Uhm, Al Gore didn't say this - that is as inaccurate as claiming he said he invented the internet.

He reported what researchers (including from the US Navy) were saying.

The claim was that there was a 75% chance that the Arctic (NOT the Antarctic) would be ice free (a technical definition as Trevor states, he did not say "free of ice") between 2014 and 2016. In a simplistic way, this means the Arctic would be navigable.

He did NOT say that the polar ice caps would disappear.

The US Navy certainly believes that claim. They are predicting a summer ice free Arctic by 2016. But hell, it's just the Navy - they are going to predict this so they can keep their cushy jobs.

Some of the critical articles out there on the same topic even note that there was snow in Cairo for the first time in 100 years! And for this they quote a single tweet by one local man - hmmm talk about the scientific method!

This 100 year claim has been denied by the Egyptian Meteorology Bureau (who must have drunk the Kool-Aid? also), and their are historical data bases showing that there were snow days (Cairo Airport) in 2004, 2003, 2002, 1995, 1994, etc...

And what do you know, this fits Climate Change Theory! (gawsh!) It does get cold enough in Egypt in December for snow, but you also need precipitation for snow. Warmer average temperature means more evaporation means greater atmospheric water content. More water + cold temperatures = SNOW!

Firstly, Al didn't say that. Secondly, the notion that Al Gore is the leading proponent of global warming science is like associating the complexities of racial harmony with tea party pronouncements. The enormous bulk of scientists studying the issue believe global warming is a serious, possibly catastrophic, issue. By all means, read your denier's contrarian claims, but if you don't read the positions taken by most of the atmospheric scientific world (where, incidentally, an increasing number of former deniers are changing their position) you're pawns of a corporate scheme to further short term profits at all costs.

Among other compelling reads, take the time to peruse National Geographic's "Rising Seas" Issue from late last year. It isn't a Reader's Digest length article, so those of you looking for sound bytes won't have the stamina to wade through it, but people more genuinely interested in global warming might find it informative.

Actually Al Gore, in accepting his Nobel Prize for making a propaganda movie, did give a prediction based on a US Navy Study, that there was a 75% chance the North Pole would be "ice free" in the summer months in "seven years.

Here is the Quote "Last September 21, 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.

Seven years from now." He gave this speech on . . . December 10, 2007. So technically he has 11 months for the ice to "disappear." He also later said in a speech that he estimated a "seventy-five percent" chance the ice would be gone in "five years." He gave this speech in December, 2009. Watch the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4b...

His prediction was so clear the author of the study took issue with it because he knew Al Gore was exaggerating and making claims not backed up by the research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4b...

So no matter how you look at it Al Gore is a tool. Even the people that write the studies don't back up his B.S. predictions

In his Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could “completely disappear” by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-...

Guilty I'd say!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPLD8aylR...

That said, 1) it was 2007. 2) He said, "as little as 7 years". That is a far cry from saying it would disappear. The actual relevant quote is "could be completely gone in less than 22 years".

So this completely backs up what Trevor said.

And one last point:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...

Facts, soooo "inconvenient".

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/...

he's actually mentioned it many times over the years look at the above reference.

Hello David,

Do you have a reliable source to back up your claim. Didn’t think so.

Gore made no such predictions. In fact, when it came to predictions he was rather vague and tended to refer to events in the ‘future’ rather than giving specific dates.

What you might be getting confused with are the statements made by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski in 2007. He stated that if the Arctic continued to melt at current rates then by 2013 the Arctic could be ice free.

Whilst technically correct, such a claim was misleading. Maslowski was referencing the short-term ice melt observed in the Arctic during the 2007 summer melt season, this was the year that Arctic sea-ice extent retreated to new record lows and melted at unprecedented rates.

Had it continued melting at the same rate then indeed, the Artic would be ice-free by 2013*. What was unrealistic about his claim is that the ice was never going to keep melting at the same rate. That 2007 record has since been broken and 2012 is now the year with the smallest ice-extent ever observed.

Approximate sea-ice minima are: in the 1990’sabout 6 million km2, early 2000’s down to 5 million, 2007 down to 4 million, 2012 down to 3 million.

* Ice-free does not mean that there is no ice. Sea-ice observations are plotted using a 20km x 20km pixel resolution, any pixel with less than 15% ice coverage is deemed to be ice-free.

- - - - - - - - - - -

EDIT: RE YOUR ADDED DETAILS.

I did google it and found nothing.

Gore did say in 2009 that there were some climate models that predicted a possibility of the Arctic being ice-free during the summer months in five to seven years time. Perhaps this is what you’re thinking of.

As I mentioned in my original answer, Gore tends to be vague about future scenarios and this is one such example.

Climate models run a whole range of scenarios across and beyond the full spectrum of possibilities. His statement about some models predicting an ice-free Arctic were technically correct, although misleading. If he was being completely honest what he should have said was that the absolute worst case scenario is an ice-free Arctic within a few years but much more likely is that it will be anywhere between 20 and 50 years (as per the outcomes of the majority of models using realistic scenarios).

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18...

No he didn't, but you keep wishing. I'm sure that will change the facts

I googled, this happened;

http://www.naturalnews.com/042074_al_gor...

Well, it’s 2014 and the ice caps are still there. What's up, Al?

Gore knows no more about climate science than a grade schooler. Remember, he was a Divinity student in college.

He developed CAGW as he would a church and made himself a ton of money by doing so.

His message of doom and gloom was and is slurped up by not-so-bright, shrill, Hippy types who naively wrote big checks to hear his message of the evil of industry.

Rational people pay him no heed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03/...

Oh yes, he said by 2013 in 2007 as well.. Ice free doesn't mean ice free? Global warming is not climate change?? What a bunch of BS!! Polar vortexes? When will they stop with their LIES????????

Another lie.

What he really said was that they MIGHT disappear.

I never did like that he always used the worst possible case.

That provide fodder for liars to take advantage ---- like this.

back up your claim with actual references. When Russian and Chinese ships navigate the arctic, maybe you'll panic.

almost gone