fit, to project no Arctic summer sea ice for a function that has no meaning. This is like graphing commodity prices and fitting a trend to predict future prices. This does not work and traders know it, so they look for breakouts from the trends to make buy/sell decisions, but never try to predict future prices or when the breakouts will occur. This means that intelligent statisticians go into market trading to make the big money, and the dolts go into climatology.

    • I don’t understand some of this but it sounds important enough to have you elaborate here or better, submit a guest post to Anthony showing examples of what you are referring to as this is one of the few sites dedicated to finding truth.

    • I don’t understand some of this but it seems important enough for you to elaborate here or better still submit a guest post to Anthony showing examples of what you refer to. If half the graphs we look at are simply whistling Dixie because of a fundamental error using time, we need clarification!

  20. Al Gore reminds be of a Bourbon Street strip club barker. “Pretty girls inside!” You go in the joint and they are fugly. Been listening to this tripe for 30 years now…nothing has changed, including the temperature.

  21. If Al Gore told me it was dark outside, I’d be inclined to look out the window to be sure.
    Then I’d look at my watch and find realize the sun had set, a perfectly natural event.
    Then I’d say “NO” when he tried to sell me a solar-powered flashlight.

  22. And where is this fail mentioned in the MSM? The silence is deafening. So much for the impartiality of any of the media including one of the worst purveyors of climate alarmism, Pravda, the European Edition (The BBC).

    • Gore belongs to the MSM; when he speaks they support him. No one in the media wants to hold Gore’s feet to the fire by doing an investigative piece on his predictions. Besides they’re too busy attacking everyone who doesn’t agree with Gore…..

  23. The headline to the story is not true, as one can easily check by listening to the video. Gore did not predict that in five years the polar cap would be gone. He reported that, according to one scientist, some models showed a 75% chance that it would be gone.

    There are enough examples of real false predictions by alarmists that there is no need to attribute predictions to them that they didn’t make; doing so makes critics look bad.

    • By “reporting what one scientist thinks some models show” he is endorsing that position by choosing to repeat that conclusion, and not all the 1000’s of other things he could have reported on. It is a slimy political tactic to couch your own thoughts in wrapper of a authoritative figure, but not include many others that would dispute it.
      Don’t fall for slimy political double-speak, and let him wriggle off the hook he put himself on.

    • He choose to report that “one scientist” because it supported his narrative. His narrative has been shown to be false in the fulness of time. So yes, it was a prediction by an alarmist (Gore) and it was false (the arctic is *still* not ice free or anywhere near it years after the prediction of the narrative Gore chose to present). Making excuses for the false prediction of charlatans like Gore only makes you look bad.

  24. He would say you are just a pedant. He only got the timing wrong. It will happen, for sure, for sure. Just like all the catastrophic other stuff. In the meantime we just mumble and reclassify events that have been happening for millenia as extreme weather, so as to prove our portent of doom.

  25. We need a simple (?) way to catalogue all the time-bound predictions, and add commentary to them as each shown-to-false even happens…..

    Given this particular claim might not be completely true/false, I can recall others.

    “Our children will not k ow what snow is” is another tha springs to mind from several years ago….

    • Another jem from Dr Viner (same article) was:

      Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

      well, 20 years are almost up (it’s been 18 already) and heavy snows have happened on a regular basis, causing no more chaos that they ever did. I think we can safely label Dr Viner’s predictions false and the article that reported them as just so much “fake news”

  26. There is and never has been an Ice cap at the North Pole. Ice Caps only occur on land.The North Pole is sea ice.

    • Depends on what you are talking about.
      Ice Caps are, indeed, over land.
      Polar Ice Caps however are not necessarily over land, from Wikipedia:

      polar ice cap or polar cap is a high-latitude region of a planet, dwarf planet, or natural satellite that is covered in ice.

      There are no requirements with respect to size or composition for a body of ice to be termed a polar ice cap, nor any geological requirement for it to be over land; only that it must be a body of solid phase matter in the polar region.

      This article specifically used the term “polar ice cap” and not just “ice cap” so your objection is invalid as you are complaining about a term that was not in use in the article.

    • “Its here and it is getting worse.”
      You’re right, Ivan. It is still here and, from Gore acolyte’s perspective, it is getting worse.

  27. Really? He used the term “polarized”? Did not know polar ice could be polarized. I guess the current political split goes deeper than I thought. Even ice is split between liberals and conservatives.

    Idiot man.

  28. Why does anyone listen to Al Gore?

    Could it be that some type of journalists are attracted to the scent of money and become addicted to it.

Comments are closed.