COPENHAGEN – New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in the summertime as early as 2014, Al Gore said Monday at the U.N. climate conference. This new projection, following several years of dramatic retreat by polar sea ice, suggests that the ice cap may nearly vanish in the summer much sooner than the year 2030, as was forecast by a U.S. government agency eight months ago.

One U.S. government scientist Monday questioned the new prediction as too severe, but other researchers previously have projected a quicker end than 2030 to the Arctic summer ice cap.

"It is hard to capture the astonishment that the experts in the science of ice felt when they saw this," said former U.S. Vice President Gore, who joined Scandinavian officials and scientists to brief journalists and delegates. It was Gore's first appearance at the two-week conference.

The group presented two new reports updating fast-moving developments in Antarctica, the autonomous Danish territory of Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic.

"The time for collective and immediate action on climate change is now," said Denmark's foreign minister, Per Stig Moeller.

But delegates from 192 nations were bogged down in disputes over key issues. This further dimmed hopes for immediate action to cut more deeply into global emissions of greenhouse gases.

Gore and Danish ice scientist Dorthe Dahl Jensen clicked through two slide shows for a standing-room-only crowd of hundreds in a side event at the Bella Center conference site.

One report, on the Greenland ice sheet, was issued by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, an expert group formed by eight Arctic governments, including the United States. The other, commissioned by Gore and Norway's government, was compiled by the Norwegian Polar Institute on the status of ice melt worldwide.

Average global temperatures have increased 0.74 degrees C (1.3 degrees F) in the past century, but the mercury has risen at least twice as quickly in the Arctic. Scientists say the makeup of the frozen north polar sea has shifted significantly in recent years as much of the thick multiyear ice has given way to thin seasonal ice.

In the summer of 2007, the Arctic ice cap dwindled to a record-low minimum extent of 4.3 million square kilometers (1.7 million square miles) in September. The melting in 2008 and 2009 was not as extensive, but still ranked as the second- and third-greatest decreases on record.

Last April, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that Arctic summers could be almost ice-free within 30 years, not at the 21st century's end as earlier predicted.

Gore cited new scientific work at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, whose Arctic ice research is important for planning polar voyages by Navy submarines. The computer modeling there stresses the "volumetric," looking not just at the surface extent of ice but its thickness as well.

"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," Gore said. His office later said he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations.

Asked for comment, one U.S. government scientist questioned what he called this "aggressive" projection.

"It's possible but not likely," said Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. "We're sticking with 2030."

On the other hand, a leading NASA ice scientist, Jay Zwally, said last year that the Arctic could be essentially ice-free within "five to less than 10 years."

Meanwhile, what's happening to Greenland's titanic ice sheet "has really surprised us," said Jensen of the University of Copenhagen.

She cited one huge glacier in west Greenland, at Jakobshavn, that in recent years has doubled its rate of dumping ice into the sea. Between melted land ice and heat expansion of ocean waters, the sea-level rise has increased from 1.8 millimeters a year to 3.4 millimeters (.07 inch a year to .13 inch) in the past 10 years.

Jensen said the biggest ice sheets — Greenland and West Antarctica — were already contributing 1 millimeter (.04 inch) a year to those rising sea levels. She said this could double within the next decade.

"With global warming, we have woken giants," she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_sc/climate_gore

Hopefully Gore will vanish in 5 to 7 years>

Welcome and thanks for the refreshing intelligence. We been floating in BS for a while now!!

The dems are just diverting attention from their failed job stimulus, their failed public option, and probable failed medicare expansion - and they hope no one mentions the deficits they are running or the military surge strategy.

The possibility for education just staring you in the face and yet,

Conspiracy (noun): a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you. But there are less extreme versions of this argument.

One is that climate scientists foster alarmism about global warming to boost their funding. Another is that climate scientists' dependence on government funding ensures they toe the official line (pdf).

It has taken more than a century to reach the current scientific consensus on climate change (see Many leading scientists question the idea of human-induced climate change). It has come about through a steadily growing body of evidence from many different sources, and the process has hardly been secret.

Now that there is a consensus, those whose findings challenge the orthodoxy are always going have a tougher time convincing their peers, as in any field of science. For this reason, there will inevitably be pressure on scientists who challenge the consensus. But findings or ideas that clash with the idea of human-induced global warming have not been suppressed or ignored - far from it.

Cosmic rays
In fact, many of the better arguments seized upon by sceptics have been based on contradictory findings published in prominent journals, from the apparent cooling of the lower atmosphere (see The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming) to the apparent cooling of the oceans (see The oceans are cooling).

Millions will be spent testing whether cosmic rays can form cloud condensation nuclei, even though some regard this as a waste of money (see Cosmic rays are causing climate change).

As for funding, the US spends billions of dollars on climate science and this increased by 55% from 1994 to 2004. However, an increasing portion of this is spent on mitigation technology rather than pure research. Climate scientists point out that if they were after a bigger chunk of that money, their best bet would be to stress the uncertainties of climate change and call for more research, rather than call for action.

Under pressure
As for the idea that scientists change their tune to keep their paymasters happy, under the current US administration many scientists claim they have been pressurised to tone down findings relating to climate change (see US fudging of climate science details revealed).

Indeed, those campaigning for action to prevent further warming have had to battle against huge vested interests, including the fossil-fuel industry and its many political allies. Many of the individuals and organisations challenging the idea of global warming have received funding from companies such as ExxonMobil.

That in itself does not necessarily mean that the sceptics are wrong, of course. Nor does the fact that most scientists believe in climate change necessarily make it true. What counts is the evidence. And the evidence - that the world is getting warmer, that the warming is largely due to human emissions, and that the downsides of further warming will outweigh the positive effects - is very strong and getting stronger.

Finally, perhaps the most bizarre conspiracy-related claim is that the journalists covering science have an interest in promoting global warming.

Journalists do have an interest in promoting themselves (and their books), while their employers want to boost their audience and sell advertising. Publicity helps with all these aims, but you get far more publicity by challenging the mainstream view than by promoting it. Which helps explain why so many sections of the media continue to publish or broadcast the claims of deniers, regardless of their merit.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653-climate-myths-its-all-a-conspiracy.html

Darn we got to wait that long

Come on, Fanta.

Al Gore is the same idiot who said, on national tv, that the Earth, just a few kilometers under the surface, is " several million degrees ".

With all the nonsense that he has spouted over the years, NOW we are supposed to take whatever he says as gospel? When he's proved time and time again, that he pretty much clueless?

Sorry, but the Gospel According To Al Gore no longer has any effect on me or my thinking.

Do I think we need to cut down on pollution as much as possible...yep.

Do I think Al Gore knows the " right " way to do things.....nope.

Al Gored by his own scientist.

At the Copenhagen climate circle jerk, Al Gore, who's ripped off millions, from millions of liberal retards, says this "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

So, of course, DR. Maslowski was asked about this and replied: "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Gore's office later admitted that the 75 percent figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Gore. So much for "fresh figures" huh ?

Several, as in at least three years ago means the icecap only has two to three more years to be melted.

Wut a bunch of dumb-a$$ gore believers. Can't even add or subtract.