By P Gosselin
According to Al Gore, based on statements and “science” from “leading climate experts”, the Arctic was supposed to be ice-free in the summer already years ago.
Now that the summer ice melt season in the Arctic will end soon, by the middle of next month, it’s a good time to see how Al Gore’s prediction is faring. To do this we look at the latest from data the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC):
Source: NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Chart
Snowfan here zooms in on the chart for greater detail and reports that for this date, ice extent in the Arctic stands at a 12-year high:
It would be accurate to say that Al Gore’s prediction has turned out to be on par from what you’d expect from a swindling fortune teller reading tea leaves and a crystal ball.
That Al Gore’s predictions were wrong is meaningless. Al Gore is a failed politician and doofus, not a climate scientist. The real story is that every prediction of environmental doom since the 1960s was wrong, with many made by real scientists.
The Arctic is also a poor example if you want to refute scary predictions of global warming. Antarctica would be a much better example.
This article, by cherry picking a 12-year trend, failing to include the context of Arctic warming since the 1970s, and mocking Al Gore, fails to effectively refute climate scaremongering. A strike out
“real scientists” ?
Real scientists accept the laws of physics, the scientific method and don’t allow politics to affect their judgement.
I’m sure you meant to say “don’t allow politics… AND probability of being published and positions of power within that (pseudo-)scientific community and protection from persecution, not to mention fame and $$$… to affect their judgement” … yes?
Remove the word ‘scientific’, and it defines politics…
Politics + Science = Politics
The sad truth is scientists need to eat like everyone else, and who will feed them? It is infuriating what hoops politicians make scientists leap through for a crust of bread, especially because politicians make no money and use my tax dollars.
Yes, but RealClimate “scientists” do the opposite, don’t you Gavin?
They are real scientists if they have science degrees and do scientific work,or teach science. As opposed to politicians and environmental activists.
That scientists like to make always wrong wild guess predictions of climate doom, shows that scientists like climate astrology too.
Nope. Wrong answer. A scientist is someone that follows the scientific method. They can be self-taught citizen scientists or academic researchers but they must strictly follow the scientific method in their research so it can be rigourously examined. Many of the ‘scientists’ you’ve mentioned, those with ‘science’ degrees, have disqualified themselves by their incompetence and fraudulent work.
They have the authority as government bureaucrat scientists. We have to attack that authority. The scientific method requires data. There are no data for the future climate. Just unproven theories, speculation and a 5o year track record of 100% wrong predictions of environmental doom. We have to show the general public that always wrong predictions of doom are not science and that everything said by government officials is not automatically the truth. Over half the nation is a lost cause — convinced by the appeal to authority logical fallacy.
But they aren’t just Government employees. There is the entire academic Climate Science community as well, which have made failed projections. And then the politicians and the MSM, the influencers and the opinion makers, all back up the rubbish projections.
Anyone in today’s society that is a climate change denier faces ridicule and professional suicide. This in spite of evidence to the contrary. I guess it will take more years of study to make a determination if climate model studies will equal the same results as the Alzheimer brain plaque studies did.
all these scientists with their gloom and doom. checkout which University, Private lab or company they work for and see who’s sponsoring them. You may get a few surprises.
The Navier Stokes differential equations describe fluid Flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means no finite set of past state data can ever be sufficient to predict even a single future state measurement with confidence. This has been known since 1963 when Edward Lorenz published “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. Anyone who pretends to predict distant future states of a Navier Stokes system with confidence from past data is either incompetent, or a fraud, or perhaps both.
Up until around 2012 the “trend” towards less ice could be backed up to some degree by the Alarmists, as the sea-ice went through what seems to be a sixty-year cycle largely based on the AMO but assisted by the PDO. At least they could look scientific, because the sea-ice was decreasing like they said. But since 2012 their “trend” line has failed to be substantiated by fact. The sea-ice “extent” has increasingly flat-lined and bottomed-out, and may even be hinting at a rise. So, the Alarmists increasingly look more and more foolish and unscientific. At some point credulity is overreached, and a backlash must occur. I believe we are on the cusp of seeing that.
In the meantime, just watch, report the Truth, and wait.
https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2022/08/16/arctic-sea-ice-yet-another-blip/
“A scientist is someone that follows the scientific method.”
And believe adjusting historical data or inserting smudged temperatures to fill blank entries as the epitome of fraud.
I don’t believe it is fraud to adjust historical data or fill blank entries’ as long as you describe precisely what you did, and also include the original data in your documentation. The fraud comes from doing this and then describing it as fact without also including the adjustments.
Maybe for presentation purposes to highlight something.
Otherwise, presenting adjusted or fabricated data is fraudulent.
Presenting original data with attached caveat(s) is legitimate.
Every presentation that does use adjusted data must include a list of what data is adjusted with the accompanying explicit details of why and when.
Falsely displaying adjusted/fabricated data is illegal in financial data. US government has laws requiring original data be maintained untouched.
N.B., when government describes adjusted financial data, they mean data adjusted with the latest data and information.
Since so many major data systems have late reporting data entries.
Simply adjusting data for specious rationales, e.g., TOBS getting arbitrary unrelated adjustments is not science or proper government method.
Infilling data is improper! The infill uses temperatures from locales up to 1,200 kilometers distant.
There is no legitimate reason for such improper abusive data handling.
My question is, is that still within the description of the scientific method? I sure don’t recall anything about changing the known data or making something up to “fill in the blanks” as having anything to do with it. Fudging data is not scientific even if you admit to it, at least not on my book.
And state the reason for the adjustment, where that reason must be verifiable.
A writer who follows no grammatical rules and writes incomprehensibly is still a writer; just a terrible one.
Scientists who corrupt the scientific method for whatever reason are still scientists; just really bad, corrupt ones.
By the standards of many conceited scientists today, Michael Faraday, would not have qualified to be one of their elite club. He became one of the greatest English scientists not by attending a prestige university. He did so by experimentation, careful observation and logical reasoning. He understood the scientific method. Anyone with a good grasp of English and logic can read top scientific journals and find obvious flaws in the reasoning of a surprising number of articles. So much for their science accreditation.
To your point, as we speak the scientific community as a whole – not just climate scientists – is undergoing a crisis of ” unduplicability.” Study after study, research paper after research paper often by top credentialed authorities are presenting results that fail to be duplicated by subsequent research.
Yowza! That really is a crisis!
Real scientists have salt on their porridge.
ManBearPig is as much of a scientist as any climate “scientist” out there…
No, he’s not.
And yet he was given a lot of time on CNN last evening to talk with Anderson Cooper about how terrible the climate is.
He made it to VP
So did Biden. Funny how the Democrats always pick VP running mates based on who would be the best impeachment insurance.
AKA Kamala Harris
She’s a woman with an aura of mystery.
–
–
When Kamala speaks, whatever in blue blazes she is trying to say is a complete mystery to everyone.
It actually works for Kamala because people take so long to try and decipher what she is saying they do not notice she is actually not doing anything worthwhile for Americans.
AlGore took two elementary science classes in college and could not manage to get a “B” or “A” for either of them
So did Kamela Harris.
Yeah, but it’s not us it’s them!
Where were the “real” climate scientists in rebutting this prediction when Gore made it. Where have they been since?
Silence is affirmation.
Some real climate scientists complained at the time that Gore’s wild guess climate predictions were even more radical than their own wild guess predictions of doom. They were upset that he did not repeat their wild guess predictions precisely.
The Arctic ice projection was made by a real scientist, at Cambridge, well before Al repeated it. And he was wrong, too.
I’m not familiar with the ‘real scientist at Cambridge’, but I often see people who look at a short-term trend in the weather, and then project it out far into the future as climate. I don’t consider that to be “real science”. This is particularly true considering the known multi-decadal ‘forcings’, and also the much longer Milankovitch cycles.
Prof Wadham may ring a bell.
I hope he does – it’ll be his only worthwhile accomplishment!
They afraid of not getting the next grant.
Arctic warming, just this year is an good example of no warming at all
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2022.png
The change since the Arctic sea ice extent low point since 2012 is even better … BUT any short term trend must include the context of the long term trend since the 1970s, or ese it is misleading.
Long term trend is distinctly a huge increase during the the last 10000 years.
40-50 year trends are as meaningless as a 15 year “doing nothing” period.
Is this long enough for you?
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 [13]
Perhaps it would make more sense not to have a preconception that there is a trend when the data indicate a cycle.
“The Arctic is also a poor example if you want to refute scary predictions of global warming.”
No, not at all. The data presented in this article is entirely consistent with, and supports, the fact (not prediction) that there has not been ANY global warming for the last 7 years and 11 months according to the best scientific data available. See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/02/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-7-years-11-months/
Once again 7 years is a short term trend that starts with the unusual large El Nino heat release in late 2015 and 2016 — a biased choice of starting years. Presenting only those 7 years is data mining, made worse by failing to include the context of the warming trend since the 1970s. Those 7 years could be the start of a new trend or just a brief interruption in a long term warming trend. There is no evidence that those 7 years are important, or useful for predicting the future temperature trend.
The global cooling from 1940 to 1975 did NOT predict the global warming that followed from 1975 to 2022. Why should the past 7 years be presented as being very important?
“Once again 7 years is a short term trend that starts with the unusual large El Nino heat release in late 2015 and 2016 — a biased choice of starting years.”
Richard, did you even bother to look at the graph of data in the article that I linked to that was used to ascertain the LS curve-fit showing a 0.00 °C/year slope in the UAH global temperature data for the last 96 months?
Obviously not, for if you had you would have seen, as any other reader is free to confirm, that the data starts in September 2014 (as is also stated in the graph’s title). The graph clearly shows the El Nino heat release that became significant after the beginning of CY2016 . . . not hard to miss that!
So, your claim that the starting year for the identified 7 year 11 month pause in global warming is a “biased choice” is easily falsified.
Next, your statement:
“The global cooling from 1940 to 1975 did NOT predict the global warming that followed from 1975 to 2022.”
is nonsensical. As anyone who has an understanding of what is basically a stochastic process—such as the stock market or Earth’s climate over <1000 year timespans—knows quite well, past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Starting in 2014 includes the two unusually warm El Nino years of 2015 and 2016. I was thinking of the Monckton of Baloney data mining that started in a different year. This is still a data mined weather trend not likely to have any predictive ability.
30+ years of averaged weather is considered climate
If you have data for 30 years or more and fail to include it, then you are data mining.
It was very easy in 1974 and 1975 for some climate scientists to get national headlines by predicting the 1940 to 1975 global cooling was the beginning a coming global cooling crisis. Their predictions soon looked foolish when a warming trend began in 1975.
The lessons learned from that 1940 to 1975 period,
which you failed to learn:
There can be significant global cooling as CO2 rises.
A 35 year period of global cooling was of no use in predicting the temperature trend in the next 47 years
Scientists got a lot of mass media coverage by predicting a coming climate crisis (and they still do)
The global cooling from 1940 to 1975 as CO2 rose contradicted the CO2 is evil narrative, so now there is almost no global cooling in the “revised” global average temperature record for 1940 to 1975. they had been inconvenient data.
There are many lessons to be learned from the 1940 to 1975 period. You have apparently learned none of the lessons.
Richard,
You should look at the methods used in these “pause” calculations. No one starts at a given year and works forward. The analysis is performed by starting in the present month and working bacwards in time until a non-zero trend arises. Whatever month and year that amy be is the end point of the analysis. Therefore, no cherry picking. Thsi isn’t really that hard to understand.
You state:
“30+ years of averaged weather is considered climate If you have data for 30 years or more and fail to include it, then you are data mining.”
You have used the logical fallacy of the straw man in your response. I never said, or implied, anything about the current 7 year 11 month pause in global warming (documented in the WUWT article that I linked) being indicative of climate.
It is you, and only you, that chose to introduce that
subjectstraw man.And, BTW, you have indirectly made a joke of all IPCC climate modeling efforts (as if more of such was needed) with your insistence that one is “data mining” if working with less than 30 years of data.
By your reasoning, the IPCC will need to include at least 30 years of predictions from computer-model to evaluate is said model is objective, let alone realistic . . . anything less than 30 years would be considered computer-originated “data mining” according to you.
Now, you were saying something about learning?
Richard, both time frames are too short for you to make any meaningful claims about the trends.
look at in reverse.
we have to start from where we are now.
2022 warming back to 2015 then, unpredictably dropping to 1975.
who could have expected that based on the starting data.
Then warming from 1975 to1940.
Who could have predicted that?
Obviously in 1850 those poor ancestors of ours are going to be boiling due to the lower CO2.
Or at least that is what one would have to predict backwards in 1940.
How about the obvious conclusions — humans are horrible at predicting the future climate?
Global warming from 1910 to 1940 did not predict global cooling from 1940 to 1975, which did not predict global warming from 1975 to 2022.
Looking at the “verification” or “validation” of the computer programs, predicting the past isn’t that good either.
If modern climate change was totally dominated by man made CO2 then El Nino etc would have almost no effect compared to the carbon signal.
Thank you for confirming that modern temperature fluctuation is not dominated by the carbon signal. But by natural events.
By all rights I ought to ignore this, but while it sounds like you might be on the right side of the issue, the real strikeout is your response.
Arguably, “That Al Gore’s predictions were wrong is meaningless. Al Gore is a failed politician and doofus, not a climate scientist.” ought to be a true statement but it’s not. Gore’s net worth estimates in the range of $200-$300 million, almost all of which is attributed to his scaremongering of climate issues. Ironically, his net worth would be even higher if he hadn’t lost tens of millions of dollars in failed green investments. However, until virtually every reputable climate scientist and climate organization publicly excoriates his counterproductive bloviatations, and until the mainstream media treats them like the crack that he actually is, the low information public will continue to take him seriously. The fact that knowledgeable people know better isn’t enough.
This assertion, “The Arctic is also a poor example if you want to refute scary predictions of global warming.” is also flawed. Perhaps you are trying to make some scientific point, but in the real world you can find literally hundreds of predictions about Arctic melting and threats to polar bears. As long as the mainstream media keeps repeating these points failing to emphasize the flaws in the predictions, talking about the Arctic is important.
Glad to hear I struck out in your mind.
Fighting climate change scaremongering by claiming Arctic weather is cold this year is not going to change many minds. Especially when they find out the Arctic has had more warming since the 1970s than other parts of the planet. That’s 37 years, which is climate, not a short term weather trend. What if the Arctic is warmer next year than this year? Then the argument falls apart.
That Al Gore’s predictions were wrong is meaningless.
That ALL predictions of doom since the 1960s made by scientists and professors have been wrong is what climate realists have to focus on.
Climate scaremongering is based on predictions of doom and the appeal to authority logical fallacy. We must attack the so-called “authorities” — primarily government bureaucrat scientists. Not Al Gore. He went “Hollywood” in the 1990s and made scarier predictions than the climate scientists at the time.
Gore’s net worth from investing has nothing to do with climate science, although he did effectively promote his own brand of climate scaremongering to pump up alternative energy stocks.
“That ALL predictions of doom since the 1960s made by scientists and professors have been wrong is what climate realists have to focus on.”
Agree fully. Now, where is that verified list that all predictions have been wrong? We have to work from objective evidence.
The media talks about climate change as if it’s an undisputed fact every day. It’ll take more than discrediting ManBearPig to put an end to this insanity. Who even thought Sandy Cortez’s Green New Deal would ever be taken seriously yet here we are.
Hey it was the global warming clowns who told us Arctic ice was the canary in the coal mine
They were wrong as they always are
We say Al Gore made wrong predictions
Climate Howlers say: “So what, Al Gore is not a climate scientist”
They win the “argument”
Professor Wadhams, an arctic “ecpert” at Cambridge University, first projected an ice-free arctic by 2015. He is a real scientist. I really dont care about former VP Gore.
Who’s talking about Al Gore?
~Senior Arctic analyst at the Polar Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC.
~Matthew Ayre, Post-Doctoral Fellowship at the Arctic Institute of North America, based at the University of Calgary in Canada.
Nice misdirection.It’s not about Al Gore specifically; lots of supposedly sober and respected “climate scientists” said the same or similar things. See here for a few of them:https://realclimatescience.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts-3/
But I’m sure, Richard, that you will believe the next prediction that the Arctic will be ice-free in 2025 or 2030 or whenever, and then conveniently forget that you were lied to when it doesn’t happen (again and again and again).EDIT: OK re-reading your comment that was too harsh a reaction, so sorry about that. I’ll leave the original as it applies to certain other commenters around here.
I’m impressed that you know how to strike out prior comments.
I don’t know how to do that.
You have a limited amount of time you can edit your post (there’s a gear icon on the lower right after you post a comment, but it goes away after a certain amount of time).
Wow
Actually Al $$$ Gore was one of many who made the predictions that was comically wrong as many scientists also made similar predictions as Tony Helly compiled a number of FAILED scientists’ arctic predictions:
Ice-Free Arctic Forecasts
It’s very important to focus on wrong predictions of scientists and professors because THEY are the people still making wrong climate predictions.
Not the politicians and activists — they are just trained parrots. Including Al Gore. More people voted for him than the Republican in 2000 — he has too many fans. But the mainly unknown government bureaucrat climate scientists do not have fan clubs. Few people know their names.
Focus on the “authorities” who have proven over the past 50 years that they can not predict the future climate. Break the appeal to authority logical fallacy by mocking, ridiculing and refuting their PAST wrong predictions of doom.
The scientists and professors are the “generals” of climate scaremongering, and they should be the first targets. Take down the “generals” and the trained parrot politician spokesmen will have no ammunition.
The “generals” will keep making scary climate predictions until they are discredited. Not with science. Always wrong wild guess predictions of the future climate are not science They are politics.
50 years of climate scaremongering has created a new secular “CO2 is eviil religion. We climate realists are losing the battle against them. Going after Al Gore — that’s a low target. Really low.
You make an agreeable understandable reply about the scientists who make many bad predictions, but you are badly undervaluing the damage Al $$$ Gore did to the quality of science research and freedom to express it and to the politics he greatly injected into it that skewered them into favoring the political side and the IPCC who are also part of this scamming effort Gore and others promoted.
Leftist politicians love a crisis, whether real or imaginary. If it wasn’t a coming climate crisis, it could be a Covid crisis. Any crisis will do to increase government power. Whether real or imaginary doesn’t matter, as long as people believe it.
The Inconvenient Truth made its way into general circulation in the public school systems. If that doesn’t indicate the significance of Al Gore’s lies, well, I suppose some people are allergic to evidence.
According to Al Gore, based on statements and “science” from “leading climate experts”,
Were/are those “leading climate experts” not climate scientists?
Can you point to examples where “leading climate scientists” were saying that Al gore was a crack pot? Or was he just echoing what those “leading climate experts” were also saying?
Also if “ The Arctic is also a poor example if you want to refute scary predictions of global warming. ” is the arctic also a poor example if you want to assert scary predictions of global warming?
Because, the reason anyone is talking about the arctic as opposed to Antarctica is because Al Gore and “the leading climate experts” of the day were the ones who used the Arctic as an example.
Don’t fault us for pointing out how the leading climate experts got it all wrong by saying we should instead be talking about something different. It was Al Gore’s prediction it was Al Gore who made his statement about the Arctic and it is that statement we are judging to be false.
Also, Al gore may be a doofus and a non climate scientist but most people got their info about climate change by watching his dumb movie rather than listening to climate scientists. So him being a mouth piece pushing this pseudo science is usually far more effective at spreading the message than if climate scientists were saying the same thing. But it doesn’t actually matter because they were saying the same exact thing. Al gore got all his info from the same “climate experts”.
James Hansen is a climate expert. And he pushed the hockey stick diagram of uncontrolled climate change. Which again was aped by everyone on the left who then demanded policy change because “the expert” scared the crap out of them by pushing his garbage. The experts are the problem.
Arctic ice extent anomalies will likely increase until the warming effect of the next El Nino kicks in, which could be several more years from now, affecting NH winters until then.
Not true. Note the absence of 2013 and 2014.
Yesterday’s extent was slightly above 2013 but still below 2014. It may cross over 2014 later this month, but hasn’t yet.
It was highest in seven years and second of the past 12 years. Why lie?
Yep, I noticed that straight away. I’m amazed that so many previous commentators overlooked that huge cherry pick!
As of today the extent would be 20th in a list of the Arctic seaice annual minima, that’s with about a month of further melting to go.
For the date it’s about 2.2 million km^2 below the 1980s average, 1.5 million km^2 below the 1990s average, 0.600 million km^2 below the 2000s average, and just above the 2010s average. Not surprising following 2 La Niñas.
Since July, 2022 is pretty much identical to 2013/2014 and would make the graph harder follow (and negate the power of the claim about 2022 having significantly greater extent).
It would be accurate to say that Al Gore’s prediction has turned out to be on par from what you’d expect from a swindling fortune teller reading tea leaves and a crystal ball.
___________________________________________________________
Is name calling really necessary? Dragnet’s Sgt. Joe Friday had the right approach. But absolutely point out that the other side of the coin is not only wrong, but it looks like they rewrite historical data – Arctic Sea Ice Extent as reported by the IPCC in their first five assessment reports:
I’d advise another reading of that part of the article – there was no name-calling; just a comparison drawn between 2 different forms of prediction with a similar track record.
“swindling fortune teller” is “name-calling” … ??? That is SO incredibly mild in comparison to what he deserves to be called!!
You ask: “Is name calling really necessary?”
Well, here is the name calling that Al Gore resorted to in his July 24, 2022, interview with Chuck Todd, host of NBC’s national TV show Meet the Press:
“You know, the climate deniers are really in some ways similar to all of those almost 400 law enforcement officers in Uvalde, Texas, who were waiting outside an unlocked door while the children were being massacred. They heard the screams, they heard the gunshots, and nobody stepped forward.”
What a despicable sub-human to make such a comparison and to capitalize on this tragedy for his own ends.
Calling Al Gore a “swindling fortune teller reading tea leaves and a crystal ball” is far too kind, IMHO.
I saw CNN’s Anderson Cooper interviewing Al Gore yesterday.
Al was spouting his usual nonsense.
I think Anderson is a True Believer in Human-caused Climate Change.
Anderson was calling skeptics “climate denialists” and was asking Al what could be done about them.
Al Gore was making out like the skeptics were losing the argument. As I said, the usual nonsense.
I don’t normally watch CNN but I was channel surfing and saw Al Gore’s face so I stopped to listen. Gore is a real idiot. We can thank our lucky stars he didn’t become president.
You ridicule the opposition and then claim they are not worthy of debate. A Saul Alinsky strategy
You defend the murderous Putin, and now you are defending Al Gore.
Yeah, I’m Saul Alinsky.
I stated facts about Ukraine that escape your limited intelligence. You refuted none of them.
That wasn’t me that downvoted your comment, btw. I don’t do down votes.
I must have missed those facts you stated. I’ve seen no justification for Putin’s murderous attack on the innocent people of Ukraine and I’ve read just about all your comments about the situation. So maybe you just aren’t explaining yourself very well.
Hmmmm . . . for the life of me, I can’t find any point in Tom Abbott’s post where he says—or even implies—anything about the “opposition” not being “worthy of debate”.
In debating tactics, what you have done is known as introducing the logical fallacy of a straw man argument.
It is sophomoric and easily detected, Alinsky notwithstanding.
“Anderson was calling skeptics “climate denialists” and was asking Al what could be done about them.”
“Climate denialists” ridiculing climate realists and ridicule is done to eliminate civil debate as a solution to science differences. Gore never objects to such ridicule because he supports it. Even participates in it. Gore is an Appeal to Authority leftist politician pretending to be knowledgeable about climate science.
Richard, it looks like you have me confused with Anderson Cooper. Cooper is the one saying “climate denialists” not me. I was just pointing out what Anderson said. If you don’t like the term “climate denialist”, take it up with Cooper. He’s the one shutting off debate.
Love this comment…
“It would be accurate to say that Al Gore’s prediction has turned out to be on par from what you’d expect from a swindling fortune teller reading tea leaves and a crystal ball.”
This could be applied to a lot of climate science.
Not a ‘lot’, should say ‘most’
How dare you insult swindling fortune teller reading tea leaves
People voluntarily pay for their services.
They usually get a few predictions right.
Not 100% wrong, like Al “the climate blimp” Gore
6.5 Wadhams coverage! Almost all melted, except for six and a half million square kilometers! /s
If Gore could he would put a curse on the climate. Also you should pay no attention to the amount of ice that has been there long before Gore was born and will be here long after.
At least a fortune teller takes only a little money that the customer gives willingly. Gore would use the power of government.
Al Gore has the curse of lowering the temperature of the location he is talking about global warming. Just another vile politician that is feeding at the green blob trough.
Maybe he needs his Chakra released more often.🤮
How does this compare to 1959 when the USS Skate surfaced at the north pole?
Do you mean as opposed to, say, 1958 or 1960 when the USS Skate did not surface at the north pole?
How about 1962 when the USS Skate and the USS Seadragon met and surfaced at the north pole?
Seems to me that if subs were able to surface at the north pole in the late 50’s and early 60’s, the ice sheet was thinner than now and probably was thinner in the past.
We just don’t have the data for a long time period.
Saying the ice sheets are changing without knowing the range over a long period of time doesn’t seem like good data analysis to me.
“Seems to me that if subs were able to surface at the north pole in the late 50’s and early 60’s, the ice sheet was thinner than now . . .”
It might “seem” that way, but you need to understand that polynyas naturally form in Arctic sea ice independent of the average ice thickness there.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya :
“When submarines of the U.S. Navy made expeditions to the North Pole in the 1950s and 1960s, there was significant concern about surfacing through the thick pack ice of the Arctic Ocean. In 1962, both the USS Skate and USS Seadragon surfaced within the same large polynya near the North Pole for the first polar rendezvous of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet and the U.S. Pacific Fleet.”
Please show me the polynya in this historic news reel. It looks like the con is breaking through ice, not open water.
So tell me how the camera crew got there then? The USS Skate surfaced at a polyna with a skin of slush or very thin ice, landed the camera crew then submerged to do the whole thing again with the camera positioned so you can’t see exactly how thick the ice is. It all looks terribly dramatic for the folks back home though!
Exactly!
To which I might add, that open water can often “freeze over” with several inches or even a foot of sea ice before they once again become an ice-free polynya surrounded by much, much thicker sheets of floating ice.
As Richard Page astutely observed, the film crew had to have first been dropped off onto some substantial ice thickness, then to have spent the time setting up their camera, perhaps while the submarine submerged, then there was an unknown wait time maybe as much as several hours for floating ice to redistribute over the polynya, perhaps refreezing to some depth in the process, and then for the sub to re-surface in the “dramatic” footage of breaking through the surface ice.
Watch the footage that you posted (via YouTube) and note that starting at the 1 minute 7 second hack the sub’s conning tower is breaking through and shedding ice that appears to be only several inches thick by scale, not even thickness on the order of a foot or more.
It is also possible that the camera crew reconnoitered the total perimeter of the polynya and found an iced-over section undisturbed by the first surfacing and at which the sub could then re-surface into, with the camera field-of-view hiding the previous broken-ice surfacing area where the film crew was first dropped off. This clever approach would have saved the film crew from having to spend several hours in sub-freezing weather to grab the “money shot”.
How did the camera crew know if they would need boots or swim flippers on their first trip outside the sub?
Maybe the sub people had ways to measure the thickness of the ice above before they surfaced.
It would have been foolhardy to risk a sub and lives of crew trying to hammer their way through thick ice. Geoff S
Maybe You guys could read the captain’s book.
“While the Skate was unable to surface on its first voyage to the pole, on 17 March 1959, she became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole,. Calvert described the historic moment in his book, saying, “Slowly we blew the tanks and the Skate moved reluctantly upward. It was apparent we were under heavier ice here than any we had experienced before.” While at the pole, Calvert and the crew planted an American Flag in a cairn they built out of ice blocks, and put a waterproof container in the cairn with a note commemorating the event.”
They had made several surface breaches before reaching the north pole and the captain was concerned that he might run into even heavier ice like he had earlier in 1958.
The captain did use polynyas but did not mention using one during this event. He apparently did have a way to determine how much ice was over his ship and what his ship could handle. Seeing how the captain broke through the ice several times before reaching the pole suggests that the ice was thin in the very warm year of 1959.
As far as the camera crew, of course they staged another breach of the ice. The captain was getting to be adept at punching holes in the polar ice and publicity of his exploits would gain him and the navy much admiration.
There were no distant filmings of the Skate’s first breach of the ice at the N pole. That took place 17 March 1959, at that time of year it’s dark there! Here’s an actual photograph of the event.
vhd-uss-skate.jpg
Yes the newsreel breach of the ice was staged to show what happened.
Since you provided a photograph, you must believe the event occurred.
If you believe what the captain wrote in his book, he had breached the ice several times before reaching the north pole.
I believe that since polynyas most frequently occur associated with air and water currents linked to straits in land masses, the USS Skate was breaching thinner ice in the artic sea. He took advantage of polynyas when available but was not limited to using them.
1959 was a warm year. The artic ice varies year to year depending on air and water currents and temperatures. The current ice extent is rising and will fall again.
The alarmists are fear mongering for what occurs naturally.
“There were no distant filmings of the Skate’s first breach of the ice at the N pole.” And the independent reference for that statement is?
The term “dark” is debatable. On March 21 (very close to March 17) the Sun is on the celestial equator, meaning that it would be continuously moving along the horizon of the North pole.
Instead of total darkness, there would be continuous twilight (assuming the absence of clouds or mountains blocking the line-of-sight to the Sun). The YouTube narration claims the film documents “where no ship has ever risen before . . . the submarine Skate surfacing at the north pole” . . . who knows if the presented film clip is actually that specific event.
In any case, if the camera film speed + lens combination was set correctly, there could have been adequate ambient light to capture the Skate surfacing “at the north pole” as shown in the linked video.
The photo that you linked also shows a background sky of twilight,not complete darkness. There is no way to tell if the film speed, aperture setting and exposure time on the still camera was comparable to those setting on the motion picture camera, assuming both were taken mid-March 1959.
“There were no distant filmings of the Skate’s first breach of the ice at the N pole.” And the independent reference for that statement is?
The Captain’s personal account published in the National Geographic at the time.
“The term “dark” is debatable.”
If you look at the photo you’ll see they needed a light to illuminate the proceedings (memorial service for Sir Hubert Wilkins).
There had been previous surfacings but not at the North Pole, including Ice Station Alpha, a better candidate for the surfacing video.
The single hand-held flare seen in photo illuminated the background sky, which is NOT pitch black?
You really expect anyone to buy that?
Read below
Read below
Sorry, I’m not your lap dog . . . no matter how many times you repeat the non-sensical command.
What command?
The read below?
I’m responding to several people. Keep up.
At 10:03 pm, August 13, you commanded me directly to “Read below” . . . with indeed, nothing found there to read.
Please keep up.
I suspect it’s something like the old, probably apocryphal, joke – 2 identical signs in a public convenience, on facing walls, each read: “For rules of toilet tennis, please see opposite wall.”
Well, more successfully than in 1958 when the USS Skate visited the North Pole but was unable to find a suitable spot to get through the ice so returned home.
This really is a strange year.
All the heat that normally goes up to the arctic or creates tropical cyclones seems to have stalled over Europe, giving more summer ice and almost no tropical storms.
Just one itty bitty low off Texas that has a small chance of doing something.
With ice levels at a 12 year high can this mean that all the fresh water is being turned to ice and causing droughts in Europe and America? Inquiring minds want to know …
The NSIDC “Charctic” graph is cool. Also worth watching is the Cryosat2 ice volume:
Sadly they are a little sluggish at publishing and updating their data files. Latest is feb 2022.
A solid uptick last year, so the way ice extent is looking, volume may well go higher this year.
That is a little strange in view of the fact that CO2 is still increasing at about 2ppm per year, the world is “on fire” and the Arctic is warming “two or three times faster” than global average due to
polarArctic “amplification”.Where is my DEATH SPIRAL ???
But, but, but
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/arctic-warming-faster-earth-climate-change
Take that, deniers
Meanwhile, in the Atlantic, no hurricanes to date this season with only 3 total days of tropical storm activity. This was supposed to be an above average season predicted by NOAA. When do the apology tours start?
If they predicted the Arctic to be ice free and it’s not, then it’s impossible the Arctic is warming faster than expected.
How about the Antarctic’s coldest winter in recorded History?
IF, IF, IF we are genuinely concerned about the level of Arctic Sea Ice maybe we should not have nuclear powered ice-breakers chopping it up into little pieces……. just let it freeze!!!