What would NSIDC and our media make of a photo like this if released by the NAVY today? Would we see headlines like “NORTH POLE NOW OPEN WATER”? Or maybe “Global warming melts North Pole”? Perhaps we would. sensationalism is all the rage these days. If it melts it makes headlines.
Some additional captures from the newsreel below show that the ice was pretty thin then, thin enough to assign deckhands to chip it off after surfacing.The newsreel is interesting, here is the transcript.
1958 Newsreel: USS Skate, Nuclear Sub, Is First to Surface at North Pole
ED HERLIHY, reporting:
USS Skate heads north on another epic cruise into the strange underseas realm first opened up by our nuclear submarines. Last year, the Skate and her sister-sub Nautilus both cruised under the Arctic ice to the Pole. Then, conditions were most favorable. The Skate’s job is to see if it can be done when the Arctic winter is at its worst, with high winds pushing the floes into motion and the ice as thick as twenty-five feet.
Ten times she is able to surface. Once, at the North Pole, where crewmen performed a mission of sentiment, scattering the ashes of polar explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins. In 1931, he was the first to attempt a submarine cruise to the Pole. Now, the Skate’s twelve-day three thousand mile voyage under the ice, shown in Defense Department films, demonstrates that missile-carrying nuclear subs could lurk under the Polar Ice Cap, safe from attack, to emerge at will, and fire off H-bomb missiles to any target on Earth.
A powerful, retaliatory weapon for America’s defense.
For example, one crew member aboard the USS Skate which surfaced at the North Pole in 1959 and numerous other locations during Arctic cruises in 1958 and 1959 said:
“the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.”
– Hester, James E., Personal email communication, December 2000
Here are some screencaps from the newsreel:
It was that way again in 1962:
And of course then there’s this famous photo:
But contrast that to 1999, just 12 years later, lots of ice:
But in 1993, it’s back to thin ice again:
The point illustrated here: the North Pole is not static, ice varies significantly. The Arctic is not static either. Variance is the norm.
There’s quite an interesting read at John Daly’s website, including a description of “the Gore Box”. Everybody should have one of those.
h/t to WUWT commenters Stephen Skinner, Crosspatch, and Glenn.
See the Skate image archive at NAVSOURCE
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@TonyB,
Tony,
many thanks, that’s a fascinating reference. The thought of icebergs at Constantinople is amazing! It would make a wonderful background for a historical novel. It’s also fascinating to wonder how our modern world would respond to such a catastrophe triggered by a volcano. But at least it might wipe the grin off Al Gore’s face!
It may be true that the lack of climate-changing volcanoes in recent decades may have contributed to the late 20th century warming. Also, if this historical eruption had occurred a bit later, at the height of the MWP, then maybe it would have been a bit less severe.
Both this and the Ipiutak discovery seventy years ago tend to confirm my belief that history can teach us a lot about climate change. Ipiutak does seem to provide very strong proof that, in one part of the Arctic at least, the climate was considerably warmer around two thousand years ago. I wonder how many other Ipiutak’s are waiting to be discovered underneath the ice sheets?
I do find it quite funny when, with regard to Arctic ice, the scientists tell us to ignore the last year or so – when, inconveniently, the ice appears to be increasing – and to look at the long term trend. Trouble is, by ‘long term’ they probably mean around thirty years, the period covered by the satellites. Of course, if you really look at the long term evidence, including the historical record, then a very different picture emerges. Something very strange and suspicious emerges. It’s called ‘natural variability’. It also strongly suggests that – like shares – temperatures can go down as well as up.
Chris
Mike Lorrey (14:06:59) :
Hey folks, a StephenHudson fellow from Norway is vandalizing my edits on Wikipedia on the arctic articles adding the USS Skate. Can we get some support there? He is apparently an alarmist according to his user page.
Perhaps you should give us the link where you are trying to edit?
You simply have to stop publishing things factual Anthony. Research done in the ’70’s was succinct in determining that the human being is nine times more susceptible to rumor than it is to fact. Keeping that in mind, and observing that very mindset these days, we simply cannot have such things as facts and truth bandied about like so much scientific knowledge. Peoples brains might burst for goodness sakes! If the current iteration of Homo sapiens were to realize that not only is the planet more than 6k years old, but that between 6k to 7k years ago we had a sea level peak about 20 feet (6 meters) higher than today, or that at the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum, or ~17k years ago) sea levels were a mere 300 feet below present, they might be faced between the now time honored choice of whether or not to believe potential future facts (also known as model results) or rootin tootin facts themselves. Time honored in the context that all the way back to the Mid Pleistocene Transition interglacials tend to last just about half of a precessional cycle (which means this one is pretty much kaput since those cycles are 23k years and the Holocene is now at 11.5k years….), and that during the the last one (meaning interglacial, of course), the Eemian (also the one in which H. sapiens debuted on the evolutionary stage) sea levels only crested present day sea levels five times, and only a smidge higher than today (between 65 and 170 feet, depending on whose highstand data passes your rumor filter) we are probably right at pretty much where we should be, right at this very moment. That being, of course, on the precipice of the next abrupt climate change event. Those pesky reliable, dramatic and wholly unavoidable thingies that just happen to be responsible for the fastest encephalization of any creature in the entire fossil record. That being us of course. In the past 3 or so million years, or 33 said climate change events, Homo whatever went from an average of 500cc to 2500cc, and did so in the closest thing to a non-straight line as one can imagine. You don’t suppose it took near freezing to death during at least the past 7 deep freezes (90k or so years cold for every half precessional cycle warm) to weed out those amongst us prone to that thing we now define as a fatal mistake do you? Of course not! Homo neanderthalensis, H. heidelbergensis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. rudolfensis and H. habilis (first tool user and first homo derived from the australopithecines)? Oops! I wandered back into the days of the 41k year ice age/interglacial cycles (which match the obliquity in our orbit). My mistake. Too much fact for that hot global salsa, huh? What I was attempting to convey is that if those reliable, dramatic and completely unavoidable abrupt climate change events are remotely on schedule, we may very well be due for a long overdue braincase upgrade once again. By golly, given what I see being bandied about today about climate change, we could sure use one…….
Reply: If I may offer some friendly constructive criticism, the use of that clever invention known as paragraphs, combined with the joy of line breaks would make the above post easier to read as well as potentially more humorous. ~ charles the comedy critic moderator
storky (14:58:33) :
@Robert Austin (17:05:56)
“So does your “greater confidence” extend so far that you consider the science ’settled’?”
Scientific theory is never “settled,” but until better theories resolve minor inconsistencies (like the tropospheric masking effects provided by volcanic eruptions and the mitigating effects on Atlantic storm formation by airborne Saharan sand), the current ones serve adequately. Solar forcing, however, has been demonstrated to be a minor contributor to Global Warming. Those who claim the last 8-10 years show a cooling trend never respond to requests for studies in support of that assertion, so what am I to imply other than they don’t exist?
AGW at this stage is a hypothesis, not a theory. Your faction champions atmospheric concentration CO2 as a major driver of climate change but others feel your science is too weak and premature to justify Draconian measures against our way of life.
Solar forcing has not been “demonstrated” (which I read as proved) to have only a minor role in climate variability. While TSR does not vary much over the short term, research continues on other solar factors and how they relate to earth’s climate. Besides, we have Lief here to rein us in if we stray too far into solar nonsense.
Who needs a study to see a recent flat to cooling trend. You can look for yourself at the RSS or UAH global temperature anomaly charts and see that temperature trends have been flat to decreasing since 2002.
“I imagine one can rationally favour the AGW hypothesis without raving about tipping points and polar bears dying.”
I am not an alarmist, but I take extreme exception to current attempts by unqualified individuals to discredit studies supporting AGW. Claiming elitism is a spurious rebuttal for one’s lack of training in statistical analysis. If one wants to challenge science, one should be adequately trained in the tools of the trade.
Your closing sentence below somewhat belies your claim of not being an alarmist. You are simply a well mannered alarmist. Take courteous extreme exception if you wish but it does not advance your case. Railing against criticism by alleged unqualified individuals is merely a back door appeal to authority. Your citation of skeptic lack of training in statistical analysis is a particularly inappropriate example on your part. The first string contributors at Climate Audit are easily a match in statistical analysis for your vaunted Taminos, Gavins and Manns.
“The fact is that we are not going to appreciably reduce or CO2 production in the near future so it will be interesting to follow climate trends over the next decade.”
Unfortunately true and ultimately discouraging. The prospect of accurately forecasting AGW effects, with the consequences like crop failure, famine, and competition for water rights and arable land, isn’t a comforting thought. It’s perhaps the only time we hope we’re wrong.
It is refreshing and reassuring to have an AGW proponent say that they hope they are wrong. Oddly, many of them convey the impression that they relish being right (and righteous!). Catastrophism has always had a perverse appeal to mankind.
Question ?
If it is accepted that our planet Earth has evolved over millions of years through ice ages and hot periods, why does man, whose existance here is minuscule, have the right to designate the “correct” climate for planet Earth. It has obviously and factually changed drasticaly through time, what gives us the right to select the “proper” climate?
I don’t understand the fuss of the top post. Occasionally the ice floes constantly moving around the North Pole separate enough to leave some open water, and have done so for as long as we’ve had people studying 90 degrees North. No one has EVER claimed differently. It has always been impossible to establish a station at the NP because the ice shifts around a great deal. There are floating stations that pass over it and near it. It’s located in the ARCTIC OCEAN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole
A year ago, there was scientific speculation that the North Pole (not the whole of the Arctic) melted out by the end of summer – that the sea ice might retreat in that location to leave the area ice free for days rather than hours.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html
That didn’t happen. But polyanas opened up sporadically around the North Pole. Nothing unusual there.
You can make a new point about that, if you like, or hit back with any other deflection, even mention Gore, thereby invoking a variant of Godwin’s law.
But get this straight – the premise for all the above cheering and jeering is a straw man. Open water happens occasionally at the North Pole, allowing subs to surface, but its always surrounded by sea ice. Most often they have to break through the ice or push it aside. It’s never (since the last glacial maximum) been ice free from MELTING, only from ice movement, and only briefly. And the mid-20th century military expiditions are well-known by the climate scientists studying sea ice patterns up there.
Two year’s data, whether consecutive or far apart, does not make a climate trend. Period.
“If it is accepted that our planet Earth has evolved over millions of years through ice ages and hot periods, why does man, whose existance here is minuscule, have the right to designate the “correct” climate for planet Earth. It has obviously and factually changed drasticaly through time, what gives us the right to select the “proper” climate?”
There is no ‘proper’ climate. All we know is we have flourished in a stable climate. The concern is not that climate will change. We know it will in the long run. We’re concerned with how fast we might be changing the climate now, if that will be bad for us, and if we shouldn’t change our behaviour.
We might ask if damning a river is a good idea. Some people downstream might take exception to their creek drying up. We answer that we’re ‘managing resources’, and then we sell them the water they used to get for free.
Or how about a company polluting the river? Do we have any right to codify what is “good” water in that case?
It’s not like taking responsibility for the environment and resources is a new concept.
What I have hard understanding is why so many ‘scholars’ forgotten Archimedes principle? Archimedes principle, Norah4history
Thanks for this great article and your fantastic website. We’re big fans, and promoted your story in The photo Al Gore and the global warming wackos don’t want you to see.
Keep up the great work.
I would like to know where Al Gore was 20,000 years ago when my home state of Michigan was covered by ICE.
please help saving our precious earth just by switching of the A.C when not in the room you think u can do that or are to lazy. people please read and follow and tell other people to do the same and you will see the improvement.If you care about our world please tell other people to try to follow
robot,
My wife makes fun of me because I follow her around the house, turning off lights. So I guess I’m doing my part, huh?
Fools. Nuclear Subs are tracked by their hot water released from the nuclear reactor. Hot water rises. A nuke sitting in ice that it broke will melt the ice as it sits there. Notice that the water is around the the subs. The subs are not in open water, but nuke reactor melted pools. Duh. You do know that nuclear reactors have back up cooling systems because they operate at 600 degrees plus. Duh.
REPLY: Bob, unless you are “being facetious”, as another commenter put it, you raised a point worth considering, so I looked to find an answer. A fellow employee happened to have several tours in a nuclear sub under his belt as a weapons officer and I asked him about the waste heat issue in this context.
He said it was negligible. I asked about older sub designs from the Skate era and he said they also had no detectable heat signature.
He said designers go to great lengths in sub design not to allow waste heat from the closed nuclear steam system into the water, since it would in fact become a signature that could be tracked. He also said that the NAVY had developed several test systems, trying to track waste heat as a way to track subs, and also to fine tune their own designs. He said that the systems were not successful in those tests.
Given that the premise of any submarine is stealth, the idea of allowing a big heat signature to escape into the surrounding water for an enemy to follow like a trail of bread crumbs seem highly unlikely.
The fact that the NAVY tried and failed to build such a detection system that actually functioned for that purpose seems to disprove the idea of significant wast heat. – Anthony
This is a great example of the truth being told. The biased media and our govt believe we should just sit back and listen to everything they tell us. Great job!
bob (18:50:35) :
bob is being facetious, I assume.
Robert… I sure HOPE he’s being facetious! The bottom pic shows exactly what he’s talking about… a pool of sub-warmed water around the sub, but several of those pics show subs on the surface in open ocean. Which is the point of the story… that Arctic ice is extremely variable.
Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. Do any of you even know a scientist? If you are intelligent enough to be a skeptic, do the rest of us a favor and get smarter – DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Scientists make mistakes, but the beauty of the scientific method is that you can always get more data, BUT YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ALL THE DATA. One must act on what one knows when there is a call for action. “Climate change” cannot possibly be “man-made”. However, only an idiot can deny that man irrevocably changes his environment. Ask yourself the question, “Do I consciously leave a positive change as my legacy to my children, or do I ignorantly leave a depleted and barren world to the rats and cockroaches?”
The 1st photo labeled “Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959. Image from NAVSOURCE” is not a photo of that historical surfacing … although the 2nd photo may be. The source “NAVSOURCE” does have that photo (online) and implies it is the historic 1st surfacing at the North Pole.
I just read “Surface at the Pole” by Vice ADM. James Calvert, USN… the captain of the Skate during her 1st two missions (the surfacing in question & the maiden voyage of the sub to the Pole the previous summer).
According to Captain Calvert the surfacing was in an ice-covered lead (as all these cracks in arctic ice tend to be in the winter). The lead was much to narrow for them to surface the previous summer but with the addition of a remote control TV (to view the surface) and armament (to allow the sub to break ice without damaging its periscope, radio equipment, etc.) it was possible. The problem is ice flows move and having one crash into the rudder or propeller would be disaster. But in the winter when they broke through the thin ice (it takes about a day to form 6 inches of ice over a new lead in the winter) the thin ice would hold them fast causing them to drift with the ice eliminating the possibility of having an ice flow (or worse the larger hummock often at the edge of a flow) damage the sub. There was no clear water around the sub during any wintertime surfacing. The previous summer they surfaced in the much larger melt lakes called polynyas. That is what the 1st photo looks like.
I also disagree with the posting indicating the sub’s nuclear reactor melted ice around the sub. Subs may be tracked via tempature but that amount of heat is not allowed to escape. The water exposed to the reactor is in a closed loop (it is radioactive). It is brought into close proximity to the loop used to create the steam that ultimately drives the ship. That water is also recycled (the desire is to start with hot water when making steam).
The crew held a service at the pole and distributed the ashes of artic explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins in the “26-below-zero cold” (F). (The average winter temp is supposed to be –30F and the coldest the crew reported at any surfacing was –50F).
About 30 of the crew walked out on the ice for this ceremony. There was no “open water” around the sub. According to Captain Calvert the polynyas of the summer did not exist that far north. The mission was to search for “sky lights” … thin ice formed in leads and then surface. This trick had been learned from beluga whales that would break through 6-8 inch thick ice in leads to get air.
As far as finding open water at the pole itself I agree with posters that point out the flows will have breaks in them and eventually there will be open water (in the summer) and thin ice (in the winter). In the summer the Skate was unable to surface at the pole. That winter they circled around for “several hours” before a lead appeared. That was no sure thing … but ice travels about 2.5 miles/day at the pole so they were hopeful and lucky.
–this is my 1st posting so I hope it does not come across as negative
–this is by-far the best site on GW issues
Gary Crough, you wrote about the Wilkins ceremony at the North Pole, which was discussed at the Guardian-Monboit thread: “How to disprove Booker in 26 seconds”
Here is an abbreviated copy of post that I made over there
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Onthefence, as indicated earlier, there are a number of things about the photograph that you posted commemorating the scattering of Wilkins’s ashes that I find puzzling… …let’s firstly look solely at CONTRAST in photography, that is relevant to your post.
The first thing that struck me about your photo, was the excessive contrast. (on my 78 cm widescreen high quality TV monitor).
This gives a very forbidding or grim view on the scene, that I, (being a past enthusiast hobbyist with B & W photography), did not believe to be uhm “genuine“. Of course, it is only partially possible to recover any “errors” in “correction” of contrast without the original, but working backwards from a probably corrupt version, I’ve improved the original HEREWITH, (using basic Nero), and have red-highlighted some points to follow:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2482/3550264453_155246aaac_o.jpg
If you then look at the separately contrast enhanced images of the two individuals highlighted, let me say firstly of (1) that this person, despite the heavy clothing appears to have a bust-line, and, if , depending on the quality of your monitor, and if you zoom out to maybe 200% or more, and even squint if necessary, this person appears to be female. Additionally the height of this individual is typically female WRT to the others that are probably male
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3161/3550385959_3f03146a41_o.jpg
WRT individual 2, although the very low light behind the conning tower does not enable the outline of a bust to be detected, the hairstyle does not appear to be according to military practice with males. Again, if you zoom as necessary depending on your monitor, what can be made of the face, perhaps aided by squinting, suggests that this individual is female. Additionally, the said person has a stature typically female compared with those adjacent.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3109/3551197346_71ebeb43fb_o.jpg
Also, 3, might be female.
I would be a bit surprised if a nuclear submarine back in 1959 had a crew including 2, maybe 3 or more females!
I repeat that depending on your monitor, (which should be of good quality) you need to zoom out A/R
More to come on some other issues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However, the thread has been terminated for no apparent reason
Bob_FJ There were no females on the Skate during either of the 1st two deployments (both to North Pole … 2nd in March). The entire crew ( ~ 90 and 11 scientists/technicians) is listed in the book. They are all male.
The photo you provide is in the book (listed as an official USN photo). This is winter (March) so there was not a lot of sunlight. The caption in the book says”by the lurid light of red flares” … maybe that is meaningful to photo experts.
There are very likely civilians in the photo as they were a key part of the “crew”. They included arctic experts and Wado Lyon (the WW2 expert on sub detection who was also the inventor of the “ice detector” used to measure ice thickness above the sub).
BTW: I expect the photo you reference is authentic.
I also think the 1st photo on this thread is authentic. NAVSOURCE (not a part of the Navy) incorrectly (in my opinion) implies it is the original surfacing at the North Pole. In the arctic winter seawater (at 28 F) will start to freeze in seconds when exposed to -30 F air. For that reason “open water” does not persist at the North Pole in the winter.
Gary Crough, you wrote in part to me:
“…The entire crew ( ~ 90 and 11 scientists/technicians) [of the Skate in 1959] is listed in the book… …The photo you provide is in the book (listed as an official USN photo). This is winter (March) so there was not a lot of sunlight. The caption in the book says” by the lurid light of red flares” …”
Well actually, the image I provided was an IMPROVED version, where excessive contrast is ameliorated as far as is capable from the original possibly corrupt very forbidding Byrd image. (See below)
http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/polar/nautilus/images/wilkins35_5_4.jpg
I don’t want to sound like a lecturer, but a feature of diffused lighting such as in twilight is that shadows are much softened or are absent. Conversely, in bright unfiltered sunshine, there is little diffusion and shadows tend to be problematic photographically, and a common technique to overcome this problem, is to use flash illumination, to fill-in foreground subjects that may be shaded, despite that it is a bright sunny day. This is seldom necessary on an overcast day, where the light is less, but much more diffuse. What is more, twilight in polar regions is typically even more diffuse, (for various reasons), and more prolonged than at lower latitudes.
I can explain later that it appears that a high quality camera was used, yet out of some 101 people aboard the sub, it seems that no one knew how to take a twilight photo!
If you examine the image above, the people on the left are seemingly silhouetted and rather overexposed to diffused light from their rear. (they do not cast shadows). However, those on the right, on this side of the conning tower, are seemingly badly underexposed! This simply does NOT make sense! If there was apparent shade to port of the conning tower, why did they not simply walk around the starboard side where it was brighter?
OK, you refer to flares being used to illuminate the scene. So where are they? Surely they would not be on the starboard side. The only sensible location would be behind the field of view of the camera, and since the conning tower is a mid grey in colour, it should be well brightened, but it is not. Additionally the light from flares (or flash) is NOT diffused, (except in fog), and should cast shadows behind the foreground people. So where are the shadows? Do you seriously believe that they would not have with them photographic flash if there was any suspicion that it might be dark there, momentarily before the equinox!
There are yet other points that strongly suggest that this image is a commemorative RECONSTRUCTION, but meanwhile let’s return to my analysis that two or more of the people in the commemorative image are women.
HuMcCulloch, (He impresses me as very analytical, either for or against various topics), on the original thread did not disagree with me that two or more of the persons at the commemorative image appear to be female, because he suggested that maybe the wife or daughters were invited along for the ceremony.
However, you say that there were no females aboard Skate!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/15/climate-change-scepticism-arctic-ice?commentid=c9115a92-c7d0-46cb-af77-2208ef4eeb5f
I also seem to recall that there were reportedly some thirty celebrants (out of some 101 aboard you say) out on the ice, but I can only see thirteen. What does your book say?
Bob_FJ, I have no expertise in photo reconstruction and am not going to get into that. I just met the photos were of the same subject not that they are identical.
The civilians aboard were: Craamer Bacque, Waldo Lyon, Robert Merton, Zane Sandusky, W Schatzburg, David Scull, Robert Wadell and Walter Whitman. All others were Navy officers and enlisted … including James Hester (quoted in the original piece … below 2nd photo).
At that time females were not part of any USN ship’s crew. Given the book’s account and normal logic I would say: there were no females at the service.
The ship’s official photographer was Lt. Bruce Meader but the book does not state that he took that photo. Back then an official photographer would have some training but might not be considered an expert by today’s standards.
A note on taking photos at the pole … the captain took off his mittens to take a photo at an early surfacing and got frostbite in the “-20 F air”. Also the camera equipment for the official photographer froze up at the 1st surfacing (they did something to prevent that in the future … just covering the camera body I assume).
The person just below the “7” should be Captain Calvert since the caption says “the author reads a memorial service for Sir Hubert Wilkins”. He is 6′ 2″ (that’s what he says when talking about stooping slightly to move down the passages of the sub”).
The photo in question was the only photo in the book listed as “U.S. Navy, Official”. Others were by the Captain or from Naval records but not listed as “Official”. That may imply the photo was taken by Lt. Meader … I don’t know.
The book says a there was a “wind (about 30 knots)” … “about 30 of the crew formed ranks on either side of the table in 26-below-zero cold” … we were on the port side of the Skate and as much to its lee as possible … it was to difficult to read without some light so men held red flares on both sides of the alterlike table”. I had forgotten that detail but retrieved the book to answer your questions. “The remainder of the crew lined up on the deck of the Skate and a rifle squad formed at the bow.” I don’t think they ever leave an active ship without a duty squad aboard but it sounds like most of the crew was outside for the service. (85-90 people including civilians I would guess)
Lt. David Boyd is likely a figure next to the captain since he was the one that took the urn and “sprinkled the ashes to the wind”. (I assume the alter (table) is in the immediate foreground of the photo — had to be close enough so the red flares would have provided light for reading?)
http://www.amazon.com/Surface-At-Pole-Extraordinary-Voyages/dp/0548388628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243339803&sr=1-1
Not sure how things were back then, but my son-in-law is the “official photographer for the Destroyer he’s on. He was given that position because he had a camera and was willing to do it. That’s it.
A sub would normally not have any more “official photographer” than your son but this was a research mission and they took apparently took along some fancy equipment … including a movie camera. My guess is Lt. Meader was NOT a full-time photographer but did have some training. Apparently Lt. Meader had a lot of camera equipment … the book mentions him lugging it down while attempting to keep from banging it into the sub. Between deployments men were sent to school for training … given the nature of this mission having a trained photographer would have been a higher priority than normal. But this is pure speculation on my part.
I think you’re probably right, Gary.