The ice is not gone, it is growing, and Al Gore was 100% wrong.
Pushing a phony, made up agenda has made him rich and made you look silly.
Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
The ice is not gone, it is growing, and Al Gore was 100% wrong.
Pushing a phony, made up agenda has made him rich and made you look silly.
even the defense of gore is weak...
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18941-arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013
From Gore's speech:
Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.2
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18941-arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013
From Gore's speech:
Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.2
So you now admit that he did NOT say that.
And no the ice is not growing. Al Gore is 97% correct and has been so for many years now.
Please try reading something other than right wing sources.
Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013 - BBC
Antarctic Ice So Thick Scientists Have Trouble Getting There
And of course one year being higher than the previous is all you need to say that. Since you are a right wing moron along with jem and gwb.
All left wingers are paranoid mostly because of their low intelligence.
A Calculator Just Whupped UN Supercomputers at Accurately Modeling Climate
How did they do it? Simple. They assigned a different estimated carbon sensitivity (ECS) into their equation than the ipcc does. The simple model assigns very little climate sensitivity to additional carbon. And it predicts the climate better than the supercomputer models of the UN.
I suspect that the massive model the UN uses is just a lot of jibberish alongside a very high ECS. Kind of a 'hide the decline' kind of model.
The noose tightens on the hoaxers.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-calculato...-accurately-modeling-climate/?singlepage=true
How did they do it? Simple. They assigned a different estimated carbon sensitivity (ECS) into their equation than the ipcc does. The simple model assigns very little climate sensitivity to additional carbon. And it predicts the climate better than the supercomputer models of the UN.
I suspect that the massive model the UN uses is just a lot of jibberish alongside a very high ECS. Kind of a 'hide the decline' kind of model.
The noose tightens on the hoaxers.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-calculato...-accurately-modeling-climate/?singlepage=true
very low sensitivity most likely the truth in a very complex system of positive and negative feedbacks.
However, there may be a risk of a non linear type jump. But, I seriously doubt we have any idea of what that level would be for co2 or any of the other forcings... like solar input, or big change in clouds or albedo or other gases.
But we do know is that co2 levels follow temperature up and down. Knowing that, make it very likely that the earth has a very low sensitivity to co2 regardless of the propaganda agw nutter like to post.
However, there may be a risk of a non linear type jump. But, I seriously doubt we have any idea of what that level would be for co2 or any of the other forcings... like solar input, or big change in clouds or albedo or other gases.
But we do know is that co2 levels follow temperature up and down. Knowing that, make it very likely that the earth has a very low sensitivity to co2 regardless of the propaganda agw nutter like to post.
Last edited: